AMD tests their latest GPU's on an Intel socket 2011 machine to showcase performance.

[busydude]

The silliness is when their CPU marketing team goes into overdrive attempting to discredit the relevance of the top-end Intel CPU and platform when attempting to bill bulldozer as the smarter choice.

And it is this irony that is not lost on the enthusiast, that even their own GPU marketing team doesn't drink the homemade koolaid.

I guess "it" really is brewed for "external" use only

Exactly what I was thinking except.. better said.

 

[denev2004]

But I don't think FX8150 is that bad means it can't even match a single HD7870

 

[amenx]

Perhaps AMD was too embarrassed to use a 250.00 intel CPU because that would easily beat their 250.00 CPU as well.

This lol. As we all know, the 2500k wipes the floor with the 8150 in gaming too.

 

[Don Karnage]

This lol. As we all know, the 2500k wipes the floor with the 8150 in gaming too.

That it does. Not sure why people actually try and defend bulldozer. Its a horrible horrible product.

 

[God Mode]

That it does. Not sure why people actually try and defend bulldozer. Its a horrible horrible product.

I suspect its people that actually own it and are looking at it with rose colored glasses and industry related people (shills).

 

[Smoblikat]

That it does. Not sure why people actually try and defend bulldozer. Its a horrible horrible product.

Actually its multithreaded performance is significantly better than the 2500K.

 

[mak360]

So, Intel only uses HD300/HD400 graphics for its benchmarks? Now that would be hilarious.

If companies only used its own brands, I don`t see AMD having a problem, intel on the other hand would become the laughing stock it would be without using AMD/nVidia.

 

[Chiropteran]

This lol. As we all know, the 2500k wipes the floor with the 8150 in gaming too.

You mean the 2500k plus an AMD Radeon 7970 wipes the floor in gaming over an AMD FX-8150? Intel has to use an AMD product in order to beat AMD?


I am pretty sure an Intel i5-2500k with Intel graphics would get slaughtered by an AMD FX-8150 with an AMD Radeon7970

(I don't find it sad at all that AMD uses an Intel product to showcase it's video card any more than it is sad when Intel uses an AMD [or nvidia] product to showcase it's CPU.

 

[amenx]

You mean the 2500k plus an AMD Radeon 7970 wipes the floor in gaming over an AMD FX-8150? Intel has to use an AMD product in order to beat AMD?


I am pretty sure an Intel i5-2500k with Intel graphics would get slaughtered by an AMD FX-8150 with an AMD Radeon7970

(I don't find it sad at all that AMD uses an Intel product to showcase it's video card any more than it is sad when Intel uses an AMD [or nvidia] product to showcase it's CPU.

That wasnt the point. The point was that someone earlier had commented that the Intel chip used was a $1000 chip, hence it should be expected to beat the 8150. But what most know (and what most BD defenders do not like to admit) is that a $220 Intel chip similarly outperforms the 8150 in most scenarios just as well.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

You mean the 2500k plus an AMD Radeon 7970 wipes the floor in gaming over an AMD FX-8150? Intel has to use an AMD product in order to beat AMD?


I am pretty sure an Intel i5-2500k with Intel graphics would get slaughtered by an AMD FX-8150 with an AMD Radeon7970

(I don't find it sad at all that AMD uses an Intel product to showcase it's video card any more than it is sad when Intel uses an AMD [or nvidia] product to showcase it's CPU.

In some alternate universe this reasoning makes sense.

 

[laputan machine]

In some alternate universe this reasoning makes sense.

It makes sense in the universe that I live in. Of all things to bash AMD/Bulldozer for, this one is a bit out there.

 

[Don Karnage]

Actually its multithreaded performance is significantly better than the 2500K.

No it's not. 8150 at 4Ghz pulls maybe 1% better in cinebench then a 4Ghz 2500K while eating double the power and putting out a crapload more heat.

 

[peonyu]

Perhaps AMD was too embarrassed to use a 250.00 intel CPU because that would easily beat their 250.00 CPU as well.

So true, they could even use a OLD Phenom and get better scores than what faildozer would give them.

 

[leper84]

the op did not tell you guys that this is the disclosure they send to review sites that compare systems and want them to follow guidelines.

