Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Official] AMD Bulldozer Reviews Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Official] AMD Bulldozer Reviews Thread - Page 163

post #1621 of 2308
I don't get why people complain so much about them turning up the graphics settings in the gaming tests? I don't think the whole point of a fast CPU is to turn down your settings and watch the frames fly.
Yellow Green
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 6600K Fatal1ty Z170 Gaming K4/D3 Zotac GTX1080 Amp! Mushkin 8GB DDR3L1600mhz 1.35V 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Seagate 1TB Patriot Blast 240GB Akasa Venom Win 10 64-bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Acer Z301C Ducky Year of the Tiger(Cherry Blues) XFX 850W Black Edition Lancool K-63 
MouseMouse PadAudioOther
Coolermaster Xornet Mionix ULTRA-FI DAC41/Beyerdynamic T70 Akasa Fans x 2 
  hide details  
Reply
Yellow Green
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 6600K Fatal1ty Z170 Gaming K4/D3 Zotac GTX1080 Amp! Mushkin 8GB DDR3L1600mhz 1.35V 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Seagate 1TB Patriot Blast 240GB Akasa Venom Win 10 64-bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Acer Z301C Ducky Year of the Tiger(Cherry Blues) XFX 850W Black Edition Lancool K-63 
MouseMouse PadAudioOther
Coolermaster Xornet Mionix ULTRA-FI DAC41/Beyerdynamic T70 Akasa Fans x 2 
  hide details  
Reply
post #1622 of 2308
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedCloudFuneral View Post
I don't get why people complain so much about them turning up the graphics settings in the gaming tests? I don't think the whole point of a fast CPU is to turn down your settings and watch the frames fly.
I am not exactly sure what you are referring to, but I am guessing if you are referring to reviewers putting game settings higher in benchmarks than other reviewers, people are unhappy because it causes the conditions to no longer be equal. When you are comparing two separate things, you want the environmental to be as controlled as possible, including but not limited to the game patches, resolution, settings, and the usual things to get rid of bottle necking.
My old rig
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 680i BFG MSI 570 gtx (stock) 2*2GB, 1*1GB 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Hitachi 1TB some cheap dvd-rw drive Windows 7 Ultimate SyncMaster 2232BW 22inch 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
G15 750watt No name Logitech MX 518 
Mouse Pad
Invoice from Newark 
  hide details  
Reply
My old rig
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 680i BFG MSI 570 gtx (stock) 2*2GB, 1*1GB 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Hitachi 1TB some cheap dvd-rw drive Windows 7 Ultimate SyncMaster 2232BW 22inch 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
G15 750watt No name Logitech MX 518 
Mouse Pad
Invoice from Newark 
  hide details  
Reply
post #1623 of 2308
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedCloudFuneral View Post
I don't get why people complain so much about them turning up the graphics settings in the gaming tests? I don't think the whole point of a fast CPU is to turn down your settings and watch the frames fly.
Because when the graphics are turned up the game becomes GPU-bound, meaning that the reason why you can no longer get higher FPS is because the graphics card cannot keep up. At this point in the test most CPUs will all show the same framerates, which makes the test worthless to show which CPUs handle games faster. Those tests are completely worthless at that point, what they should have done is thrown in another 1-2 GPUs to get rid of the GPU bottleneck so we could see where the CPUs really stand in a high-performance gaming environment.
Foldatron
(17 items)
 
Mat
(10 items)
 
Work iMac
(9 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7 950 EVGA x58 3-way SLI EVGA GTX 660ti GTX 275 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
3x2GB Corsair Dominator DDR3-1600 80GB Intel X25-M SSD 2TB WD Black 150GB WD Raptor 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
2x 150GB WD V-raptor in RAID0 Win7 Home 64-bit OEM 55" LED 120hz 1080p Vizio MS Natural Ergonomic Keyboard 4000 
PowerCase
750W PC P&C Silencer CoolerMaster 690 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i5 2500S AMD 6770M 8GB (2x4GB) at 1333Mhz 1TB, 7200 rpm 
Optical DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
LG 8X Dual-Layer "SuperDrive" OS X Lion 27" iMac screen Mac wireless keyboard 
Mouse
Mac wireless mouse 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
i7-2600K AMD 6970M 1GB 16GB PC3-10600 DDR3 1TB 7200rpm 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
256GB SSD 8x DL "SuperDrive" OS X 10.7 Lion 27" 2560x1440 iMac display 
Monitor
27" Apple thunderbolt display 
  hide details  
Reply
Foldatron
(17 items)
 
Mat
(10 items)
 
Work iMac
(9 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7 950 EVGA x58 3-way SLI EVGA GTX 660ti GTX 275 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
3x2GB Corsair Dominator DDR3-1600 80GB Intel X25-M SSD 2TB WD Black 150GB WD Raptor 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
2x 150GB WD V-raptor in RAID0 Win7 Home 64-bit OEM 55" LED 120hz 1080p Vizio MS Natural Ergonomic Keyboard 4000 
PowerCase
750W PC P&C Silencer CoolerMaster 690 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i5 2500S AMD 6770M 8GB (2x4GB) at 1333Mhz 1TB, 7200 rpm 
Optical DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
LG 8X Dual-Layer "SuperDrive" OS X Lion 27" iMac screen Mac wireless keyboard 
Mouse
Mac wireless mouse 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
i7-2600K AMD 6970M 1GB 16GB PC3-10600 DDR3 1TB 7200rpm 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
256GB SSD 8x DL "SuperDrive" OS X 10.7 Lion 27" 2560x1440 iMac display 
Monitor
27" Apple thunderbolt display 
  hide details  
Reply
post #1624 of 2308
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedCloudFuneral View Post
I don't get why people complain so much about them turning up the graphics settings in the gaming tests? I don't think the whole point of a fast CPU is to turn down your settings and watch the frames fly.
Because when you do that, the test becomes GPU limited. At that point the test is all about the GPU. You would notice little variance between CPU's as long as they are fast enough to power the GPU, as shown in the overclockersclub review I believe. At that point the test is worthless because you would get the same result with an i3, as a phenom II, as a i7, as a FX chip, as a C2D, as an Athlon II, etc.
post #1625 of 2308
As far as real world performance, from what I have seen, BD is performing equal to a 2500K. Rendering and encoding seem to be where it shines. Add in that these CPUs seem to overclock like a beast (compared to Phenom IIs) I don't see where the massive fail is. If I can run a FX 8150 at 5+ GHz on water then sign me up! It will blow away my 1090T at 4 GHz.

Yes for low resolution gaming (1920 x 1080 and under) it is a fail. Although many gaming benchmarks show it competing with a 2500K at 1080p and up. Single threaded apps, also a fail but I don't buy 6 and 8 core CPUs for single threaded use. I would buy a 4 core or less for that.

AMD claims Windows 8 is better optimized for BullDozers. They claim up to 10% increase in performance. We'll see.

I will own one eventually.
Phantom
(25 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
AMD FX 8320 Asus Crosshair Formula V EVGA GTX 660 Sig 2 EVGA GTX 660 Sig 2 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
G.Skill 8 GBs DDR3 Seagate Samsung OCZ Solid 3 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingCooling
OCZ Solid 3 Samsung DVD RW with Lightscribe XSPC Dual bay pump/res XSPC Delta V3 CPU Block 
CoolingCoolingCoolingOS
Phobya Compression Fittings Black Ice Xtreme II 240mm Radiator Koolance BKT-HX001 Radiator Mounting Bracket Various versions of Linux 
OSMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Windows of some sort Acer 27" LED LCD  Samsung 19" LCD Saitek Cyborg 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
HEC 1080 800 watt NZXT Phantom Logitech M570 Wireless Trackball Philips AmBX Complete System 
Audio
Creative Omni Sound Blaster USB 
  hide details  
Reply
Phantom
(25 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
AMD FX 8320 Asus Crosshair Formula V EVGA GTX 660 Sig 2 EVGA GTX 660 Sig 2 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
G.Skill 8 GBs DDR3 Seagate Samsung OCZ Solid 3 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingCooling
OCZ Solid 3 Samsung DVD RW with Lightscribe XSPC Dual bay pump/res XSPC Delta V3 CPU Block 
CoolingCoolingCoolingOS
Phobya Compression Fittings Black Ice Xtreme II 240mm Radiator Koolance BKT-HX001 Radiator Mounting Bracket Various versions of Linux 
OSMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Windows of some sort Acer 27" LED LCD  Samsung 19" LCD Saitek Cyborg 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
HEC 1080 800 watt NZXT Phantom Logitech M570 Wireless Trackball Philips AmBX Complete System 
Audio
Creative Omni Sound Blaster USB 
  hide details  
Reply
post #1626 of 2308
post #1627 of 2308
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedCloudFuneral View Post
I don't get why people complain so much about them turning up the graphics settings in the gaming tests? I don't think the whole point of a fast CPU is to turn down your settings and watch the frames fly.
People complain because it is a bad test of CPU power, which is exactly what we are trying to test. If you have the graphics super high, the graphics card is doing all the work and the processor sits idle most of the time. An i3, an X4, an X6, and a 2600k, will all get about the same frame rate when you pair them with an awesome graphics card and crank up the graphics. When you lower the graphics settings, the CPU has to do much more work to keep up with the graphics card that is spitting out frames left and right. So if you were to lower graphics settings slowly, weaker processors would start to get left behind first. And like you can see in some of the tests, doing a high graphics test makes funny results. There is one test where the 2600k scores 3 or 4FPS LESS when it is OC'ed a lot. That happens because the processor is completely out of the equation since the GPU is doing all the work. The test could be redone at 3ghz, 5ghz, 8ghz, and all the results would just be the random variation of the test.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-2600k 4.5GHz @ 1.32V Asus P8P67 Pro EVGA GTX 580 Mushkin 2133 9-10-9-24 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 840  WD Black Silver Arrow Windows 7 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell U2211H Rosewill RK-9000BR Seasonic X750 HAF X 
MouseAudio
Razer Lachesis Grado HF2 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-2600k 4.5GHz @ 1.32V Asus P8P67 Pro EVGA GTX 580 Mushkin 2133 9-10-9-24 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 840  WD Black Silver Arrow Windows 7 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell U2211H Rosewill RK-9000BR Seasonic X750 HAF X 
MouseAudio
Razer Lachesis Grado HF2 
  hide details  
Reply
post #1628 of 2308
Quote:
Originally Posted by tout View Post
As far as real world performance, from what I have seen, BD is performing equal to a 2500K.
LOL "performing equal" -- but sucking way more power, you left that part out. So exactly how is that performing equal? Ever heard of the term "performance per watt"?

Make all the excuses you want but BD is DOA, brutha. You know it, I know it, the whole internet knows it - and I give credit to some of the review sites for trying to break the news compassionately, letting AMD retain some small shred dignity. Because there are some sites painting a much bleaker scene - one with Intel smooshing AMD's face into the dirt again and again and again.
Edited by odditory - 10/13/11 at 6:51am
post #1629 of 2308
Quote:
Originally Posted by tout View Post
As far as real world performance, from what I have seen, BD is performing equal to a 2500K. Rendering and encoding seem to be where it shines. Add in that these CPUs seem to overclock like a beast (compared to Phenom IIs) I don't see where the massive fail is. If I can run a FX 8150 at 5+ GHz on water then sign me up! It will blow away my 1090T at 4 GHz.

Yes for low resolution gaming (1920 x 1080 and under) it is a fail. Although many gaming benchmarks show it competing with a 2500K at 1080p and up. Single threaded apps, also a fail but I don't buy 6 and 8 core CPUs for single threaded use. I would buy a 4 core or less for that.

AMD claims Windows 8 is better optimized for BullDozers. They claim up to 10% increase in performance. We'll see.

I will own one eventually.
I still think something is severely limiting Bulldozer's performance. There's no way 2 Billion transistors and a more "advanced" design yield this kind of crap performance over a previous generation. It may be linked to the process technology, and yields...at least I hope so, or something is inherently flawed in the microarch. I wouldn't have nearly as much issue with the performance if the power consumption was on par or better than the competition. As it is, I wouldn't touch one....I really wanted to, but I feel like my affair with Intel may turn into something more serious.
mitx
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i5 3570K 4.5ghz ASRock Z77E-ITX Sapphire R9 290x Tri-X 1200/1500 Crucial Ballistix Tactical LP 2x8 GB 8-8-8-24-1T 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 840 Pro 256gb Western Digital Velociraptor Western Digital WD15EARX Western Digital WD15EADS 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Silverstone NT06-Pro Windows 10 x64 LG 29UM67 Logitech G710+ 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Silverstone SG08 600W PSU Silverstone SG08B Logitech G700 Pioneer SE-A1000 
  hide details  
Reply
mitx
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i5 3570K 4.5ghz ASRock Z77E-ITX Sapphire R9 290x Tri-X 1200/1500 Crucial Ballistix Tactical LP 2x8 GB 8-8-8-24-1T 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 840 Pro 256gb Western Digital Velociraptor Western Digital WD15EARX Western Digital WD15EADS 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Silverstone NT06-Pro Windows 10 x64 LG 29UM67 Logitech G710+ 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Silverstone SG08 600W PSU Silverstone SG08B Logitech G700 Pioneer SE-A1000 
  hide details  
Reply
post #1630 of 2308
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryboto View Post
I still think something is severely limiting Bulldozer's performance. There's no way 2 Billion transistors and a more "advanced" design yield this kind of crap performance over a previous generation. It may be linked to the process technology, and yields...at least I hope so, or something is inherently flawed in the microarch. I wouldn't have nearly as much issue with the performance if the power consumption was on par or better than the competition. As it is, I wouldn't touch one....I really wanted to, but I feel like my affair with Intel may turn into something more serious.
Hahah this thread is delivering.
Main
(20 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 4670K @ 4.7Ghz [1.284v] Z87X-UD4H [F7] MSI GTX 1070 Gaming X 2x4GB Samsung MV-3V4G3; 10-10-10-28 @ 2133Mhz [... 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
1x Samsung 850 Pro 256GB 1x Crucial M500 960GB 1x WD4003FZEX 1x WD30EFRX 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
NH-D14 3x A15s @ 600RPM 2x Phanteks F140SP BBK (front), SFF21E (bottom) Win 10 Pro x64 Catleap 2B @ 119hz +1 
MonitorPowerCaseMouse
U3014 eVGA 750G2 Fractal R5 - Blackout Edition MS WMO 1.1a 
Mouse PadAudio
fUnc 1030 Creative Sound Blaster Z 
  hide details  
Reply
Main
(20 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 4670K @ 4.7Ghz [1.284v] Z87X-UD4H [F7] MSI GTX 1070 Gaming X 2x4GB Samsung MV-3V4G3; 10-10-10-28 @ 2133Mhz [... 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
1x Samsung 850 Pro 256GB 1x Crucial M500 960GB 1x WD4003FZEX 1x WD30EFRX 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
NH-D14 3x A15s @ 600RPM 2x Phanteks F140SP BBK (front), SFF21E (bottom) Win 10 Pro x64 Catleap 2B @ 119hz +1 
MonitorPowerCaseMouse
U3014 eVGA 750G2 Fractal R5 - Blackout Edition MS WMO 1.1a 
Mouse PadAudio
fUnc 1030 Creative Sound Blaster Z 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Official] AMD Bulldozer Reviews Thread