According to a whole heap of review sites, the new AMD AM3+ CPU range, Bulldozer, are not doing oh so well, with expectations being let down quite heavily. According to Hard|OCP, the new AMD Bulldozer / FX-8150 is barely competitive against Intel's Sandy Bridge counterparts, and even struggles to beat the previous Phenom II X4 980 in benchmarks. The results come back pretty bad for power consumption as well, with the FX-8150 pulling a 400W power surge, which is pretty insane.
The line up of processors can be seen here. It's apparent that the FX 8150 should be performing quite well, considering it's the second to top CPU, with the FX 8170 being the top CPU.
Gaming wise, there is apparently no real difference compared to the Phenom II X4 980, the i5 2500k and the i7 2600k for Intel. This is very much a shame, considering AMD have been all about cheaper gaming components, yet their USD priced CPU is $245, compared to the i5 2500k priced at $219 and the i7 2600k priced at $314.
Looking at these PC Mark 7 scores, it definitely shows how disappointing this new CPU range is. Apparently the FX 8150 strikes out the most in Winrar tests, so if your eager to upgrade, make sure it's for the right reasons!
This is quite a sad day, because with these disappointing reviews, comes the notion that Intel will soon have no one to compete against, and can take however long they want on their Ivy Bridge designs, without fear of being taken over.
Also, Hitler helps clear it up a bit more as well (warning, NSFW (text swearing));
That actually looks pretty reasonable to me. It's not like the first CPU they release will be the best performer, far from it they usually tend to be the entry version so if it's as good as their current top and can be OC'd to match intels current top when OC'd then I would expect some good things.
That actually looks pretty reasonable to me. It's not like the first CPU they release will be the best performer, far from it they usually tend to be the entry version so if it's as good as their current top and can be OC'd to match intels current top when OC'd then I would expect some good things.
Actually the FX 8150 is the second to top CPU, with the FX 8170 being the top CPU. So it's kind of instigated to be better then the rest.
Disappointing i was getting a 1100 tomorrow along with an Asus Sabertooth and top end ram. The 1100 was to replace my 9950 and get me through.
Not so excited now.
But then again the FX's can be overclocked to 8+Ghz.
Disappointing i was getting a 1100 tomorrow along with an Asus Sabertooth and top end ram. The 1100 was to replace my 9950 and get me through.
Not so excited now.
But then again the FX's can be overclocked to 8+Ghz.
Apparently only 5GHz or so on air. The 8+ was on liquid nitrogen and only on one core.
the only good thing amd do is keep intel prices down to a reasonable level so that most wise people still choose them over amd.
er how?
by offering a lesser product at a higher price? (which is what they are doing)
yes when they had a product that was cheap, and effective sure it might have, but no longer the case (and honestly hasn't been the case since the i3, i5, i7's came on the market
Wow. 8 cores, 8 threads and actually slower than a hyper-threaded CPU, which basically just makes use of it's downtime to execute the other four threads (very crude and probably incorrect explanation).
I mean, I haven't used AMD for a long time, and this just backs it up. Poor AMD. That being said, Intel is at least still powering on enough to create such a gap.
The reason being AMD tries to increase performance by increasing the number of mediocre cores in a single CPU. Shit don't become a chocolate donut by sprinkling powdered sugar.
I have an AMD 955 BE that was the best bang/dollar at the time. When playing BF3 it doesn't use 100% of any cores, fucks me why you would need anything bigger at the moment. Pity the stock fan sounds like a jet engine.
I have an AMD 955 BE that was the best bang/dollar at the time. When playing BF3 it doesn't use 100% of any cores, fucks me why you would need anything bigger at the moment. Pity the stock fan sounds like a jet engine.
Yeah, that's why I purchased a V8 after market cooler, does the job very well.
Does this really matter though? I mean, my CPU is the Core i7 920, the one with the lowest score in that graph (it's like 2 years old now), but I've still never found anything which makes it struggle. With Battlefield 3, my CPU usage doesn't even get up to 50%. Am I missing something?
Does this really matter though? I mean, my CPU is the Core i7 920, the one with the lowest score in that graph (it's like 2 years old now), but I've still never found anything which makes it struggle. With Battlefield 3, my CPU usage doesn't even get up to 50%. Am I missing something?
GPU limited, or more likely, it has 8 threads, but battlefield correctly only uses 4 of them due to only being a quadcore. Hence the most it'll see is 4 utilisations at 100%, but i don't know, I don't have hyperthreading on my i5 2500k. It's just clocked at 4.5ghz.
I was being generous by saying 50%, I rarely see it get as high as 30%.
But what I was asking was is it really necessary for modern games to have crazy high-end CPUs? Doesn't the GPU have more to do with overall performance?
I mean, I know you need CPU power, but when we've been using quad core 64bit CPUs for years now that barely break a sweat with any games, how important are these benchmarks to gaming systems?
re: Middas question.
I'd be curious of any other information people can provide for other scenarios, other than games.
Just doing a quick (nasty) google myself first impressions are;
3d packages - GPU for viewports, CPU for rendering, RAM would count somewhere :)
Photoshop - RAM heavy, probably CPU for filters?
Lightroom - All CPU apparently.
Well, I use all of those packages as well, and they don't seem to give my Core i7 920 much of a challenge either (all of my Lightroom processing is done on RAW images as well).
with all those packages running, plus a video, on a dual monitor setup, i've never once seen my i5 2500 peak above 32%
not sure how much of that is sandy vadge tech or not,
also, while on ram, i've got 12gb, and photoshop will chew a fair bit up, but never over 56% (and again that alot of stuff extra running)
(worth noting, I do have a bottle neck that is the video card, a gts450 oc'd, but tbh i notice more difference in proformance based on which drives i'm using, SSD, RAID, or single drive seems to have a bigger impact)
copius, cheers for the info.
Good to see the CPU is sufficient.
As for Photoshop chewing RAM, well, you can imagine how my ghetto-dualcore 2.4ghz POS, with 2gb of RAM (on 64bit Win7 - so about 800mb gone already) -- editing 2metre x2 metre @250dpi (5-10gb) images :)
PAINFUL!
Was wondering if I could spread the upgrade, and not do my video card immediately (haven't been gaming much) -- or would my 4~yr old 640mb 6600GTS make me think the upgrade was a a failure?
Mostly doing so for editing purposes...
According to a whole heap of review sites, the new AMD AM3+ CPU range, Bulldozer, are not doing oh so well, with expectations being let down quite heavily. According to Hard|OCP, the new AMD Bulldozer / FX-8150 is barely competitive against Intel's Sandy Bridge counterparts, and even struggles to beat the previous Phenom II X4 980 in benchmarks. The results come back pretty bad for power consumption as well, with the FX-8150 pulling a 400W power surge, which is pretty insane.
The line up of processors can be seen here. It's apparent that the FX 8150 should be performing quite well, considering it's the second to top CPU, with the FX 8170 being the top CPU.
Gaming wise, there is apparently no real difference compared to the Phenom II X4 980, the i5 2500k and the i7 2600k for Intel. This is very much a shame, considering AMD have been all about cheaper gaming components, yet their USD priced CPU is $245, compared to the i5 2500k priced at $219 and the i7 2600k priced at $314.
Looking at these PC Mark 7 scores, it definitely shows how disappointing this new CPU range is. Apparently the FX 8150 strikes out the most in Winrar tests, so if your eager to upgrade, make sure it's for the right reasons!
This is quite a sad day, because with these disappointing reviews, comes the notion that Intel will soon have no one to compete against, and can take however long they want on their Ivy Bridge designs, without fear of being taken over.
Also, Hitler helps clear it up a bit more as well (warning, NSFW (text swearing));
Sorry this is old as but found it so funny... made my morning at work.
PM
WWW