why do people say FX 8 core sucks?

[Rvenger]

There should be a sticky at the top of the forum that says " Do not price quote Microcenter"

 

[Chiropteran]

So because Microcenter is giving away free MBs to sell their FX-8120 CPUs that are not selling otherwise, that means BD is a better CPU than Xeon? Are you serious? That is your arguement?

Nope. I never said bulldozer is a better CPU, ever. Got any more straw men arguments?

So the person buying a workstation to use ECC memory (in your rare senario), is going to spend the extra money for ECC RAM for his "workstation specific applications", which require ECC RAM, yet go to Microcenter and get one of those cheap BD MBs they are giving away to save $100. Right. You are living in your own little world.

edit: (You don't have to get a cheap motherboard. You can get a high end board, and get a significant [$100+] discount off the regular motherboard price. Sabertooth 990fx is supposed to be super reliable, and is one of the choices.)

We are all living in our own little world. PC enthusiasts who actually build their own computers are the minority. Most people would call up Dell or HP.

To answer your quest, yes. I do believe an enthusiast who has always build his own systems would indeed go to Microcenter and get the best deal possible for his "workstation" needs. What is this logic you use that says if you are building a workstation than money suddenly becomes irrelevant? I mean, I understand paying an extra $50 for a reliably name brand power supply, or some extra for a quality motherboard. But there is no similar justification to pay extra for a CPU unless you actually have some hard proof that Xeon are somehow more reliable or stable than an FX-8120.

Sometimes it's not about performance. It could be a simple server application, something where 100% up-time is crucial but single threaded performance isn't the limiting factor. It could also be a workstation used for some scientific computing that mostly executes on a video card GPU, thus minimizing the performance impact of the CPU. It could be a completely irrational desire to have as reliable of a computer as possible, where even if a single memory bit error won't cost the user money, they are willing to spend a few dollars extra to avoid them. It could be any reason at all.

 

[Chiropteran]

since it's noticeably slower?

That has been tested and proven false.

http://legitreviews.com/article/1838/1/

 

[Phynaz]

Well, it's $20 if you can get a free motherboard for your Xeon. Can you?

Take a guess how much that poc "free" motherboard is worth.

Get a job and you'll be able to afford something besides the absolute cheapest. You'll be thankful in the end.

 

[Chiropteran]

Take a guess how much that poc "free" motherboard is worth.

Get a job and you'll be able to afford something besides the absolute cheapest. You'll be thankful in the end.

I have a job, thank you for revealing your ignorance though. Just because I have money doesn't mean I want to throw it away. I'd rather pay down my mortgage than pay extra for something that doesn't benefit my needs.

FYI, I do not need to guess, those boards are "worth" $90 on ebay pretty much every time you sell one-

http://www.ebay.com/csc/i.html?LH_I...nc&LH_Complete=1&_fln=1&_trksid=p3286.c0.m283

Or you can pick a more expensive board and get an extra $100 off. Either way, it's a huge savings compared to building a Xeon system.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Let me quote you once again,



So you saying Intel doesn’t have a competitive price/performance CPU against an overclocked AMD FX 6100??
Yes yes i know, FX sucks



Core i5 2400 cost 189,99, higher than FX6100 at 149,99.

It takes a higher priced CPU from Intel to have the same performance against an overclocked FX4100 or 6100 but yes I know, FX sucks

Yeah, no. A stock i5-2400 is faster than a stock FX-6100 and an overclocked i5-2400 is faster than an overclocked FX-6100. The i5 also consumes considerably less power. That's why there's a $40 difference between both.

Intel doesn't have anything for enthusiasts at $150 MSRP, and your argument is inherently disingenous because you're comparing products at different price ranges. My argument was based on, and only on, if you're one of the few that have a MicroCenter near them and therefore live in continental US and can get the 2400 at $150.

And yes, the FX processors still suck. For $150 you'd have to be mad to get an FX-6100 when you can buy the superior X6 1045T, and at $110-130 the Core i3 is faster and cheaper than the FX-4100 (and consumes less power).

 

[Phynaz]

I have a job, thank you for revealing your ignorance though. Just because I have money doesn't mean I want to throw it away. I'd rather pay down my mortgage than pay extra for something that doesn't benefit my needs.

FYI, I do not need to guess, those boards are "worth" $90 on ebay pretty much every time you sell one-

http://www.ebay.com/csc/i.html?LH_I...nc&LH_Complete=1&_fln=1&_trksid=p3286.c0.m283

Or you can pick a more expensive board and get an extra $100 off. Either way, it's a huge savings compared to building a Xeon system.

So now you are comparing a low end desktop cpu to a server cpu?

Whatever it takes to win your argument I guess.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

I'd rather pay down my mortgage than pay extra for something that doesn't benefit my needs.

:thumbsup:

 

[Chiropteran]

So now you are comparing a low end desktop cpu to a server cpu?

Whatever it takes to win your argument I guess.

"Now"? Were you unable to read any of my previous 20 posts in this thread?

Why did you wait until now to bring this up, were you thinking I would be stumped by your clever "do U know how much the mb is worth lol?" question?

But yeah, I am comparing a cheap desktop CPU to a server/workstation CPU, because

1) cheap desktop CPU are used in workstations all the time. Check low end Dell & HP workstaions

2) It's the only way to compare cheap ECC supporting CPU, as Intel has ZERO "low end desktop" CPU with ECC

But seriously, you knew that that already. Quit your trolling and get out of this thread.

 

[jihe]

That's right, it's Intel that is keeping me from buying Intel. Too many new products on the way, it's always wait for this wait for that. AMD on the other hand, has a new arch out there, and it probably won't be trumped anytime soon, but it's not slow regardless. Still a nice upgrade for me (or anyone).

So if a 2500k and 8150 are roughly equal and my only choices today, then there's little difference if you can get either for roughly the same comparative prices, $199 or $219.
Being as I'm getting the same performance either way, why not save a buck, get a very similar performing chip that won't be beat by it's own manufacturers products soon? At least thats my prediction, that PD won't be a huge leap. I'm going to be stuck with 2500k performance after the purchase either way.

You make no sense. You like a worse product because it also won't be improved much in the future?

 

[exar333]

Oh I see.


I apologize, I didn't realize they changed the decimal number system so that $209 (plus cost of a motherboard) is less than $189.

If you need ECC RAM, and a total system price difference of ~$100 is unacceptable, I would suggest finding a new area of work.

 

[Chiropteran]

If you need ECC RAM, and a total system price difference of ~$100 is unacceptable, I would suggest finding a new area of work.

Ah, so if throwing away $100 is acceptable for you, I expect you would be perfectly fine with sending me $100 paypal. Please let me know when I can expect to see the funds deposited into my account.

 

[Smoblikat]

Ah, so if throwing away $100 is acceptable for you, I expect you would be perfectly fine with sending me $100 paypal. Please let me know when I can expect to see the funds deposited into my account.

me too. I want a second GPU.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Should have gotten a 4100, with the funds saved you could have bottlenecked 470 SLI to heck and back!

It all makes sense now!

 

[Pcgeek09]

hmm

 

[Pcgeek09]

YABT

Bulldozer sucks. We all know this. If anyone dosent realize this by now then they have failed at using google and reading or they are not that interested in tech which makes me wonder how they ended up here in the first place

Depends what your using it for.

You can't simply say "it sucks".

 

[Arzachel]

Depends what your using it for.

You can't simply say "it sucks".

When Intel has products that at best tie and at worst absolutely stomp BD around the same price you can absolutely say that.

The only reason to get a BD is that you need to run a ton of VM's. Maybe if you need multi-threaded performance on a budget and the i3's don't do it for you.

 

[Smoblikat]

Should have gotten a 4100, with the funds saved you could have bottlenecked 470 SLI to heck and back!

It all makes sense now!

Why would i want a 4100? The i5 2500K is infinitley superior to it. I detect some AMD fanboyism here..............

 

[Arzachel]

Why would i want a 4100? The i5 2500K is infinitley superior to it. I detect some AMD fanboyism here..............

That was sarcasm if it wasn't obvious.

 

[Phynaz]

2) It's the only way to compare cheap ECC supporting CPU, as Intel has ZERO "low end desktop" CPU with ECC

You keep using the word cheap to describe BD.

Here's the definition of cheap:

of little account; of small value; mean; shoddy: cheap conduct; cheap workmanship.

You're right, Intel has zero cheap CPU's.

You're really making this much too easy :biggrin:

 

[tweakboy]

In HT x64 bit apps I would think a 8 core bulldozer would at least tie a 2600k with 8 threads... so whats better 4 cores and 4 more threads.. or bulldozer style 8 pure cores... I think its a fine chip, for HT users,, premiere photoshop, DAW , etc,,,,

 

[OCGuy]

They are a waste because there are better options. They will still run your applications just fine, however.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

In HT x64 bit apps I would think a 8 core bulldozer would at least tie a 2600k with 8 threads... so whats better 4 cores and 4 more threads.. or bulldozer style 8 pure cores... I think its a fine chip, for HT users,, premiere photoshop, DAW , etc,,,,

whatamireading.jpg

From what I could make out, even in the most computationally intensive programs it won't match a 2600K because each of those "true" cores on the FX can do a lot less instructions per clock cycle and Hyper-Threading brings a boost of around 20%. Of course, this is in integer intensive programs. In floating point intensive programs the FX-8xxx are effectively quad-cores, and then it's not even close.

Each of the cores on the FX processors, even when they have all resources available to them, have roughly 10% lower IPC than Stars/Phenom II cores. When they have to share resources, per-core performance compared to Stars takes a bigger dive and then it's around 20-30% slower per-core depending on the program.

If you look at floating point specifically and what I said earlier about it being a quad-core CPU when faced with that type of workload you can corroborate it with something like folding@home. In that program an Opteron 6172 ends up smashing an Opteron 6272.

 

[RussianSensation]

Yeah but you can't overclock it and hit nearly 500 watts in Prime 95, like a boss.

But you don't understand, it haz 8 Real CoAARRRRRES. How many corez do you haz huh? 4? 6 on your 3960? Pfffffffff. I gotz 8!

I own you in 7-Zip by 13 seconds, well worth 200W of extra power consumption to me. I don't play CPU demanding videogames such as Starcraft, Diablo 3, SKYRIM, GTAIV, Crysis 2, or run apps such as Photoshop. Those benchmarks don't count.

This thread is so awesome. It made me realize how underrated the FX8100 series is. I need to get 100 more before they sell out. AMD take my money!!! Now I just need to find a friend who knows a friend who has a friend who works at a factory where I can get a lifetime supply of LN2 so I can own overclocked 2500Ks...

I think I'll need LN2 cuz 2500K @ 5.0ghz obliterated an FX8150 @ 4.8ghz.

LN2, please find me. Ivy Bridge better watch out!

And when Haswell comes out, I'll be upgrading to 12 or even 16 real CoooooRES!

P.S. The best CPU AMD has at the moment is $125 960T that unlocks into an X6. Compared to the 960T, the entire Bulldozer line-up has no purpose to exist for "AMD enthusiasts" who want the best AMD bang for the buck CPU.

 

[denev2004]

Calling BD's core "real core" is really funny. I once thought that is something only said by those people from developing countries.