AMD Bulldozer Finally!

Skidder · 23 Sep 2011 at 15:04

VortX said:
And at the end of the day, they both take your money and you'll be wanting something new after a year .

I think a coalition would be best, ATI's drivers with Nvidia's power consumption

mmj_uk · 23 Sep 2011 at 15:10

It's still a futile argument, VortX originally said "On every occasion, NVIDIA always release a GPU which is faster.", which for a while now has been factually correct. The 6990 is not 'a GPU' it is two separate 6970 GPU's working together in Crossfire (albeit on the same physical card).

AMD for a long time has fell short in both CPU & GPU departments but in the CPU arena they've competed by throwing more cores in for the same price and in the GPU arena they've focussed more on efficiency allowing them to release competitive multi-GPU cards like the 6990, whereas NVidia usually have to nerf their multi-GPU cards to fit inside TDP limits.

Martini1991 · 23 Sep 2011 at 15:25

Intel V.S AMD is nothing like AMD versus Nvidia.

Jayster · 23 Sep 2011 at 16:00

Martini1991 said:
Intel V.S AMD is nothing like AMD versus Nvidia.

This.

gareth170 · 23 Sep 2011 at 16:15

Martini1991 said:
Intel V.S AMD is nothing like AMD versus Nvidia.

this i agree,

why people love doing xxxx vs xxxx / comparing...

just buy what whatever you want and what you can afford

FoxEye · 23 Sep 2011 at 23:46

Skidder said:
I think a coalition would be best, ATI's drivers with Nvidia's power consumption

Are you actively trying to bring about some kind of apocalypse?

TheMorningStar · 24 Sep 2011 at 06:49

FoxEye said:
Are you actively trying to bring about some kind of apocalypse?

heh. Words out of my mouth.

~>Dg<~ · 24 Sep 2011 at 11:09

gurusan said:
I'd argue that a 590 is not any better playing CoD than a 4870. Not much difference between 90 and 160 FPS

lol whut you aim to play at 125 , 250 at least in cod even if you play semi pub mode

makes a hell of a difference not a bit. saying there is no difference is quite frankly daft.

Quicken · 24 Sep 2011 at 13:06

http://www.donanimhaber.com/islemci/galerileri/AMD-Bulldozer-FX-resmi-test-sonuclari_1.htm

Thats a lot of effort to be fake!. Looks good if true!

the1gooner · 24 Sep 2011 at 13:36

Quicken said:
http://www.donanimhaber.com/islemci/galerileri/AMD-Bulldozer-FX-resmi-test-sonuclari_1.htm

Thats a lot of effort to be fake!. Looks good if true!

Wow how did you find that?

Very interesting.

LeJosh · 24 Sep 2011 at 13:37

My mouth tastes salty now but it's not overly biased like NV graphs but annoying enough to be ambiguous. :\

Jokester · 24 Sep 2011 at 13:44

Very interesting, multithreaded does indeed seem to be on par with i7 2600k. Going to very much come down to how well they overclock I think. FX-8120 could be the sweet spot if they haven't been binned.

LeJosh · 24 Sep 2011 at 13:50

I'm just wondering if 5+ GHz will be possible under water with a very good motherboard.

Apparently supporting higher DDR3 speeds natively, according to those slides.

Quicken · 24 Sep 2011 at 14:02

It was a link from Tomshardware forums.

Looking good if true!

Glad i built my new machine now, Sitting behind me just waiting for the CPU.

Juantjie · 24 Sep 2011 at 16:14

If those slides are true, it's all we could have ever wanted no?

Can't wait to include this in my new build

Quicken · 24 Sep 2011 at 16:23

I would have been happy with all 8 cores @ 4/4.5, But if it can do 5 on my Antec 920 WC than all the better!, Very happy days. :-)

Will miss my q6600 @ 3.2, Been an excellent buy!, I hope i will be saying the same thing about the FX8150 4 years from now.

Trunks9486 · 24 Sep 2011 at 16:32

http://www.donanimhaber.com/islemci/galerileri/AMD-Bulldozer-FX-resmi-test-sonuclari_4.htm

This looks to be kinda legit. Performance is pretty much where you expect it based on its price.

Cooper · 24 Sep 2011 at 16:34

Ok, can someone tell me how an 8 core CPU that can only score 5.95 @ 3.6Ghz in Cinebench R11.5 is impressive???

My 4 core unlocked Phenom II @3.6 Ghz gets 4.35.

100% more cores but only a 40% speedup....that does not seem very impressive to me.

gurusan · 24 Sep 2011 at 16:39

If those are legit results then I'd have to say they are less than impressive.Would like to see it up against the 2500 or 2600k though as anyone who buys a 980X for gaming is just foolish.

LeJosh · 24 Sep 2011 at 16:40

gurusan said:
If those are legit results then I'd have to say they are less than impressive.Would like to see it up against the 2500 or 2600k though as anyone who buys a 980X for gaming is just foolish.

The i7 2600k is in those benches too. :confused: