AMD Bulldozer Finally!

Big T · 11 Oct 2011 at 14:04

It's midnight tonight ........... unless its not lol

metigue · 11 Oct 2011 at 14:05

Martini1991 said:
Image?

The lowest settings specs on CoD4 at high settings a small difference means a lot, at lower it's easier to see the difference

, Call me pedantic but I'm a bit of a benchmark freak

Martini1991 · 11 Oct 2011 at 14:07

metigue said:
The lowest settings specs on CoD4 at high settings a small difference means a lot, at lower it's easier to see the difference , Call me pedantic but I'm a bit of a benchmark freak

That's being pathetic. It's running 194 FPS for christs sake.

At a respectable resolution ;

20 FPS difference, but you're still at 100 FPS.
You're going to pick an inferior platform over that?

davieg · 11 Oct 2011 at 14:08

Martini1991 said:
Image?
It could only be 30 FPS if the 16x was at like 300 FPS.

Your words ; It was making a difference nearly 4 years ago, I should imagine its only got worse to be honest.

And it WASN'T making a difference then, I showed a link to show it making a difference, and it is, but not by much.

SO what are you on about you just said you showed a link saying it made a difference and admit it makes a difference then, I said I should imagine its only got worse, did I say its got hugely worse no?

Martini1991 · 11 Oct 2011 at 14:09

davieg said:
SO what are you on about you just said you showed a link saying it made a difference and admit it makes a difference then, I said I should imagine its only got worse, did I say its got hugely worse no?

You said it made a difference, gave a link, no difference at all, hence why the 4X in the error of margin is ahead at times.
I said it didn't made a big difference, showed an upto date link with it making a different but not a big one.
I never denied it made a difference, I gave a link to show it does, you just said it makes a difference with a link showing it didn't in 08 which doesn't help anyone.

davieg · 11 Oct 2011 at 14:10

Martini1991 said:
20 FPS difference, but you're still at 100 FPS.
You're going to pick an inferior platform over that?

Lol dont edit that till after the official benchmarks come out tomoz when your stating that the 10 fps drop on some games that BD has over SB is a big deal.

Those figures are a total guess but it will sure show some double standards when you use that.

And ps the link I posted does show a slight drop at X4 on PCIE 2.0 or can you not see the line being a bit lower actually means theres a difference there (It may be slightly ahead when the card isnt actually being used for certain textures etc but when it does the difference was there then)or have you been dazzled by birthday candles

grandmaster · 11 Oct 2011 at 14:12

***** AMD RESULTS/BENCHMARKS/SHOCK GUARANTEED*****

All the results you want -

Martini1991 · 11 Oct 2011 at 14:12

davieg said:
Lol dont edit that till after the official benchmarks come out tomoz when your stating that the 10 fps drop on some games that BD has over SB is a big deal.

Those figures are a total guess but it will sure show some double standards when you use that.

Oh yeah, use one argument to prove another.
Logic of fanboys

I've never said BD will be crap for games, simply worse than the 2500k, why would you choose a more expensive 8150 over a 2500k for games if it's worse? And worse in pretty much everything else.

Gandeh · 11 Oct 2011 at 14:13

Big T said:
It's midnight tonight ........... unless its not lol

Yeah let us not forget that we are on different time zones, so it won't be midnight uk time, more like early hours tomorrow.

Martini1991 · 11 Oct 2011 at 14:14

Gandeh said:
Yeah let us not forget that we are on different time zones, so it won't be midnight uk time, more like early hours tomorrow.

Indeed you're right.

grandmaster · 11 Oct 2011 at 14:17

Martini1991 · 11 Oct 2011 at 14:17

grandmaster said:
<a href="

">BulldozerFX</a>

I wish you'd stop being a prat.

davieg · 11 Oct 2011 at 14:17

Martini1991 said:
Oh yeah, use one argument to prove another.
Logic of fanboys
I've never said BD will be crap for games, simply worse than the 2500k, why would you choose a more expensive 8150 over a 2500k for games if it's worse? And worse in pretty much everything else.

Lol and the fanboy term comes out, am actually on my SB rig now, have said before I have no love for any corporation at all they all crap on us one way or another.
Like you said before in your earlier post whats 20 FPS between friends.

HeX · 11 Oct 2011 at 14:19

Martini1991 said:
20 FPS difference, but you're still at 100 FPS.
You're going to pick an inferior platform over that?

To be fair 20FPS is still 20% performance improvement going from x4 to x16. Which is a fairly big %.

(Or 16.7% performance loss)

It's not like it's a couple of fps.

Martini1991 · 11 Oct 2011 at 14:20

davieg said:
Lol and the fanboy term comes out, am actually on my SB rig now, have said before I have no love for any corporation at all they all crap on us one way or another.
Like you said before in your earlier post whats 20 FPS between friends.

Because I've never said BD will be unusable for games or its crap, just worse than the 2500k, which it will be, regardless of the FPS, if it can't push the GPU's as far, it's worse, if it can't match SB's processing power in games, it's sure as hell not going to do it other things that aren't 8 threaded.

HeX said:
To be fair 20FPS is still 20% performance improvement going from x4 to x16. Which is a fairly big %.

(Or 16.7% performance loss)

It's not like it's a couple of fps.

That's one game though, still running at very high FPS, take these for example ;

Just 3 random, there's a difference, but it's well over playable. That board will turn PCI-E 3.0 4x well before the 4x PCI-E 2.0 bottlenecks the third card, bearing in mind diminishing returns from trifire anyways.

grandmaster · 11 Oct 2011 at 14:22

Martini1991 said:
I wish you'd stop being a prat.

we wish youd stop too - wishful thinking.

when the results arent in, you cant say the bd will be worse than an i5. you can speculate as much as you want.

your posts come across as though you know something for a fact that no one else in the world knows about the performance of bd over i5

Martini1991 · 11 Oct 2011 at 14:23

grandmaster said:
we wish youd stop too - wishful thinking.

when the results arent in, you cant say the bd will be worse than an i5. you can speculate as much as you want.

your posts come across as though you know something for a fact that no one else in the world knows about the performance of bd over i5

People have them, I don't, reviewers do, so do other people.
So yeah, people do know how it performs.
OCUK have them, so do all the other competitors.
It's releasing tomorrow.

I've been constant in what I've said, early benchmarks? Oh wait, it's like I said, lower IPC than SB, possibly lower than Phenom II too.

davieg · 11 Oct 2011 at 14:23

Martini1991 said:
Because I've never said BD will be unusable for games or its crap, just worse than the 2500k, which it will be, regardless of the FPS, if it can't push the GPU's as far, it's worse, if it can't match SB's processing power in games, it's sure as hell not going to do it other things that aren't 8 threaded.

Which I agree with but you cant discount your use of the FPS argument to prove your point with your argument when it suits you and then use it the opposite to say why a CPU is so much worse etc. You will need to use other methods, which by the looks of it there will be.
Either that or just admit you were wrong and the difference is there, which is all that I said in the first place

PS each one of them images you just posted above still show theres a slight difference between x4 and x16 still, why are you insisting the difference isnt there?

surfsquid · 11 Oct 2011 at 14:23

I though Rick was intel aligned?

Martini1991 · 11 Oct 2011 at 14:25

davieg said:
Which I agree with but you cant discount your use of the FPS argument to prove your point with your argument when it suits you and then use it the opposite to say why a CPU is so much worse etc. You will need to use other methods, which by the looks of it there will be.
Either that or just admit you were wrong and the difference is there, which is all that I said in the first place

I said there was a difference.
Your link in its top results didn't, and was old, so I discounted it, only to give an upto date review. Old reviews don't mean anything for the present, the Q9550 isn't one of the best CPU's anymore for example, giving a review to show it is don't mean much.

EDIT : Every time I've said there is a difference, and you keep saying I'm saying there's no difference....