Bulldozer failed to beat out Intel.

[DeltrusDisc]

Sandybridge-E is going to be overpriced and Ivy Bridge is at least a quarter or two away, so now it is safe to continue buying 2500Ks.

Sandy-E isn't even aimed at the gamer's market. =S

---------- Post added 2011-10-14 at 12:26 PM ----------

Actually it's not the chip being bad, it's the software/game not being properly optimised for how the chip works, etc it's brilliant and outperforming both the i5 and i7 in battlefield 3.
AMD has also said there will be performance gains in windows 8, windows 7 is simply just not made for the bulldozer artitechture.
But yeah it pulls alot of power, but maybe thats worth the price if software optimising helps as much as said.

So first you pay a price for the CPU... and then it pulls a shit load of extra $$ out of your wall? Most concious people about their money would still take the 2500K or hell even the 2600K over that because you can get better performance with those for less $$ in the long run. (The price/wattage/performance ratio is severely NOT in AMD's favor.)

[Deleted]

Sandy-E isn't even aimed at the gamer's market. =S

---------- Post added 2011-10-14 at 12:26 PM ----------



So first you pay a price for the CPU... and then it pulls a shit load of extra $$ out of your wall? Most concious people about their money would still take the 2500K or hell even the 2600K over that because you can get better performance with those for less $$ in the long run. (The price/wattage/performance ratio is severely NOT in AMD's favor.)

Well there's alot of other ways to save money on the power, and it will eventually give the same output.
etc one has a 8150, but is very aware of pulling the power cable out of the wall when not useing the item plugged in.
vs
one with a 2600/2500 leaveing lights on, haveing his computer running allnight.

i dont really care about the electricity bill, because my parrents pay.

But again we have to different views on it, and we will properly never agree

[haxartus]

High resolution gaming? Does he think gamers are stupid enough to believe that "benchmark" posted by AMD's marketing team?

I'm not justifying the AMD's marketing team bullshit, but at higher resolution the CPU is not usually the main bottleneck.
Here it looks like the Bulldozer fails, but look at the 1920x1200 numbers (the yellow bar).

[DeltrusDisc]

Well there's alot of other ways to save money on the power, and it will eventually give the same output.
etc one has a 8150, but is very aware of pulling the power cable out of the wall when not useing the item plugged in.
vs
one with a 2600/2500 leaveing lights on, haveing his computer running allnight.

i dont really care about the electricity bill, because my parrents pay.

But again we have to different views on it, and we will properly never agree

And compare if both people pull the plug out of the wall, that's more fair and more honest. The 2500/2600 person wouldn't be hurting.

And then we compare two folders, the one with AMD will really feel the pain.

Your point was really poor.

---------- Post added 2011-10-14 at 12:48 PM ----------

I'm not justifying the AMD's marketing team bullshit, but at higher resolution the CPU is not usually the main bottleneck.
Here it looks like the Bulldozer fails, but look at the 1920x1200 numbers (the yellow bar).

Only a 4fps increase from the x6 1100T. No way that is worth the $90 difference, lol. And only 2 more fps on the blue bar. =/

[Xuvial]

I'm not justifying the AMD's marketing team bullshit, but at higher resolution the CPU is not usually the main bottleneck.
Here it looks like the Bulldozer fails, but look at the 1920x1200 numbers (the yellow bar).
[IMG]http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/452/bench/Gaming_01.png[IMG]

Interesting. Maybe we have to bump things up to 1600p or tri-monitor Eyefinity to see 8150 take the lead.
There's also OC headroom to consider. Tweaktown could get a 5ghz OC on their i7 2600K using an H100, while the 8150 had trouble breaking 4.6 - a trade-of for having 8 cores I suppose. Apparently there's also a voltage barrier at 1.5v for FX chips, going further resulted in all overclocks being unstable.

[DeltrusDisc]

Search "FX 8150" on newegg... the 2 results come back as "out of stock."

-.-

[haxartus]

Interesting. Maybe we have to bump things up to 1600p or tri-monitor Eyefinity to see 8150 take the lead.
There's also OC headroom to consider. Tweaktown could get a 5ghz OC on their i7 2600K using an H100, while the 8150 had trouble breaking 4.6 - a trade-of for having 8 cores I suppose. Apparently there's also a voltage barrier at 1.5v for FX chips, going further resulted in all overclocks being unstable.

It's still a bit slower in games but the difference is laughable at higher resolutions.

And about the overclock... 4.7Ghz is the maximum I've seen on air with a reasonable cooler. It can get to 4.8-4.9Ghz with top of the line air cooler but it gets hot (over 70C) and a low quality motherboard is likely to explode.
However, the water cooler sold with the kit is actually better than any air cooler and might get it to 5Ghz.

[Deleted]

Well there's alot of other ways to save money on the power, and it will eventually give the same output.
etc one has a 8150, but is very aware of pulling the power cable out of the wall when not useing the item plugged in.
vs
one with a 2600/2500 leaveing lights on, haveing his computer running allnight.

i dont really care about the electricity bill, because my parrents pay.

