• 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!

Final8y said:
All my gaming builds for friends and clients are AMD, they are told that Intel perform better but they just don't care as long as they are getting 30-60 FPS and none of them are interested in overclocking, they say nope its fine as it is.
And most of them can afford to have Intel but they don't want to pay.
Click to expand...

I dont care much about overclocking either...

what puts me off most its power consumption :(
 
Avathar77 said:
That will change you moaning about your CPU block not looking good with AMD eh? :D
Click to expand...

lol Ive forgotten about this ;D

Need to check how I stand with DSR...My RAM doesnt work on it so that is a reason to return it...

need couple hours to think if I want to be PC-less for a while again:(
 
drunkenmaster said:
ASides from bit-tech being rubbish, EVERY other website has phenoms, i7's, i5's and Bulldozer within a couple frames under gpu limits, where you would actually play the game.

We can do it your way though.

The 2600k, overclocked, using over 300W, was slower than the stock 8150 in BF3..... using much much much less power.

Why are bit-tech rubbish, they described Sandy bridge as really a lap top chip they bunged onto the desktop....... honestly, I've never seen something so epically ridiculous stated in a review, ever.
Click to expand...

Can I get a link to that?

Also, obviosuly BD will be faster in BF3, it's optimised for 8 cores. Just too bad the majority of most games aren't and that's what matters. Why buy an inefficient 8 core when you can get a cheaper and far faster 4 core that also beats BD in just about everything else bar winrar.
 
Final8y said:
Enthusiast think differently and are more informed.
Click to expand...

not every Enthusiast has a 1000W PSU and runs only single GPU and overclocked CPU(some people on here are like that ;p ) ...and not everyone wants to play super high bills for electricity...
 
bastic said:
not every Enthusiast has a 1000W PSU and runs only single GPU and overclocked CPU(some people on here are like that ;p ) ...and not everyone wants to play super high bills for electricity...
Click to expand...

Which points to being inform like i said, the average user has not got a clue about power efficiency of the PC and the PSU.
 
So...NDA is up, its released....... and still I'm not that clear on the performance. There's a lot of inconsistency.

Its not sounding amazing so far though - a chip for the long term... given how tech changes so quickly I can't help but feel thats not a great strategy
 
Avathar77 said:
First you said "None of them" now it is "Enthusiast"!
Click to expand...

My friends and clients are not Enthusiasts and they don't post on any computer forums so when im talking about Enthusiasts im not talking about them im talking about us.
So really on both points, my quotes have been pulled out of context to which they were in.
 
Last edited:
As mentioned by a few reviews Bulldozer will probably work as a server chip or one in applications which are highly multi-threaded.

However,if this is the case why did AMD even bother to release this as a chip for other more common desktop workloads??

They might as well either concentrated on bypassing Bulldozer for desktop and trying to launch Piledriver based CPUs as quickly as possible next year.

I am sure they could have launched a few more higher clocked Phenom II and Athlon II CPUs in the mean while.
 
This truly is AMD's Pentium 4.

I wasn't expecting Bulldozer to match Nehalem, let alone Sandy Bridge clock for clock. But this is a truly epic fail.
2 billion transistors, more than any other CPU design from either Intel or AMD. And way more than the Phenom II X6 has... and what do all these extra trasistors and larger die size get us? Absolutely nothing. If anything the Phenom II X6 is still better, and certainly better at single threaded performance which is still overall more important than multi-threaded performance... I'm shocked at how bad BD is.

This is bad for everyone, i'm ****** off. Whether you're an immature fanboy for either company it's bad for us all and holds back computing progression. Intel will only hold clock speeds back further, and implement more restrictions on there CPU's (look at overclocking for instance) and they certainly wont be doing any price cuts. Forget seeing 8 core I7's as well. This is only going to hurt consumers.

When Ivy Bridge is out it's going to be even worse for AMD, it's actually going to be embarrassing.... i've been following CPU's and hardware since the 1990's and cant remember when there was such little performance competition between both companies. Intel are not even trying here, they're purposely not increasing clock speed or adding more cores as theres no need. Even the P4 wasn't quite this bad from a performance perspective compared to AMD's Athlon 64 at the time.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
As mentioned by a few reviews Bulldozer will probably work as a server chip or one in applications which are highly multi-threaded.

However,if this is the case why did AMD even bother to release this as a chip for other more common desktop workloads??

They might as well either concentrated on bypassing Bulldozer for desktop and trying to launch Piledriver based CPUs as quickly as possible next year.

I am sure they could have launched a few more higher clocked Phenom II and Athlon II CPUs in the mean while.
Click to expand...

Makes one wonder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom