Bulldozer is not what we expected?

[amuffin]

http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=831&Itemid=63&limit=1&limitstart=4
Apparently the 2500k in certain situations still beats the 8 core bulldozer?????

 

[4745454b]

And I for one don't think the 8120 "sucks" that badly. It's not a SB killer, but its a pretty good chip none the less.

 

[gamerk316]

^^ If the 8 core struggles to distance itself from the Phenom II X6, what are the odds the 4 core varient could be any better then the Phenom II X4? This is the type of situation where that 20% hit on the second core of a BD module is REALLY going to show I think...

 

[Jyle]

^^ If the 8 core struggles to distance itself from the Phenom II X6, what are the odds the 4 core varient could be any better then the Phenom II X4? This is the type of situation where that 20% hit on the second core of a BD module is REALLY going to show I think...

Were the quad cores of the phenom II series not better for gaming than the hexacores?

 

[jonnyrb]

http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=831&Itemid=63&limit=1&limitstart=4
Apparently the 2500k in certain situations still beats the 8 core bulldozer?????

Get real benchmarks

 

[sonofhendrix]

^^ If the 8 core struggles to distance itself from the Phenom II X6, what are the odds the 4 core varient could be any better then the Phenom II X4? This is the type of situation where that 20% hit on the second core of a BD module is REALLY going to show I think...

The other variants are the same silicon( just some of the cores disabled) , i think it might be the case that the quad core versions could have the same big L3 cash available as the 8 core,, giving it a nice boost! bang for the buck.

 

[MarkG]

Get real benchmarks

So in your 'real benchmarks', Bulldozer is a tiny percentage faster on games that are GPU-limited.

Just like the old days when the AMD fanboys were telling us we should buy Phenom because it was slightly faster than an Intel quad-core on GPU-limited games, and ignoring the fact that it was also only slightly faster than a dual-core so there was no point buying either if you were determined to be GPU-limited.

 

[jonnyrb]

So in your 'real benchmarks', Bulldozer is a tiny percentage faster on games that are GPU-limited.

Just like the old days when the AMD fanboys were telling us we should buy Phenom because it was slightly faster than an Intel quad-core on GPU-limited games, and ignoring the fact that it was also only slightly faster than a dual-core so there was no point buying either if you were determined to be GPU-limited.

Close, I actually have an Intel CPU though. I will probably be buying a bulldozer when they aren't on back order. People jump way to fast at the very first review which can easily be misleading.

 

[DoomsWord89]

Close, I actually have an Intel CPU though. I will probably be buying a bulldozer when they aren't on back order. People jump way to fast at the very first review which can easily be misleading.

It's hardly "the very first review", its just about every review published so far.

 

[jonnyrb]

It's hardly "the very first review", its just about every review published so far.

3 companies being given the same hardware to test benchmarks on is hardly different reviews. If you look at anything that wasn't on the ASUS Mother board you'll see the fx-8150 is 2600k class.

 

[DoomsWord89]

20%-30% slower is not exactly in the same class, mate.

 

[jonnyrb]

20%-30% slower is not exactly in the same class, mate.

lol obvious troll, you clearly failed to look at any other benchmarks

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/315805-28-bought-bulldozer-inside
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/315775-28-asus-crosshair-giving-biased-results-bulldozer

take a gander

 

[DoomsWord89]

lol obvious troll, you clearly failed to look at any other benchmarks

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/315805-28-bought-bulldozer-inside
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/315775-28-asus-crosshair-giving-biased-results-bulldozer

take a gander

Right, because its all a conspiracy.

AMD would knowingly package their band-new flagship CPU with a motherboard that bottlenecks the performance, and then send it to all major publications for review. Knowing full and well that the motherboard would effect the over-all performance in a negative way.......Makes perfect sense.

The only thing that those articles prove are that the 8150 shines in applications that rely heavily on a proper GPU, not so much a competent CPU.

 

[jonnyrb]

Right, because its all a conspiracy.

AMD would knowingly package their band-new flagship CPU with a motherboard that bottlenecks the performance, and then send it to all major publications for review. Knowing full and well that the motherboard would effect the over-all performance in a negative way.......Makes perfect sense.

Nice opinion rebuttle vs proof. It's called a mistake..? better yet a bug? I won't put my heart on my sleeve for another week for more things to surface.

What would make LESS sense, is them shipping out a product clearly inferior to the 2500k for more money being a competitive pricing company..

 

[DoomsWord89]

Nice opinion rebuttle vs proof. It's called a mistake..? better yet a bug? I won't put my heart on my sleeve for another week for more things to surface.

What would make LESS sense, is them shipping out a product clearly inferior to the 2500k for more money being a competitive pricing company..

A mistake?.....A Bug?......These boards have been out for quite some time now, you would think a competent company would have noticed such an immense and "crushing" error after so many months.

Did AMD do no testing with the board they had planned to send to all major reviewers?

Also, AMD shipped Phenom in very poor shape as well and was not rectified for quite some time after. So indeed, AMD is more than capable of shipping out a product that is knowingly inferior to the competition.

You would think that there would be more talk of this if it were the case. Not just a few AMD "truthers" attempting to justify why the product is getting such bad marks.

 

[jonnyrb]

A mistake?.....A Bug?......These boards have been out for quite some time now, you would think a competent company would have noticed such an immense and "crushing" error after so many months.

Did AMD do no testing with the board they had planned to send to all major reviewers?

Also, AMD shipped Phenom in very poor shape as well and was not rectified for quite some time after. So indeed, AMD is more than capable of shipping out a product that is knowingly inferior to the competition.

You would think that there would be more talk of this if it were the case. Not just a few AMD "truthers" attempting to justify why the product is getting such bad marks.

It's possible, but not probable.

I was unaware that Phenom was released in poor shape, I owned a Q6700 so I didn't care to much at the time. She still oc's at 3.8ghz like a beauty

 

[DoomsWord89]

It's possible, but not probable.

I was unaware that Phenom was released in poor shape, I owned a Q6700 so I didn't care to much at the time. She still oc's at 3.8ghz like a beauty

Indeed, and considering that the Crosshair V is the most widely used 990FX board on the market. I don't think either company would allow for such an obvious error with a product they intend to send to major review publications to remain un-rectified for nearly half a year until BD's initial launch.

Especially considering how crucial the initial reviews would be to AMD's sales.