• 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 FX-Vishera Processors to Bring 7% IPC and 7% Frequency Improvement over FX-Bulldozer

as noted in the piledriver thread, it seems to only be that website thats claiming this so its all a bit suspect.

to me however im still looking for amd to bring something out that is worth the few hundred quid to replace my 1055T at 4.0ghz and im not sure those results are it if they are true
 
You're better off buying a Bulldozer at £140 presuming these will be over £200... 7% over BD is not a lot considering it lost out to Intel by as much as 50% in some cases.
 
It's not a 'bit' suspect, more total fake. It even says 'Zambezi' in that cpu-z screenshot.

Still if Piledriver is priced right, performs close to a 2700k I'll consider getting one. I'm still on a 920 so it'll be an upgrade and I can make use of the cores as I do a lot of encoding.
 
All of todays "improvements" are rather funny than being seriously taken under consideration with upgrade. From time to time real bargain appears (Athlon 64, C2D, i5), but Vishera is not one of them. So sacrificing is not recommended ;) unless really cheap price given to masses.
 
wolvers said:
It's not a 'bit' suspect, more total fake. It even says 'Zambezi' in that cpu-z screenshot.

Still if Piledriver is priced right, performs close to a 2700k I'll consider getting one. I'm still on a 920 so it'll be an upgrade and I can make use of the cores as I do a lot of encoding.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be cheaper for you to get a second hand gulftown? Also clocked it's going to be the best bet for encoding etc.
 
Possibly, but there's two issues I can foresee with getting a gulftown. Firstly is the price of a Gulftown (how much second hand?) and the fact that I can only offset it against the sale of the 920, not mobo as well. Secondly is heat. IIRC they run hot and my loop is limited on the amount of watts it can get rid of (also going to be a consideration with Piledriver of course). If you have a look at the link in my sig you'll see why.

There's a small part of me that wants something different to yet another Intel setup too. I also feel a bit like the enthusiasts split hairs a lot with the current CPUs (and of course GPUs. The difference really isn't the 'OMG it's a massive fail' type stuff that so many people spout on forums like this one. Honestly, some of the comments I see make me wonder if there are any interesting and sensible discussions to be had. It's sad really.
 
The Gulftown's are 32nm, they're not going to be blazing fire hot.
Also, the motherboard thing doesn't make any sense, the lack of having to buy a new board offsets selling the motherboard to fund a motherboard.

You're making back say about 80-100 quid on the i7 920, and would only pay about 200 extra for the Gulftown (Perhaps a little more)

i7 3770 seemingly knocks an FX8150 around, 8350 isn't going to be leagues ahead of the FX8150, while a gulftown is going to be a fair bit faster than the i7 3770 in encoding.

And I wouldn't say splitting hairs on CPU's, there's a gulf of difference, GPU's I agree, there isn't much difference at all.

I'd certainly wait to see what Vishera puts down on the table before doing anything, but I honestly believe your best bet is a Gulftown.
 
They're definitely hot. A bud of mine did the 920 to gulftown switch and it runs considerably hotter.

There's definite hair splitting going on with desktop CPUs. Only in benchmarks tests and specific highly intensive uses would you really tell the difference. How many of the doomsayers are fully utilising them enough to notice on a daily basis? Those that do have a legitimate comment to make and I'd be interested to read about it, the rest should shut up and go play Battlefield.
 
I have a 120HZ screen, I obviously want 120FPS, an AMD CPU can't push my 7970 as much as an i5 can.

If you've got a GPU capable of X FPS, why get a CPU that limits you to Y? You may's well have gotten a lower end GPU to match the performance of the CPU's performance limit.
 
Have you tried it, or are you quoting benches? I'm not suggesting anything, just interested. What games are we talking about?

My first thought is that it'll be a few fps less, and at that high an fps the difference is going to be impossible to 'feel' without your brain seeing the numbers in an OSD and making you think it's different.
 
wolvers said:
Have you tried it, or are you quoting benches? I'm not suggesting anything, just interested. What games are we talking about?

My first thought is that it'll be a few fps less, and at that high an fps the difference is going to be impossible to 'feel' without your brain seeing the numbers in an OSD and making you think it's different.
Click to expand...

Well, there's plenty of benchmarks out there where the AMD CPU's are bottlenecking GPU's.
Plenty of information on these very forums.

Why get a GPU if you're going to limit it CPU wise? And it's not just a few FPS, even if the number difference isn't noticeable, why get the higher GPU to not use it to its full potential? It's illogical at best (Regardless of the platform)

I've used AMD systems before, I've built plenty, my 6870 Crossfire went faster when I moved from a 1090T @ 4.375GHZ to my 2500k.

Gareth had a 6970 Trifire pretty much and he too noticed improvements, even at stock clock on his 2500k as opposed his clocked FX8150.

I'm not saying AMD CPU's are unusable, but there's absolutely no reason on this Earth to get a GPU if you can't take it to its full potential, get a GPU that you can (While, not noticing the difference) and pocket the difference.

Those who want the 120 FPS, they're going to want the best, that is Intel for gaming, there's no question about it.

I'm hoping Vishera is capable of delivering that performance when clocked with a 7970, could make the 8 core a possible purchase.
 
Last edited:
Martini1991 said:
Well, there's plenty of benchmarks out there where the AMD CPU's are bottlenecking GPU's.
Plenty of information on these very forums.

Why get a GPU if you're going to limit it CPU wise? And it's not just a few FPS, even if the number difference isn't noticeable, why get the higher GPU to not use it to its full potential? It's illogical at best (Regardless of the platform)

I've used AMD systems before, I've built plenty, my 6870 Crossfire went faster when I moved from a 1090T @ 4.375GHZ to my 2500k.

Gareth had a 6970 Trifire pretty much and he too noticed improvements, even at stock clock on his 2500k as opposed his clocked FX8150.

I'm not saying AMD CPU's are unusable, but there's absolutely no reason on this Earth to get a GPU if you can't take it to its full potential, get a GPU that you can (While, not noticing the difference) and pocket the difference.

Those who want the 120 FPS, they're going to want the best, that is Intel for gaming, there's no question about it.

I'm hoping Vishera is capable of delivering that performance when clocked with a 7970, could make the 8 core a possible purchase.
Click to expand...

You've just put me off purchasing a new GPU!

I've got a Phenom II 975 running at stock 3.6Ghz and a 5850 and i was set on swapping to a 7870. Even if i overclock the CPU to about 4Ghz am i bottlenecking the card? If so will it be to the extent that it makes the purchase pointless?

Would appreciate your thoughts.

EDIT: No matter, i'm ordering it anyway!
 
Last edited:
riskyfrisky said:
You've just put me off purchasing a new GPU!

I've got a Phenom II 975 running at stock 3.6Ghz and a 5850 and i was set on swapping to a 7870. Even if i overclock the CPU to about 4Ghz am i bottlenecking the card? If so will it be to the extent that it makes the purchase pointless?

Would appreciate your thoughts.

EDIT: No matter, i'm ordering it anyway!
Click to expand...

Linus techtips did a thing on this where he talked about cpu's bottlenecking gpu's but his conclusion was to upgrade the gpu regardless if the cpu is bottlenecking as you would see far better gains upgrading a gpu over a cpu (as we know most games these days are gpu intensive) rather than getting a cpu. I can agree with that, although you maybe paving a good base for future upgrades, it can work both ways and you can always get the cpu upgrade later. Don't forget upgrading a cpu will also mean upgrading your motherboard and possibly faster memory as well which can mount up.
 
Martini1991 said:
Well, there's plenty of benchmarks out there where the AMD CPU's are bottlenecking GPU's.
Plenty of information on these very forums.

Why get a GPU if you're going to limit it CPU wise? And it's not just a few FPS, even if the number difference isn't noticeable, why get the higher GPU to not use it to its full potential? It's illogical at best (Regardless of the platform)

I've used AMD systems before, I've built plenty, my 6870 Crossfire went faster when I moved from a 1090T @ 4.375GHZ to my 2500k.

Gareth had a 6970 Trifire pretty much and he too noticed improvements, even at stock clock on his 2500k as opposed his clocked FX8150.

I'm not saying AMD CPU's are unusable, but there's absolutely no reason on this Earth to get a GPU if you can't take it to its full potential, get a GPU that you can (While, not noticing the difference) and pocket the difference.

Those who want the 120 FPS, they're going to want the best, that is Intel for gaming, there's no question about it.

I'm hoping Vishera is capable of delivering that performance when clocked with a 7970, could make the 8 core a possible purchase.
Click to expand...

Sorry bud, I meant to reply last night and completely forgot. :o

I do have some experience of what your saying, so it's a good point. I'll definitely be looking for that when the reviews appear.

I have to disagree with you up on one thing though, having skimmed some reviews this morning. There's no bottleneck as such. In all of the heavily GPU dependant games (BF3, Crysis2 etc) the 8150 has no problems, it's where the game is heavily dependant on single threaded performance (like WOW and Skyrim) that lower fps results occur. That's not a 'bottleneck' to the GPU IMO, more an indication of it's weaker single thread performance.
 
wolvers said:
I have to disagree with you up on one thing though, having skimmed some reviews this morning. There's no bottleneck as such. In all of the heavily GPU dependant games (BF3, Crysis2 etc) the 8150 has no problems, it's where the game is heavily dependant on single threaded performance (like WOW and Skyrim) that lower fps results occur. That's not a 'bottleneck' to the GPU IMO, more an indication of it's weaker single thread performance.
Click to expand...

In games that are threaded enough and GPU intensive enough that the FX can push the GPU sufficiently, there's no bottleneck.

But in games that aren't? It's a bottleneck, regardless of the reasoning being due to the lower threaded performance.

In highly threaded games, you don't see the 2500k bottleneck, why is it then okay for the FX to bottleneck in lower threaded games?
 
For me it's not a 'GPU bottleneck'. By it's very definition it would always be stopping the GPU from pushing frames and it doesn't. But yes, I agree that it can be viewed as a bottleneck for those games that do rely in that single threaded performance. I guess it's about a balanced system, and goes against what people often spout about CPUs not mattering in game performance.
 
It's not a GPU bottleneck, it's a CPU bottleneck :p
And yes it does go against what people do say about GPU's being the most important. And with games generally not being that heavily threaded, the only real option is to go for a CPU that has the highest performance per thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom