[Grlzzly]

Alright,

I just finished watching OCED TV's bulldozer review.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOVJnszQvnU

I was wondering if someone could explain all this to me. I waited all this time for bulldozer and even upgraded my board for it. Are the results really subject to change since AM3+ BIOSes are still *somewhat* new? Even then, if that's the case, what's with the temperature it's running at?

To be honest, I was looking forward to 2600K performance from AMD come Q1 2012. Now that I see that the i5 2500K and the 8150 are playing in the same ballpark, I'm having really dark thoughts

. The 2500K is cheaper, takes a truckload less power and runs at flawless temps.

Should I be scrambling to return my motherboard? Honestly, what do you guys think?

 

[muels7]

Not yet. I say wait until we get some benchmarks from actual users before you make your decision.

 

[General_Chris]

honestly i just think AMD failed again against the 2500k and 2600k as i was expecting it to beat it but yeah if you can go for 1155 man take Z68 chipset also so you can be prepared for ivy bridge or sb-e EDIT look this: http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/c...0_cpu_review/9

 

[iCrap]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grlzzly Alright, I just finished watching OCED TV's bulldozer review. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOVJnszQvnU I was wondering if someone could explain all this to me. I waited all this time for bulldozer and even upgraded my board for it. Are the results really subject to change since AM3+ BIOSes are still *somewhat* new? Even then, if that's the case, what's with the temperature it's running at? To be honest, I was looking forward to 2600K performance from AMD come Q1 2012. Now that I see that the i5 2500K and the 8150 are playing in the same ballpark, I'm having really dark thoughts . The 2500K is cheaper, takes a truckload less power and runs at flawless temps. Should I be scrambling to return my motherboard? Honestly, what do you guys think?

I see what you did there.

 

[Grlzzly]

Quote:

Originally Posted by muels7 Not yet. I say wait until we get some benchmarks from actual users before you make your decision.

But even then, those temps are just absurd. Is it possible that they really pushed the safe operable core temperature on these new chips?? Because I was planning on a bulldozer FOR OVERCLOCKING. Why release a chip with an unlocked multiplier IF IT RUNS AT 70C+ UNDER STOCK CLOCKS!?

Quote:

Originally Posted by General_Chris honestly i just think AMD failed again against the 2500k and 2600k as i was expecting it to beat it but yeah if you can go for 1155 man take Z68 chipset also so you can be prepared for ivy bridge or sb-e

I would love to right now, I am so freaking pissed. I honestly don't have the money for that, but I might just get the 1100T and call my system done.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iCrap I see what you did there.

It's really not funny.

 

[Shame486]

Quote:

Originally Posted by muels7 Not yet. I say wait until we get some benchmarks from actual users before you make your decision.

XD, weren't people like, wait for official benchmarks and not some user from Romania.

 

[M1nUrThr3t]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iCrap I see what you did there.

lolz

 

[Grlzzly]

Serious answers only please!

 

[robwadeson]

Quote:

Originally Posted by muels7 Not yet. I say wait until we get some benchmarks from actual users before you make your decision.

nah, results will just be more fluctuating. If you game alot, then switch to sandy bridge because BD apparently fails at that.

 

[M1nUrThr3t]

Im in the same boat on making a determination. Only difference is I actually use my system for video editing and processing not gaming.

Either way it looks like i7 is the way to go. 2500k or 2600k. Either or appear to be a better choice especially with SB-e coming out later and you can upgrade to that fairly simple as long as you purchse the correct MB right now. Then when it comes around just swap out the cpu.

From what i have seen AMD is always going to be behing intel in cpu power. either buy intel and know you have great performance, or go amd and continue to wonder what it would be like on the other side.

Me I will be jumping boat. I loved AMD for the best bank for my $$, but this is just silly at this point. Intel always out performs AMD.

 

[pioneerisloud]

Here's my thoughts.....

Obviously there's no excuse for the power draw. We can only hope that the L1 cache bug is what's causing the insane amount of power draw with overclocks.

I'm waiting to see what REAL OVERCLOCKERS can do with this thing, with a proper fresh BIOS, and the MS Hotfix for the L1 cache bug. It's fully possible that the reviews were all done a little too early, before the BIOS's and the hotfix were out properly.

If you've been waiting this incredibly long for Bulldozer, another week or two to see what happens once real people, with multi GPU setups....couldn't possibly hurt you at all.

As of right now, with the official benchmarks, yes the FX lineup seems pretty bad for a gaming CPU. As of right now, yes the i5 2500k is still the better choice.

Keep in mind, I hate the waiting game. But if you've already got an AM3+ board, I'd wait and see what happens for another week or two....and see what OCN can make FX do.

 

[M1nUrThr3t]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pioneerisloud;15282613
Here's my thoughts.....

Obviously there's no excuse for the power draw. We can only hope that the L1 cache bug is what's causing the insane amount of power draw with overclocks.

I'm waiting to see what REAL OVERCLOCKERS can do with this thing, with a proper fresh BIOS, and the MS Hotfix for the L1 cache bug. It's fully possible that the reviews were all done a little too early, before the BIOS's and the hotfix were out properly.

If you've been waiting this incredibly long for Bulldozer, another week or two to see what happens once real people, with multi GPU setups....couldn't possibly hurt you at all.

As of right now, with the official benchmarks, yes the FX lineup seems pretty bad for a gaming CPU. As of right now, yes the i5 2500k is still the better choice.

Keep in mind, I hate the waiting game. But if you've already got an AM3+ board, I'd wait and see what happens for another week or two....and see what OCN can make FX do.

THIS And yes the waiting game sucks, ive been waiting for freaking months upon months to get d*** slapped. LOL

 

[AgentHydra]

Honestly, I would. BD might get slightly better (primarily at multi-threaded apps i.e. not gaming) with software if you wait awhile but the 2500k has the same or better performance now and is cheaper.

 

[ALUCARDVPR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pioneerisloud;15282613
Here's my thoughts.....

Obviously there's no excuse for the power draw. We can only hope that the L1 cache bug is what's causing the insane amount of power draw with overclocks.

I'm waiting to see what REAL OVERCLOCKERS can do with this thing, with a proper fresh BIOS, and the MS Hotfix for the L1 cache bug. It's fully possible that the reviews were all done a little too early, before the BIOS's and the hotfix were out properly.

If you've been waiting this incredibly long for Bulldozer, another week or two to see what happens once real people, with multi GPU setups....couldn't possibly hurt you at all.

As of right now, with the official benchmarks, yes the FX lineup seems pretty bad for a gaming CPU. As of right now, yes the i5 2500k is still the better choice.

Keep in mind, I hate the waiting game. But if you've already got an AM3+ board, I'd wait and see what happens for another week or two....and see what OCN can make FX do.

Yep, I agree. We'll see what real users do with the new BIOS. ASUS has been scrambling today, so something is definitely up. I have faith in AMD still, not a fanboy, but I refuse to believe they would even bother releasing if the performance is as bad as benches claim right now.

Via Tapatalk