Originally Posted by seepra
Originally Posted by wedge
My question is why did they test with an old 8150? The test should have been done using an 8350. Or perhaps both if they really wanted to test a bulldozer. But the 8350 should certainly not have been ignored.
The results they achieved are interesting, but not entirely relevant considering they are not testing using the current architecture. There's a good chance that piledriver with its optimizations would respond differently to the same tests.
Because when the FX-8150 came out, AMD pointed finger at Windows for not utilizing their obscure architecture efficiently enough. Statements where said about hotfixes improving performance, and that Windows 8 would run the Bulldozer better. The FX-8150 isn't FX-8350, and the FX-8350 wasn't the processor these statements were made for.
Originally Posted by Phoenixlight
What an annoying article, either do the job properly (Include Piledriver as well) or just don't bother at all.
Refer to the above post. Of course they could include Piledriver, but the main purpose of this review is to assess if what AMD and Microsoft claimed a year ago is true or not.
In any case, it is a valid suggestion to include Piledriver, but its absence doesn't make the article annoying. If you read AMD's own words about it, which I quoted in the OP, I'd say there isn't much difference between Windows 7 and Windows 8 with Piledriver either:
Edited by tpi2007 - 10/31/12 at 6:30am
AMD told us not to expect much from Windows 8 when it introduced FX-8350.