Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › AMD FX 8150 all the good !
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AMD FX 8150 all the good ! - Page 17  

post #161 of 513
For all you fanboys ( AMD or Intel):
Get a MAC. Spend ALL your money for a MAC

And then, if you have one you will realize,
and and be like
and wish you had a (real) rig with a CPU of the brand you use to hate!

What, who and when? Fanboy what does that mean? You lads should be fans of hardware not of company X or Y. (Unless the pay you a huge amoint of money)

Cheers and have fun!
Edited by Mr.Eiht - 10/13/11 at 11:10am
/* Redemption*/
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
I7 3930K Asus Sabertooth Asus GTX 680 8x4GB G.Skill@1337MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
2xM4 64GB/ / F3 - 1TB / 2x2TB Baracudas some LG Modified EK 360 HFX 2x(Win7 x64) 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
SyncMaster P2770HD and SyncMaster 940NW Roccat Isku Corsair Gold AX750 NZXT 810 Switch 
MouseMouse Pad
Rocat Kone[+] Razer exactmat X 
  hide details  
/* Redemption*/
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
I7 3930K Asus Sabertooth Asus GTX 680 8x4GB G.Skill@1337MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
2xM4 64GB/ / F3 - 1TB / 2x2TB Baracudas some LG Modified EK 360 HFX 2x(Win7 x64) 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
SyncMaster P2770HD and SyncMaster 940NW Roccat Isku Corsair Gold AX750 NZXT 810 Switch 
MouseMouse Pad
Rocat Kone[+] Razer exactmat X 
  hide details  
post #162 of 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steak House View Post
Losing to a Phenom II...
my point exactly!!
KOMAHDIR
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel I5-2500k  Asus p8z68-v/gen3 Sapphire AMD 290 8GB g-skill snipers @ 1866 9,10,10,28 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
256 Crucial M4 XSPC,Swiftech,EK windows 8.1 ViewSonic VX2370Smh-LED Black 23" 
PowerCase
Coolermaster 850W Silent Pro Coolermaster CM690 
  hide details  
KOMAHDIR
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel I5-2500k  Asus p8z68-v/gen3 Sapphire AMD 290 8GB g-skill snipers @ 1866 9,10,10,28 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
256 Crucial M4 XSPC,Swiftech,EK windows 8.1 ViewSonic VX2370Smh-LED Black 23" 
PowerCase
Coolermaster 850W Silent Pro Coolermaster CM690 
  hide details  
post #163 of 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malcom28 View Post
you said that its slower then a thuban..and it's defiantly not.

http://www.legitreviews.com/images/r...3dmark-cpu.jpg
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/842-...rma-ii-oa.html



Here it isnt even able to perform

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/842-...anno-1404.html
KOMAHDIR
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel I5-2500k  Asus p8z68-v/gen3 Sapphire AMD 290 8GB g-skill snipers @ 1866 9,10,10,28 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
256 Crucial M4 XSPC,Swiftech,EK windows 8.1 ViewSonic VX2370Smh-LED Black 23" 
PowerCase
Coolermaster 850W Silent Pro Coolermaster CM690 
  hide details  
KOMAHDIR
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel I5-2500k  Asus p8z68-v/gen3 Sapphire AMD 290 8GB g-skill snipers @ 1866 9,10,10,28 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
256 Crucial M4 XSPC,Swiftech,EK windows 8.1 ViewSonic VX2370Smh-LED Black 23" 
PowerCase
Coolermaster 850W Silent Pro Coolermaster CM690 
  hide details  
post #164 of 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Da1Nonly View Post
Look at the 2130 spank Bulldozer in that review
post #165 of 513
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NateN34 View Post
Yeah this guy again lol.

What he fails to realized, is that these benchmarks mean nothing. Who plays at this resolution anyway?
lol who plays at full HD 1920x1080 or 5760x1080? its 2011 not 2004..who plays at 1024X768 thats the question..
AMD FX
(15 items)
 
AMD Phenom
(23 items)
 
AMD Athlon
(20 items)
 
CPUCPUMotherboardGraphics
AMD Athlon 64 3700+ San Diego s939 2.2GHz@2.4GHz AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ Manchester s939 2.2GHz@2... ASUS A8N-SLI Premium 939 NVIDIA nForce4 SLI ATX... Leadtek PX7900GT TDH GeForce 7900GT 256MB 256-b... 
GraphicsRAMHard DriveOptical Drive
Sapphire Radeon HD4770 512MB GDDR5 AC Accelero ... Super Talent DDR400 2X1G CL3 Seagate SATA 2 160GB 7200RPM 8MB Liteon DVDRW X16 DUAL LAYER 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows XP 32bit LG Flatron EZ T710SH 17" Logitech Wave Keyboard ENERMAX Liberty 500W SLI CrossFire Ready 80 P... 
CaseMouse
HEC Compucase CI-6A21 400W Logitech G5 Laser Gaming Mouse 
  hide details  
AMD FX
(15 items)
 
AMD Phenom
(23 items)
 
AMD Athlon
(20 items)
 
CPUCPUMotherboardGraphics
AMD Athlon 64 3700+ San Diego s939 2.2GHz@2.4GHz AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ Manchester s939 2.2GHz@2... ASUS A8N-SLI Premium 939 NVIDIA nForce4 SLI ATX... Leadtek PX7900GT TDH GeForce 7900GT 256MB 256-b... 
GraphicsRAMHard DriveOptical Drive
Sapphire Radeon HD4770 512MB GDDR5 AC Accelero ... Super Talent DDR400 2X1G CL3 Seagate SATA 2 160GB 7200RPM 8MB Liteon DVDRW X16 DUAL LAYER 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows XP 32bit LG Flatron EZ T710SH 17" Logitech Wave Keyboard ENERMAX Liberty 500W SLI CrossFire Ready 80 P... 
CaseMouse
HEC Compucase CI-6A21 400W Logitech G5 Laser Gaming Mouse 
  hide details  
post #166 of 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masked View Post


This is what I don't understand about you people.

When Intel released it's first quads, I.e. let's use the Q6600's as an example, the dual cores crushed them...Yet, it wasn't a failure...You all saw it as "innovating" "MOAR CORES MOAR POWA".

Now we have an 8 core chip that actually competes with the 4 core version and it's a "failure".

Hypocrites, much?

The 8150 is meant to compete with the 2500k and it does so WITH an "equal" price point.

Less QQ and more pew pew IMHO.

It was not quite like that. I for one had the option to buy either a Core 2 Duo E8400 or a Q6600 in the summer of 2008. I chose the E8400 - faster stock performance, more cache per core, 45nm tech meaning lower power consumption, and added instructions. A quad core made sense to those people that took advantage of multithreaded software and if those people were also gamers, they could always overlclock the Q6600, albeit at the cost of higher power usage.

But it was useful in certain areas because Intel was the first company to release a CPU that could actually do more with 4 cores. The FX-8150 has 7 MB more cache than a 2600k, higher clockspeed, 8 cores, higher power usage, and yet can't beat it. And it loses a lot of benchmarks to the 2500k too. And to the 1100T. And the X4 975 / 980.
 
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  
 
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  
post #167 of 513
I really like to see AMD can overcome this and make a great CPU after all. But I still don't understand those people who want to buy Bulldozer because they performed "on the same level" as I7 2600K or I5 2500K in a GPU bounded test. If I were you guys, I would ask my self:
Wouldn't I be better off if I was to purchase a Phenom II x6 or x4 and throw that extra 100 bucks into GPU to get a better result?
Do I really need 8 cores to do my daily tasks?
Does Bulldozer has the best or one of the best performance/price ratio among all the competitors?
What position should I be in, a wise consumer or a radical die hard?
As for me, I can see the most I can do for AMD is to wait for their "fix" on this chip.
post #168 of 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlee7283 View Post
Why can't we bring more of Intel's downfalls to the table while were at it?

like designing Sandy Bridge so that its impossible to overclock unless you pay more and get a K edition. With AMD u can still overclock not having a black edition.

making people switch from 1156 to 1155 for some technical BS reasons when really they wanted to milk some more money with SB.

This is how each company really thinks.

Intel rep 1- "Bob over in accounting says people are overclocking the Q6600 by 1GHZ and not buying our QX6800"

Intel rep 2- "Alright lets engineer SB so that u can't overclock unless u pay more to do so."

Intel rep 1- "I agree, we aren't about letting people get 1up on us for any reason."


Intel rep 2- "I am also ready to switch sockets again".

Intel rep 1- "For a reason that is really BS when it comes down to it I hope?"

Intel rep 2- "Yep"


compared to .......

AMD rep 1-" Crap, our Thubans aren't as good as Nehalem, how will we compete?

AMD rep 2-" Well lets make it backwards compatable with AM2+ and let it support DDR2 and DDR3. Lets offer an unlocked multi yet still have it so u can overclock it on the lower end. Also lets make it so even a lower end chipset will run Thuban. Also lets even offer some insane combo deals at Microcenter for our clientel for being so loyal to our brand.

AMD rep 1 "Sounds good, I dont think real people care about a 10 frame difference when they are saving hundreds of dollars and can't tell the difference unless someone tells them".

AMD rep 1 "Yes, its just too bad Intel fanboys hate us so much for trying to bring value to people even though we are much smaller company".
thats not true, the 1155 i5 2500k beats my by alot in gaming, mem read and all other benches. that is the reason to move platforme. and i dont have to get the i7 875K to my platform to reach 4ghz+
post #169 of 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by tpi2007 View Post
It was not quite like that. I for one had the option to buy either a Core 2 Duo E8400 or a Q6600 in the summer of 2008. I chose the E8400 - faster stock performance, more cache per core, 45nm tech meaning lower power consumption, and added instructions. A quad core made sense to those people that took advantage of multithreaded software and if those people were also gamers, they could always overlclock the Q6600, albeit at the cost of higher power usage.

But it was useful in certain areas because Intel was the first company to release a CPU that could actually do more with 4 cores. The FX-8150 has 7 MB more cache than a 2600k, higher clockspeed, 8 cores, higher power usage, and yet can't beat it. And it loses a lot of benchmarks to the 2500k too. And to the 1100T. And the X4 975 / 980.
Then it's not really a "real 8-core" processor (as most of us were expecting). It's so disappointing... the wait... all these preparation.
post #170 of 513
So it seems the thread was titled too cheekily. Maybe "It's not all bad" would've resulted in less flamethrowers...

From what I've read, it seems that the Bulldozer isn't a BAD chip. It's just positioned terribly. Bottom line, it's about the bottom line. If you were gonna buy a new rig, then Bulldozer may not be the best choice. But if you're like me (who made the mistake of getting a 990 chipset motherboard before BD came out) it's not so bad that I should be trying to sell my mobo. Right?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AMD CPUs
This thread is locked  
Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › AMD FX 8150 all the good !