|
Yikes... well if you're going to buy an AMD, stick with a Phenom.
|
On October 13 2011 02:21 theBOOCH wrote:
Yikes... well if you're going to buy an AMD, stick with a Phenom.
If you're going to buy an AMD, stick with a Radeon.
|
On October 13 2011 02:23 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 02:21 theBOOCH wrote:
Yikes... well if you're going to buy an AMD, stick with a Phenom. If you're going to buy an AMD, stick with a Radeon.
ZING!... i lol'd.
|
On October 13 2011 02:14 B00ts wrote:
I haven't seen / can't find anything yet. Anyone else?
There are some really old Interlagos ES benchmarks from like 6 months ago, but nothing new.
And no Bulldozer Linux benchmarks either when I checked.
|
|
|
On October 13 2011 02:21 B00ts wrote:Show nested quote +
Lets not kid ourselves here. They released an absolute turd of a product. When the i7-2600k, which has been out for almost close to a year now, completely annihilates the FX-8150 in virtually every benchmark that is applicable to 99.9% of the consumer base out there, you know AMD has a massive failure on their hands.
This is fair... Except that the FX-8150 is not ~$314, but $245. Still I think the price/performance ratio leans towards Intel still.
Someone on [H] ran the numbers and its questionable if the 2500's or one of the FX-81xx's are better since OCing is kinda meh due to the power issues. At stock the FX are better and at OC they are about the same. The only issues are the cost of system and the fact that BD mobos have more PCI-e lanes etc etc. So its kinda a wash and really depends on what you want. I'd be more curious about the FX-4100.
|
On October 13 2011 02:29 Antisocialmunky wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 02:21 B00ts wrote:
Lets not kid ourselves here. They released an absolute turd of a product. When the i7-2600k, which has been out for almost close to a year now, completely annihilates the FX-8150 in virtually every benchmark that is applicable to 99.9% of the consumer base out there, you know AMD has a massive failure on their hands.
This is fair... Except that the FX-8150 is not ~$314, but $245. Still I think the price/performance ratio leans towards Intel still. Someone on [H] ran the numbers and its questionable if the 2500's or one of the FX-81xx's are better since OCing is kinda meh due to the power issues. At stock the FX are better and at OC they are about the same. The only issues are the cost of system and the fact that BD mobos have more PCI-e lanes etc etc. So its kinda a wash and really depends on what you want. I'd be more curious about the FX-4100.
Uhm, OCing might be the same end result on high end custom loops, according to AT a 2500k hits roughly the same clock on air as an 8150, with better clock for clock performance.
|
Big disappointment. Oh well, I'm no adamant fanboy but I've usually leaned towards Intel. Pretty hyped for Ivy Bridge release in March 2012, might build a new computer around that if money permits 
|
On October 13 2011 02:05 B00ts wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 02:01 Bibdy wrote:
Well, where's the test that shows off its merits? If it was intended for a specific niche, shouldn't that be the benchmark? I find it more likely that they hedged a lot of bets on a single research line that was not particularly fruitful, and they've decided to release something to try and get some of that investment back. If you follow the industry at all... You would know that the new platform was designed for The Server market. However, I'm fully aware that not everyone is as nerdy as I when it comes to this stuff... But any google search for Bulldozer will eventually get you search results from prior to today and you can plainly see this fact.
afaik servers stay on 24/7 and you ideally don't want to spend 50$ a day on the electricity bill for your computer, please correct me if I'm wrong.
|
On October 13 2011 02:37 Shikyo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 02:05 B00ts wrote:On October 13 2011 02:01 Bibdy wrote:
Well, where's the test that shows off its merits? If it was intended for a specific niche, shouldn't that be the benchmark? I find it more likely that they hedged a lot of bets on a single research line that was not particularly fruitful, and they've decided to release something to try and get some of that investment back. If you follow the industry at all... You would know that the new platform was designed for The Server market. However, I'm fully aware that not everyone is as nerdy as I when it comes to this stuff... But any google search for Bulldozer will eventually get you search results from prior to today and you can plainly see this fact. afaik servers stay on 24/7 and you ideally don't want to spend 50$ a day on the electricity bill for your computer, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Wrong.
Any large scale server/noc centre would have no issue at all paying 50 dollars per day for a solid reliable server.
EDIT: For clarification, the Data Centre/Noc I work for spends roughly $25,000 per month on our electricity bill, and we use the AMD platform in most of our servers.
|
On games like sc2 which is cpu intensive AND intel biased, there's absolutely NO reason at all to go with Bulldozer.
|
On October 13 2011 02:37 Shikyo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 02:05 B00ts wrote:On October 13 2011 02:01 Bibdy wrote:
Well, where's the test that shows off its merits? If it was intended for a specific niche, shouldn't that be the benchmark? I find it more likely that they hedged a lot of bets on a single research line that was not particularly fruitful, and they've decided to release something to try and get some of that investment back. If you follow the industry at all... You would know that the new platform was designed for The Server market. However, I'm fully aware that not everyone is as nerdy as I when it comes to this stuff... But any google search for Bulldozer will eventually get you search results from prior to today and you can plainly see this fact. afaik servers stay on 24/7 and you ideally don't want to spend 50$ a day on the electricity bill for your computer, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Actually BD has some good features for saving power in the true server market, it's the home use where the power consumption blows. It's just that home server with proper server qualifications is very niche, the enterprise server market doesn't vary too significantly most of the time, and BD just plain hasn't impressed yet for the majority of consumers.
I'm utterly against BD for consumer use, but I won't argue their validity and viability for the server market. They just really picked some bad directions for their consumer marketing that caused them to underwhelm. If they'd marketed in a completely different route and targeted the so-called "budget enthusiast" bracket at release, they'd have done much better.
|
On October 13 2011 02:40 TadH wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 02:37 Shikyo wrote:On October 13 2011 02:05 B00ts wrote:On October 13 2011 02:01 Bibdy wrote:
Well, where's the test that shows off its merits? If it was intended for a specific niche, shouldn't that be the benchmark? I find it more likely that they hedged a lot of bets on a single research line that was not particularly fruitful, and they've decided to release something to try and get some of that investment back. If you follow the industry at all... You would know that the new platform was designed for The Server market. However, I'm fully aware that not everyone is as nerdy as I when it comes to this stuff... But any google search for Bulldozer will eventually get you search results from prior to today and you can plainly see this fact. afaik servers stay on 24/7 and you ideally don't want to spend 50$ a day on the electricity bill for your computer, please correct me if I'm wrong. Wrong. Any large scale server/noc centre would have no issue at all paying 50 dollars per day for a solid reliable server.
But they have issues paying 320$ for a 2600k instead of 245$ for a bulldozer?
On October 13 2011 02:42 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 02:37 Shikyo wrote:On October 13 2011 02:05 B00ts wrote:On October 13 2011 02:01 Bibdy wrote:
Well, where's the test that shows off its merits? If it was intended for a specific niche, shouldn't that be the benchmark? I find it more likely that they hedged a lot of bets on a single research line that was not particularly fruitful, and they've decided to release something to try and get some of that investment back. If you follow the industry at all... You would know that the new platform was designed for The Server market. However, I'm fully aware that not everyone is as nerdy as I when it comes to this stuff... But any google search for Bulldozer will eventually get you search results from prior to today and you can plainly see this fact. afaik servers stay on 24/7 and you ideally don't want to spend 50$ a day on the electricity bill for your computer, please correct me if I'm wrong. Actually BD has some good features for saving power in the true server market, it's the home use where the power consumption blows. It's just that home server with proper server qualifications is very niche, the enterprise server market doesn't vary too significantly most of the time, and BD just plain hasn't impressed yet for the majority of consumers.
Oh they're running it on stock?
|
On October 13 2011 02:42 Shikyo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 02:40 TadH wrote:On October 13 2011 02:37 Shikyo wrote:On October 13 2011 02:05 B00ts wrote:On October 13 2011 02:01 Bibdy wrote:
Well, where's the test that shows off its merits? If it was intended for a specific niche, shouldn't that be the benchmark? I find it more likely that they hedged a lot of bets on a single research line that was not particularly fruitful, and they've decided to release something to try and get some of that investment back. If you follow the industry at all... You would know that the new platform was designed for The Server market. However, I'm fully aware that not everyone is as nerdy as I when it comes to this stuff... But any google search for Bulldozer will eventually get you search results from prior to today and you can plainly see this fact. afaik servers stay on 24/7 and you ideally don't want to spend 50$ a day on the electricity bill for your computer, please correct me if I'm wrong. Wrong. Any large scale server/noc centre would have no issue at all paying 50 dollars per day for a solid reliable server. But they have issues paying 320$ for a 2600k instead of 245$ for a bulldozer? Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 02:42 JingleHell wrote:On October 13 2011 02:37 Shikyo wrote:On October 13 2011 02:05 B00ts wrote:On October 13 2011 02:01 Bibdy wrote:
Well, where's the test that shows off its merits? If it was intended for a specific niche, shouldn't that be the benchmark? I find it more likely that they hedged a lot of bets on a single research line that was not particularly fruitful, and they've decided to release something to try and get some of that investment back. If you follow the industry at all... You would know that the new platform was designed for The Server market. However, I'm fully aware that not everyone is as nerdy as I when it comes to this stuff... But any google search for Bulldozer will eventually get you search results from prior to today and you can plainly see this fact. afaik servers stay on 24/7 and you ideally don't want to spend 50$ a day on the electricity bill for your computer, please correct me if I'm wrong. Actually BD has some good features for saving power in the true server market, it's the home use where the power consumption blows. It's just that home server with proper server qualifications is very niche, the enterprise server market doesn't vary too significantly most of the time, and BD just plain hasn't impressed yet for the majority of consumers. Oh they're running it on stock?
First of all, that was not your initial point was it?
Read my edit.
|
On October 13 2011 02:43 TadH wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 02:42 Shikyo wrote:On October 13 2011 02:40 TadH wrote:On October 13 2011 02:37 Shikyo wrote:On October 13 2011 02:05 B00ts wrote:On October 13 2011 02:01 Bibdy wrote:
Well, where's the test that shows off its merits? If it was intended for a specific niche, shouldn't that be the benchmark? I find it more likely that they hedged a lot of bets on a single research line that was not particularly fruitful, and they've decided to release something to try and get some of that investment back. If you follow the industry at all... You would know that the new platform was designed for The Server market. However, I'm fully aware that not everyone is as nerdy as I when it comes to this stuff... But any google search for Bulldozer will eventually get you search results from prior to today and you can plainly see this fact. afaik servers stay on 24/7 and you ideally don't want to spend 50$ a day on the electricity bill for your computer, please correct me if I'm wrong. Wrong. Any large scale server/noc centre would have no issue at all paying 50 dollars per day for a solid reliable server. But they have issues paying 320$ for a 2600k instead of 245$ for a bulldozer? On October 13 2011 02:42 JingleHell wrote:On October 13 2011 02:37 Shikyo wrote:On October 13 2011 02:05 B00ts wrote:On October 13 2011 02:01 Bibdy wrote:
Well, where's the test that shows off its merits? If it was intended for a specific niche, shouldn't that be the benchmark? I find it more likely that they hedged a lot of bets on a single research line that was not particularly fruitful, and they've decided to release something to try and get some of that investment back. If you follow the industry at all... You would know that the new platform was designed for The Server market. However, I'm fully aware that not everyone is as nerdy as I when it comes to this stuff... But any google search for Bulldozer will eventually get you search results from prior to today and you can plainly see this fact. afaik servers stay on 24/7 and you ideally don't want to spend 50$ a day on the electricity bill for your computer, please correct me if I'm wrong. Actually BD has some good features for saving power in the true server market, it's the home use where the power consumption blows. It's just that home server with proper server qualifications is very niche, the enterprise server market doesn't vary too significantly most of the time, and BD just plain hasn't impressed yet for the majority of consumers. Oh they're running it on stock? First of all, that was not your initial point was it? Read my edit.
I'm not sure how you guys spending 10k more than you would by using intel CPUs is a good argument
|
On October 13 2011 02:42 Shikyo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 02:40 TadH wrote:On October 13 2011 02:37 Shikyo wrote:On October 13 2011 02:05 B00ts wrote:On October 13 2011 02:01 Bibdy wrote:
Well, where's the test that shows off its merits? If it was intended for a specific niche, shouldn't that be the benchmark? I find it more likely that they hedged a lot of bets on a single research line that was not particularly fruitful, and they've decided to release something to try and get some of that investment back. If you follow the industry at all... You would know that the new platform was designed for The Server market. However, I'm fully aware that not everyone is as nerdy as I when it comes to this stuff... But any google search for Bulldozer will eventually get you search results from prior to today and you can plainly see this fact. afaik servers stay on 24/7 and you ideally don't want to spend 50$ a day on the electricity bill for your computer, please correct me if I'm wrong. Wrong. Any large scale server/noc centre would have no issue at all paying 50 dollars per day for a solid reliable server. But they have issues paying 320$ for a 2600k instead of 245$ for a bulldozer? Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 02:42 JingleHell wrote:On October 13 2011 02:37 Shikyo wrote:On October 13 2011 02:05 B00ts wrote:On October 13 2011 02:01 Bibdy wrote:
Well, where's the test that shows off its merits? If it was intended for a specific niche, shouldn't that be the benchmark? I find it more likely that they hedged a lot of bets on a single research line that was not particularly fruitful, and they've decided to release something to try and get some of that investment back. If you follow the industry at all... You would know that the new platform was designed for The Server market. However, I'm fully aware that not everyone is as nerdy as I when it comes to this stuff... But any google search for Bulldozer will eventually get you search results from prior to today and you can plainly see this fact. afaik servers stay on 24/7 and you ideally don't want to spend 50$ a day on the electricity bill for your computer, please correct me if I'm wrong. Actually BD has some good features for saving power in the true server market, it's the home use where the power consumption blows. It's just that home server with proper server qualifications is very niche, the enterprise server market doesn't vary too significantly most of the time, and BD just plain hasn't impressed yet for the majority of consumers. Oh they're running it on stock?
Enterprise server farms don't give a rats ass about clock, it's about physical cores, thermals, and power use. The power saving features help the thermals in the server farm environment, making them a good choice there.
Overclocking is home use shit. Server farms work COMPLETELY differently, and the market share is generally distributed based on specific use rather than silly things like price or power consumption alone.
|
On October 13 2011 02:40 TadH wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 02:37 Shikyo wrote:On October 13 2011 02:05 B00ts wrote:On October 13 2011 02:01 Bibdy wrote:
Well, where's the test that shows off its merits? If it was intended for a specific niche, shouldn't that be the benchmark? I find it more likely that they hedged a lot of bets on a single research line that was not particularly fruitful, and they've decided to release something to try and get some of that investment back. If you follow the industry at all... You would know that the new platform was designed for The Server market. However, I'm fully aware that not everyone is as nerdy as I when it comes to this stuff... But any google search for Bulldozer will eventually get you search results from prior to today and you can plainly see this fact. afaik servers stay on 24/7 and you ideally don't want to spend 50$ a day on the electricity bill for your computer, please correct me if I'm wrong. Wrong. Any large scale server/noc centre would have no issue at all paying 50 dollars per day for a solid reliable server. EDIT: For clarification, the Data Centre/Noc I work for spends roughly $25,000 per month on our electricity bill, and we use the AMD platform in most of our servers.
I'm no server/performance guy, but isn't the total cost of ownership of a server farm dominated by both the salary of the guy you pay to maintain it, and the long-term power consumption costs? I can't think of any business that would just up and go "Yeah, fuck it, get the super heavy-duty chips, and to hell with the power costs!"
|
On October 13 2011 02:45 Shikyo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 02:43 TadH wrote:On October 13 2011 02:42 Shikyo wrote:On October 13 2011 02:40 TadH wrote:On October 13 2011 02:37 Shikyo wrote:On October 13 2011 02:05 B00ts wrote:On October 13 2011 02:01 Bibdy wrote:
Well, where's the test that shows off its merits? If it was intended for a specific niche, shouldn't that be the benchmark? I find it more likely that they hedged a lot of bets on a single research line that was not particularly fruitful, and they've decided to release something to try and get some of that investment back. If you follow the industry at all... You would know that the new platform was designed for The Server market. However, I'm fully aware that not everyone is as nerdy as I when it comes to this stuff... But any google search for Bulldozer will eventually get you search results from prior to today and you can plainly see this fact. afaik servers stay on 24/7 and you ideally don't want to spend 50$ a day on the electricity bill for your computer, please correct me if I'm wrong. Wrong. Any large scale server/noc centre would have no issue at all paying 50 dollars per day for a solid reliable server. But they have issues paying 320$ for a 2600k instead of 245$ for a bulldozer? On October 13 2011 02:42 JingleHell wrote:On October 13 2011 02:37 Shikyo wrote:On October 13 2011 02:05 B00ts wrote:On October 13 2011 02:01 Bibdy wrote:
Well, where's the test that shows off its merits? If it was intended for a specific niche, shouldn't that be the benchmark? I find it more likely that they hedged a lot of bets on a single research line that was not particularly fruitful, and they've decided to release something to try and get some of that investment back. If you follow the industry at all... You would know that the new platform was designed for The Server market. However, I'm fully aware that not everyone is as nerdy as I when it comes to this stuff... But any google search for Bulldozer will eventually get you search results from prior to today and you can plainly see this fact. afaik servers stay on 24/7 and you ideally don't want to spend 50$ a day on the electricity bill for your computer, please correct me if I'm wrong. Actually BD has some good features for saving power in the true server market, it's the home use where the power consumption blows. It's just that home server with proper server qualifications is very niche, the enterprise server market doesn't vary too significantly most of the time, and BD just plain hasn't impressed yet for the majority of consumers. Oh they're running it on stock? First of all, that was not your initial point was it? Read my edit. I'm not sure how you guys spending 10k more than you would by using intel CPUs is a good argument
Dude it's no an argument, it's fact. They use AMD on 90% of the servers here. I'm just letting you know. I'm not trying to debate semantics with you.
10 grand is nothing to these guys (and most enterprise level data centres)
Believe it or not AMD CPU's are really good at multi threaded tasks, for a server the more cores the better, who gives a fuck about clock speed when you have a server with 24 cores in it?
|
On October 13 2011 02:45 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 02:42 Shikyo wrote:On October 13 2011 02:40 TadH wrote:On October 13 2011 02:37 Shikyo wrote:On October 13 2011 02:05 B00ts wrote:On October 13 2011 02:01 Bibdy wrote:
Well, where's the test that shows off its merits? If it was intended for a specific niche, shouldn't that be the benchmark? I find it more likely that they hedged a lot of bets on a single research line that was not particularly fruitful, and they've decided to release something to try and get some of that investment back. If you follow the industry at all... You would know that the new platform was designed for The Server market. However, I'm fully aware that not everyone is as nerdy as I when it comes to this stuff... But any google search for Bulldozer will eventually get you search results from prior to today and you can plainly see this fact. afaik servers stay on 24/7 and you ideally don't want to spend 50$ a day on the electricity bill for your computer, please correct me if I'm wrong. Wrong. Any large scale server/noc centre would have no issue at all paying 50 dollars per day for a solid reliable server. But they have issues paying 320$ for a 2600k instead of 245$ for a bulldozer? On October 13 2011 02:42 JingleHell wrote:On October 13 2011 02:37 Shikyo wrote:On October 13 2011 02:05 B00ts wrote:On October 13 2011 02:01 Bibdy wrote:
Well, where's the test that shows off its merits? If it was intended for a specific niche, shouldn't that be the benchmark? I find it more likely that they hedged a lot of bets on a single research line that was not particularly fruitful, and they've decided to release something to try and get some of that investment back. If you follow the industry at all... You would know that the new platform was designed for The Server market. However, I'm fully aware that not everyone is as nerdy as I when it comes to this stuff... But any google search for Bulldozer will eventually get you search results from prior to today and you can plainly see this fact. afaik servers stay on 24/7 and you ideally don't want to spend 50$ a day on the electricity bill for your computer, please correct me if I'm wrong. Actually BD has some good features for saving power in the true server market, it's the home use where the power consumption blows. It's just that home server with proper server qualifications is very niche, the enterprise server market doesn't vary too significantly most of the time, and BD just plain hasn't impressed yet for the majority of consumers. Oh they're running it on stock? Enterprise server farms don't give a rats ass about clock, it's about physical cores, thermals, and power use. The power saving features help the thermals in the server farm environment, making them a good choice there. Overclocking is home use shit. Server farms work COMPLETELY differently, and the market share is generally distributed based on specific use rather than silly things like price or power consumption alone.
Well enterprise server farms might, sure. I'm not sure why "server" has to mean 500.000$ systems but let us all then witness the Bulldozer be better than 990X at that.
|
On October 13 2011 02:46 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 02:40 TadH wrote:On October 13 2011 02:37 Shikyo wrote:On October 13 2011 02:05 B00ts wrote:On October 13 2011 02:01 Bibdy wrote:
Well, where's the test that shows off its merits? If it was intended for a specific niche, shouldn't that be the benchmark? I find it more likely that they hedged a lot of bets on a single research line that was not particularly fruitful, and they've decided to release something to try and get some of that investment back. If you follow the industry at all... You would know that the new platform was designed for The Server market. However, I'm fully aware that not everyone is as nerdy as I when it comes to this stuff... But any google search for Bulldozer will eventually get you search results from prior to today and you can plainly see this fact. afaik servers stay on 24/7 and you ideally don't want to spend 50$ a day on the electricity bill for your computer, please correct me if I'm wrong. Wrong. Any large scale server/noc centre would have no issue at all paying 50 dollars per day for a solid reliable server. EDIT: For clarification, the Data Centre/Noc I work for spends roughly $25,000 per month on our electricity bill, and we use the AMD platform in most of our servers. I'm no server/performance guy, but isn't the total cost of ownership of a server farm dominated by both the salary of the guy you pay to maintain it, and the long-term power consumption costs? I can't think of any business that would just up and go "Yeah, fuck it, get the super heavy-duty chips, and to hell with the power costs!"
The power costs function differently in a server farm.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4481/details-on-amd-bulldozer-opterons-to-feature-configurable-tdp
BD Opterons for servers. Special features.
On October 13 2011 02:48 Shikyo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 02:45 JingleHell wrote:On October 13 2011 02:42 Shikyo wrote:On October 13 2011 02:40 TadH wrote:On October 13 2011 02:37 Shikyo wrote:On October 13 2011 02:05 B00ts wrote:On October 13 2011 02:01 Bibdy wrote:
Well, where's the test that shows off its merits? If it was intended for a specific niche, shouldn't that be the benchmark? I find it more likely that they hedged a lot of bets on a single research line that was not particularly fruitful, and they've decided to release something to try and get some of that investment back. If you follow the industry at all... You would know that the new platform was designed for The Server market. However, I'm fully aware that not everyone is as nerdy as I when it comes to this stuff... But any google search for Bulldozer will eventually get you search results from prior to today and you can plainly see this fact. afaik servers stay on 24/7 and you ideally don't want to spend 50$ a day on the electricity bill for your computer, please correct me if I'm wrong. Wrong. Any large scale server/noc centre would have no issue at all paying 50 dollars per day for a solid reliable server. But they have issues paying 320$ for a 2600k instead of 245$ for a bulldozer? On October 13 2011 02:42 JingleHell wrote:On October 13 2011 02:37 Shikyo wrote:On October 13 2011 02:05 B00ts wrote:On October 13 2011 02:01 Bibdy wrote:
Well, where's the test that shows off its merits? If it was intended for a specific niche, shouldn't that be the benchmark? I find it more likely that they hedged a lot of bets on a single research line that was not particularly fruitful, and they've decided to release something to try and get some of that investment back. If you follow the industry at all... You would know that the new platform was designed for The Server market. However, I'm fully aware that not everyone is as nerdy as I when it comes to this stuff... But any google search for Bulldozer will eventually get you search results from prior to today and you can plainly see this fact. afaik servers stay on 24/7 and you ideally don't want to spend 50$ a day on the electricity bill for your computer, please correct me if I'm wrong. Actually BD has some good features for saving power in the true server market, it's the home use where the power consumption blows. It's just that home server with proper server qualifications is very niche, the enterprise server market doesn't vary too significantly most of the time, and BD just plain hasn't impressed yet for the majority of consumers. Oh they're running it on stock? Enterprise server farms don't give a rats ass about clock, it's about physical cores, thermals, and power use. The power saving features help the thermals in the server farm environment, making them a good choice there. Overclocking is home use shit. Server farms work COMPLETELY differently, and the market share is generally distributed based on specific use rather than silly things like price or power consumption alone. Well enterprise server farms might, sure. I'm not sure why "server" has to mean 500.000$ systems but let us all then witness the Bulldozer be better than 990X at that.
The home-based Clan ventrilo and 3 CSS Dedi's server is NOT the server market.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
