• 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!

I would assume the FX-8170 only turbo's to 4.5GHz with a single core. When you consider what overclocks people are getting with 2500K/2600Ks that's a very decent speed for AMD to "guarantee".
 
This thread must be well on the way to being one of the longest, if not the longest ever. Amazing when you consider the lack of much genuine / concrete information.

Well I got fed up of waiting (never been god at it) and went SB.

Stil be interested to see how it all pans out though.
 
clocka said:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-...nch-Planned-for-September-Report-213503.shtml

prices announced :)

the highend FX-8150P is imbetween the I5 2500K and I7 2600K which are £160 and £235. So the highend FX-8150P will be around £200.

I don't know about you guys but i think a cpu that can encode x264 faster than the i7 2600k for £40 less is pretty tasty!
Click to expand...

Really depends on the overall performance tbh. Apart from virtualisation, (4-7 2003R2/XP VMs running 8am to 6pm, and I'm not at the PC anyway) I don't do a whole lot of multi thread stuff like encoding, hence the 1055t x6 is is fine atm
 
d_brennen said:
Really depends on the overall performance tbh. Apart from virtualisation, (4-7 2003R2/XP VMs running 8am to 6pm, and I'm not at the PC anyway) I don't do a whole lot of multi thread stuff like encoding, hence the 1055t x6 is is fine atm
Click to expand...

Based on the price it should be trading blows with Sandy. I doubt AMD would have priced it lower if it was beating Sandy all over.
 
If there's any truth to these then it isn't looking good.

performancev.jpg


81502.jpg


Also AMD Lowers Performance Projections for Bulldozer Opteron
 
thats when you used all of those benchmarks together and average them out though. Some applications are poorly threaded so amd won't do well with those but well multithreaded applications will perform very well so i'd ignore that stupid benchmark chart if i were you, it is meaningless.
 
Tute said:
I would assume the FX-8170 only turbo's to 4.5GHz with a single core. When you consider what overclocks people are getting with 2500K/2600Ks that's a very decent speed for AMD to "guarantee".
Click to expand...
It remains to be seen, but I suspect these chips will be very aggresively clocked so I doubt there will be much overclocking headroom.
 
Broken Hope said:
If there's any truth to these then it isn't looking good.

performancev.jpg


81502.jpg


Also AMD Lowers Performance Projections for Bulldozer Opteron
Click to expand...

If those benches hold up then I am surprised. They've taken the 990x as the 100% base line score or am I reading it wrong?

The 1100T only being 27 percent points behind (or being 73% as fast) as the 990X isn't too shabby for a CPU more than 5 times cheaper (£780 vs £150)

Edit: makes my 4GHz 95w 1055T (£100) seem even better value :p
 
AMD hints at September 19 release date for FX-Series CPUs
AMD released a graphic novel titled "The Legend of FX" last week in a rather strange effort to build some hype for the brand's revival later this year.

The Legend of FX takes some jabs at Intel while touting AMD's superior graphics and improved performance, but it's the recently posted cinematic trailer promoting the novel itself that brings a juicy tidbit:

hidden at 0:15 is the date "September 19" which some have taken as a hint for when FX will see the light of day.

Click to expand...
Source
 
Broken Hope said:
If there's any truth to these then it isn't looking good.

performancev.jpg


81502.jpg


Also AMD Lowers Performance Projections for Bulldozer Opteron
Click to expand...

If true, then it's looking amazingly good, I'd say.

Half those benches are either useless in terms of multi-threading and several are fairly Intel biased / not even worth testing. Including SuperPi as part of an average perfomance gauge is .... a joke. SuperPi is x87 legacy code which runs way better on Intel.

Considering that lots of those applications gain minimal performance above 2 cores and most gain little if anything above 4 cores, it's quite some feat that the 8 core processor is so close to the rest.
 
Well I don't buy a CPU to run pure benchmarks on it, if you want to measure how good a CPU is then test some real world games like Crysis 2, Company of Heroes, etc.

Plus AMD have always performed poorly at SuperPI so that's only going to skew the results.
 
Not looking good then!

I really want to see what these CPU's have to offer in terms of gaming.

Hopefully my i7 860 4.3Ghz will be able to cope for the upcoming BF.
 
mejobloggs said:
What's a good single core benchmark program then? E.g like SuperPi but updated for current CPU's
Click to expand...

Dunno if there is much ... since the only thing that's remotely 'new' is console emulators. Since those are for purposes of dubious legality, any reputable publication is never going to test with them.

They presumably included DOSBox as a gauge there .... but pretty much any modern processor runs DOS games quite well and again that's running / simulating legacy code.

Nothing written recently which needs much CPU power is going to be single threaded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom