Happy bulldozer owners?????????

ghost12 · 30 Jun 2012 at 10:46

The net is full of sites and threads and benchmarks regarding this now mythical chip. Are there any happy owners out there? I for one am happy. fx8120@4ghz and counting

mmj_uk · 30 Jun 2012 at 10:53

I'm sure there will be plenty of happy owners such as yourself, it's by no means a terrible chip just severely outclassed by Intel's recent variants... if you've not used a SB/IB you won't know what you're missing.

Marine-RX179 · 30 Jun 2012 at 12:06

No offense, but the only way that someone can be happy with Bulldozer is they didn't have a Core2 or Phenom II before using it, or ignorant of the fact that are faster CPU for the same price on Intel's offering. Also, it's hard to phrase the FX CPU, when IPC wise at 3.6GHz it is only as fast as Phenom II (which is the predecessor) at 3.0GHz...so that makes the FX at 4.0GHz still little bit behind the Phenom II X4 965BE at 3.4GHz.

You'd probably look back at this thread in 2 years' time and think "how could I have been such a fool thinking the GHz and the number of cores on the CPU is all that counts for CPU performance".

ghost12 · 30 Jun 2012 at 13:18

OMG!!!!! dont remember using this thread for comparison to ivy or any intel speed or chip. simply looking for happy bulldozer owners like myself who use it in real world and not benchmark heaven. was not a pop at intel!!!!

Martini1991 · 30 Jun 2012 at 13:28

Benchmarking is measuring your real world usage.

There's probably plenty of happy Bulldozer owners.
Ignorance is bliss 'n that.

Hagar · 30 Jun 2012 at 14:21

Martini1991 said:
Benchmarking is not measuring your real world usage.

Check your CPU usage most people use only a fraction of the achievable performance for the majority of the time.

Unless your a hardcore gamer with multi high end GPU's your GPU will likely **** out before your CPU.

Martini1991 · 30 Jun 2012 at 14:25

nkata said:
Check your CPU usage most people use only a fraction of the achievable performance for the majority of the time.

Unless your a hardcore gamer with multi high end GPU's your GPU will likely **** out before your CPU.

AMD CPU's at stock are crapping out before single high end cards, which is why there's an FPS difference between an i5 and an FX8 in gaming.

Monitoring CPU usage is not the same as monitoring the performance they're giving you in that application.

Running fraps to monitor your frames in benchmark mode in X game across 2 CPU's will give you their performance if you're using the same GPU, difference in min/max/average that isn't down to margin or error is due to the CPU.

trickynickyuk · 30 Jun 2012 at 15:23

well i got to say i am a very happy BD user i have an FX 8150 @ 4ghz and i can see the performance increase between my Pll x6 @4ghz my system is great.

the only thing is posting this on here especially since this an intel fanatic forum and anything you put about BD or AMD at the min will get slammed

ghost12 · 30 Jun 2012 at 15:30

well then theres two of us apparently ha

Martini1991 · 30 Jun 2012 at 15:34

trickynickyuk said:
well i got to say i am a very happy BD user i have an FX 8150 @ 4ghz and i can see the performance increase between my Pll x6 @4ghz my system is great.

the only thing is posting this on here especially since this an intel fanatic forum and anything you put about BD or AMD at the min will get slammed

It's not an Intel fanatic forum, it's a forum for performance/enthusiasts.

I really doubt you're noticing a difference between your IIX6 at 4GHZ and your FX8 at 4GHZ given the FX's IPC deficit (Which would see the very good Phenom II X6 (for it's price performance at launch) killing your FX8), unless you're encoding 24/7.

trickynickyuk · 30 Jun 2012 at 15:45

nope dont encode at all i game a lot the performance is great in comparrison to the Pll and yes i have read all the reviews and seen all the negitives about it but performance is defo better

Hagar · 30 Jun 2012 at 15:54

Well I am not a happy BD user, but only because I have a quick 1090T and currently am not upgrading. I am generally an AMD supporter though and can appreciate that oranges are not the only fruit.

Intel 1155 i5 and i7 cpu's are undoubtably the fastest consumer cpu and arguably the i3 also. I do not doubt that. It does pee me off a little with the arguments that for this reason they are all you should buy if you are a performance enthusiast. A Lamborghini coutach is faster than a Jag 3.8 E-type, I know which I would drive

Enjoy your BD, I may upgrade next year depending on what cpu's in either camp are available.

Martini1991 · 30 Jun 2012 at 15:55

trickynickyuk said:
nope dont encode at all i game a lot the performance is great in comparrison to the Pll and yes i have read all the reviews and seen all the negitives about it but performance is defo better

Placebo.

panyan · 30 Jun 2012 at 16:20

Martini1991 said:
Placebo.

+1

Marine-RX179 · 30 Jun 2012 at 16:41

Martini1991 said:
Placebo.

Indeed.

Well, can't really blame people that unforunately got a case of "I spend extra money on upgrade to a newer CPU so it must be better" syndrome...

Bleek · 30 Jun 2012 at 16:49

Placebo is believing there's any noticeable difference between Intel and Amd for the majority of tasks.

Martini1991 · 30 Jun 2012 at 16:51

Bleek said:
Placebo is believing there's any noticeable difference between Intel and Amd for the majority of tasks.

No, that would be the figures telling me there's a difference.
Can I notice it? Depends on the situation, the difference however can be measured.

Justintime · 30 Jun 2012 at 19:58

trickynickyuk said:
this an intel fanatic forum and anything you put about BD or AMD at the min will get slammed

Hardly, when the Socket A T-Birds/Xps etc.. and later 939 A64s/X2s/Opertons were ripping along i'm sure there was a big AMD scene here. Theres just nothing that AMD has thats worth getting excited over.

All AMD chips are conclusively defeated by Intels offerings and there isn't any siginificant price difference to warrant the AMD purchase. If AMD brought out a chip that outperforms the Intel offerings i'd definetly go back, i owned literally 3 Pentium 4 cpus over the entire range and those were just for fun and giggles overclocking to 4Ghz etc.. my real workhorses were AMD between my Tualatin 1.4S and first Core 2 Duo chip (E6400 ES), had a multitude of T-Birds/XPs, Opterons and X2s.

Marine-RX179 · 30 Jun 2012 at 20:23

trickynickyuk said:
the only thing is posting this on here especially since this an intel fanatic forum and anything you put about BD or AMD at the min will get slammed

Yes...because we are all "racist" toward Bulldozer rather than the chip itself is sooooooooo far off the mark on performance end, even after 9 months delay on launch...

And back then when we were all using Athlon instead of Pentium 4 because we were "racist" toward Intel.

Nuclear Fusion · 30 Jun 2012 at 20:58

trickynickyuk said:
the only thing is posting this on here especially since this an intel fanatic forum and anything you put about BD or AMD at the min will get slammed

No, this is not a forum biased towards Intel, it is just a simple fact that with the current generation, Intel pretty much dominates AMD at the same price point. Believe me when I say that if AMD came out with an amazing chip with Piledriver, then I would have no problem going with AMD. I actually was hoping that BD would be awesome, just because then it would drive down prices and mean new products would be released sooner. Unfortunately, BD basically sucks compared to IB/SB. I just go with whatever is the best option in terms of performance and price- regardless of whether it is AMD or Intel.