• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD Bulldozer Finally!

But there's no listing for them, at all :p

Always been AMDs problem, getting chips in OEM boxes. Used to be pressure from Intel on OEMs, now, I don't know! They have some great products now at great price points but nowhere selling them. Every sub £450 PC really should have a Llano APU and not some iSomething and grappy nvidia GPU going on price/performance metrics anyway

BTW I am not an AMD hound by any means, I use both regularly and switch back and forth with no qualms. I'd just like to see some healthy competition in the market before otherwise Intel does crazy things like selling CPU upgrade scratch cards lol
 
Always been AMDs problem, getting chips in OEM boxes. Used to be pressure from Intel on OEMs, now, I don't know! They have some great products now at great price points but nowhere selling them. Every sub £450 PC really should have a Llano APU and not some iSomething and grappy nvidia GPU going on price/performance metrics anyway

BTW I am not an AMD hound by any means, I use both regularly and switch back and forth with no qualms. I'd just like to see some healthy competition in the market before otherwise Intel does crazy things like selling CPU upgrade scratch cards lol

Oh, I fully agree.
What's the point having products for a market, if they're only available to a market (Enthusiast, evident by the Llano on site etc) that you're not targeting?
 
so is the sandybridge confirmed as defintely quicker than new bd cpus or is it still all mystic meg :p

still havent seen any proper info yet people are saying this and that :confused:

Depends on the app.
8150 quicker in heavily multi-threaded apps, while this is "speculation" it's also correct, regardless of what DM and the like would have you believe.
8150 should render (lol) the 2600k a bad purchase, as you'd only really need the 2600k if you're using app's that need the extra threads (Or Epeen)
 
Last edited:
how do you know on the app ?

inside knowledge or something :confused:

if i go bd my rig is mainly 50 percent gaming 50 editing .
 
Well it's common sense really.
It's an 8 core, so in heavily multithreaded apps, those which can take advantage of the cores, it will obviously best the 2500k.

In app's that don't use all of BD's cores, due to its lower IPC, SB's going to be faster.

Obviously clock speeds come into it. A 5GHZ 8150 versus a 3.3GHZ SB 2500k in a 1/2/3/4 threaded app will have the 8150 besting it.

Take the 1100T now, the 2500k kicks it around most of the time, but in the odd application that can use the cores? It can stand its ground.
 
Oh, I fully agree.
What's the point having products for a market, if they're only available to a market (Enthusiast, evident by the Llano on site etc) that you're not targeting?

That's what I said ;) It's baffling, unless they just can't make enough to fulfil OEM orders regularly :confused:
 
The 8150 comes out first.

But why not just get an SB set up?
Or SB-E?

You appear to be assuming that all rumours are true, and that there can be no additional benefits gleamed from the additional features and optimisations which will be added to code bases post-launch. Even if that shows to be true, it's more than likely AMD will price their CPUs in such a way that'll simply be the better buy for the money in some to a growing number of use cases. It looks interesting to me, but gaming and benchmarks aren't the only things I do with my PC.
 
You appear to be assuming that all rumours are true, and that there can be no additional benefits gleamed from the additional features and optimisations which will be added to code bases post-launch. Even if that shows to be true, it's more than likely AMD will price their CPUs in such a way that'll simply be the better buy for the money in some to a growing number of use cases. It looks interesting to me, but gaming and benchmarks aren't the only things I do with my PC.

I wasn't being serious ;)
If you need 8 threads ; 8150 > 2600k, I've said that consistently.

And I'm far from assuming all rumours are true.
But if people think that magic BIOS's and magic optimisations are going to come around, then fair enough, I don't share the same "opinion".

I expect BD to be priced aggressively, and expect the architecture to be very future friendly, however I'm more of an "in the moment" kind of guy.
If you can use the CPU's fully, then they'll be excellent price/performance.
 
Last edited:
Depends on the app.
8150 quicker in heavily multi-threaded apps, while this is "speculation" it's also correct, regardless of what DM and the like would have you believe.
8150 should render (lol) the 2600k a bad purchase, as you'd only really need the 2600k if you're using app's that need the extra threads (Or Epeen)

SOrry but this is you talking nonsense, not the performance, but your fantastic way of positioning yourself as right and everyone else as wrong.

Firstly you keep saying its only speculation, but you're right, secondly you've just claimed, without saying it, that I and many others have said it will spank the 2500k/2600k in single threaded performance, but we're wrong and you're right.

I've never said such a thing, I've not seen anyone else claim this, yet you're claiming we're all pulling some magical info out our asses and you're brilliant with your bang on speculation...... which by the way is bog standard info almost anyone who has paid any attention is aware of.

I really can't stand people who go around forums claiming others have made incorrect claims to make themselves look better.

for instance, "despite what Martini is saying, Bulldozer WILL be on AM3+, I'm brilliant so I have this exclusive knowledge".

Look, I've infered you said something completely stupid, then taken something everyone knows and passed it off as fancy new information I'm speculating will come true.

The real performance situation is, you're wrong, the 2600k will still be faster (by how you think performance will go) in all situations with 4-5 threads of less than the Bulldozer, so what would make the 2600k a bad buy, significantly faster than a 2500k in many situations and the way you have it is, significantly faster than Bulldozer in many situations. Few people buy cpu's to do one thing these days.

If you game, today, you can play dual threaded games, and games with 8 threads, the number of the former going down, the number of the later increasing. The 2600k would give you top performance IN EITHER SITUATION, while 2500k/bulldozer, by your theory, would NOT do this, it would only give great performance in one extreme.


The reality is, they are different architectures, VERY different and software is FAR FAR more varied than being optimised to work best in one way. IE there will be some single threaded programs that run faster on Bulldozer than a Sandybridge, and there will be some 8 threaded programs that run faster ona 2600k than a Bulldozer.
 
Way to take everything literal.
There's exceptions to the rule in regards to single threaded app's. I'd bet that even if AMD could bring out a CPU with better IPC than Intels crop of CPU's, SuperPi would possibly show a higher result on the Intel.

For the rest of what you've said? It's par for the course.
 
Back
Top Bottom