• 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.

Some news on Piledriver

Tests can show IB 10% ahead of SB clock for clock, it's not all the time.
2 tests aren't conclusive, end of.

And I was on about the results in number 25's post, the "PileDriver" is winning, you said it's slower, which the results show as in its favour (2 go to the Bulldozer)
Looks like trinity's results of all over tbh.

Nice save on the PCI-E, not.
 
Last edited:
I said the other benches are Memory performance, the are purely based on what memory your using and how you set it. Do you even understand that? its nothing to do with the CPU.

If you or i change our memory in any way the results on all those benches will be different.

The results on IB differ because test are using Integer or FP and a mixture of both, purely FP is always the same.
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
I said the other benches are Memory performance, the are purely based on what memory your using and how you set it. Do you even understand that? its nothing to do with the CPU.

If you or i change our memory in any way the results on all those benches will be different.
Click to expand...

You're assuming two different set ups on the chips, what type of person would compare 2 CPU's on different set ups? It'd be ridiculous.
And what, IMC doesn't matter for memory performance? IMC is on what now? The CPU... So wait, the CPU has got something to do with it due to IMC.
 
Martini1991 said:
You're assuming two different set ups on the chips, what type of person would compare 2 CPU's on different set ups? It'd be ridiculous.
And what, IMC doesn't matter for memory performance? IMC is on what now? The CPU... So wait, the CPU has got something to do with it due to IMC.
Click to expand...

Some idiot from China? you get off :D that is not an FX-8300, seriously dude your not actually buying into that?

Your saying the Memory performance is better because the IMC is better?

The IMC (Integrated Memory Controller) bares no effect on Memory performance, its a Memory controller, that's all it does, you can't even adjust it.

Memory performance comes from the Memory module and the Memory thought-put lane, IE: the CPU-NB, which you can adjust. (hence look in my signature)
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
Some idiot from China? you get off :D that is not an FX-8300, seriously dude your not actually buying into that?

Your saying the Memory performance is better because the IMC is better?

The IMC (Integrated Memory Controller) bares no effect on Memory performance, its a Memory controller, that's all it does, you can't even adjust it.

Memory performance comes from the Memory module and the Memory thought-put lane, IE: the CPU-NB, which you can adjust. (hence look in my signature)
Click to expand...

1.) I'm not buying into that it's an actual PD, I NOTED IT SAID ZAMBEZI IN CPUZ FIRST.

2.) Idiot from China? :confused: That's a nice attitude.

3.) And the IMC = CPU NB (Or is a part of which is the same as being I guess) clocking that is modifying the IMC which inherently improves memory performance.

EDIT : The fact you're insinuating that the IMC has no bearing on memory performance is actually ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
The CPU-NB is not the IMC, One is a hardware driver for the DIMM's, the other is a data bandwidth bridge for Memory and Floating Point operations. the CPU-NB is the later.
 
Dirtyganker said:
7 pages of posts about a ruddy AMD chip ... can't believe they are worthy of the attention or that people buy anything but their APU's for budget systems.
Click to expand...

He says with a £450 i7 in his signature.... lol, not that there is anything wrong with that chip. It just cracked me up.... (we need a laughing gremlin)

Seriously tho, that feels a tad elitist...
 
Last edited:
cinebench score looks a bit odd, fx-8150 is 3.6ghz stock? and the fx-8300 would be 3.3ghz. so an fx-8150 in rough theory maths would score about 5.5 in cinebench @ 3.3ghz, so 5.73 is an increase of just over 4% in favour of the fx-8300, which isnt a lot and easily lost in margin for error.

Given the trinity reviews did show definite improvments this almost looks like a bulldozer sample not piledriver, although the toms article on trinity didnt show cinebench so perhaps this is just a program that wont show much benefit.
 
Toms tested Autodesk 3DS Max 2012 which is a well known rendering application and saw the decent IPC improvement over BD. CineBench is based on Maxon Cinema 4D AFAIK. It is interesting that one sees a decent improvement and the other does not as both are rendering applications.

TBH,I am going to wait until more official reviews are out to judge performance.
 
Last edited:
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Toms tested Autodesk 3DS Max 2012 which is a well known rendering application and saw the decent IPC improvement over BD. CineBench is based on Maxon Cinema 4D AFAIK. It is interesting that one sees a decent improvement and the other does not as both are rendering applications.

TBH,I am going to wait until more official reviews are out to judge performance.
Click to expand...

Just because they are both rendering applications does not mean they are using the CPU the same way, given that they are looking for differences in different variation of a workload one has to assume they are not, hence there reason they used those two different apps. :)
 
Last edited:
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Toms tested Autodesk 3DS Max 2012 which is a well known rendering application and saw the decent IPC improvement over BD. CineBench is based on Maxon Cinema 4D AFAIK. It is interesting that one sees a decent improvement and the other does not as both are rendering applications.

TBH,I am going to wait until more official reviews are out to judge performance.
Click to expand...

Worth bearing in mind that the current Cinebench is based on R11.5 of the program, R14 is out next week - R13 introduced a major new render engine to the package. So although the picture Cinebench provides of Cinema 4D is reasonably 'real world' it is generally several years behind what we are using day to day for production.
 
Quixote said:
Worth bearing in mind that the current Cinebench is based on R11.5 of the program, R14 is out next week - R13 introduced a major new render engine to the package. So although the picture Cinebench provides of Cinema 4D is reasonably 'real world' it is generally several years behind what we are using day to day for production.
Click to expand...

That would explain it then - 3DS Max 2012 is a more up to date rendering test ATM.

Toms Hardware do try to keep up to date with the software they use. They use both Photoshop CS5 and CS6 for example, whereas many other websites like Anandtech use CS4 which is ancient.
 
Last edited:
Tea_Bag said:
I'm a 2500K user, but I'm still interested. hopefully this turns out to be what bulldozer should have been all along. if its around 4Ghz stock it should be able to compete with the 2500K (stock)

watch AMD go **** it up though by over pricing it.
Click to expand...

perhaps, but even so AMD are a generation behind already with thier chips that arent even released yet, and they have nothing to rival sandybridge-e.

I really think AMD should give up on CPU's and focus thier energy on GPU's.
 
DF1986 said:
If there is no competitor then Intel can charge even more ridiculous prices.
Click to expand...

Intel has a great cost to performance ratio, and so do AMD. Just because intel's high end chips cost near £1000 doesent mean they are not worth it. You cannot compare an FX-8 with an i7 3960x, they are leagues apart. You can compare the FX-8 with an i3 2100 on single threaded applications and the i5 2400 on multi threaded, the i3 2100 is far cheaper than the FX-8 and the 2400 is only slightly more expensive, and uses less power.

There's a reason the FX-8 is priced between the i3 and i5, its not super value, its how much it should cost. Remember how much it was when it first came out?

When AMD's flagship CPU can be compared with a bottom of the line intel core CPU you know there is a problem.

The only market for the FX-8 is AMD fanboy's, people who want to impress thier friends and colleagues by saying they have an 8 core PC, and people who wander into a high street store and are persuaded into getting a PC with an FX-8 in it because the salesman uses the number of cores as leverage.

There is no argument. Look at the benchmarks for yourselves. 'Its just an opinion' is an invalid argument here, there are benchmarks to prove this.

FX-8 vs i3 2100 http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=289
FX-8 vs i5 2400 http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=363
FX-8 vs 3960X http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=443

Even if piledriver offers 'noticeable improvements' over bulldozer, it still wont beat intel in the race.

AMD havent been in the lead since the Athlon XP. And that was a hell of a long time ago relatively speaking.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom