Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [AMDblog] Our Take on AMD FX
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[AMDblog] Our Take on AMD FX - Page 14  

post #131 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2010rig;15303515 
How about Insider Trading stories.

1 guy? How is this relevant?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2010rig;15303515 
How about False Advertising?

"Unrivaled. Unlocked. Unbelievable"
http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/processors/amdfx/Pages/amdfx.aspx?&lid=Get_8_Cores

Only every company and their mama does that. It's called advertising and nothing about it is false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2010rig;15303515 
Or, how about Hardware Reps being sent here to "Debunk" the real benchmarks that were previously released? Passing them off as fake. See my sig, and see this.
http://www.overclock.net/amd-cpus/1107646-bulldozer-pre-launch-faq.html

I have to honestly say I'm not informed enough to comment on this. It's 2:42am, I have to wake up at 6:30 for work and I'm not reading that long post right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2010rig;15303515 
Don't get me started on their World Record "stunt" they pulled, when they themselves said that Megahertz didn't matter, and passed it off as a "myth". However, now they're marketing Bulldozer as the "World's Fastest CPU"


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/01/07/amd_combats_megahertz_myth/

Companies flip flop all the time. Why do i care? I care about performance and I care about business practices. So far I don't really see an issue with either. Just a lot of PR being used to sell what might be a disappointing chip. You just want them to promote their chip as "lackluster. Inferior. Slow" You're not being logical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2010rig;15303515 
Plus see this:
http://www.overclock.net/hardware-news/1116245-official-bulldozer-breaks-frequency-world-record-15.html#post14936976

Too many reasons to list as to why I've lost respect for AMD, when they are directly deceiving and talking down at customers. Back in the day, I wouldn't consider buying Intel CPU's.

I think you're honestly just nerdraging right now. It's really not all that serious.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
PII x4 965 Asus m3a79-T Sapphire TOXIC 5850 OCZ Reaper 2x2gb DDR 1066 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Stupid Vista Samsung 2494SW OCZ GameXstream 700w Corsair 600T 
  hide details  
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
PII x4 965 Asus m3a79-T Sapphire TOXIC 5850 OCZ Reaper 2x2gb DDR 1066 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Stupid Vista Samsung 2494SW OCZ GameXstream 700w Corsair 600T 
  hide details  
post #132 of 231
Well, at least it comes with a nice box you can use for lunch or other interesting stuff.
Not to mention it's a nice upgrade from Pentium 4.
Main rig
(21 items)
 
Alienware M14x
(11 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-2600k P8Z68-V PRO 2x HD 7970 16GB 1600 MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
180GB SSD 2TB Green spinpoint F3 1TB EK Supreme HF 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
MCP355 2x Coolgate 240mm XSPC Dual-bay res Scythe Gentle Typhoon 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
2x EK-FC7970 Windows 7 XL2410T Qpad MK-80 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Corsair AX850 Corsair C70 Arctic White Steelseries Xai ASUS Xonar DX 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7-3720QM Alienware M14x motherboard Nvidia Geforce GT 650M Intel HD Graphics 4000 
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
6GB 1600MHz CL11 Seagate momentus 500GB 7200RPM DVD Alienwarer M14x leafblower 
OSMonitorKeyboard
Windows 7 Home Premium 1600x900 Alienware bling 
  hide details  
Main rig
(21 items)
 
Alienware M14x
(11 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-2600k P8Z68-V PRO 2x HD 7970 16GB 1600 MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
180GB SSD 2TB Green spinpoint F3 1TB EK Supreme HF 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
MCP355 2x Coolgate 240mm XSPC Dual-bay res Scythe Gentle Typhoon 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
2x EK-FC7970 Windows 7 XL2410T Qpad MK-80 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Corsair AX850 Corsair C70 Arctic White Steelseries Xai ASUS Xonar DX 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7-3720QM Alienware M14x motherboard Nvidia Geforce GT 650M Intel HD Graphics 4000 
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
6GB 1600MHz CL11 Seagate momentus 500GB 7200RPM DVD Alienwarer M14x leafblower 
OSMonitorKeyboard
Windows 7 Home Premium 1600x900 Alienware bling 
  hide details  
post #133 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by one-shot View Post
I sent you a link with high resolution and three GPUs and you still haven't provided any information to back up your original claim.
I guess my point went over your head and I really don't feel like repeating it again so go back and READ, dont skim. Why do i care about 3 GPUs? What percentage of PC gamers are using 3 gpus? 1% or less?

Your link did not answer my original point nor refute it. If you think so then you did not understand what I wrote.
*edit* I'm gonna help you out by quoting myself, so nothing gets lost in translation

Quote:
Originally Posted by FuNkDrSpOt View Post
...No where in this thread will you see me actively defending the new AMD stuff. If it's crap, it's crap. I made 2 points:

1st was that I hate how benchmarkers always remove the 'gpu bottleneck' when that's how 99% of PC gaming systems run, with 1 mid-level gpu @ 1080p, not without a gpu somewhere between 480p and 720p. I think it exaggerates the effect cpus have on the FPS and that's been my position for YEARS

2nd i was just making notice of someone having misplaced priorities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by one-shot View Post
You mean "couldn't" care less. Saying "could" care less would imply you could care less about something and therefore you somewhat care about it.
Dood it's like 3am. Are you really going to play syntax police?! If it makes you feel good about yourself, go ahead and pontificate. Maybe i'll start trolling you by screwing up all my engrish.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by one-shot View Post
I'm not a fanboi and I also don't need a thesaurus to argue my point in this situation. My main point is: I really dislike when a person spreads misinformation. When a person makes a claim, one should back it up as to validate the claim and inform the users who frequent this forum, not misguide them. I'm not trying to flame, but only help those who get information from these forums.
Uh no. You're not helping anyone and I'm not spreading misinformation. You just seem to not understand what I said.

And if you're not a fanboy then you should calm down a bit. You're trying to grill me like i'm on the witness stand and I'm really not caring.
Edited by FuNkDrSpOt - 10/14/11 at 3:07am
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
PII x4 965 Asus m3a79-T Sapphire TOXIC 5850 OCZ Reaper 2x2gb DDR 1066 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Stupid Vista Samsung 2494SW OCZ GameXstream 700w Corsair 600T 
  hide details  
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
PII x4 965 Asus m3a79-T Sapphire TOXIC 5850 OCZ Reaper 2x2gb DDR 1066 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Stupid Vista Samsung 2494SW OCZ GameXstream 700w Corsair 600T 
  hide details  
post #134 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by linkin93 View Post
Everyone put the e-peens away and look at the facts please. And not the misguided and irrelevant information posted as facts. Let's sift through some info:

The Crosshair V board was used in most reviews as it came bundled by AMD.
Reviews not using that board generally got better results.
Reviews using faster memory got better results (ie reviews using 1333mhz cas9 memory scored less than 1866mhz cas9... go figure.) - What was used on the Intel platforms? Food for thought.
There are verified issues with core scheduling/cache thrashing in windows 7 with Zambezi; Windows 8 and Linux do not seem to be affected as badly (ie they get better results.)
BIOS/UEFI/Software optimisations are not mature, some boards showing better performance than others.
Low resolution gaming benchmarks are near worthless, they are designed to extrapolate performance gaps. Who games at 640x480 or 800x600 or 1024x768 these days?
The PhII X6 beats BD in some benchmarks.
BD beats the i5 in some benchmarks.
The CPU's are currently too expensive to be called competitive; the PhII X6 chips are currently cheaper.

Conclusion: Preliminary results find issues that need to be resolved be we can accurately gauge Zambezi's performance. Current performance is underwhelming.
If there are issues with the core scheduling/cache thrashing in windows 7 with bulldozer, how can you explain the findings at mad shrimps:

"I also did some multithreaded tests to compare Windows 7 versus Windows 8. The task scheduler in the latter is more optimised for multi core CPUs. Yet my finding were not that shocking in my test suite. 1-4% difference was maximum spotted. Nothing that would give the Scorpius platform that required significant boost."

http://www.madshrimps.be/articles/ar...#axzz1akUEf5pU
Edited by Dr. Zoidberg - 10/14/11 at 3:10am
post #135 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuNkDrSpOt View Post
1st was that I hate how benchmarkers always remove the 'gpu bottleneck' when that's how 99% of PC gaming systems run, with 1 mid-level gpu @ 1080p, not without a gpu somewhere between 480p and 720p. I think it exaggerates the effect cpus have on the FPS and that's been my position for YEARS

2nd i was just making notice of someone having misplaced priorities.
Ive argued this several times with people. While I do think that an "average" setup on "average" settings is relevant, and it does show "real world" results, it does not show the strength of the CPU. I agree that the GPU is MUCH more of a limiting factor in modern games and a CPU will have very little impact as long as it is a halfway decent CPU (for the vast majority of games). I still think that a lower resolution test has its place. All that a GPU bound test shows is that the CPU is capable enough to not bottleneck the GPU, which today is not a hard feat when a single GPU is used. When reviews on cars are made, you don't see them stop at 40 or 70 MPH because that is the speed limit in real world applications.

A thorough review will gather as much data on every aspect of the item being reviewed. It does not hurt to have multiple benchmark setups other than time, and it increases the value of the reviews. An unbound performance benchmark may seem irrelevant since that is not a "real world" scenario, but it gives an indication of the performance of the CPU and that can be used to gauge the value of the CPU with respect to price. If you have a choice between CPU A or B, with both of them capable of running X game benchmark at Y settings, A costs $140 and B costs $200, which one is a better buy? You cant really tell from that alone, it could be either one. If they are both getting 40 FPS because the limiting factor is the GPU, but once you lower the settings or add more GPUs and it turns out B can reach 130 FPS but A can only reach 50 FPS, now which ones a better buy?
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2500K MSI P67A-G43 MSI GTX 460 Cyclone Ripjaws X 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOS
Vertex 2 WD Green ASUS Windows 7 
PowerCase
Antec TruePower New 750 HAF 922 
  hide details  
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2500K MSI P67A-G43 MSI GTX 460 Cyclone Ripjaws X 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOS
Vertex 2 WD Green ASUS Windows 7 
PowerCase
Antec TruePower New 750 HAF 922 
  hide details  
post #136 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Zoidberg View Post
If there are issues with the core scheduling/cache thrashing in windows 7 with bulldozer, how can you explain the findings at mad shrimps:

"I also did some multithreaded tests to compare Windows 7 versus Windows 8. The task scheduler in the latter is more optimised for multi core CPUs. Yet my finding were not that shocking in my test suite. 1-4% difference was maximum spotted. Nothing that would give the Scorpius platform that required significant boost."

http://www.madshrimps.be/articles/ar...#axzz1akUEf5pU
They are still using the CHV board however, which has shown to negatively affect performance. How about some W8 results on another board? If you can find them, I'd be really grateful.
post #137 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by mad0314 View Post
Ive argued this several times with people. While I do think that an "average" setup on "average" settings is relevant, and it does show "real world" results, it does not show the strength of the CPU. I agree that the GPU is MUCH more of a limiting factor in modern games and a CPU will have very little impact as long as it is a halfway decent CPU (for the vast majority of games). I still think that a lower resolution test has its place. All that a GPU bound test shows is that the CPU is capable enough to not bottleneck the GPU, which today is not a hard feat when a single GPU is used.
I'll be honest. I don't do much rendering on my PC. I mostly game. I don't care about the 'strength' of the CPU when I'm reading the game benchmarks. I want to see what the REAL WORLD difference is when a $300-$500 gpu is in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mad0314 View Post
When reviews on cars are made, you don't see them stop at 40 or 70 MPH because that is the speed limit in real world applications.
Lets stop with the car analogies right now or else we'll have a 20 pg car analogy debate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mad0314 View Post
A thorough review will gather as much data on every aspect of the item being reviewed. It does not hurt to have multiple benchmark setups other than time, and it increases the value of the reviews. An unbound performance benchmark may seem irrelevant since that is not a "real world" scenario, but it gives an indication of the performance of the CPU and that can be used to gauge the value of the CPU with respect to price. If you have a choice between CPU A or B, with both of them capable of running X game benchmark at Y settings, A costs $140 and B costs $200, which one is a better buy? You cant really tell from that alone, it could be either one. If they are both getting 40 FPS because the limiting factor is the GPU, but once you lower the settings or add more GPUs and it turns out B can reach 130 FPS but A can only reach 50 FPS, now which ones a better buy?
Your question at the end is precisely the reason why i hate those benchmarks. They grossly exaggerate the difference. If the 'CPU limiting benchmark' shows a 60% difference, but the real world difference is more like 1%, then the $140 would be better.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
PII x4 965 Asus m3a79-T Sapphire TOXIC 5850 OCZ Reaper 2x2gb DDR 1066 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Stupid Vista Samsung 2494SW OCZ GameXstream 700w Corsair 600T 
  hide details  
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
PII x4 965 Asus m3a79-T Sapphire TOXIC 5850 OCZ Reaper 2x2gb DDR 1066 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Stupid Vista Samsung 2494SW OCZ GameXstream 700w Corsair 600T 
  hide details  
post #138 of 231
Quote:
If you are running lightly threaded apps most of the time, then there are plenty of other solutions out there. But if you’re like me and use your desktop for high resolution gaming and want to tackle time intensive tasks with newer multi-threaded applications, the AMD FX processor won’t let you down.
if your cpus are for gaming why cant they properly power trifire?
intel-a-thon
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 5820k Gigabyte x99-UD4- CF Powercolor R9 290 4x4GB G. Skill 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Intel 730 Series NZXT Kraken X61 Windows 10 Acer K272HULbmiidp 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
2x asus 21.5" Varmilo VA87MD Corsair RM850 Corsair Air 540 
MouseMouse Pad
Func MS-1 Roccat Taito 
  hide details  
intel-a-thon
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 5820k Gigabyte x99-UD4- CF Powercolor R9 290 4x4GB G. Skill 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Intel 730 Series NZXT Kraken X61 Windows 10 Acer K272HULbmiidp 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
2x asus 21.5" Varmilo VA87MD Corsair RM850 Corsair Air 540 
MouseMouse Pad
Func MS-1 Roccat Taito 
  hide details  
post #139 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuNkDrSpOt View Post
1st was that I hate how benchmarkers always remove the 'gpu bottleneck' when that's how 99% of PC gaming systems run, with 1 mid-level gpu @ 1080p, not without a gpu somewhere between 480p and 720p. I think it exaggerates the effect cpus have on the FPS and that's been my position for YEARS
There is one fact about cpu perfomance in games which apparently is not known to most of the reviewers, and that fact is that in 90% of games when they are played at normal settings which will be used by most people cpu perfomance does not metter since games will be heavily gpu limited ( bottlenecked )
When I say normal settings I mean 1080p resolution and high or very high details with some antialiasing.
You just dont test games which are gpu limited with those settings when testing cpu perfomance,what is the point ?
I agree with you that also there is no point in lowering settings,when 90% of people will not be playing the games at those settings. What is the point of that ?
So what reviewers should do,is test games which are cpu limited,even when ran at 1080p and highest settings. I can name a few of those games right now
Arma 2
GTAIV
Battlefield 2
Sad thing is that I didnt not see these games tested even in one bulldozer review. I didnt read a lot of reviews though.
In these kind of games cpu perfomance is very important. Cpu needs to be 4 cores,and then IPC is everything.
In other words,I dont even need to see these games tested to know bulldozer will fail horribly in comparision with sandy bridge.
Bulldozer is weak cpu,its just that it doesnt metter in 90% of games
Budget gaming pc
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
intel i5 2400 msi h61m-p23 Gigabyte windforce geforce 660 gtx 8 gb ddr3 kingston 1333@7-7-7-21 
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
500 wd caviar blue win7 ultimate x64 seasonic sII bronze 520w cooler master 430 black 
  hide details  
Budget gaming pc
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
intel i5 2400 msi h61m-p23 Gigabyte windforce geforce 660 gtx 8 gb ddr3 kingston 1333@7-7-7-21 
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
500 wd caviar blue win7 ultimate x64 seasonic sII bronze 520w cooler master 430 black 
  hide details  
post #140 of 231
This CPU I feel is to futureish. Maybe in another 2 or 3 years this design would be great as a lot more applications would be optimized for multi-core. Maybe AMD thought a lot more applications would be multi threaded and use Bulldozer at its fullest when it started the project 6 years ago.
Current System
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 2500K ASRock Z68 Extreme3 VisionTek HD 7950 G-Skill Ripjaws 1866 (2x4gb) @ 2133 10-11-10-26 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
2x 1TB Hitachi 7k1000.D (non-raid) Windows 7 PCBank View 3 PB2700 (27inch) Saitek Eclipse 2 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Corsair 750W-TX Azza Hurrican 2000 Logitech MX-518 Boston Acoustics VS-260 Bookshelves 
  hide details  
Current System
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 2500K ASRock Z68 Extreme3 VisionTek HD 7950 G-Skill Ripjaws 1866 (2x4gb) @ 2133 10-11-10-26 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
2x 1TB Hitachi 7k1000.D (non-raid) Windows 7 PCBank View 3 PB2700 (27inch) Saitek Eclipse 2 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Corsair 750W-TX Azza Hurrican 2000 Logitech MX-518 Boston Acoustics VS-260 Bookshelves 
  hide details  
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
This thread is locked  
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [AMDblog] Our Take on AMD FX