EPTOn October 13 2011 06:39 Boblion wrote:
We will all get ARM devices and cloud computing anyway !
We will all get ARM devices and cloud computing anyway !
Not if Intel gets into the mobile processor market. I smell worse days ahead for ARM.
AMD Bulldozer official release and reviews. - Page 13
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
Not if Intel gets into the mobile processor market. I smell worse days ahead for ARM. | ||
|
Rinrun
Canada3509 Posts
edit: I wanna see that 4100 | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On October 13 2011 08:06 Serpico wrote: Let's not heap too much praise on the shady company that had to break the law to get an edge on AMD to start with. Uhm, I suppose first gen Phenom being the slowest thing outside a calculator was Intel's fault as well? And Phenom 2 being obsolete on release? | ||
|
Froadac
United States6733 Posts
On October 12 2011 18:37 Carnac wrote: I skimmed through a couple of tests and it looks pretty bad. I have owned Intels and AMDs, because I always simply buy what's the most bang for the amount of bucks I'm willing to spend (and never understood Intel/AMD/nVIDIA/ATI or any corporate fandom). Currently that's a Phenom II 955, which I bought before Sandy Bridge's release. AMD falling further behind is really bad for the consumer, even if you don't intend on ever buying an AMD cpu. Not looking bright for the future and when you compare Intel's with AMD's budget it's not likely to get better any time soon. That's not even including Intel's business practices. Exactly my thoughts. The *acs have similar beliefs. I've had both, a dual core intel, a Q6600, and now a Phenom II 955, which I got before sandy bridge was released. The processor is fine for me, didn't cost that much in comparison to i5/i7, and I thought "oh, I'll be supporting bulldozer blahblahblah" Well, this sucks :/ With bulldozer doing so poorly we're getting closer to a true monopoly in processors. | ||
|
Executor1
1353 Posts
On October 12 2011 19:52 rajssten wrote: ehh so disappointed...what should I be upgrading to nowadays? I always had AMD cpu before, I'm big fan of this company and its policy... I guess I will be stickin with SouthBridge for next 2-3 years then :| If your thinking of upgrading soon then obviously the i7 2600k and the i5 2500k (depending on your budget) are the way to go, the pricing is really really reasonable too. I was surprised how well the i7 2600k performed when compared to the 990x looking at the difference in prices. Im still running a core 2 quad 6800 (old i know) and i will be upgrading to a 2600k in a few weeks, in terms of price and performance its the best your gonna get. Also im probably gonna get a HD 6950 unless someone convinces me otherwise, looking at the benchmarks (and for the price) it seems to be the best option for my price range. Im running a gtx 260 (core 216) and its starting to feel outdated (even though most things still run max, no dx 11 is starting to suck) | ||
|
Shikyo
Finland33997 Posts
On October 13 2011 08:24 Executor1 wrote: If your thinking of upgrading soon then obviously the i7 2600k and the i5 2500k (depending on your budget) are the way to go, the pricing is really really reasonable too. I was surprised how well the i7 2600k performed when compared to the 990x looking at the difference in prices. Im still running a core 2 quad 6800 (old i know) and i will be upgrading to a 2600k in a few weeks, in terms of price and performance its the best your gonna get. Also im probably gonna get a HD 6950 unless someone convinces me otherwise, looking at the benchmarks (and for the price) it seems to be the best option for my price range. Im running a gtx 260 (core 216) and its starting to feel outdated (even though most things still run max, no dx 11 is starting to suck) At that pricepoint 6950 and GTX 560 Ti are very competitive, 560 Ti overclocks better but 6950 tends to be a bit better at stock frequencies, depends largery on the game and which company you favor. Btw this video kind of disgusts me: It's just so stupidly done and so biased. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
| ||
|
rebuffering
Canada2436 Posts
| ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On October 13 2011 08:55 rebuffering wrote: is it just me or will the bulldozer will better for server machines, since technically its going to be better for highly multi-threaded applications, rather than games and the like. Either way, its quite dissapointing, specially to those people who waited for the Bulldozer to come out instead of buying the phenom 2 x6, they could have bought and been using the Ph2 x6 for like a year now. The server processors on BD architecture should be excellent for servers. But then, there's a reason people don't complain about Xeon underperforming in consumer applications. Namely: It doesn't get marketed for them. | ||
|
Executor1
1353 Posts
On October 13 2011 08:50 Shikyo wrote: At that pricepoint 6950 and GTX 560 Ti are very competitive, 560 Ti overclocks better but 6950 tends to be a bit better at stock frequencies, depends largery on the game and which company you favor. Btw this video kind of disgusts me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rDwXuAINJk It's just so stupidly done and so biased. haha yea that video is pretty bad, i kept seeing advertisements for it at IPL 3, i hadnt looked at any preliminary benchmarks yet or anything so i thought the fx might actually be worth looking into. Hmm so the i7 2700k gets released in around 12 days, worth waiting for? the price difference looks to be extremely minimal (like 20-30 dollars maybe less) doesnt seem like there is too much of a difference though a slightly better clock speed and turbo boost is what i notice from the chart on wiki. Edit: actually waiting another 2 weeks on top of that for the 3820 might be nice, considering that i dont know how much overclocking i would actually do (3820 isnt unlocked) having pcie 3.0 a bigger cache (10mb) and support for 1600 ddr3 might be nice. Also it will be using the new socket 2011 so upgrading from that eventually would be alot more feasable not to mention its slightly cheaper, i guess the question is am i going to overclock or not. Ive bought computers/ processors / motherboards with the intention of overclocking before and not gone through with it (or have) so i guess thats sort of up in the air for me >< | ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
Lol I'm not sure what makes you think a LGA 2011 i7 will be less expensive than a LGA1155 or Bulldozer .... Core i7 3820 is on the enthusiast LGA2011 socket that is replacing the existing enthusiast LGA1366. It's going to be priced the same as the core i7 2600k or slightly higher and LGA2011 motherboards will be much more expensive than LGA1155 motherboards considering all the crap you get with X79. To get an enthusiast platform and not overclock is a gigantic waste of money. | ||
|
Childplay
Canada263 Posts
| ||
|
FragKrag
United States11567 Posts
| ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On October 13 2011 09:31 skyR wrote: PCI-E 3.0 is next to useless in a non multi-GPU configuration. Quad channel memory is next to useless for the majority of all consumers. The extra cache over LGA1155 is going to be negligible. Lol I'm not sure what makes you think a LGA 2011 i7 will be less expensive than a LGA1155 or Bulldozer .... Core i7 3820 is on the enthusiast LGA2011 socket that is replacing the existing enthusiast LGA1366. It's going to be priced the same as the core i7 2600k or slightly higher and LGA2011 motherboards will be much more expensive than LGA1155 motherboards considering all the crap you get with X79. To get an enthusiast platform and not overclock is a gigantic waste of money. Yeah, to expand on this, 1366 systems cost more than better 1155 systems, and that's now. Some of the prices have gone down considerably. You're saving over $100 on RAM alone. And very few consumers have a real use for it besides tinkering and benching for shits n gigs. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17872 Posts
On October 13 2011 09:33 Childplay wrote: man why did amd spend all the time and money developing a chip thats slower than the one they already have in the most important part... gaming.... Perhaps they didn't intend to release it for gaming? There are other things to do with computers you know... And servers are pretty important too. | ||
|
SpoR
United States1542 Posts
On October 12 2011 18:37 Carnac wrote: I skimmed through a couple of tests and it looks pretty bad. I have owned Intels and AMDs, because I always simply buy what's the most bang for the amount of bucks I'm willing to spend (and never understood Intel/AMD/nVIDIA/ATI or any corporate fandom). Currently that's a Phenom II 955, which I bought before Sandy Bridge's release. AMD falling further behind is really bad for the consumer, even if you don't intend on ever buying an AMD cpu. Not looking bright for the future and when you compare Intel's with AMD's budget it's not likely to get better any time soon. That's not even including Intel's business practices. From my experience and friends to be honest ATI usually fail and fuck up more often than nvidias. From what I've seen from AMD for the last X years they have been making pretty crappy stuff when compared to similar priced intel counterparts. That doesn't mean I am totally biased fanboy though. They've just yet to impress. | ||
|
Antisocialmunky
United States5913 Posts
On October 13 2011 08:59 JingleHell wrote: The server processors on BD architecture should be excellent for servers. But then, there's a reason people don't complain about Xeon underperforming in consumer applications. Namely: It doesn't get marketed for them. Cray is using the Unholy Yellow-Brown RGB Union of Bulldozer and Tesla for its super computers IIRC. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On October 13 2011 10:00 Manit0u wrote: Perhaps they didn't intend to release it for gaming? There are other things to do with computers you know... And servers are pretty important too. You don't advertise for a market if you aren't willing to get benched in that market. Common sense. I don't see Quadro getting advertised for gaming. | ||
|
xAPOCALYPSEx
1418 Posts
On October 13 2011 08:11 JingleHell wrote: Uhm, I suppose first gen Phenom being the slowest thing outside a calculator was Intel's fault as well? And Phenom 2 being obsolete on release? The Phenom II release wasn't nearly as bad as the Sandy Bridge release xD That being said, sad to see this from AMD  Guess I'll be keeping my Phenom II until a 2500k + 1155 mobo drops in price enough for me to afford | ||
|
Antisocialmunky
United States5913 Posts
On October 13 2011 10:06 JingleHell wrote: You don't advertise for a market if you aren't willing to get benched in that market. Common sense. I don't see Quadro getting advertised for gaming. Well I think they incorrectly projected the market of CPUs when they started designing it all that time ago (4 years I think). I think they thought parallelism would be the way to go because us Computer Scientists would write software to take advantage of that for everything. Well 4 years later, Computer Scientists still don't quite know how best to do that in every application and processing power needs have leveled out somewhat so there's really not that much reason to need that much parallelism in every day stuff... | ||
| ||