But again we have to different views on it, and we will properly never agree

Anyone who buys the 8150 over the 2500k for gaming is merely a fanboy. I was really holding out for BD, put my build off for 9 months because of the promises from the AMD camp, and they've failed so hard I feel like even moving away from radeon cards on this build>_>

[Sephiracle]

Anyone who buys the 8150 over the 2500k for gaming is merely a fanboy. I was really holding out for BD, put my build off for 9 months because of the promises from the AMD camp, and they've failed so hard I feel like even moving away from radeon cards on this build>_>

The interesting part is that even while BD power consumption is off the charts, AMD video cards power consumption is a lot lower than Nvidia counterparts.

[DeltrusDisc]

The interesting part is that even while BD power consumption is off the charts, AMD video cards power consumption is a lot lower than Nvidia counterparts.

Remember though: NVidia =/= Intel. ;p

[Deleted]

Only a 4fps increase from the x6 1100T. No way that is worth the $90 difference, lol. And only 2 more fps on the blue bar. =/

Same could be said about the 1100t vs 2500k, you could even get a 1090, and thats about 50 euro's cheaper then the 2500k (might even get away with a 965, which saves 100 euro). Just got to accept that at high resolutions, you sooner got a GPU bottleneck then a cpu, and then it doesnt really matter what CPU you got.

[Sephiracle]

Remember though: NVidia =/= Intel. ;p

Not saying it is, just entertaining to see while AMD's power consumption is crazy high with their CPU's they're extremely low for their graphic cards in comparison to the other brand.

---------- Post added 2011-10-14 at 07:46 AM ----------

Why is this even a big story?

I mean we knew months ago it wouldn't be as good as intels offerings.

No we didn't, it was speculation that it wouldn't stack up to the sandy bridge line of cpus because AMD is hammering away at the 'more cores is bettah'. It's a story because their previous hexcores are beating it in tests and barely above it in others. Granted, it'll probably pull ahead in new software compared to its older chips, but the fact that it can't beat their 2 year old chips is quite amazing.

[Sephiracle]

Well then you haven't been following the different sites, there have been plenty of leaked tests.

99% of the posts I've made here are on this forum, so unless I've missed something, none of us have seen these 'leaked' tests that confirmed unreleased chip performance tests.

Everything prior to a launch is speculation, even if there are 'leaked' tests, because there's a reason why the chip hadn't launched yet. That's why even if BD is performing better in BF3, it's still somewhat speculation because it's running and old beta client. Wait til release of BF3 to make hard decisions on it's performance.

[Sephiracle]

What does that have to do with anything?

Essentially means I'm on this forum all the time, so if it's been posted here, I've missed it, and probably plenty of others have too.

Leaks are leaks, if you chose to dismiss them then that's fine.

I don't dismiss them, I just don't read too much into it until an actual release is out, until AMD releases said chip they're not 'done' with it.

And I don't really see that one game would change the conclusion on the bulldozer.

It's still going to pale in comparison to Sandys but BF3 is one of the few new games that seems to take advantage of Hyper-threading, which has been an issue for games for quite some time.

[Deleted]

Essentially means I'm on this forum all the time, so if it's been posted here, I've missed it, and probably plenty of others have too.



I don't dismiss them, I just don't read too much into it until an actual release is out, until AMD releases said chip they're not 'done' with it.



It's still going to pale in comparison to Sandys but BF3 is one of the few new games that seems to take advantage of Hyper-threading, which has been an issue for games for quite some time.

One game out of how many tens of thousands? Face it, BD failed. Maybe the next generation will offer something. And hopefully their 7000 series cards are good.

[DeltrusDisc]

Same could be said about the 1100t vs 2500k, you could even get a 1090, and thats about 50 euro's cheaper then the 2500k (might even get away with a 965, which saves 100 euro). Just got to accept that at high resolutions, you sooner got a GPU bottleneck then a cpu, and then it doesnt really matter what CPU you got.

Yeah but the 2500K/2600K dominate the Phenom IIs in overclocking potential... and then of course they make the difference that much bigger.

[Sephiracle]

One game out of how many tens of thousands? Face it, BD failed. Maybe the next generation will offer something. And hopefully their 7000 series cards are good.

I don't disagree with you or the other poster. I think you both are ignoring the bulk of my posts and picking what you want out of it to argue about. That's about all I leave it at, if you guys want to continue the 'get in the last word' battle continue on.

[DeltrusDisc]

As I recall..... they delayed BD for so many months for a reason; that being that it was not up to par with what AMD wanted it to be.

[Deleted]

Yeah but the 2500K/2600K dominate the Phenom IIs in overclocking potential... and then of course they make the difference that much bigger.

Which is actually quite useless when you have a GPU bottleneck. Im not saying overclocking is bad or stupid or w/e. But when looking at that graph, knowing there is a gpu bottleneck, seems pointless.

[Sephiracle]

Yeah but the 2500K/2600K dominate the Phenom IIs in overclocking potential... and then of course they make the difference that much bigger.

Technically not since Sandy's are locked at 63?

---------- Post added 2011-10-14 at 08:27 AM ----------

As I recall..... they delayed BD for so many months for a reason; that being that it was not up to par with what AMD wanted it to be.

Which was sort of my point. If you're basing your ideas on BD's performance on leaked tests and then AMD delays release because it's not up to par, then you can't rely too much on said tests.