i would have loved to see a phenom II quad core in there, for a perspective view, because there are really only 3 processors to look at, new amd, old amd, intel.
amd has never been about the best of the best in recent years, just good value for the price, and through phenom II they were just that.
now the games portion, i threw out the 2560x1600 resolution just because the people who have that monitor, are going for an intel, they have the money to burn for a better processor than what amd has out, but for the 1920x1080 (still think it should be 1920x1200) none of the games went into a not playable frame rate... well except metro, and no single gpu can really play that game well at dx11 settings (yea its cpu, but if you got dual high end gpus for that game you got an intel).
that said im a bit surprised, i was guessing win 8 would have a 5-10% advantage over 7 on the cpu side, just because bottom up built for it, but this thing can barely gain a 1% difference on hotfixes... now im a bit less hopeful than i was before that win 8 would fix many of the problems with hic ups in the software... but its still a wait and see i guess, that said, piledriver will probably be what bulldozer should have been, and bulldozer is more or less an expensive beta test.
---- didnt read the comments yet so all this above was before i read them -----
[citation][nom]Azathoth[/nom]Sigh* I was expecting to see small gains of maybe ~8% optimistically, but instead I see microscopic improvements.It is simply embarrassing for an eight core processor to be beaten by a quad core, even considering some apps don't support more then two or four cores.[/citation]
its realistically a 4 core processor with threads, but it comes down to how you slice what is a core. i never expected 8% as intel with their first threading solution had some serious problems. amd just cant really back out of its solution like intel did till they figured it out.
[citation][nom]JonnyDough[/nom]There it is. That's all you need to know. AMD made a processor that was too ahead of software to be viable. Forward thinking is good, but the software just wasn't ready for it. I have a feeling they'll be ahead though when it comes to the next architectural design. They are after all, pioneering the way.[/citation]
they were probably thinking by now, there would be next to no single thread software around, when they first designed this, but sadly, we have barely moved ahead in consumer software, only where time is money do they ever acutlly try to take advantage of everything.
[citation][nom]clownbaby[/nom]Like putting lipstick on a pig. I don't understand the method behind AMD's madness with these chips. They're basically relying on software to take advantage of optimization instead of developing a truly fast and efficient architecture. More cores may be the way of the future, but AMD can't compete with intel if it's using twice as much silicon (or more) to achieve similar results. They're reputation as a value alternative can only hang around so long before consumers wake up. I sure hope their next chip takes a large step forward, if for no other reason than to keep intel CPUs affordable.[/citation]
i did the math awhile ago on these, they apparently still make money per chip, and to be honest, if programs really took advantage of threads, amd would be ahead of intel with this architecture... but they still go for single cores and dont care about threads in most programs.
[citation][nom]stm1185[/nom]I still cant get past that the 8 core 8150 is slower then a quad core no hyper threading 2500k doing a 3DS Max Render. 248 frames, 8 at once on the 8150, 4 at once on the 2500k, but the 2500k actually finishes rendering each frames in under half the time it takes the 8150 to render a frame. That is just pathetic for an 8 core to fail at rendering.[/citation]
note the 2010, not sure how much that matters, but im sure it wasn't built for amds bulldozer and am unsure if it ever got patched for it. i don't know if thats relevant, but keep that in mind.
[citation][nom]memadmax[/nom]You know what's sad?They asked microsoft to help fix their fail................[/citation]
and intel didn't go to microsoft for the i7...
[citation][nom]dragonsqrrl[/nom]... except it's not a quad-core. It falls far closer to an 8-core processor in terms of parallel hardware, power consumption, and transistor count, especially in comparison to Sandy Bridge. If you absolutely have to define it by core count, it's more accurate to call a 4-module Bulldozer an octa-core as opposed to a quad-core processor. Bulldozer has some issues, and shifting its classification to make the performance results feel better on the surface isn't the solution. It needs a series of hardware revisions to reduce its power consumption, increase its performance, and decrease its transistor count. We'll see what Pile Driver can do later this year. Only then can AMD compete with Intel in the $200 - $300 market.[/citation]
amd had to redefine what a core is to make it called an 8 core system... really its closer to 8 core but is still just a threading solution, granted one with potential, just implemented poorly.
[citation][nom]ohim[/nom]4 Modules with 2 cores each ... for once stop comparing Intel with AMD directly .. now they are really different architectures. Intel goes with 4 cores and 2 logical threads per core , AMD is a total different story that at the moment it is clear that the current software has absolutely no clue about it. And seriously TOM ... start pushing multicore CPU to their intended use ... multi tasking .. i`ve read a lot of user reviews from the ones who actually bought this CPU and they were delighted on how it handles multitasking compared to intel, put 2 -3 workloads on the CPU and get some scores ...there are many ppl out there that are actually interested in this kind of performance.[/citation]
general multi tasking apposed to speed of the 4 working as one...
i currently have 11 explorer windows open, task manager, dragon naturally speaking 11, 5 firefox windows with 500+ tabs across them all, foobar 2000, 2 win rar, 2 acdsee 8 instances, 1 acdsee pro 5, zoom player 8, cheome with about 70 tabs, and mirc
all useing 6.4gb of ram on a 120gb ssd boot (intel 320), and a phenom 955 be no overclock, and a hd5770
sense i went to an ssd and 8gb of ram (was at 3gb before and pushed my computer harder than i am now) i have noticed a massive improvement in speed, i don't know what to attribute it to, as my brother has win 7 64bit and his still feals sluggish as hell.
in all honesty, even if my processor was 10X faster than it is now, im not sure i would see much of a difference.
the real people you are talking about may fall under the placebo effect, or may have come off a significant upgrade. they may even be lieing to themselves because they spent 300$ on a cpu... i know if i am given a game for free my opinion on its allot different than if i buy the game myself.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram