• 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!

MilanoChris said:
Buy the best tech available at the time. No point in waiting for a product on potentially false hopes that it will beat current gen tech, especially one that has been delayed so many times.
Click to expand...

I dissagree on that one but point taken and understod. If have to get an upgrade right away one cannot ignore the SB. Currently the best processors for desktop in most tasks. But if not in a rush would be unwise not to wait and see what BD offers. It is also, potentially great cpu family.

So far we dont really have that much information on bulldozers. Would be totally wrong to say its crappy product, or even speculate it.

http://wccftech.com/amd-bulldozer-4ghz-es-pitted-intel-core-i7990x-gaming-benchmarks/

^^ I really dont know if this is true or not.
 
Last edited:
MilanoChris said:
So why not wait for Ivybridge? Or when that's out, the next AMD thing, or then the next Intel thing?
Click to expand...
Depends why you're upgrading. I'm gonna need a new PC for work but not until October so I might as well wait until the last minute to get the best performance/price I can. Zambezi should be out by then but Ivy Bridge won't be so it'll be Zambezi vs Sandy Bridge for me.

If you're wanting to upgrade now then just go Sandy Bridge...
 
I've been keeping an eye on this thread with a vague interest.... everyone just seems to get in a huff over this product, or its details, not appearing, or being late....

Then threatening to buy a SB in some sort of protest to AMD.

However i don't think I've seen anything official that ever said that BD would be out, or details would be released by now?

Or have I missed something?


Isn't it out just when its out?
 
MilanoChris said:
So why not wait for Ivybridge? Or when that's out, the next AMD thing, or then the next Intel thing?
Click to expand...

1. I would like a new CPU.
2. There is no desperate rush for one but I certainly want it before Skyrim comes out.
3. BD is likely to be before Skyrim.
4. Ivy Bridge and the next AMD thing are not likely to be out before Skyrim.

Conclusion - waiting for Bulldozer ain't so bad at this point, waiting for Ivybridge would suck.
 
Re: Ivy Bridge, it wouldn't surprise me to see signficant further delays to it. It's already been delayed by circa 4 months from Q4 '11 to beginning of Q2 '12. The 22nm process it's on is a totally different technology ... and one they've been working on for the best part of 10 years. I suspect it could well get pushed back a LOT further, since I'd be simply amazed if they managed to transfer to this new process without a hitch.
 
Pickman said:
1. I would like a new CPU.
2. There is no desperate rush for one but I certainly want it before Skyrim comes out. And I will.
3. BD is definitely to be before Skyrim.
4. Ivy Bridge and the next AMD thing are definitely not going to be out before Skyrim.

Conclusion - waiting for Bulldozer ain't so bad at this point, waiting for Ivybridge would suck.
Click to expand...

Fixed.
 
MilanoChris said:
It's been close for 2+ months.
Click to expand...

2 months ago it was two months away and Ivy bridge was 8 months away, today Bulldozer is probably weeks, maybe a month away while Ivy bridge is anywhere from 9-11months away IF it doesn't slip again............

so yes that 2 months has brought us closer to Bulldozer's release and further from Ivy bridge :p

MilanoChris said:
So why not wait for Ivybridge? Or when that's out, the next AMD thing, or then the next Intel thing?
Click to expand...

Quite simply, make your stand with the biggest upgrade. A good quad core AMD chip is still very good, great for gaming, less good for uber high end heavy cpu usage. Sandybridge was a large architectural upgrade for Intel, Ivybridge is a large process upgrade, but NOT a large architectural upgrade, on top of that Sandy(currently) is their midend chips, Ivy will be their midend replacement, their high end chips aren't out yet, and won't be replaced till probably 2013 after that.

You're looking for the big improvement, and skipping the smallest improvement for best speed increase, value, lowest cost, etc, etc. Sandy is a good upgrade, Ivy will be a very poor upgrade to Sandy with little to no architectural increase, Kessler after that, again on 22nm is moving 6-8 cores into the same space as mainstream Sandybridge, that will be the next big upgrade.

