[Stormscion]

Clock 8120 over 4ghz if u want to game, and turbo core is not as good on amd as it is on intel, so can't relly on that, I also bulldozers will benefit a lot from tighter latencies ... Otherwise for 135e i got it 10 months ago it is one of my better buys

 

[OwnedINC]

Quote:

Originally Posted by svenge

It's probably not the worst processor ever made, but it's almost certainly the worst processor in the last seven years (i.e. the post-Netburst era, beginning July 27, 2006 with the Conroe-based Core 2 Duo launch).

I'd give that vote to the Phenom 1's they were pretty dreadful

 

[Liranan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OwnedINC

I'd give that vote to the Phenom 1's they were pretty dreadful

P1's Were really bad. Their IPC was worse than 486's but they clocked higher, so there we have the IPS vs. IPC discussion once again and IPS is all that matters. But the worst CPU to ever be mass produced since is definitely the P4. I can't believe I put up with one for several years.

 

[aerocraft]

If you think anything is worse than a Pentium 4 then you are off your rocker. How can anyone forget that disaster. Even if you were a kid when it came out, it was so bad that there were news stories on network television about how awful that processor was.

 

[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).

 

[Kuivamaa]

Quote:

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.