• 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!

They're jumping on the premade watercooling bandwagon.

I mean its clearly taken off so with AMD releasing some high wattage processors it seems someone thought it would be a good tie in with the release.
 
Hotwired said:
They're jumping on the premade watercooling bandwagon.
Click to expand...
Bunch up mate!:p

6571fb65e56b218d680feaff4e42f29e.jpg
 
From the Xtreme boards..

FX 4170 Benchmarks.........(incorrect CPUZ identification)

m7e6tw.jpg


108738h.jpg


2mxlrb6.jpg


jjs221.jpg


295x0g5.jpg


208ctfq.jpg


2iu2fed.jpg


Utter,utter crap...ZERO need to upgrade from a Phenom II Quad Core, as you wont notice any difference whatsoever:(
 
BTW,the BIOS used was an old one. One of the chaps on XS who is a reviewer said he to retest his sample with a new BIOS.

Anyway,we will soon find out next week with reviews from well known sites.
 
Last edited:
IM buying one whatever - have no CPU in socket as sold it b4 the rush, but I have to say, the results look like they are going to be underwhelming.

Prob just start off with the quad and maybe then reinvest when the next revision appear with hopefully some more grunt.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
BTW,the BIOS used was an old one. One of the chaps on XS who is a reviewer said he to retest his sample with a new BIOS.

Anyway,we will soon find out next week with reviews from well known sites.
Click to expand...

These results are even worse though when you remember that they are from the CPU running at the 4.2Ghz level.

Clock for clock, IPC for IPC, they are looking slower than the Phenom II....:confused:

Neat trick that, after years of R&D and billions of dollars spent....
 
Cooper said:
These results are even worse though when you remember that they are from the CPU running at the 4.2Ghz level.

Clock for clock, IPC for IPC, they are looking slower than the Phenom II....:confused:

Neat trick that, after years of R&D and billions of dollars spent....
Click to expand...

AMD are obviously still optimising CPU micro-code and working with mobo vendors to implement it. Those tests were conducted on less than latest BIOS - two versions ahead of what's publicly available, newest is three versions ahead. Besides, do you really think that a specific software bench which hasn't been updated to take advantage of Bulldozer's rather different architecture will necessarily work well with it?

Besides, who the hell cares about a single threaded version of Cinebench? That kind of specific workload will NEVER be anything less than all cores available.
 
Last edited:
Been reading this thread for what feels like an eternity. I am still waiting to see how it performs before I upgrade my system.

What I cannot understand is people saying that they will / will not buy BD before any real figures are out - or worse, starting threads asking 'What will be best 2500k, 2600k or BD?' - when clearly no-one really has a clue as to what the performance / price ratio will be.

I'm sure there are many others like me waiting with an open mind to see just what BD offers not just in terms of outright performance, but also value.
 
Cooper said:
2iu2fed.jpg


Utter,utter crap...ZERO need to upgrade from a Phenom II Quad Core, as you wont notice any difference whatsoever:(
Click to expand...

My current setup for a fair comparison:
phenomx4.jpg


gareth170 said:
i get 1.04 pts at 3.6ghz, :confused:

something wrong somewhere...
Click to expand...

4 real cores beats 2 'modules' that's all, looks like AMD have gone the quantity over quality route.

Quick calculation but this means a 6core 4214mhz BD would get around 5.13 in the multi cpu test, that's barely any faster than my Phenom X4 at the same speed.
 
Last edited:
Serioulsy, AMD are going to get tore apart by the review sites, and so they should be if these figures turn out to be confirmed, and i think they will, we are close enough now to launch to be getting reliable leaked results...but a lot of people just want to keep their head stuck in the sand..

This module approach 'may' pay off in a few years time when they are upto 10,12,16 cores and 'if' the software comes along to take advantage of such highly threaded CPU architecture, but right now, in 2011 and 2012, the Intel CPU's are by far and away the route to go down for the user looking for best bang per buck..

Overall, a complete and total XXXX up by AMD...:(
 
ok i think i know why BD score is low

when running this benchmark on single core mode windows still automaticly shares the load with all the cores.

the only way to set to 1 core is by the task manager

i seen a small drop when i let windows automaticly share the load with all the cores
 
Last edited:
Not looking good for me, looks to worse than Phenom II in most things bar massivily multi-threaded software. I only really game so this is going to be no use to me, as games are only really making use of four cores, at least for the time being. This will probably end up being slower than Phenom II clock for clock.
 
crackerman said:
Not looking good for me, looks to worse than Phenom II in most things bar massivily multi-threaded software. I only really game so this is going to be no use to me, as games are only really making use of four cores, at least for the time being. This will probably end up being slower than Phenom II clock for clock.
Click to expand...

I think you're wrong and that it'll be vastly faster in most games than deneb or thuban, even at stock clocks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom