If you have a single video card and ONLY play games that are GPU limited, then yes, this is probably the case. Could change with future video cards.
If you have a single video card and ONLY play games that are GPU limited, then yes, this is probably the case. Could change with future video cards.
No no no and no (if you are implying what I think). This type of chicken and egg problem is always resolved by making you mcu run current software really good and optimizations will follow. If you are not the market leader and you depend on specific software optimizations all around the software market to make you look good, you are headed for failure.
And as it currently stands everyone has really difficult time to identify where exactly the strengths of BD lie.
I would have considered getting BD if not for its poor multithreaded performance barely beating its predecessor and totally lose out to the Core i7 2600K. The die size is humongous, transistor count is legendary and has a high clock speed and the merits stops there.
All of that just to create a CPU that barely does anything, only a true and dedicated fanboy(not accusing anyone here) could buy one and brags about having the highest core count and highest stock speed. Not to mention their high clockspeed design barely even matches the overclockability of SB.
I have never thought of the day where I would have to say again that AMD processors are hot, slow and sips power like a vacuum cleaner. It is not the AMD processor that I know of and definitely not the one that I will ever be buying.
All of that just to create a CPU that barely does anything, only a true and dedicated fanboy(not accusing anyone here) could buy one and brags about having the highest core count and highest stock speed. Not to mention their high clockspeed design barely even matches the overclockability of SB.
I have never thought of the day where I would have to say again that AMD processors are hot, slow and sips power like a vacuum cleaner. It is not the AMD processor that I know of and definitely not the one that I will ever be buying.
1. It's got the FX nomenclature. It does not deserve it, false advertisement and pure lies.
2. Crazy power draw when OC.
2. Crazy power draw when OC.
For me, Bulldozer's biggest failing doesn't necessarily stem from its backslide in IPC and slower overall performance, its also the fact that it is a relative power consumption monster
even in the few instances where BD can best SB, its not in a convincing enough of a fashion to where you'd necessarily want to justify the added power consumption and heat production to get the marginally better (if at all) performance
and for us enthusiasts it is more than likely we'll be able to hit higher average clock speeds when overclocking SB vs. BD. When BD needs a higher stock clock speed to even come close to competing, say goodbye to that when enthusiasts push each chip to their stable maximums on typical aftermarket cooling
even in the few instances where BD can best SB, its not in a convincing enough of a fashion to where you'd necessarily want to justify the added power consumption and heat production to get the marginally better (if at all) performance
and for us enthusiasts it is more than likely we'll be able to hit higher average clock speeds when overclocking SB vs. BD. When BD needs a higher stock clock speed to even come close to competing, say goodbye to that when enthusiasts push each chip to their stable maximums on typical aftermarket cooling
Last edited:
StrangerGuy
Diamond Member
- May 9, 2004
- 8,443
- 124
- 106
By the same logic new CPUs are useless since Intel already have an entire backlog of capable CPUs for games.
Can someone instead provide a reason why anyone would be positive with it ?
Does it cost more than Phenom II line ? - yes
Does it perform similarly at stock setting - yes
Does it perform similarly at overclocked setting - yes
Does it consume similar amount of power - yes
Does it cost more than Phenom II line ? - yes
Does it perform similarly at stock setting - yes
Does it perform similarly at overclocked setting - yes
Does it consume similar amount of power - yes
why didn't amd just upgrade the phenom 2 to phenom 3 and the athlon 2 to athlon 3 etc with 32nm?
I just don't understand how the 3.6ghz 4100 barely and sometimes losing to the cheaper athlon ii x4 645 3.1ghz is not good to see and we will not mention the cheaper phenom ii x4 955.
I just don't understand how the 3.6ghz 4100 barely and sometimes losing to the cheaper athlon ii x4 645 3.1ghz is not good to see and we will not mention the cheaper phenom ii x4 955.
Last edited:
First you say you buy a FX-8570 because it is better in MCMC than a 2500k and then you claim you don't do it often enough to customize for it? You are just trying to rationalize your buy.
Bulldozer is such failure because its worse than Phenom II. AMD actually had a niche with Phenom II Products. More cores per $ with acceptable IPC and power usage.
With BD you still get more cores but with worse IPC than before! and at higher power consumption. And I assume because of the huge die size AMD can't sell them at X6 price levels.
While the X6 had considerable advantage over nehalem parts in multi-threading at a lower, this is basically non-existent now. Performance is worse per core and price much higher.
The high power consumption will justify the higher cost of a 2600k easily.
The HW sites are analyzing synthetic benches and technical data and post the results in graph form.
Most of those graphs will never be useful for 99.9% of the PC users but the HW enthusiasts take them like gospels. A little shorter bar is a disaster. The dudes never question if they really need that longer bar, they just see the obvious difference and act accordingly to the Pavlov conditional reflex.
Then the HW enthusiasts write on the forums convincing the people without knowledge that they really need that Intel CPU or that other piece of HW that's so much better. I 've seen countless gamers on a budget being convinced to buy an expensive CPU (see the charts) and not having enough money left to buy a decent video card.
Insert Anand or other HW site benchmark here
The HW sites themselves are proud to be highly technical and give no hint about the usefulness of those benches and results in the real life. I doubt they even know it.
For instance in MS Excel Monte Carlo simulation the Ph II 955 has a score of 20. 20 what? The 2500K has a score of 15.4. Is 20 a disaster? Is it good enough? Will my Excel table stall and crash my PC?
The most ludicrous thing is that they have to tell you if lower is better or higher is better proof that we don't know what they're talking about. But do they?I have yet to see a HW site that tells you:
- The CPU "X" is slower in this bench than the CPU "Y" but don't sweat over this. You will never need that extra performance whatsoever. Actually a score of 20 in the MS Excel Monte Carlo simulation is like 10x the performance you will ever need. Scratch that, forget it.
The thing is any modern quad can be very well used for gaming, especially at the new standard 1080p resolution and the difference between an expensive CPU and a cheap quad are minimal once you get a decent video card and use that resolution. But no, in the benchmarkland the Phenom II or Bulldozer are crap. They can't even play flash games, see those tiny bars?
Here's the torque graph for two modern cars
See? The Focus is no good, the Golf has a longer bar. Don't buy the Focus, it's a disaster I tell ya.
The HW sites should explain the benches and tell us when the result in bench is good enough for a regular user and what kind of users would really need a higher score in that bench. This doesn't happen.
It should be a red line in those benches, above it every single CPU is fine for a regular user, below is bad.
Most of those graphs will never be useful for 99.9% of the PC users but the HW enthusiasts take them like gospels. A little shorter bar is a disaster. The dudes never question if they really need that longer bar, they just see the obvious difference and act accordingly to the Pavlov conditional reflex.
Then the HW enthusiasts write on the forums convincing the people without knowledge that they really need that Intel CPU or that other piece of HW that's so much better. I 've seen countless gamers on a budget being convinced to buy an expensive CPU (see the charts) and not having enough money left to buy a decent video card.
Insert Anand or other HW site benchmark here
The HW sites themselves are proud to be highly technical and give no hint about the usefulness of those benches and results in the real life. I doubt they even know it.
For instance in MS Excel Monte Carlo simulation the Ph II 955 has a score of 20. 20 what? The 2500K has a score of 15.4. Is 20 a disaster? Is it good enough? Will my Excel table stall and crash my PC?
The most ludicrous thing is that they have to tell you if lower is better or higher is better proof that we don't know what they're talking about. But do they?I have yet to see a HW site that tells you:
- The CPU "X" is slower in this bench than the CPU "Y" but don't sweat over this. You will never need that extra performance whatsoever. Actually a score of 20 in the MS Excel Monte Carlo simulation is like 10x the performance you will ever need. Scratch that, forget it.
The thing is any modern quad can be very well used for gaming, especially at the new standard 1080p resolution and the difference between an expensive CPU and a cheap quad are minimal once you get a decent video card and use that resolution. But no, in the benchmarkland the Phenom II or Bulldozer are crap. They can't even play flash games, see those tiny bars?
Here's the torque graph for two modern cars
See? The Focus is no good, the Golf has a longer bar. Don't buy the Focus, it's a disaster I tell ya.
The HW sites should explain the benches and tell us when the result in bench is good enough for a regular user and what kind of users would really need a higher score in that bench. This doesn't happen.
It should be a red line in those benches, above it every single CPU is fine for a regular user, below is bad.
BD is a success if you find someone still living in the 90s unzipping downloads every damn day. While playing chess waiting for it to be done.
Regular users don't read geeky tech sites for reviews.
Fuck your **** **** *** **** ****.
Go buy a Volkswagen beetle circa 1940's.
It drives, just like a BMW M5! So why need more?!
Don't you bloody think before posting?
Don't you consider how the manufacturer presents the product to you?
We are, and never will be regular users.
We're the 1 percentile, period.
If you are, you'll just buy whatever is cheapest @ insert generic mega/superstore here.
Period.
No profanity on the tech forums please.
Idontcare
Super Mod
Last edited by a moderator:
As I said they spread the nonsense to other sites all over the tubes.
Straw man much?
And stay off the coffee you might pop a vein.
Too much redbull, thank you.
And no, it's not straw man.
We're in a Duopoly.
And this is/was one parts "UBER GAMING ULTIMATE HIGH END" product.
(And marketed beating the competitions products in several areas too by themselves)
Other channels don't care, not in reality anyway.
Llano is a success, and will continue be, in it's own channel.
It may hurt the main image, but that's how the market is period.
People forget however and still buy, whatever is cheapest to their needs.
If SB sucked, what woulda happened then, you think ?
Please get your argument straight
Last edited:
yottabit
Golden Member
- Jun 5, 2008
- 1,636
- 767
- 146
I see many parallels between the Bulldozer launch and the Fermi launch, and I'm hoping AMD can manage to create a competitive product out of it. They were both massive transistor budgets, huge power consumption, the exception is that Fermi was probably more of a straight-out-win in performance, but BD seems to show potential in highly threaded scenarios.
I think if they can decrease power consumption and get turbo clocks up with their next gen, it can be something to shake a stick at.
I think if they can decrease power consumption and get turbo clocks up with their next gen, it can be something to shake a stick at.
You wait for bulldozer for what seems like ever, now you wait for the next iteration of bulldozer the day of launch.
It's not pleasurable waiting and waiting and waiting. And to solve this and take a monkey off my back I'm just writing off Am3+. And will just use my 945 x 4 awhile longer then go to intel eventually.
I wait every week for a paycheck and don't need to add things to wait for anymore.
It's not pleasurable waiting and waiting and waiting. And to solve this and take a monkey off my back I'm just writing off Am3+. And will just use my 945 x 4 awhile longer then go to intel eventually.
I wait every week for a paycheck and don't need to add things to wait for anymore.
toyota
Lifer
- Apr 15, 2001
- 12,957
- 1
- 0
mosox, you car analogy is foolish as its showing specs not performance. in fact your graph is about as silly as AMD showing a graph where it has twice as many cores as a 2500k. the result that matters in the end performance. of course Bulldozer is not going to slow down your pc and hurt daily tasks in any noticeable way. if you look at the overall package that is Bulldozer though, its a failure in so many ways.
T
Here's the torque graph for two modern cars
See? The Focus is no good, the Golf has a longer bar. Don't buy the Focus, it's a disaster I tell ya.
And now assume the Focus uses 3xtimes the amount of gas,weights 2x as much and has half of the acceleration but is only 10% cheaper.
Which one would you buy?
(Hint: focus = FX-8570, Volkswagen = 2600k)
wat. You don't know what torque is? It's like 100 times more relevant for a car than 90% of the benches featured in a CPU review.
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2009/04/what_does_torque_in_a_car_do.php
chihlidog
Senior member
- Apr 12, 2011
- 884
- 1
- 81
I get tired of seeing the "good enough" argument. I like AMD, but they FAILED. It ISNT good enough.
I have a gaming rig to do just that. Play games. That means I expect it to run any game I throw at it. Fine, maybe 90 percent of the games I throw at it dont use all of its resources. But what about those other 10 percent?
Example: FSX. I'd love to see a benchmark using FSX comparing a stock 2500k and FX-8150. There are other games out there that rely heavily on single-threaded CPU performance where it DOES make a difference. And yes, I want to be able to play them on max, so even taking the horrifying (for a modern cpu) power consumption out of the picture, BD fails here. It is NOT a gaming CPU. It works well for multi-threaded apps. Great for people who use 'em - enjoy them.
But it really isnt good enough. Factor in heat, huge power draw, and the cost which is MORE than intel and it makes zero sense for a gamer to buy one. None. You're paying more for less performance.
I have a gaming rig to do just that. Play games. That means I expect it to run any game I throw at it. Fine, maybe 90 percent of the games I throw at it dont use all of its resources. But what about those other 10 percent?
Example: FSX. I'd love to see a benchmark using FSX comparing a stock 2500k and FX-8150. There are other games out there that rely heavily on single-threaded CPU performance where it DOES make a difference. And yes, I want to be able to play them on max, so even taking the horrifying (for a modern cpu) power consumption out of the picture, BD fails here. It is NOT a gaming CPU. It works well for multi-threaded apps. Great for people who use 'em - enjoy them.
But it really isnt good enough. Factor in heat, huge power draw, and the cost which is MORE than intel and it makes zero sense for a gamer to buy one. None. You're paying more for less performance.
toyota
Lifer
- Apr 15, 2001
- 12,957
- 1
- 0
please pay attention to what I said? torque is a spec for cars just like cores and cache are for cpus. AGAIN you were comparing car specs but cpu performance. if you want to do a sensible analogy then you would talk about 0-60 or handling just like you were talking about whether the cpu benchmarks would be noticeable in real world.
toyota
Lifer
- Apr 15, 2001
- 12,957
- 1
- 0
I think they are stupid too. I was just pointing out that he was comparing the wrong kind of things.
If you're a gamer at 1080p or greater, this is true.
I love my hardware as much as the next guy but damn if i ever felt the need to upgrade my rig even with all these new games. They are all still GPU limited after all these years.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter