AMD Bulldozer Finally!

[Martini1991]

Now your taking complete rubbish.

All my games i run at 60fps.

Dawn of war 2 at 1920x1080 with my two 6870's doesn't on a Thuban at 4.375GHZ.
Dirt 2 and the like ran perfectly fine at 60 FPS, even at stock speeds.

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.

Brand new 1100T gets pwned by a 2100 in many games, which is more expensive? The Thuban.

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-267-AM&groupid=701&catid=6&subcat=1944 1055T 125W

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-363-IN&groupid=701&catid=6&subcat=1275 i5 2300.

SB will walk all over it, and only 10 quid more expensive.

 

[Final8y]

Dawn of war 2 at 1920x1080 with my two 6870's doesn't on a Thuban at 4.375GHZ.
Dirt 2 and the like ran perfectly fine at 60 FPS, even at stock speeds.

So what, nothing is absolute & neither does it have to be.

It doesn't run Dawn of war 2 at 60 FPS OMG what a gaming travesty, not as if all gaming revolves around that game.

Funny that my near 200 strong collection does not include that game.

 

[Bleek]

I run native 2048x on my Phenom II Tri Core at 3.6GHz and a 5850 - no issues.

I'm not waiting for Bulldozer or any particular processor, I'm waiting until my Phenom II becomes too slow to play games... which it isn't, even on a midrange graphics card.

 

[Martini1991]

So what, nothing is absolute & neither does it have to be.

It doesn't run Dawn of war 2 at 60 FPS OMG what a gaming travesty, not as if all gaming revolves around that game.

Funny that my near 200 strong collection does not include that game.

You're against anyone who doesn't share your view point it'd seem.
I never said they were bad for gaming, but they're by no means great, not when a cheaper and better CPU can be had from Intel.

 

[Emlyn_Dewar]

I don't really get the point, why not create another thread on the how SB beats a Phenom II in games...
Did anyone ever deny that SB will beat a Phenom II in most, if not all games?

Just like the rest of it, it has NOTHING to do with BD...

You are aware you don't have to buy an 1100T, that is not the best value CPU in the range. Your comparison is flawed... Again.
Compare your 2300 against the 955 or 965, not a 6 core CPU.

 

[d_brennen]

Round and round they go. Wake me up when BD lands

 

[Final8y]

You're against anyone who doesn't share your view point it'd seem.
I never said they were bad for gaming, but they're by no means great, not when a cheaper and better CPU can be had from Intel.

I'm not against anyone who does not share my view because its seems that its you who has that issue & i have done nothing more than disagree with your statement & like wise many others after your comments.

With your comments coming across as very black & white with no understanding or concept that many shades of grey exists & that fact that there are many Intels that are being used for gaming as well that are also weaker than the SD, so that makes all CPUs before SD bad for gaming in your view.

 

[Martini1991]

I don't really get the point, why not create another thread on the how SB beats a Phenom II in games...
Did anyone ever deny that SB will beat a Phenom II in most, if not all games?

Just like the rest of it, it has NOTHING to do with BD...

You are aware you don't have to buy an 1100T, that is not the best value CPU in the range. Your comparison is flawed... Again.

I'm giving an example of Intels lowest 2XXX series SB beating AMD's flagship.
And my comparision was the 1055T, being 10 pound less than a 2300.

 

[Emlyn_Dewar]

A quad core AMD CPU is cheaper than a quad Intel, the total platform cost can easily be much cheaper.
I don't understand the point. Intel newest architecutre beats AMDs lineup of old architecture? Obviously.

I'd not buy a non-k SB chip, would feel cheated.

 

[Martini1991]

SB is Intels Mainstream, should we compare AMD's LLano to SB, that's mainstream for AMD, and newer...

 

[Emlyn_Dewar]

Whilst it wouldn't be in AMDs favour, it is a better comparison I guess.
I don't see what it would be getting at though. I could then compare the onboard GPUs of both and decide that the AMD is a better choice, when for everything else, it clearly wouldn't be.
Actually, I'm still unsure of why this is in the BD thread?

We could move it into Llanno thread?

 

[Martini1991]

BD Thread should just be renamed to "AMD CPU's, the drama".
Llano's onboard GPU spanks Intels, but why wouldn't it? AMD imo are the better GPU Vendor than Intel (Lol) and Nvidia.

 

[Mollari]

Intel's tick tock actively tells you which generation you'll get the biggest performance increase, AMD its pretty obvious aswell.

So true. Nicely said (whole text). Theres a lot of variables but still makes sense, history repeating itself lol.

But this doesnt automatically mean that BDs perform well. If amd fails to deliver decent power with their new cpu the influence would last a long time. And this is an option not even the most hardcore Intel users should hope.

Then again AMD has already announced several cpus to follow ( Enhanced BD, Next gen BD..) so obviously they really believe in this cpu.

 

[RizlaKing]

Here's stupid old me coming into this thread for any info on AMD cpu's and finding out that shock horror their old cpu's cannot compete with intel's latest thanks so much for that maybe next you could tell me how i breath or something else blindingly obvious .

I have put off my upgrade till next year april\may time by then things should have settled a bit and the complete silence from AMD gets a bit annoying after a while. They created a lot of hype and then seem to have buggered off and left people to it causing nothing but these stupid threads on forums with people just having a go at each other because they have nothing to really discuss.

I am binning any interest for a while now and will come back in a few months when there should be somethng worth reading something i think a few others should do as well before too much is said that doesn't need to be.

 

[Martini1991]

So true. Nicely said (whole text). Theres a lot of variables but still makes sense, history repeating itself lol.

But this doesnt automatically mean that BDs perform well. If amd fails to deliver decent power with their new cpu the influence would last a long time. And this is an option not even the most hardcore Intel users should hope.

Then again AMD has already announced several cpus to follow ( Enhanced BD, Next gen BD..) so obviously they really believe in this cpu.

Announcing further expansions doesn't mean they believe in it.
Phenom to Phenom II for example.

Here's stupid old me coming into this thread for any info on AMD cpu's and finding out that shock horror their old cpu's cannot compete with intel's latest thanks so much for that maybe next you could tell me how i breath or something else blindingly obvious ..

Llano is newer than SB. Llano can't keep up, SB is ONLY mainstream, as Llano is.

 

[Zarf]

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.

I wouldn't underestimate Ivy Bridge, IIRC Intel is introducing 3D transistors then, which gives it far greater potential than the usual 'Tick' process shrink.

 

[pmc25]

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.

My old 965 @ 3.6Ghz could, and this was at max settings on a slightly overclocked 6850. My 1090t at 4Ghz has improved minimum frame rates a lot, though.

However, DOW2 is pretty much worst case unless you go back years and years to single-threaded games. It's very CPU intensive but can never make use of more than 2 threads. Its engine is pretty 'legacy'.

DOW2 is very much in the dim, distant past as far as game engines go.

 

[Martini1991]

My old 965 @ 3.6Ghz could, and this was at max settings on a slightly overclocked 6850. My 1090t at 4Ghz has improved minimum frame rates a lot, though.

However, DOW2 is pretty much worst case unless you go back years and years to single-threaded games. It's very CPU intensive but can never make use of more than 2 threads. Its engine is pretty 'legacy'.

DOW2 is very much in the dim, distant past as far as game engines go.

Doubt that very much.

 

[pmc25]

Though the in-game benchmark has since changed since then (i.e. performance figures are lower now than when i had my 965), that is exactly what it did.

I'd also doubt the veracity of your statement, and mention of it as an illustration of 'better' SB performance / lack of need for more cores, for the reasons I just outlined.

Edit: Just saw your post where you state that your Thuban at nearly 4.4Ghz couldn't run DOW2 at 60FPS at 1920x1080 . Either you had the worst optimised system in the history of mankind, or some serious hardware / driver issues.

Edit 2: Just did a benchmark to prove my point. For anyone not in the know, the benchmark in the game really is extreme, so if you're getting average 60FPS here, it's very unlikely to ever dip below that in game. Before you say anything, 'Rain' being disabled is for streaming the game as the encoder doesn't like it (and there's no rain / weather in the benchmark), reflections are off because they look ugly (and they're not CPU dependent at all), Physics is off because it tends to result in ragdoll bugs which are distracting (and it makes almost no impact on performance at all ... maybe 1-2FPS tops, average. CPU is 3.9Ghz for this.

http://imageshack.us/f/819/2011071900001n.jpg/

 

[Mollari]

Announcing further expansions doesn't mean they believe in it.
Phenom to Phenom II for example.

Never had Phenom - had Intel at the time- but theres nothing I cannot play with present X6 1090T/gtx580- combo at 1080p resolution. Gets the job done very well, no complaints here. And my guess is theres quite a few Phenom II´s around the world.

Has it been bad selling CPU?