This has nothing to do with the cpu,this is ATI making sure review sites use the right drivers and system setup when showing there gpu on both platforms,not to show that intel has a better cpu.

Nvidia does the same exact thing.

If you made video cards and sent them out to review sites you would want them to follow a test guidline to show the power of your card and not use a p4 with 2gb of system memory etc.

just by changing ram timings can even skew the results.

Im actually glad they use the best of the best on both platforms and dont ask to use a i5 low end intel cpu vs a top end AMD cpu.

Hey, look at this. A reasonable explanation on page 1 that everyone ignores just so they can bash either way.

Good to know the internet is business as usual.

 

[Edrick]

You mean the 2500k plus an AMD Radeon 7970 wipes the floor in gaming over an AMD FX-8150? Intel has to use an AMD product in order to beat AMD?

Considering Intel does not make discrete GPUs, your arguement makes no sence.

I am pretty sure an Intel i5-2500k with Intel graphics would get slaughtered by an AMD FX-8150 with an AMD Radeon7970

Again, Apples to Oranges. The day AMD puts a 7970 and a 8 core CPU on the same die, then and only then does your arguement hold any water.

 

[Chiropteran]

Considering Intel does not make discrete GPUs, your arguement makes no sence.

You might as well say nvidia doesn't make 28nm technology GPUs, so they don't compete with AMD either.

And I guess since the most expensive consumer AMD CPU is < $250, you can't use any Intel CPU with a price above that in comparisons.

Your argument makes no sense. Intel needs AMD much more than AMD needs Intel.

Again, Apples to Oranges. The day AMD puts a 7970 and a 8 core CPU on the same die, then and only then does your arguement hold any water.

I'm at a loss, I don't have any idea how you think that argument makes sense.

Is this how you think?

"Hmm, well I could use an i5-2500k with it's onboard IGP, or I could build a llano system. It's too bad those are the only possibilities. I can't comprehend the idea of building a system with one CPU and using a completely separate PCI-E video card for graphics, because that can't be directly compared."

In reality, PCI-E graphic cards replace IGP all the time. They are directly compared all the time. If Intel can't compete because they don't have a product, that means they LOSE.

 

[formulav8]

Thats old news. I remember seeing that awhile back and it didn't stick out as anything bad or funny. I don't know why its such a big deal.

 

[Ferzerp]

Thats old news. I remember seeing that awhile back and it didn't stick out as anything bad or funny. I don't know why its such a big deal.

I think the reason people are pointing it out is that pre-release of BD, AMD marketing tried to make the claims that BD was more capable than Intel's offerings (all of them).

 

[Broheim]

You might as well say nvidia doesn't make 28nm technology GPUs, so they don't compete with AMD either.

And I guess since the most expensive consumer AMD CPU is < $250, you can't use any Intel CPU with a price above that in comparisons.

Your argument makes no sense. Intel needs AMD much more than AMD needs Intel.






I'm at a loss, I don't have any idea how you think that argument makes sense.

Is this how you think?

"Hmm, well I could use an i5-2500k with it's onboard IGP, or I could build a llano system. It's too bad those are the only possibilities. I can't comprehend the idea of building a system with one CPU and using a completely separate PCI-E video card for graphics, because that can't be directly compared."

In reality, PCI-E graphic cards replace IGP all the time. They are directly compared all the time. If Intel can't compete because they don't have a product, that means they LOSE.

you cannot lose in a disciplin you do not compete in...

your 28nm argument is P&N worthy material.

Intel doesn't need AMD for anything other than keeping monopoly accusations of its back, where as AMD's cpu department is completely reliant on Intel and its IP. No X86 would mean no access to the X86 software stack.

 

[Chiropteran]

you cannot lose in a disciplin you do not compete in...

What do you think the point of Intel's IGP is? Yes, it performs pathetic. Yes, it's dirt cheap compared to buying a real video card. Yes, it does compete with it, on some level. To an end user, the difference between an old low performance video card and a modern IGP is indistinguishable. There is no difference- except for modern top level performance.

your 28nm argument is P&N worthy material.

So you come from that forum, that explains a lot. The point is it is the exact same situation. To an end user, they don't care if the graphics come from a video card at .28nm .60nm or an IGP. They might care about performance or power consumption, but for most people a computer is a computer and the little parts inside don't really matter at all. If a .28nm video card can be compared to a .32nm video card, I see no reason why you can't compare a video card to an IGP.

