AMD FX Series Processors Hit Pre-Order

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
I like the 8 core procs, but i don't know of any software that i would use that would actually utilize all of them, most games only utilize 3, 4 at most. i think the hardware has gotten way to far ahead of software, at this point it's hard to justify any new CPU for normal tasks. i mean how many people are crunching numbers, encoding video, compressing huge files, these things aren't normal tasks, and the benchmarks are nice, but can i get a benchmark that shows me how fast it opens Word? Excel? Firefox? Acrobat? Photoshop? VLC? maybe a Virus Scan? Malware scan? does it make my internet faster?

Can i get a price per watt score?
Can i get a price per Performance score?

That's what i want, whats the best bang for buck?

I want a simple chart indicating PPW & PPP something like this:

CPU | PPW | PPP
i7-2600K | $10.00 | $9.50
FX-8150 | $3.50 | $1.20
 
@Zeh-

Wow some folks are really clueless about business...

The reason we have anti-trust laws is to prevent criminal corporations from gaining illegal monopolies just as Intel has tried to do for 20 years. The facts are the facts, not opinion. Intel has been convicted multiple times for violations of anti-trust laws and tax fraud. These are facts not opinion.

If you don't understand business and the laws of supply and demand you are doomed to be exploited. If consumers vote with their wallet for AMD products based on performance and value and against Intel based on their criminal activities and higher prices, then we all win. If Intel's sales drop so will their prices. If AMD has more market share then Intel can't strongarm the PC industry with their demands and AMD can offer even better products as they did with the K8.

If you don't understand basic economics and business you might want to educate yourself because supporting a corporation with a track record of criminal activities is unscrupulous and counter productive to the marketplace and your wallet.

It's completely foolish to suggest that anyone needs an Intel CPU for "performance" reasons. Need and desire are two different things. AMD CPUs will run any programs faster than most people need. If all you run are benchmarks or play games all day long then perhaps you should get an education and a job and learn how life is in the real world. Competition is good but criminal activity to gain a market monopoly is a crime and hurts all consumers. Smarten up and vote with your wallet - if you have a moral compass or be a sheep that gets exploited. Either you have a moral conscience or you don't. It's that simple.
 
Intel may have done some crappy things in the past, but they've paid for it. The punishment didn't fit the crime, but they did pay for it. They even admitted as much when they paid AMD off to stop the suits.

Most big corporations are evil (for want of a better description) anyway so I wouldn't lose sleep over it too much. Just buy what is the most ideal product for you.
 
I guess that AMD want money and all the need is a good seller, If the 266$ CPU simply beat the 290$ Intel CPU, then for OEM, that buy lot of parts, the price difference matter there. Don't think AMD cares a lot about the small % of peoples here wanting SB killer. They don't need the top performance market for now anyway and that would probably not worth the expense to produce such product. Their APU just show how a good mainstream product can sell, and that bring them money. At the end, for EVERY company in the world, it is only what matter. Making money.

The server market and the OEM market is where they should target their products now, in order to get revenu. What is good for them is that Intel has powerfull enough CPU to allow sale of their higher end GPU board. Then, when they'll get enough money to allow spending for some research for low revenu high end parts, maybe we'll see faster than Intel cpu made from AMD.

 
I think it's harder to release benchmarks then you understand. PUtting up FX(bulldozer) with what is mainly used today, wont generate the results AMD (or it's readers are looking for).

Most of today's mutli-threaded apps are only 4 threads deeps at most. So what good would releasing bechmarks for 4 threads deep, show on a 16 thread deep processor?

Unfortunately there is no way of really knowing how deep most of the multi-threaded applications truly go. They all still run into the same problem, shared memory.

Sure if you're an Intel fan you puff your chest up and say how great Sandy Bridge is, but in all reality, I believe Intel just found the best way to suit today's needs, not the futures. I PERSONALLY believe that 1 FX/Bulldozer chip (on a server or on a workstation) is good for the next 10 years. Developers aren't ready to truly tackle how difficult a 100% mutli-threaded application is to build.

Maybe the rendering software packages (Lightwave, Maya, etc) can do it and obviously Solidworks, AUtoCad, etc... if you want those benchmarks, fine I agree, those should be posted online. But if you coming here to see how it performs in a game, you will probably be disappointed by it. Maybe RAGE would be the only one and that's not out yet.
 
Why why why is it taking so long for developers to program open-ended multithreaded games/apps?? I don't understand why there is little to no difference in almost all software between a 4 core and a 6 core. Software vendors need to get off their ass and develop games/sw that uses any number of available cores, not a specific number maximum. I would imagine then AMD's processors would be much more competitive with more available cores that are usually just idling right now.
 
.......STAND IN THE DOOR!!!

.......GO!!!

Those of the "green tuxedo" variety will get the reference. I can hardly wait to play with one of these to see if the performance comes anywhere close to the hype.
 
[citation][nom]dalauder[/nom]Well that's exactly the problem. Right now, the 6-core Thubans can't run 60fps in top of the line games. They do no better than 4-core variants. I really hope that Bulldozer changes that...but I'll wait until I see benchmarks before I start saying a $300 AMD CPU gives me "the best bang for the buck".Right now, the most bang for your buck is either the $75 Phenom II x3 720BE or the $210 i5-2500K.[/citation]
While I don't think there is any question that AMD provides more bang/buck; the question really is, do they provide enough bang? For most people, the answer is assuredly yes, but for some (e.g. video professionals), the answer is probably not. I hope BD changes that. My suspicion is that gamers will be sorely disappointed, but that pros running server farms and threaded business apps are going to love these new CPUs. We shall see. SOON, I HOPE!
 
Or they are pulling an apple, releasing information as slow as they can to keep people discussing it. Which seems to be working.

I was heart set on a i5-2500k but i kinda want a BD chip now. Hope its good.
 
I don’t have a clue where the 8 core 3.6 Ghz BD 8150 will come in regarding performance compared to the 4 core with HT 3.4 Ghz SB 2600K. I do know this with some certainty. If you raise the native clock of the Phenom II X6 1100T to match the native BD 8150 at 3.6 Ghz, it will raise performance about 9% and come very close to the 2600K native clock performance on some of the benchmarks Tom’s has published. If you add two more cores at that speed (a 33% increase) it will surpass the SB 2600K pretty much across the board with the exception of stuff like 256AES NSA type encryption workloads. If you add to the cache structure to make up for not being able to do that with the 1100T when they crammed 6 cores into the same TDP as the 4 core stuff you will get an additional boost. I believe BD with the die shrink has done that. It has been AMD’s long established goal to get a 20% clock over clock improvement over their last generation of designs. They don’t away hit their mark but I’ve seen this in the server versions of the desktops versions reviewed by Tom’s on many occasions. It stands to reason that if you can bring the existing X6 1100T class up beyond SB with just a clock increase and 33% additional core power, all the effort and expense put into a new BD design would be for nothing if your existing design could beat the best thing Intel has put out in over a generation wouldn’t it?

As any objective observer would note the problem with the multi core AMDs is that each core is slow compared to the Intel HT designs and suffers in low core count workloads. To this point they haven’t been able to get the bang for the buck with multi native core designs. As the 980X series have shown for some time there is almost no use of their 6 core performance in day to day use for 99.97% of the market. The 980X series delivers 6 core performances in cache but 5 core performances when it has to go outside cache too. There are practical limits to where this multi-core push can go and deliver value. Why would I spend $1000 on a 980X over a $300 2600K SB? I have no NSA AES256 encryption workloads to do on my home equipment. I’m not doing commercial level encoding and transcoding work with video and alike all day long either.

In the OEM market place, manually overclocking a CPU voids the warranty and the unlocked processor versions like the 2500/2600Ks have no presence thus the native clock rates with whatever Turbo boost is built in is what is going to matter to mass market consumers. If the native BD beats the native SB in raw terms the only options Intel has is to lower price of the SB and/or raise the native clock rate. Raising the native clock rate has almost no impact on those that already buy the K models since the SB can already be raised off the chart on air. Same for the BD if it has a lot of head room. Price will be the deciding factor between the SB and BD if they go head to head….
 


Why_Me, they won't be going "head to head" if their performance is not comparable by default.....

Clocked at 3.6 Ghz and with 8 cores and more cache the BD would have to be "inferior" per core to the 1100T under the same circumstances to not be comparable or better than the 3.4 Ghz 2600 series. Time will tell of course but there are several workload benchmarks where a 20% boost is all that is needed to go head to head for the 1100T and the 2600 series.
 
Benchmarks have been set and the FX 8150 has set a new world record in overclock and it's supposed to be able to hit 5Ghz on air.
 

Post the benchmarks or save it. As far as that o/c record is concerned...nobody cares. It's real world benchmarks we want, now either post those benchmarks or save the bs.
 
I don't think AMD will gain anything releasing benchmark. If the CPU happend to perform better than Intel, this could lead Intel to cut price of their CPU giving AMD no other choice that lowering the price of their new CPU to maintain good performance/price value. Because at this point, what AMD really don't need is to cut the price. The first batch of CPU ordered by OEM will be at good price. Then, as the volume sales goes, lower price can be expected. But certainly not at launch time.

While enthusiast expect more from them, they certainely don't represent a sale volume high enough to be considered. HP, Compaq, Acer, Sony,.. does thou..
 
 
No. do you remember how low priced the Core 2 duo were when Intel released them. That's put them cheaper than the Phenom 1 while performing more. I don't think AMD want it to happen again.
 

I don't think that's the case seeing how C2D was Intel, not AMD and it waxed the floor with everything out there at the time and Intel made money by keeping those chips low cost. More people purchased them seeing how they were affordable.

AMD should just be happy they haven't had to file bankruptcy yet. If BD is a failure it's over for AMD in the desktop market other than the low end of it.
 
if Bulldozer / Zambezi surpasses Deneb by 35% then add the higher clocks, I'm not sure to call that good enough considering the waiting and waiting.
but I'll find out one way or the other..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom