-
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!
- Thread starter AceTK
- Start date
what? how do you know that???
can you drop review link plz? games benches,4core vs. 4core benches? any legitimate review plz
i saw only few fake pics, where supposed buldozers with more cores have less tdp than those with lesser cores. 96,97 tdp?lol
nobody knows about them i guess,exept amd,and why there should be migration?
wont be surprised if there will be another delay
Associate
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2008
- Posts
- 1,914
- Location
- Rainham - Kent
I didn't say that the 8xxxp was a direct competitor to the 990x everyone knows its not. I am saying what ever company has the crown of fastest cpu charges silly money for it. you would think a new AMD 8 core cpu would beat a 6 core Intel and not have to go head to head with only a quad core Intel. If it did it would also be £800
Am not getting into the difference between 4c/8t and 8c/8t because to be honest I dont honestly care, Ill just go to which ever one suits my purpose best when all the smoke and illusion has passed.
I was pointing out the pricing structure thats all, if an 8 core can best a 4 core and is better at doing what people need for the sake of a tenner or so's difference then its a moot point to be honest (not saying this is gonna happen,like I said will wait till the smoke clears)
But saying they cant compete on performance so they're competing on price when they're (rumors and guesswork allowing) pricing their chips slightly higher than Intels on the same standpoint and tier as far as performance is guessed at makes no sense.
Or is this why the rumors of Intel raising their prices come into it? They cant stand not being top of the price lists? At this tier of CPUs anyway.
Last edited:
really hope that's a real benchmark, i really dont care if it beats an i7 2600k at single threaded stuff, i currently can run any game i've tried so far, metro 2033/shogun 2, at maximum settings no problem on my 1090t (ati 6950 with unlocked shaders), and multithreading "should" only get better, single core performance "should" become less important lol. I spent several hours today rendering scenes in lightwave 3d whilst playing mass effect 2 at max settings no problem, with very little loss on render time. I want to see some seriously impressive numbers when it comes to multithreaded apps and i think price is very very important, no point in having something that can marginally beat intels best if it costs the same or more, it has to be cheaper as regardless of how good they are intel already have a lot of ground on them, so the thing that plays on my mind is ok even if bulldozer is good, should i wait for ivybridge?? bulldozer has to be something special.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,290
- Location
- Dormanstown.
No we don't.
If it takes 8 "cores" to beat 4 cores. Who's faster?
We don't know anything until it actually launches.
If BD is better clock for clock, then I'll say it's better than Sandy.
the 4110's will be the flagships
The 8130p is.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,290
- Location
- Dormanstown.
Even the prospect of this new AMD chip beating Intel has got you all in a sex wee
If it ever launches.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 7,490
Hope it goes over 5ghz
if it does then i will upgrade to bulldozer when some decent AM3+ motherboards come out.
If it beats sandybridge, I am upgrading
me too, and the release is very close to my birthday
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Mar 2011
- Posts
- 811
- Location
- Space Man INIT
You all forget or don't know how the market works.
For me the rival i work for we buy them in 5K lots! We sell them as a part, as a build, bundle and barebones and get through them fast! The price is what we are told to sell them at retail for. There cheaper than 2600K just!
For other stores they might go through an agents that has mass stock
For me the rival i work for we buy them in 5K lots! We sell them as a part, as a build, bundle and barebones and get through them fast! The price is what we are told to sell them at retail for. There cheaper than 2600K just!
For other stores they might go through an agents that has mass stock
If it takes 8core to beat 1core then the 8core is still faster. Personally I don't care so much how many cores, Level 3 cache it takes for AMD to start competing with intel, if it's faster at stock than a stock 2600K then it's faster.
However that got me thinking, given the below score, how would my 2600K compare at 3.8 (I am assuming that they benched the faster AMD FX-8130P).
So I down-clocked my Sandy to 3.8:
And it seems that clock for clock the AMD FX-8130P is faster. The higher Sandy score is what I'm really interested in given that I run my chip at 4.8Ghz 24/7.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,290
- Location
- Dormanstown.
I'm just lol'ing at your fail.
How on Earth is the AMD FX-8130p faster clock for clock? It MIGHT be, but we don't know yet.
We haven't got actual benchmarks with clocks/cores or anything.
Just wait till it launches.
And what programs even use 8 cores? Clock for clock performance is what's important...
Throwing cores together isn't going to do anything when the software won't use it.
How on Earth is the AMD FX-8130p faster clock for clock? It MIGHT be, but we don't know yet.
We haven't got actual benchmarks with clocks/cores or anything.
Just wait till it launches.
And what programs even use 8 cores? Clock for clock performance is what's important...
Throwing cores together isn't going to do anything when the software won't use it.
