• 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 OWNERS ONLY what cpu do you have

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
But TBH,many of us are either using older CPUs or CPUs like a Core i3 2100 with sub £200 GPUs.

This is what you fail to realise. Moreover,how many people are running GTX580,GTX680,HD7950 or HD7970 cards as a percentage of ALL gamers in the world,including tens of millions of online players??

Many of them are running games at 1920X1080 and 1680X1050 including games like WoW and not with expensive hardware too.

So,in that sense,you are being rather elitist.
Click to expand...
My old Q6600 at 3.6GHz would hugely bottleneck my "lowerly" 5850 in online games, mmos and Starcraft II with frame rate drop down to low 20s and GPU usage dropped down to 60% or below, mostly due to the nature of stupid game developers keep making games uses less than four cores. I upgraded i5 2500K, and in the same games (except for Starcraft II), where I use to drop to as low as low 20s I now sit on 58-60fps (I capped frame rate to 60fps). If I listened to people and went down the Bulldozer route instead of the i5 2500K, I probably would have raged and toss the PC out the window due to after spending couple hundred of quids on "upgrading" the CPU and platform, my frame rate is barely better than on my old Q6600 at 3.6GHz.
 
Last edited:
Marine-RX179 said:
My old Q6600 at 3.6GHz would hugely bottleneck my "lowerly" 5850 in online games, mmos and Starcraft II with frame rate drop down to low 20s and GPU usage dropped down to 60% or below, mostly due to the nature of stupid game developers keep making games uses less than four cores. I upgraded i5 2500K, and in the same games (except for Starcraft II), where I use to drop to as low as low 20s I now sit on 58-60fps (I capped frame rate to 60fps). If I listened to people and went down the Bulldozer route instead of the i5 2500K, I probably would have raged and toss the PC out the windows due to after spending couple hundred of quids on "upgrading" the CPU and platform, my frame rate is barely better than on my old Q6600 at 3.6GHz.
Click to expand...

Again,whats with the Bulldozer recommendation aimed at me?? Read what I said again - I never recommended BD,I said it should be fine for most games with a slower graphics card. Even your Q6600 at that speed(I had one myself) was fine with a lot of games I was running with an HD5850 1GB overclocked by a huge amount.

Read again what the OP - he said it was fine for what he was using it for.

Did you bother to even ask him what he was running?? What games he is running??

Instead you went off on a tirade at him. If he said,looky here,I run SC2 and it runs uber,then maybe you would have a point.

What if he does not and never intends to?

Moreover,I know plenty of people playing MMOs myself on slower CPUs than a Core i5 2500K running at 4GHZ+ and they are hardcore players. They are some of the best in their clans.

Millions of WoW players worldwide don't run uber hardware. Nor does it make them bottom barrel players either - it seems at times blaming the tools is easier.

For instance,I do photography as a hobby. I use a colour accurate monitor which is calibrated. Hence I need/want a monitor with a decent IPS or VA panel due to colour workflow.

But,there are plenty of people who game and have dSLRs themselves who still buy TN panels(many don't try to calibrate them). Hey,they might even be better than me at photography!!:p

Do you see me going on tirades on them. No,I don't.

Edit!!

I can see what you are doing,so I care not to continue this.
 
Last edited:
Marine-RX179 said:
Martini is may be posting the same thing regarding Bulldozer many times, but it is necessary because of people provide misguided information such as above, whereas he just want to make sure people getting the best performance for their money. If I was someone in for buying a new CPU/platform, I would be interested in getting the fastest performer for my budget, not paying the same money for something that offer lesser performance.
Click to expand...

What the... is wrong with you people? how is that misguided... Bulldozer is a cheap CPU, much cheaper than Intel and he is right, Bulldozer performs just as well as any chip in gaming.

I'm also reading all the rest of you posts on this page, most of it..... your just talking out of your backside

Get a life..... there is more to life than hugging Intel and trying to put the competition down. its pathetic.
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
What the... is wrong with you people? how is that misguided... Bulldozer is a cheap CPU, much cheaper than Intel and he is right, Bulldozer performs just as well as any chip in gaming.

Get a life.....
Click to expand...

Except it doesn't.
Bulldozer isn't a CPU, it's a type of CPU, there's more than one Bulldozer CPU.

Starts at around 90 quid with the FX4, in the same price bracket as the i3.

AMD's FX6 and FX8 can be had for cheap though, as the cheapest i5 here is 150.

So for some workloads, you'd be stupid not to get the FX8 at a shade over 100 after the cash back (But they are VERY limited workloads, consistent performance would go to a Thuban), however for gaming, you're best off not getting Bulldozer, a 960T would be a far better CPU in many cases when unlocked anyway (If you're a risk taker)
 
tomshardwares latest best gaming cpu's for the money pretty much says it all when they dont reccomend an amd cpu at any price point. The 8120 is an attractive price for some workloads, particularly encoding, and if you overclock, i can see the merit of it vs an i3, but its a very low price because your paying for the same performance as cpu's had in 2009, some wont have the option with budgets etc, but if you can afford the extra for a 2500k then given the expected lifetime of your average pc, spread the cost over that lifetime and its well worth the extra.


some people in this thread are doing exactly what they are accusing others of, but arent able to see it...
 
Last edited:
Martini1991 said:
Except it doesn't.
Bulldozer isn't a CPU, it's a type of CPU, there's more than one Bulldozer CPU.

Starts at around 90 quid with the FX4, in the same price bracket as the i3.

AMD's FX6 and FX8 can be had for cheap though, as the cheapest i5 here is 150.

So for some workloads, you'd be stupid not to get the FX8 at a shade over 100 after the cash back (But they are VERY limited workloads, consistent performance would go to a Thuban), however for gaming, you're best off not getting Bulldozer, a 960T would be a far better CPU in many cases when unlocked anyway (If you're a risk taker)
Click to expand...

An FX-8120 is just as fast as a 1090t in any multi threaded workload, and its not far behind in single threaded once you get it running at 4.4Ghz which it will do on a £30 cooler.

£120, it is worth it if you don't already have an x6, Bulldozer under performing is so overstated its a joke.

This guy has one, he said he understands there are problems with it but says he is happy with it and its performance.

Predictably you people jump on him with exaggerated nonsense for daring to say the chip is absolutely fine!
 
An 8 Core CPU is as fast as a 6 core in multithreaded workload, while coming out over a year afterwards, while on a new socket meaning you'd have to get an AM3+ board, then buy the FX CPU (Some exceptions) Can take it one further saying you'd need new RAM too as you can run a Thuban on DDR2 and an AM2+ board.
My 4.375GHZ Thuban would knack a 4.4GHZ FX8120 all day long except in HEAVILY threaded situations (7/8 threads) and even then, that performance gain would never be worth the price of the FX8 and the lower than Thuban performance in everything else.

Please tell me why this is good?
I jumped on someone? If I did, it was you, and that's for saying Bulldozer is as good as any CPU in gaming, which is a blatant load of tosh.
 
Last edited:
Martini1991 said:
An 8 Core CPU is as fast as a 6 core in multithreaded workload, while coming out over a year afterwards.

Please tell me why this is good?
Click to expand...

Why was the Intel P4 so much slower than the P3?

to many cores? completely irrelevant. GPU's have 100's of cores, AMD GPU's have 100's of cores more than nVidia. they both perform the same for the same money.

How something achieves its performance is neither here nor there, simply the fact that it does is all that matters, besides more cores = better multitasking.

In the future CPU's will have many cores, who knows how many 10's 100's..... would you have a problem with that to?
 
Martini1991 said:
Bringing up the P4 = Check.
Not answering the question = Check.
Bring up something pointless = Check.
Lack of understanding of GPU cores = Check.
Click to expand...

I cannot answer the question for the same reason you cannot answer why the P4 was so much slower than the P3, i don't know why Intel did that and i don't know why AMD did this, that's what i'm saying with that. do you?
 
humbug said:
I cannot answer the question for the same reason you cannot answer why the P4 was so much slower than the P3, i don't know why Intel did that and i don't know why AMD did this, that's what i'm saying with that. do you?
Click to expand...

I don't care about Intel.
I wanted to know why a CPU with a much higher cost (With the motherboard) that offers the same/worse performance than a CPU that was out around 18 months before it can be considered good.

You go off on a tangent, and then call me an Intel fanboy/AMD hater etc.

Crawl back in your cave.
 
Last edited:
Martini1991 said:
No, I'm not.
How can it be considered good, with all the evidence against it? (Higher price with the board, lower overall performance)
How can you say it's as good as every other CPU at gaming (When this is blatant rubbish)?
Click to expand...

That i did already answer, its just not the answer you wanted to see, its called a disagreement, there is no point in asking it again in the hopes of getting a different answer. its not going to happen.

The OP Thinks it performs well for its money. he is right.... and there is no point in keep trying to bash him down because you don't agree with him despite his own experience of the product.
 
Last edited:
I'm an Intel fanboy who can recommend AMD CPU's, but a supposed balanced opinion is one that can't give a simple answer regarding AMD's latest CPU's and instead answers in rhetoric.

Yes, I'm the troll.

EDIT : I'm bashing the OP down am I? In what way, by talking about a CPU he owns?
I best not say I dislike Nvidia then, all those Nvidia owners I'd be bashing.
 
Last edited:
Martini1991 said:
I'm an Intel fanboy who can recommend AMD CPU's, but a supposed balanced opinion is one that can't give a simple answer regarding AMD's latest CPU's and instead answers in rhetoric.

Yes, I'm the troll.

EDIT : I'm bashing the OP down am I? In what way, by talking about a CPU he owns?
I best not say I dislike Nvidia then, all those Nvidia owners I'd be bashing.
Click to expand...

When you try and tell someone they must be wrong about there own experience of something and then doggedly stick to that when they say "no i'm definitely sure about that, i should know" then yes, it absolutely is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom