• 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!

Why is everyone being stupid?
Have you all forgotten history? Or are you just ignorant?

Phenom II came no closer to SB to breaking the WR? LOL

Almost two years ago, and the silicon has improved since then

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Hf6d404QY

RAGE.
This was the silicon that could barely get 3.8GHZ stable 24/7.
My 1055T did 600MHZ over that, with 50% more cores.

Wonder what that'd do under L2N.

ALSO, bearing in mind this was a benchmark run, not for CPUZ.

*Awaits the hazing*.
 
Last edited:
Also, I'm pretty sure AMD's own slide of *80% scaling* over a conventional core (1BD core) is pretty much an inkling that a module may only be as fast as a callisto clock for clock. Could be worse, could be better, but not much in it.
 
We already know what to expect tho dont we.

It will be very good, in multithread apps, but behind intel in other things.

As always price/performance will come in to it.

This is how AMD will sell the chips.

Considering Im looking for an upgrade for BF3 and if BF3 scales accross multi cores, then a bulldozer could be better than a similarly priced intel in this game!

Which would be a big deal.

Not sure if I need an upgrade from my Qx9650 however...

If someone could categorically tell me my 5870 will gain performance being paired with a 2500k or a 8 core BD, then it would be worth it.
 
Last edited:
opethdisciple said:
We already know what to expect tho dont we.

It will be very good, in multithread apps, but behind intel in other things.

As always price/performance will come in to it.

This is how AMD will sell the chips.

Considering Im looking for an upgrade for BF3 and if BF3 scales accross multi cores, then a bulldozer could be better than a similarly priced intel in this game!

Which would be a big deal.
Click to expand...

Imo, this may only stretch to 6-8 threaded app's.
However, means that the CPU is more future proof, and may out last SB etc.
 
In that article it says the AMD chip got 82fps and the Intel 980X got 80.

2560x1600 was the res.

Running Dirt 3, and only Dirt 3. It seems.
 
LeJosh said:
In that article it says the AMD chip got 82fps and the Intel 980X got 80.

2560x1600 was the res.

Running Dirt 3, and only Dirt 3. It seems.
Click to expand...

2 FPS could come within the margin of error.
It's by no means accurate.

We have no idea how they've come up with the figures.
Although, if it was running on 4 threads, at a higher frequency (Barely) than the 980x, I can accept that, as I would hope a single thread on a module is close to lynfield performance wise.
 
I know, it's a crap article.

That was average FPS also. It means nothing really but we're all being drip fed at the moment.
 
Gashman said:
thank you so much, finally someone else who understands the pointless-ness of this 'world record' rubbish! IRRELEVANT!
Click to expand...

Hear hear :)

Its of no interest (at least it is of no relevance) to consumers in general.

I for one don't want to overclock my i5 to 8ghz and continuously pour liquid nitrogen/oxygen/helium onto it.

(P.s I'm not an intel fanboy, I like amd too :D)
 
LeJosh said:
In that article it says the AMD chip got 82fps and the Intel 980X got 80.

2560x1600 was the res.

Running Dirt 3, and only Dirt 3. It seems.
Click to expand...
It's not the most sensible decision to trust manufacturer benchmarks anyway. Naturally they'll be biased as they're trying to sell you their product.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom