Originally Posted by Kevlo
Wow, thats a lot of pages really quick, but im more happy than anything. Sure the standard streamlined benchmarks are not that great, about 10%-15% faster than Phenom IIs, but look at the Gaming performance (What i was more concerned with), its fantastic, it matches the 2600K most of the time, and seems to almost always beat the 2500K, when both are OCed, mind you. I am honestly impressed....and look forward to getting my father's 1090T once he buys himself a 8120 or 8150....lol....
Tl;Dr: Bulldozer made up a ton of progress on the gaming aspect, not so much on the other stuff.
Exactly. All of these intel fanboys are blah blah blah flop, yet these BD CPUs' are, undeniably, AMD's fastest CPUs ever.
Originally Posted by Dublin_Gunner
Did you read the same reviews as the rest of us?
I've been wondering if you guys were also reading the same reviews.
The hell it does. But I suppose it's easier for people to believe that. Although you all might want to take a closer look at [H]'s game testing results
. At a 200 MHz lower OC , the BD chip (4600MHz) beat out even the OC'd i7 2600K (4800MHz) in 2 of the 3 games tested.
But I suppose it's easier to jump on the BD bashing bandwagon.
Originally Posted by microfister
are you kidding me? the 8150 @ 4.6 bottlenecks a single gtx 580, it has horrible gaming performance. the phenom II 980 BE at stock clocks beats the bulldozer @ stock clocks in gaming. im not too sure about your reading ability, or maybe your just one of those 'sees/hears what they want to' kinda individual.
I think you're the one that's only focusing on the negative reviews and synthetic benchmarks that mean about squat in real world performance. Why not look at some realworld
testing. How's about this handbrake Video encoding test
? It always beats out the 2500K which has a 200MHz higher OC.
Originally Posted by microfister
really, intel and amd sharing resources? lets think about it for a second. Intel-from 1st gen i7s to second gen I7s improved performance cut power consumption and also made "top of the line" much more afordable($315). AMD-from phenom IIs to Bulldozer managed to drop in performance and skyrocket power consumption (explain to me how this is green again) and for these changes you have to pay more($90 more than a 1090t, $40 more than a 2500k).
now i ask you. WHO benefits from the two companies sharing resources, hmmm?
Intel has always stuck it to AMD. Intel is and has always been shady. When they decided on resource sharing, intel would always give AMD incomplete or bogus information. While AMD was forthright and honest.
As I said before, it's without a doubt that BD is AMD's fastest CPU to date. You can't deny it. Sure is single threaded apps it's not the greatest, but those are going to go by the wayside.
It also seems that a lot of the reviews contradict each other. In some, it shows BD doing very well against Intel in terms of encoding, and others it shows it performing very poorly.
However, I will say that I believe some of the reviews aren't performed correctly. I mean BD supports 1866MHz RAM, yet, even OC'd (not extreme) they're running it at 1600MHz. Secondly, like the Hardware Canucks review, they're using RipjawsX RAM, which is specifically
designed for SB.
There's a lot of inconsistencies, and ways of skewing results. I mean 3 sticks of RAM in one test? Really?
From the most part I can tell, that BD appears to be good for encoding and decent for gaming. It was eluded to in many reviews that Windows 7 and it's scheduler could very well play a big part in BD's poor performance, and it was said that this should be rectified in Windows 8. I also believe that once programs are optimized for it, then BD will show a marked improvement over its current results. Which in all honesty aren't bad, just not as good as some people had hoped.