Intel doesn't need AMD for anything other than keeping monopoly accusations of its back, where as AMD's cpu department is completely reliant on Intel and its IP. No X86 would mean no access to the X86 software stack.

AMD already has an x86 license, I don't think Intel can revoke it at will. On the other hand, without AMD computer gaming would go stagnant and die.

 

[Broheim]

What do you think the point of Intel's IGP is? Yes, it performs pathetic. Yes, it's dirt cheap compared to buying a real video card. Yes, it does compete with it, on some level. To an end user, the difference between an old low performance video card and a modern IGP is indistinguishable. There is no difference- except for modern top level performance.



So you come from that forum, that explains a lot. The point is it is the exact same situation. To an end user, they don't care if the graphics come from a video card at .28nm .60nm or an IGP. They might care about performance or power consumption, but for most people a computer is a computer and the little parts inside don't really matter at all. If a .28nm video card can be compared to a .32nm video card, I see no reason why you can't compare a video card to an IGP.



AMD already has an x86 license, I don't think Intel can revoke it at will. On the other hand, without AMD computer gaming would go stagnant and die.

car analogy time!

by your logic the Tata Nano competes with the Bugatti Veyron...

did Nvidia stop existing all of the sudden? regardless, it seems like you've forgot that AMD didn't create their GPU division, they bought ATI, just like someone else will if AMD goes under one day.

Honestly, you're just a raging AMD fanboy, but you usually hide it better, I can't really decide if I should waste any more of my time on you.

 

[Edrick]

Honestly, you're just a raging AMD fanboy, but you usually hide it better, I can't really decide if I should waste any more of my time on you.

No doubt about that.

 

[Edrick]

YOU wrote:

I am pretty sure an Intel i5-2500k with Intel graphics would get slaughtered by an AMD FX-8150 with an AMD Radeon7970

I replied to you crazy arguement with:

Again, Apples to Oranges. The day AMD puts a 7970 and a 8 core CPU on the same die, then and only then does your arguement hold any water.

Then YOU tried to defend your crazy arguement with this:

In reality, PCI-E graphic cards replace IGP all the time. They are directly compared all the time. If Intel can't compete because they don't have a product, that means they LOSE.

So what you are saying is that AMD wins because their FX-8150 AND a Radeon 7970 ($1000 and 425Watts) beats a Intel 2500k with IGP ($179 and 95Watts).

Right. Clearly AMD fanboy. You must live in your own little world.

So according to you, comparing the FX-8150 to the i7 3960X is unfair because they do not comepete with each other. Yet you claim the 2500k IGP should get comapred to the Radeon 7970. I wonder if you actually believe some of the things you say.

 

[Chiropteran]

So what you are saying is that AMD wins because their FX-8150 AND a Radeon 7970 ($1000 and 425Watts) beats a Intel 2500k with IGP ($179 and 95Watts).

If you want to play that game, sub in a $150 llano and it still beats the 2500k + IGP in most games.

Or you can compare $2000 Xeon CPU with the best intel video cards to an 8150 + 7970.

Is it it silly and dumb? Yes. There is zero reason to restrict a build to a single manufacturer. It's just as dumb to say you can only use AMD Radeons on AMD CPU as it is to say you can only use Intel graphics if you are buying an Intel CPU.

But somehow, in your world you think it's ridiculous to benchmark a 7970 in an Intel system, but if it's an Intel system it's perfectly fine to just throw in an AND video card. Hypocrite much?

 

[Edrick]

If you want to play that game, sub in a $150 llano and it still beats the 2500k + IGP in most games.

Correct, and if you used that example in the first place, we could have avoided all this.

But somehow, in your world you think it's ridiculous to benchmark a 7970 in an Intel system, but if it's an Intel system it's perfectly fine to just throw in an AND video card. Hypocrite much?

Show me where I EVER said that. You are just making up things about me now. Just because others have said that in this thread, does not mean I automatically agree.

Now, IF Intel did make their own discrete GPUs, I hightly doubt they would benchmark it on a AMD CPU system. But right or wrong, it is their choice.