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

[Official] AMD Bulldozer Reviews Thread - Page 175

post #1741 of 2308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Razi3l View Post
The silliest thing here is the fact that they compared 4.7Ghz to 5.2Ghz. TweakTown reviews are terrible anyway.

SB owners wont stop gloating and being smug now that Bulldozer isn't all it was expected to be. How sad lol. If it was ~$40-$50 cheaper it would be amazing.
still with a slight increase in speeds gives the user 50% more FPS???

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Karnage View Post
I'm not sure why they didn't use a 2500K in the review instead of the 2600K. Results would have been identical
why use a FX-8150 8-core against a i5-2500K 4-core? 8-cores vs 8-cores
post #1742 of 2308
Disappointing...
post #1743 of 2308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jagged_Steel View Post
And selling a product faster than you can make them is bad? AMD is also selling more Llanos than they can produce. AMD is also selling more 6950/70/90s than they can produce. So they have several new products that people are standing in line for, and what I hear (in this forum anyways) is that somehow this = failure for AMD which of course is completely ridiculous. I operated a manufacturing business for a decade or so, and I can tell you from experience that having higher demand than you can keep up with is a heck of a lot better position to be in than being able to crank out lots of products that are not wanted.
Last I checked, Intel wasn't exactly having trouble shifting SB processors....
post #1744 of 2308
the clock speeds bother me. why wouldnt you put both at 5ghz? or 4.5?

this embarasing for amd though. the 8 core 3.6ghz chip should be taking on the 980x(although $700 price difference). flagship vs flagship.

but no, it has trouble dealing with a mid grade processor(although "enthusiast" now, will be mid tier when sb-e is out), the 2500k. let alone the 2600k they used in this review.

pathetic.

and dont tell me it's not supposed to compete with intel's best. if it was faster than the 980x you know there would be no mercy from the amd fans and intel people would use the "lol 8 core vs 6 core" excuse that we saw when the i7 950/930 vs the 1090t in reviews(but that was 6v4 cores and amd users still QQed about hyperthreading).
Edited by missingno - 10/13/11 at 10:49am
ULTIMATE EXTREME
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD PHENOM 955 ASUS M4879T 5770 4gb 
  hide details  
Reply
ULTIMATE EXTREME
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD PHENOM 955 ASUS M4879T 5770 4gb 
  hide details  
Reply
post #1745 of 2308
Quote:
Originally Posted by M3T4LM4N222 View Post
Thats a problem though. Compatiablity was one of the things that makes AMD CPU's so viable and great. You didn't need to buy a new board every time you wanted a new CPU. AMD has generally always been better at the money saving aspect. But Bulldozer is the exact opposite of what AMD usually produces.
And then there's the BIOS AGESA updates that are giving more trouble than they should. It appears that Bulldozer BIOS updates can actually negatively impact performance of Deneb and Thuban CPUs people have on the boards. So much for backwards compatibility and AMD's advantage of having "one socket fits all".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domino View Post
so whats the verdict on this puppy? are we looking at a faulty schedular, poor cache latencies, and maybe lacking proper windows support for it? can we expect a fermi on this where performance would increase after an update rather then its netburst rehash?
Some people keep comparing this to Fermi, but it's not really comparable. Fermi did perform better for a single GPU than the AMD competitor of the time. It just came with inadequate cooling (hot and loud). Now that coolers like the AXP exist and that reference coolers use a more sophisticated design, along with GPUs with high power consumption like the HD6970, GTX570 and GTX580 exist and people don't complain nearly as much, the GTX480 is a fine card.

Changing the stock cooler on the FX-8150 is not going to have the same effect though.
 
Metro 2033 review
Metro 2033
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7-3820 Asus Sabertooth X79 MSI GTX 750 Ti TF Gaming 16 GB Corsair DDR3 1866 Mhz Dominator 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung SSD 830 128GB + WD Caviar Black 1TB Sony Optiarc DVD-RW Corsair A70 + Noiseblocker M12-P Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
BenQ RL2455HM Cooler Master Octane Corsair AX750 Professional Modular 80 Plus Gold Cooler Master HAF 912 Plus 
Mouse
Cooler Master Octane 
  hide details  
Reply
 
Metro 2033 review
Metro 2033
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7-3820 Asus Sabertooth X79 MSI GTX 750 Ti TF Gaming 16 GB Corsair DDR3 1866 Mhz Dominator 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung SSD 830 128GB + WD Caviar Black 1TB Sony Optiarc DVD-RW Corsair A70 + Noiseblocker M12-P Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
BenQ RL2455HM Cooler Master Octane Corsair AX750 Professional Modular 80 Plus Gold Cooler Master HAF 912 Plus 
Mouse
Cooler Master Octane 
  hide details  
Reply
post #1746 of 2308
Quote:
Originally Posted by missingno View Post
the clock speeds bother me. why wouldnt you put both at 5ghz? or 4.5?

this embarasing for amd though. the 8 core 3.6ghz chip should be taking on the 980x(although $700 price difference). flagship vs flagship.

but no, it has trouble dealing with a mid grade processor(although "enthusiast" now, will be mid tier when sb-e is out), the 2500k. let alone the 2600k they used in this review.

pathetic.
As was said in the article, they OC'ed each processor as high as it would go (which is what any enthusiast would do). How is that not fair when comparing ultimate speed? Crippling the 2600k with an artificially low clock just to make things fair for the 8150 is inherently UNFAIR to the 2600k. What is so hard to understand here?

