Originally Posted by Marshock
When first bulldozer reviews arrived i have decided to quick check Anandtech review and was not impressed - thought that i will wait when later processors will arrive, since i was not interested in FX 8150 anyway... I bought a Gigabyte 990X motherboard this year in order to have SLI, hi quality sound and perhaps a future upgrade for a FX 6 core CPU. From time to time i do heavy video editing, and my UltraISO program also works alot with all the extraction and conversion stuff, so i definitely needed a 6 core CPU, not only for games.
I thought about upgrading my Phenom II 1075T to FX 6100 - in other words an older 6 core 3 - 3,5 GHz CPU to 3,3 - 3,6 GHz CPU. If there had been at least 10 % performance increase clock per clock, i would have been satisfied. So yesterday i have decided to read a through-out review about FX 6100 HERE
and was horshacked
Are you kidding me? FX 6100 being totally trashed by Phenom II 1100T by an average 33 % in almost all the tests! Only FX 8150 is roughly equal to 1100T?
Adding salt to the flesh i tested my Phenom 2 X6 at 3600 MHz VS Core 2 Duo E8400 at 3600 MHz in Crysis
and E8400 was 10 to 15 % faster.
Seeing tests that Core 2 Duo E8400 is roughly equal or slightly slower than Nehalem Core i3 540, which is, of course, considerably behind a Sandy Bridge Core i3 equivalent CPU, i am thinking how all the reviewers even dare to compare the AMD FX CPU with the Sandy Bridge CPU. The Phenom II processors never have beaten Nehalem Core i7 in the first place, and seeing how FX processors are even weaker than Phenom II, it is disgusting that FX processors are even mentioned in the same line with Sandy Bridge.
I don't feel like i need to upgrade my Pheom II, but if it will come to it, the only way i see is selling it with my 990X mobo and getting a 1155 system.
Please take my thoughts cool, i did not mean to offend any AMD fans, just stating my experience and observations..
Alright, for one, Crysis only uses two cores
. That's not an accurate representation of what the X6 is capable of. In games that use more than four cores, the X6 really shines. Yes, the Phenom II is about 15% slower than the Core 2 series in a clock for clock comparison but they offer a better price/performance ratio when compared to the generation it's competing with.
The FX line is noticeably slower, as we all know, but most of the problems that happened to be associated with the CPU line were because of speculation beyond what was realistic and over-hyping how powerful the line would be "based on slides shown by several sites". In my experience, 95% of the time, most of the major assumptions that have been accepted by the OCN community have turned out to be very much incorrect. The incorrect portions are generally small. But in regards to "performance hype", the community here is biased extremely towards one line of thought, A.K.A. "fanboyism". Thus, when an expected product is released and doesn't meet the expectations of the hype, you get several bad reviews and everyone rages incoherently to the "company at fault".
The FX line was one such product. But if you think about it, the Phenom II was at it's peak level like Penryn was for the Core 2 Duo line. The FX line (Bulldozer) is a new architecture based on something similar to the Phenom II (Thuban and Deneb), but not quite. Nehalem was the same way compared to Penryn, it was based on something similar, but not quite. If it matters, Intel did the same thing with the move from the Pentium 3 to the Pentium 4. The Pentium 4 allowed for higher clock speeds, but the chip was inferior to the previous generation in every way. (The first Pentium 4 @ 1.8GHz was barely considered 'on par' with a Pentium 3 @ 1.1GHz.)
It's why the Core 2 line was based on the Pentium 3 instead of the Pentium 4. As an added note to that, know that Centrino CPU in your older laptop from 07'? That's a Pentium 3 that's been revised with a new controller and clocked between ~400MHz to ~800MHz faster.
It's inappropriate judgement and it's extremely unfair to throw upon a company regardless of the situation. I try to look at the positive side of this situation with the FX line. Here's my idea with it all:
The Phenom II was the older line and the FX is the successor, but is slower. However, the Phenom II is already at it's "peak" potential and isn't being improved on, all the while the FX line is brand new and matching performance of around the Phenom architecture.
If I were to compare these two with the relative potential performance gains, realistically... I'd say that the FX line will turn into the new Athlon 64 after a few generations. I mean, think about it for a moment with me. The Athlon XP was a flub if you remember as well, barely matching the budget Celeron CPU at the time despite being AMD's best offering. The Athlon 64 was the true potential of the CPU and crushed the competition then.The Athlon XP became the Phenom II
. So just assume that the FX line is the new Athlon XP
Just makes you dream about how powerful AMD will grow to be in time. Edited by Imglidinhere - 5/3/12 at 12:21pm