Originally Posted by nleksan
I love my FX-51, the best CPU in the history of AMD performance line processors and the only time they've had a superior architecture to Intel.
The new processors don't deserve to be called FX. They are not the improvement that AMD desperately needed.
Also, they don't have 8 CORES, they have 8 MODULES. Look up the definition of a core and you will see that the FX architecture is a gussied up quad/triple/dual core architecture.
I am also so tired of the "just wait for the xxxxxxx to get here, then you will see!" nonsense. If it doesn't exist, it's not a basis for justifying the poor performance of what does exist.
I am all for AMD becoming competitive again, but I also do my bbest to keep my mind open and see what's in front of me. In this regard, Intel processors are in every way superior. The AMD APU's are their only good product right now (ignoring GPUs).
They have 4 modules/8 cores (as every module has two) but they do share some stuff which often creates bottlenecks. A slow core is still a core.
To the OP. No, bulldozers aren't terrible, they were overhyped and overpriced, and they caused a ton of problems to AMD ,image issues in particular since there are people even today that think Phenom II is better than Piledriver. Still, they aren't particularly good either. Right now they can be found in very affordable prices but the existence of Piledriver processors pretty much makes them redundant.Edited by Kuivamaa - 6/21/13 at 7:07am