Put another way, if the 8150 clocked higher than the 2600k, I would not complain. OCing results are NEVER guaranteed. None of this matters anyway because we all know the 2600k would have mopped the floor with the 8150 at 4700MHz just the same....
post #1747 of 2308
funny...all the reviews use Farcry 2 as their game benchmark...a well know anti AMD game...
GTR-PC
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 3570k 4.3Ghz  ASRock Z77 Extreme 6 EVGA GTX 770 4GB FTW Crucial Ballistix Sport 8GB 1600 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Zotac SSD - WD 1TB (x2) Zalman Performa W10 64 Bits HP 2509 25" 1080p 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Sidewinder X6 Thermaltake Smart 700w 80Plus CM Storm Enforcer Mionix Naos 3200 
Mouse Pad
SteelSeries QcK Gaming Mouse Pad 
  hide details  
Reply
GTR-PC
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 3570k 4.3Ghz  ASRock Z77 Extreme 6 EVGA GTX 770 4GB FTW Crucial Ballistix Sport 8GB 1600 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Zotac SSD - WD 1TB (x2) Zalman Performa W10 64 Bits HP 2509 25" 1080p 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Sidewinder X6 Thermaltake Smart 700w 80Plus CM Storm Enforcer Mionix Naos 3200 
Mouse Pad
SteelSeries QcK Gaming Mouse Pad 
  hide details  
Reply
post #1748 of 2308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin SSJ Eric View Post
Because then you are downclocking the 2600k to a speed it is more than capable of surpassing just because the 8150 can't go any higher. How on earth is that considered fair to SB, that it be punished for being a BETTER clocker?!?!
Actually lots of reports show 5Ghz+ being pretty average for BD whereas 5Ghz+ is a golden chip for SB.
3930k
(20 items)
 
  
Reply
3930k
(20 items)
 
  
Reply
post #1749 of 2308
Quote:
Originally Posted by [T]yphoon View Post
why use a FX-8150 8-core against a i5-2500K 4-core? 8-cores vs 8-cores
8 cores vs 8 threads*

Sorry, i'm a prick =(
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 6700k 4.5 GHz 1.3v Asus Z170i MSI 980Ti 1490/7760 MHz G.skill DDR4 8 GB x2 3733 MHz 15-15-15-35-1 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 850 EVO 1 TB Crucial M4 256 GB NH-C14S Windows 10 Student 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
TBD Cooler Master Quick Fire TK Corsair SF600 Fractal Core 500 
MouseMouse PadAudioAudio
Zowie EC2-A Zowie G TF-X Fiio E17 v1 Sennheiser HD 598 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 6700k 4.5 GHz 1.3v Asus Z170i MSI 980Ti 1490/7760 MHz G.skill DDR4 8 GB x2 3733 MHz 15-15-15-35-1 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 850 EVO 1 TB Crucial M4 256 GB NH-C14S Windows 10 Student 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
TBD Cooler Master Quick Fire TK Corsair SF600 Fractal Core 500 
MouseMouse PadAudioAudio
Zowie EC2-A Zowie G TF-X Fiio E17 v1 Sennheiser HD 598 
  hide details  
Reply
post #1750 of 2308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin SSJ Eric View Post
As was said in the article, they OC'ed each processor as high as it would go (which is what any enthusiast would do). How is that not fair when comparing ultimate speed? Crippling the 2600k with an artificially low clock just to make things fair for the 8150 is inherently UNFAIR to the 2600k. What is so hard to understand here?

Put another way, if the 8150 clocked higher than the 2600k, I would not complain. OCing results are NEVER guaranteed. None of this matters anyway because we all know the 2600k would have mopped the floor with the 8150 at 4700MHz just the same....
the point isn't overclockability. anyone can shove 2v through a chip for a review. the point is to see instructions per clock cycle, then go to the amd and intel subforums to see what most people get out of the chips. the truth is it's decently difficult to break the 5ghz barrier/1.45v barrier with sandy bridge(for 24/7). i have 4 2500k cpus from various microcenters and one got past 5ghz without trouble. motherboard is p8p67 pro3.1 with 14 phase power so its not the board's fault
ULTIMATE EXTREME
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD PHENOM 955 ASUS M4879T 5770 4gb 
  hide details  
Reply
ULTIMATE EXTREME
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD PHENOM 955 ASUS M4879T 5770 4gb 
  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