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 35  

post #341 of 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malcom28 View Post
first page links..
34 pages that resulted in a skewed veiw... from first page links

Quote:
Originally Posted by Allanon View Post
Seems like everybody (myself included) was a bit premature.

BD is running very nicely in a different motherboard than the Asus one.

Better benchmarks are coming out using a different board.

Nothing decisive until we get more info but BD is looking better and better.

It's possible that the total failure was using Asus Crosshair V, not BD itself.
joined 10/12/11

all posts have been making excuses for why BD performed bad/saying they were better

How many other shills did AMD hire to come on these sites to promote their product?
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 3570k Batch# 3207B712 Asus P8Z77-V PRO Asus 6950 DCii (2gb) 8Gb Gskill Ares 1866 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
1x120Gb ssd, 1x750Gb, 2x1.5Tb raid0, 2x3Tb Asus 12x BD-RW AC Cuplex Kryos (water) Windows 7 Ultimate x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
73" Mitsubishi DLP (73738) MX 5500 Corsair AX750 NZXT Switch 810 
MouseMouse Pad
MX Revolution Xtrac Ripper 
  hide details  
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 3570k Batch# 3207B712 Asus P8Z77-V PRO Asus 6950 DCii (2gb) 8Gb Gskill Ares 1866 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
1x120Gb ssd, 1x750Gb, 2x1.5Tb raid0, 2x3Tb Asus 12x BD-RW AC Cuplex Kryos (water) Windows 7 Ultimate x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
73" Mitsubishi DLP (73738) MX 5500 Corsair AX750 NZXT Switch 810 
MouseMouse Pad
MX Revolution Xtrac Ripper 
  hide details  
post #342 of 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse D View Post
joined 10/12/11

all posts have been making excuses for why BD performed bad/saying they were better

How many other shills did AMD hire to come on these sites to promote their product?
Don't be stupid.

Almost all of my equipment right now is Intel other than a Sempron. All of my servers are Intel Xeons, I dumped all the Opteron crap.

It's the closed minded fanboys and not us "shills" who are trying to promote Intel.

I don't care which one it is, as long as it's faster for me. AMD or Intel? Whatever, just give me my hi-res gaming at the highest FPS.
post #343 of 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse D View Post
How many other shills did AMD hire to come on these sites to promote their product?
Not enough...
post #344 of 513
Been a long run AMD and it will stay that way!

    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX8350 Gigabyte 990FX UD3 7950 4x4 Corsiar Dominator 1600 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
x2 Corsair f120's in raid 0 ASUS BUDGET CD, DVD,CD-R, DVD-R WIN 7 PRE 64 BIT AOC 23.5 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Kensington POS THERMALTAKE 850 BRONZE V9 BLACK EDITION LOGITECH 518 
Mouse Pad
Vespula 
  hide details  
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX8350 Gigabyte 990FX UD3 7950 4x4 Corsiar Dominator 1600 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
x2 Corsair f120's in raid 0 ASUS BUDGET CD, DVD,CD-R, DVD-R WIN 7 PRE 64 BIT AOC 23.5 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Kensington POS THERMALTAKE 850 BRONZE V9 BLACK EDITION LOGITECH 518 
Mouse Pad
Vespula 
  hide details  
post #345 of 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by cold2010 View Post
AMD FX-8150 vs. Intel i7-2600k CrossFireX HD 6970 x3

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/43...ead/index.html
There's only a major clock gap between intel's chip and the bulldozer.. Yes let's overclock the chip to beat higher than the contender..
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX8350 Gigabyte 990FX UD3 7950 4x4 Corsiar Dominator 1600 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
x2 Corsair f120's in raid 0 ASUS BUDGET CD, DVD,CD-R, DVD-R WIN 7 PRE 64 BIT AOC 23.5 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Kensington POS THERMALTAKE 850 BRONZE V9 BLACK EDITION LOGITECH 518 
Mouse Pad
Vespula 
  hide details  
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX8350 Gigabyte 990FX UD3 7950 4x4 Corsiar Dominator 1600 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
x2 Corsair f120's in raid 0 ASUS BUDGET CD, DVD,CD-R, DVD-R WIN 7 PRE 64 BIT AOC 23.5 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Kensington POS THERMALTAKE 850 BRONZE V9 BLACK EDITION LOGITECH 518 
Mouse Pad
Vespula 
  hide details  
post #346 of 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by yukon View Post
There's only a major clock gap between intel's chip and the bulldozer.. Yes let's overclock the chip to beat higher than the contender..
I agree. That was a weird review. How many 2600Ks can get stable at 5.2GHz anyway?
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2500K @ 5GHz Dynamic Asus P8P67-M Pro 7850  8Gb G.Skill @ 2133MHz 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Seagate 1TB 7200.12 Win7 64bit 37" Vizio 1080p LCD TV Logitech G15 
PowerCaseMouse
XFX 650W XXX Edition Silverstone FT03B Logitech MX518 
  hide details  
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2500K @ 5GHz Dynamic Asus P8P67-M Pro 7850  8Gb G.Skill @ 2133MHz 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Seagate 1TB 7200.12 Win7 64bit 37" Vizio 1080p LCD TV Logitech G15 
PowerCaseMouse
XFX 650W XXX Edition Silverstone FT03B Logitech MX518 
  hide details  
post #347 of 513
Ya I am not to impressed by their decision to OC the products like that. Pretty high OC on an Intel chip and a mediocre OC on the AMD chip. Ive been seeing a lot of people tagging 5Ghz on these modules and they haven't even had enough time to really give them a good OC. Where as OCing an i7 is a well established process.

I am not saying hey AMD is gonna whoop Intel here, but for the love of god give them a formidable OC if you going to try and compare like that!
ORL||H2O
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8350 5.1Ghz Asus 990FX Sabertooth XFX 7950 Mushkin Enhanced 2x8G 11/11/11/30 - 2400Mhz 
Hard DriveOSKeyboardPower
SSD:2xM4 120Gb // 2x640Gb Black Win7 Ultimate 64b Corsair K90 Enermax Revo85+ 1020W 
CaseMouse
Corsair Air 540 RAT7 + G9x 
  hide details  
ORL||H2O
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8350 5.1Ghz Asus 990FX Sabertooth XFX 7950 Mushkin Enhanced 2x8G 11/11/11/30 - 2400Mhz 
Hard DriveOSKeyboardPower
SSD:2xM4 120Gb // 2x640Gb Black Win7 Ultimate 64b Corsair K90 Enermax Revo85+ 1020W 
CaseMouse
Corsair Air 540 RAT7 + G9x 
  hide details  
post #348 of 513
You dig the greenbeans bro?^^^
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX8350 Gigabyte 990FX UD3 7950 4x4 Corsiar Dominator 1600 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
x2 Corsair f120's in raid 0 ASUS BUDGET CD, DVD,CD-R, DVD-R WIN 7 PRE 64 BIT AOC 23.5 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Kensington POS THERMALTAKE 850 BRONZE V9 BLACK EDITION LOGITECH 518 
Mouse Pad
Vespula 
  hide details  
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX8350 Gigabyte 990FX UD3 7950 4x4 Corsiar Dominator 1600 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
x2 Corsair f120's in raid 0 ASUS BUDGET CD, DVD,CD-R, DVD-R WIN 7 PRE 64 BIT AOC 23.5 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Kensington POS THERMALTAKE 850 BRONZE V9 BLACK EDITION LOGITECH 518 
Mouse Pad
Vespula 
  hide details  
post #349 of 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by yukon View Post
There's only a major clock gap between intel's chip and the bulldozer.. Yes let's overclock the chip to beat higher than the contender..
Here with default clock


HD 6990 CF

http://udteam.tistory.com/439
post #350 of 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackOmega View Post
Just as you've eluded to that the OP is cherry picking, you are as well. this TT review is, by far, the worst. Most other ones don't show this discrepancy, in fact, there's other reviews out there that show the 8150 outpacing or being dead even with the 2600 . Or at least being so close to it, that it would fall within margin of error.
Not to mention this review is using the much debated Crosshair V board. 33% RMA rate? Really? As I'm sure you've read, reviews that didn't use this board seem to have better BD results.

I think that it's too early to call quite honestly. There's just too many things that aren't sorted out to take these piss poor reviews to heart. The results, from review to review, are all over the place and inconsistent. It would be extremely foolish to take any one of them as gospel.
...

What part of my post do you not understand?

OP is using this 100% COMPLETELY NEGATIVE REVIEW OF BULLDOZER THAT FAILS EVERY SINGLE BENCHMARK EXCEPT FOR ONE OF THEM as part of his organized propaganda campaign stating that this processor is a good one.

I'm not cherry picking the review or anything for that matter because the OP HIMSELF PICKED IT AND POSTED IT!

All I did was simply took the REST OF THE RESULTS in the review and pasted them as well.

This is his original post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malcom28 View Post
8150 4.7GHz vs 2600K 5.2GHz + 3xHD6970...500MHz more clocked then FX8150 ...
http://cdn5.tweaktown.com/content/4/...e4a2LTFBZi.png

power consumtion...
http://cdn5.tweaktown.com/content/4/...eMu-aZewYB.png
And the reason why the discrepancies are so large is because Tweaktown are using 3 6970s in Trifire to completely eliminate any GPU bottlenecks possible to see the actual CPU performance when it comes to gaming.

As for the whole retarded "lawl Asus board sux lawl" debacle here is a bench using an MSI board:


I cannot believe how low people are stooping to defend it.

As for the whole "lawl BIOS not optimized for Bulldozer." You'd have to be a complete fool to think these reviews were done in a single day. The reviewers had plenty of time to test the CPU out. They had the CPU and the motherboard for weeks. Do you really think AMD or Intel supply reviewers faulty CPUs and non-working motherboards? How does that make any sense whatsoever? You really think the reviewers get the CPU and motherboard the day they start being sold in stores? Do motherboard manufacturers not have BIOS ready and prepared???

As for the whole "lawl quads sucked when they first came out so it's ok that 8 cores suck". How come the 6 cores didn't suck?

Neither is the dual core > quad core statement true. The only reason dual cores performed better than quads at gaming was because dual cores were already clocked at 3.0+ ghz and most applications and games at that time were single threaded. When quads came out they were at a lowly 2.0 ghz. Once people started overclocking them and faster quads were released, the quads would get the same if not better performance in those applications.

Look at the 6 cores. At single threaded applications they perform, at the very worst, the same as quads. The same thing applies here. It's not like 6 cores sucked hard when they came out.

Bulldozer, on the other hand, is SLOWER in these applications despite being clocked higher. It performs worse than my 3 year old CPU in single threaded applications. When you release something that is slower than old obsolete technology, that is a problem. Bulldozer only does decently in extremely highly threaded applications (which is why it's pretty much a server CPU, not a consumer one) and even then the 2600k still beats it most of the time with it's 4 virtual cores against 8 real cores.

That is the issue with Bulldozer.

It's single threaded performance is slower than 2-gen old hardware while it's multi-threaded performance is barely a step above Thuban while costing the same amount as Sandy Bridge.

There is 0 reason to get a Bulldozer when a Sandy Bridge rig will cost the same amount of money and deliver higher performance.
LV-426
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 3930k Asrock x79 Extreme6 Gigabyte 6950 unlocked 920/1375 16gb G.Skill DDR3 2133 mhz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
OCZ Agility 2 60 gb + 7.5 TBs of storage Pioneer DVD-RW Cooler Master 212+ Evo Windows 7 x64 Ultimate 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
ViewSonic 22" 1080p IBM Model M Corsair HX 1050w Cooler Master HAF X 
MouseAudio
Razer Lachesis 4000 dpi Creative XtremeMusic 
  hide details  
LV-426
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 3930k Asrock x79 Extreme6 Gigabyte 6950 unlocked 920/1375 16gb G.Skill DDR3 2133 mhz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
OCZ Agility 2 60 gb + 7.5 TBs of storage Pioneer DVD-RW Cooler Master 212+ Evo Windows 7 x64 Ultimate 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
ViewSonic 22" 1080p IBM Model M Corsair HX 1050w Cooler Master HAF X 
MouseAudio
Razer Lachesis 4000 dpi Creative XtremeMusic 
  hide details  
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 !