I'll pick my processor based on what I do. If I did heavy video editing and encoding, then why shouldn't I get a Bulldozer chip? It is cheaper than the competetion, and still performs on par. If I wanted to play games, then yes, I would get Sandy / Ivy Bridge. They have faster per core speeds, and modern games aren't ready to utilize as many cores as Bulldozer can bring to the table.
Last edited by The Deux; 2011-10-12 at 06:11 AM.
you understand what i am saying ? i am saying is that it is not worth upgrading to bulldozer price wise. unless you have a 3 yo+ system. and i doubt that an encoder working seriously is still having a 3 + years old system.
For a good amount of users, BD makes sense.
I'd like to officially ask everyone to stay on topic and on point with this thread. no personal attacks/battle, and no flame wars. no brand bashing.
I'm off to bed, sadly.
I get to administer PSAT tests to annoying children in the morning. I will, however, be back in the afternoon for some rousing discussion.
It's crushing i7-2600k in a few areas.
However, I think the power consumption is the biggest problem. The architecture seem to be capable of extremely high frequencies, which means that with a lower power consumption we could get something ridiculous like 5Ghz turbo.
I don't like the single threading performance though. In some places it's worse than 1100T.
The good thing is that this has a lot of room for improvements. The old Phenom II architecture was pretty much dead. This one isn't.
Last edited by haxartus; 2011-10-12 at 06:59 AM.
Not to come off as a troll, but WINRAR? Really? I don't think anyone is going to be making a purchase based on WINRAR performance charts, especially in these forums.
Take a look at:
Of course Bulldozer rocked the house on 7-Zip, but the single to multithread application comparisons are pretty eye opening. Besides encryption/decryption, the 1100T hangs pretty close, which is why I would argue that for the money, its a better buy right now.
On about page 3 of overclock3d.net's review of the 8150, I do love reading their thoughts and the whole process. It definitely seems like Bulldozer really failed on even more points than you can realize just looking at benches.
---------- Post added 2011-10-12 at 07:32 AM ----------
From page 8:
"3D Mark Vantage
Moving back a generation to 3D Mark Vantage, the situation actually deteriorates for the AMD Flagship. Instead of trading punches with the rest of the setups on test, the little i5-2300 and X6 1095T both outscore the FX8150."
Wow, that's dissapointing and with IB still yet to come... Plus that power usage, jeeeez.
The Bulldozer results really are a little disappointing. I mean we all knew it wasn't going to be a new revelation or anything of the like but I was hoping it would be able to distance itself a little more from the previous Phenom generation.
If it weren't for the excessive power consumption I might have even been willing to look the other way. But that would be unreasonable given the current results. Maybe the FX-8100 model with a 95 Watt TDP scheduled for Q1 2012 will be a better alternative.
there's also the review from overclockers.com (http://www.overclockers.com/amd-fx-8...ocessor-review). To me, it looks like it's competing with i5-2500K, but for a slightly higher price. I'm not switching tbh. Not worth the hazzle.
Not worth it for me, still gona stick with my Ivy-Bridge ready Gigabyte board.
Your greed, your foolishness has brought you to this end.
- Prince Malchezaar
They have 8 "cores" and can barely beat (and sometimes can't) a 4 core Intel in multithreaded performance. They fail to realize that peformance per core is the important part for most, and that you increase core count when you've hit the limit on single thread.
Single-threaded performance is so sub-par that it isn't even funny. It makes it directly bad for WoW and I wouldn't count on it in any workstation because even in the marvelous world of media editing, many things end up on a single thread and then you suffer greatly.
Though in marketing, 8 "cores", high numbers in L2/3 cache and frequency, it could become a good seller anyway, regarless of its sub-par performance.
Damn, I didn't expect it to destroy Intel but I didn't expect such a failure either >_>
Terrible gaming benchmarks, just terrible