If Bulldozer comes out with a 2600k beating chip at the same price, Ivy is NOT going to smash it into oblivion, it might improve the odds a little or reduce the price, you won't notice the difference.

Likewise right now you can get a 4 core AMD chip, or wait a couple months for a 8 core AMD chip(hex cores aren't bad but they're kind of bodged together), its the biggest upgrade in mainstream performance architecture we'll see from now till 2013 from Intel or AMD.

SO yeah, this is the time to upgrade, when AMD's chips are out both they and Intel will basically have improvements but no drastic changes for another 18-24 months.

Its kind of like knowing that 32nm was screwed for AMD/Nvidia on gpu's so the 5850/480gtx would give the biggest boost to performance, and the 6970/580gtx would be very small increases from them. a 5870/480gtx would give you near enough top end performance for 2 years, while a 6970/580gtx would give you a not big increase, and in a year performance on the new cards would double, with CPU's the process's and dates are FAR more well known in advance so its very easy to see the best time to move into a new system if you want something faster. Intel's tick tock actively tells you which generation you'll get the biggest performance increase, AMD its pretty obvious aswell.
 
Last edited:
AMD chips aren't even that good for gaming.
At 1920x1080 a Phenom II quad core in Dawn of war 2 can't push 60 frames on average, my 2500k can do it easily.
One of many examples.
 
Martini1991 said:
AMD chips aren't even that good for gaming.
At 1920x1080 a Phenom II quad core in Dawn of war 2 can't push 60 frames on average, my 2500k can do it easily.
One of many examples.
Click to expand...

well since me mates overclocked i7 can barely get past 60 frames/second in Dawn of War II at that resolution can I ask, are you really surprised? and that makes it bad for gaming how exactly? they aren't bad for games, just not quite as good as their Intel rivals but since they are better priced it works out alright.
 
Martini1991 said:
AMD chips aren't even that good for gaming.
At 1920x1080 a Phenom II quad core in Dawn of war 2 can't push 60 frames on average, my 2500k can do it easily.
One of many examples.
Click to expand...

Great comparison, the ancient Phenom II compared to Intel's newest offering.

My Phenom II runs Dawn of War II fine, infact, my Phenom 9600 did also... (I don't have fraps or similar running because I am capable of seeing if games are running at an unacceptable framerate with my eyes!!!! :eek: )
Can you give me any examples of modern games that wont run on a Phenom II setup?

For the current price, I think they are more than acceptable for gaming. Of course they'll never be near the latest Intel offering, but we'll wait and see what BD brings.
 
It was at DrunkenMasters point that they're fine for gaming, obviously not when they can't achieve 60 fps average in a few year old game.
Those defending the AMD chips are blind.
I ran a 4.375GHZ Thuban, I'm not a fanboy..
 
Martini1991 said:
It was at DrunkenMasters point that they're fine for gaming, obviously not when they can't achieve 60 fps average in a few year old game.
Those defending the AMD chips are blind.
I ran a 4.375GHZ Thuban, I'm not a fanboy..
Click to expand...

Now your taking complete rubbish.

All my games i run at 60fps.
 
the thing is, there is defending something that isn't performing and there is defending a processor that does a job, just not quite as well as a much more expensive rival. don't see the logic, its half the price yet it gives much more than half the performance, where is the logic? could perfectly understand your argument if the Phenom II was £200 and facing off against a Sandy Bridge processor of similar price and performed like they do then fair enough.

the fact is that a Phenom II X6 can be had for not much more than £100, they overclock well without having to get a more expensive 'K' edition and will handle anything, anything at all you want it to do. fair enough it might not do it quite as quick as the Intel but that isn't the point..;)

Edit: in-fact would consider it rather pointless to go for an Intel processor at the moment, when I could get an X6 for ~£110 and a decent motherboard, all adding up to like £100 less than a similar Intel setup, not when both do the job without much trouble. for gaming be better of getting a better hard drive or better graphics card to be honest.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom