Originally Posted by guyladouche
The biggest failure was marketing. The second biggest failure is a lack of intelligence and appreciation of context on the side of consumers (which gets back to marketing). No one wants to sit and comprehensively read through reviews. They like to see colorful bar charts and draw unsubstantiated uneducated conclusions from them, despite no correlation between the bar chart results and actual real-world performance.
BD is a fine processor, especially for people outside of the computer hardware enthusiast community. Lots of real-world benchmarks (synthetics are meaningless) have shown it can keep up just fine with current offerings, and even surpass it (in some instances). Not high-end offerings like 2600k, but if you're not in the computer hardware enthusiast community, you wouldn't be considering that anyway.
My gf does a lot of multitasking, running virtual machines for environment testing for work, lots of photoshop work, and to be honest, the fx-8120 (or 50) is much more appealing than getting a 2600 or 2600k.
About everything (except the Marketing part) in your post is wrong.
Even in real-world computing, BD cant surpass Intel's current mid-range offerings, and yes the 2600 is midrange and NOT high-end; that would be the 980/990x or the upcoming SB-E in terms of multi-threading tasks to which you are obviously relying to.
So I dont see how this is a fine chip when it cant beat Intels mid-range offerings that have been out for almost a year after 5 years of development, having a more than double transistor count, much higher power consumption and what not. The upcoming 6-core SB-E is going to outperform the 2600k by another 30-40% in heavily multi-threaded workloads, it will literally crush BD.
I know we're talking about a different price league here, but I'm simply argueing in consideration of time and technology (especially since WE ALL KNOW that the chip would've been much more expensive if it was performing better).
Looking at performance, AMD is still back in 2009 while Intel is ahead of it's time. If AMD cant get their asses up and produce a chip that performs adequately for todays time
, then they can pretty much step out of the desktop market. I see no point in buying new hardware which just came out and is already outdated by 2 years. And even if we were to do a comparison by prices, the 2500k or 1100T are still much better offerings from a price-to-performance view, Bulldozer is an obsolete chip in my eyes.
Even in highly-thread applications (not synthetics) the overall performance of the chip is not considerably better than a i7-870.
You call that a fine chip?
Originally Posted by guyladouche
Going back, your statement was that BD can't handle 480's SLI'd--which they clearly can, and yield excess frames per second. Sure, there's a performance gap between a 2600k and the 8150 in metro 2033 with the tri-fire 697-'s--which I'm not surprised at--but how does this relate back to your statement that BD couldn't deliver on sli'd 480's?
And weren't you saying before that you fold, and BD isn't suitable for that either, when in fact it nets the same ppd as a 2500k?
Not sure if serious..
Guess why theres a performance gap between the 2600k and the 8150? Correct, because the FX-8150 simply bottlenecks the heck out of the cards and cant deliver data quick enough to fully utilize them. In my book that pretty much falls under "can't handle".
If I were going by the same approach that you did, I could say an ancient Athlon 64 or P4 single-core can handle two SLI'd 480's too just because it runs .. thats pretty dull, isnt it?
If a CPU cant deliver fast enough so that it bottlenecks a graphics card, it pretty much cant handle it.Edited by toX0rz - 10/26/11 at 12:54am