|
On October 13 2011 08:50 Shikyo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 08:24 Executor1 wrote: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 Im running a gtx 260 (core 216) and its starting to feel outdated (even though most things still run max, no dx 11 is starting to suck) At that pricepoint 6950 and GTX 560 Ti are very competitive, 560 Ti overclocks better but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.
Get 6950, turn it into 6970: http://www.techpowerup.com/articles/overclocking/159
|
On October 13 2011 10:10 Satyric wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 08:50 Shikyo wrote:On October 13 2011 08:24 Executor1 wrote: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 Im running a gtx 260 (core 216) and its starting to feel outdated (even though most things still run max, no dx 11 is starting to suck) At that pricepoint 6950 and GTX 560 Ti are very competitive, 560 Ti overclocks better but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. Get 6950, turn it into 6970: http://www.techpowerup.com/articles/overclocking/159
You realized you linked to a year old article? But good luck with that considering how most are hardware level locked.
|
On October 13 2011 10:10 Antisocialmunky wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 10:06 JingleHell wrote:On October 13 2011 10:00 Manit0u wrote: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. 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...
I don't really care what the reason is much, I'm just tired of hearing the "intended for servers" excuse being offered for a CPU that received so much bullshit hype as a gaming CPU. Or was I the only one here who watched IPL?
|
On October 13 2011 10:21 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 10:10 Antisocialmunky wrote:On October 13 2011 10:06 JingleHell wrote:On October 13 2011 10:00 Manit0u wrote: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. 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... I don't really care what the reason is much, I'm just tired of hearing the "intended for servers" excuse being offered for a CPU that received so much bullshit hype as a gaming CPU. Or was I the only one here who watched IPL?
Haha I think we all watched the IPL - otherwise these guys are on the wrong forum :p
|
On October 13 2011 11:37 mav451 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 10:21 JingleHell wrote:On October 13 2011 10:10 Antisocialmunky wrote:On October 13 2011 10:06 JingleHell wrote:On October 13 2011 10:00 Manit0u wrote: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. 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... I don't really care what the reason is much, I'm just tired of hearing the "intended for servers" excuse being offered for a CPU that received so much bullshit hype as a gaming CPU. Or was I the only one here who watched IPL? Haha I think we all watched the IPL - otherwise these guys are on the wrong forum :p
Well, anyone who watched IPL shouldn't be acting like AMD didn't hype it as a gaming processor.
If they could have kept their marketing in check, they'd be getting a lot less hate.
|
They cannot recover from such a terrinle release. I own an AMD cpu myself and this is definitely cobfirmation I have to switch to intel for my new rig.
|
It can run 4 copies of Starcraft 2 at once so you can be your own 4 vs 4 team :D
|
On October 13 2011 11:42 AxelTVx wrote:
They cannot recover from such a terrinle release. I own an AMD cpu myself and this is definitely cobfirmation I have to switch to intel for my new rig.
By any chance do you live with a prankster? If so, they swapped your B and N keycaps.
|
On October 13 2011 10:12 skyR wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 10:10 Satyric wrote:On October 13 2011 08:50 Shikyo wrote:On October 13 2011 08:24 Executor1 wrote: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) 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. Get 6950, turn it into 6970: http://www.techpowerup.com/articles/overclocking/159 You realized you linked to a year old article? But good luck with that considering how most are hardware level locked.
It still works.
|
On October 13 2011 22:02 Satyric wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 10:12 skyR wrote:On October 13 2011 10:10 Satyric wrote:On October 13 2011 08:50 Shikyo wrote:On October 13 2011 08:24 Executor1 wrote: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) 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. Get 6950, turn it into 6970: http://www.techpowerup.com/articles/overclocking/159 You realized you linked to a year old article? But good luck with that considering how most are hardware level locked. It still works.
Only if you get a card where they didn't physically deactivate the unused part of the GPU. And if there's not a BIOS selector switch (they don't make it with that anymore), it gives you much better odds of having a rather expensive paperweight.
|
Hope AMD can get it together. This 2600K is my first Intel cpu, the Phenoms were just not competitive enough. Bulldozer flopping only means bad things for the consumer, and for Intel too if AMD goes under and the Government starts riding them.
That said I still have a 6970, love AMD/ATI gpus 
|
gonna buy a i5-2500 3.30Ghz in 2 weeks, can't wait. farewell AMD.
I'm sad, competition is essential for innovation and prices. Even if i would never even think of buying anything but Intel.
Hardware locked frequencies is pretty bad already.... probably wouldn't have happened if AMD had a competitive and overclockable CPU.
|
On October 13 2011 11:39 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 11:37 mav451 wrote:On October 13 2011 10:21 JingleHell wrote:On October 13 2011 10:10 Antisocialmunky wrote:On October 13 2011 10:06 JingleHell wrote:On October 13 2011 10:00 Manit0u wrote: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. 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... I don't really care what the reason is much, I'm just tired of hearing the "intended for servers" excuse being offered for a CPU that received so much bullshit hype as a gaming CPU. Or was I the only one here who watched IPL? Haha I think we all watched the IPL - otherwise these guys are on the wrong forum :p Well, anyone who watched IPL shouldn't be acting like AMD didn't hype it as a gaming processor. If they could have kept their marketing in check, they'd be getting a lot less hate.
What's IPL? I'm being serious here. Some SC2 tournament?
|
You know, even though BD is relatively good at highly-threaded integer workloads, like for server use, on second glance, the die size is kind of disappointing for the performance you get.
BD 4 module FX-8150 is 315mm2, Sandy Bridge 4 core is 216mm2 yet has pretty much the same performance. I don't think that the corresponding Opteron and Xeon sizes will be that much off relatively. (and keep in mind that many of the Xeons don't have integrated graphics, and the 216mm2 includes the integrated graphics)
So the 2 module FX-4100 is another 315mm2 die and is trying to compete in price and performance with Intel's dual core i3-2100 at 131mm2. Seems expensive for AMD.
edit: maybe BD has too much cache? They've got 2MB L2 cache per module and 8MB L3 cache in all.
And the cache latency is terrible compared to Sandy Bridge. Memory latency not as good either.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/6
|
On October 13 2011 22:50 Myrmidon wrote:You know, even though BD is relatively good at highly-threaded integer workloads, like for server use, on second glance, the die size is kind of disappointing for the performance you get. BD 4 module FX-8150 is 315mm2, Sandy Bridge 4 core is 216mm2 yet has pretty much the same performance. I don't think that the corresponding Opteron and Xeon sizes will be that much off relatively. (and keep in mind that many of the Xeons don't have integrated graphics, and the 216mm2 includes the integrated graphics) So the 2 module FX-4100 is another 315mm2 die and is trying to compete in price and performance with Intel's dual core i3-2100 at 131mm2. Seems expensive for AMD. edit: maybe BD has too much cache? They've got 2MB L2 cache per module and 8MB L3 cache in all. And the cache latency is terrible compared to Sandy Bridge. Memory latency not as good either. http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/6
So what you're saying is that if the cache size was reduced, the overall latency and performance ratio to mm would go up?
edit: Question: Does more cache mean more latency by default, or is that just better manufacturing and design by intel?
|
I wouldn't link the two together.
Pretty much the only thing that had me going was the 4CU/4C argument, but after seeing Hardware.fr's numbers for even that, it doesn't look good. Anyway, nobody should be considering a 1st gen BD if they're serious about value. Maybe things are different in the 2nd iteration, but AMD has got a lot of work to do
|
On October 13 2011 22:38 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 11:39 JingleHell wrote:On October 13 2011 11:37 mav451 wrote:On October 13 2011 10:21 JingleHell wrote:On October 13 2011 10:10 Antisocialmunky wrote:On October 13 2011 10:06 JingleHell wrote:On October 13 2011 10:00 Manit0u wrote: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. 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... I don't really care what the reason is much, I'm just tired of hearing the "intended for servers" excuse being offered for a CPU that received so much bullshit hype as a gaming CPU. Or was I the only one here who watched IPL? Haha I think we all watched the IPL - otherwise these guys are on the wrong forum :p Well, anyone who watched IPL shouldn't be acting like AMD didn't hype it as a gaming processor. If they could have kept their marketing in check, they'd be getting a lot less hate. What's IPL? I'm being serious here. Some SC2 tournament?
And you call yourself an archon... *shakes head*
Yes, it's some sc2 tournament.
|
There is no reason not to buy a 2500k now. On the other hand, software has shitty multi-core/thread management.
|
Microcenter has i5s at 149.99 again.
|
On October 13 2011 23:16 ilovelings wrote:
There is no reason not to buy a 2500k now. On the other hand, software has shitty multi-core/thread management.
No it doesn't. Pretty much all CPU-heavy software uses multiple threads today, even games and OS. Although most games benefits more from using physical cores rather than logical, but they still use more than 1 core.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
