• 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.

So I wnet and bought a Bulldoser

Wucked said:
Strange that. I've never had any slow-down or fps problems on my i7 920, & I thought that the 2400 was meant to be a stronger chip. I was also under the impression that BF3 was far more GPU limited than CPU.

I cite the following paragraph from bit-tech's BF3 performance analysis.

"It didn't matter whether the CPU was running at 3.2GHz, 3GHz or even 2GHz; our benchmarks returned the same results. Even when we dropped the CPU down from four cores to only two, the in-game frame rates proved annoyingly stubborn. While BF3 will load itself across all four CPU cores when presented with a quad-core CPU, it seems to have little benefit when it comes to performance, running just as well with much lower clock speeds, or on a dual-core CPU."

Source: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2011/11/10/battlefield-3-technical-analysis/7

I don't doubt that you've experienced some kind of improvement, it just surprises me a little. Like I almost fell off my chair in surprise, although I managed not to make a squealing noise at the same time. That would have been embarrassing, especially at work.
Click to expand...

Not that I'd waste my time reading bit-tech reviews, but did they say how they tested this? Online anything uses a ton of CPU. I mean, play counter-strike with no one in a server and you could probably get 1000fps, but play it in a 64 man and you'll get 150fps. Just testing a game in single player means absolutely nothing if you plan to play online.
 
tbh u will get bottlenecing with that cpu when your running SLI/CROSSFIRE.

u will need to clock to atleast 4.6ghz to get the same level of performance of a PII @ 4ghz for gaming
 
Last edited:
there are some applications, multi-threaded where Bulldozer tramples all over Phenom II, so thinking of the wrong applications I feel. just goes to show that Instructions/Cycle isn't even remotely constant and should never be considered the most important point in an argument regarding microprocessors.

give Bulldozer some applications that are coded with its architecture in mind and it will 'Bulldoze' Phenom II into the dirt, no questions asked. compare them with current applications that clearly don't use its strengths then you have an invalid point, valid for Phenom II but not for Bulldozer. ;)
 
we can only talk about how it is now and in current applications, future is the future. we have no idea how long it'll be till apps are coded with BD architecture

also for a gaming rig it's poor compare to Phenom II
 
Last edited:
gareth170 said:
we can only talk about how it is now and in current applications, future is the future. we have no idea have long it'll be till apps are coded with BD architecture
Click to expand...

Exactly.

And by the time (in the future) we see numerous programs using 8+ cores (properly), there will be other/better CPUs on the market.
 
Ok first Screen of rough OC

cpuzi.png
 
gareth170 said:
tbh u will get bottlenecing with that cpu when your running SLI/CROSSFIRE.

u will need to clock to atleast 4.6ghz to get the same level of performance of a PII @ 4ghz for gaming
Click to expand...
^This.

With the poor single-threaded performance (slower than Phenom II), in games that use only 3 cores or less (or even 4 cores) will bottleneck the high-end crossfire/SLI graphic setup to hell.

Poor single-thread performance and gaming don't mix well, it is that simple. Also, I recalled review mentioning that AMD was taking the low IPC high frequency approach for performance (hoping that their CPU overclocked to 5GHz and beyond would rival Intel's CPU typical overclocks of to around 4GHz max, but the problem was that their "high frequency" approach was made pointless, with SandyBridge being able to overclock to just as high, AND with much higher IPC. Personally I think high frequency approach instead of high IPC approach sucks anyway, since it would usually mean higher power-consumption.

So what if the Bulldozer made the world record of overclocked to 8GHz+? The power, voltage and cooling required for that is not practical for real world everyday usage...even 6GHz would consume WAY to much power, and produce so much heat that not even the best air CPU cooler can handle.
 
Last edited:
Cool Breeze said:
He he ,

Ok I have been using a sandy 2400 and a P67 rev 3 board

...


Now I got the itch to see what bulldoser could do, as per my sig I went for the FX 8120 as I knew the 6 and 4 cores wouldn't cut it for me. So far I'm impressed AMD might have marketed it wrong, but it is actually a very good chip. I havn't played much with it yet but running BF3 all cores are utilised and I now have zero lag on 64 player servers where the action can get pretty intense , ...
Click to expand...

So, the 8120 is better than the i2400. But what about the 2500k (overclocked)? Do you think that the 2500k would've outperformed your 8120, in actual use? From memory, the 2500k and the 8120 are similarly priced.
 
Cinebench,

cinebenchp.png


3D Mark 11

3dmark11x.png


Hevean

unigene.png



To answer about the 2500K I couldn't say as I've not owned one but this thing kills the 2400 all day.

For an all round processor this really ain't that bad, gaming isn't my main focus but it sure is more than acceptable.
 
Last edited:
sunama said:
So, the 8120 is better than the i2400. But what about the 2500k (overclocked)? Do you think that the 2500k would've outperformed your 8120, in actual use? From memory, the 2500k and the 8120 are similarly priced.
Click to expand...
a 2500k would outperform it..

as i said as it is now even a PII 6 core outperform it clock for clock and for gaming it needs to be clocked atleast 600mhz higher than a PII 6 core to get the similar performance level.
 
Eight Cores! :eek:

I dont know, I've not been keep up with the new stuff for years and i mean that in the sense of just reading whats out there. But eight cores ;)

Whats the intel CPu's they quad or six these days?:confused:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom