A Czech publication has published the first benchmark scores which compare AMD's upcoming high-performance Bulldozer FX CPUs with Intel's current flagship the six-core Core i7-990X reports Soft-pedia... More...
Hmm, given that even the current i7-2600k beats the crap out of the 980x and likely the 990x in gaming, me thinks this was purposely designed to skew the perceived price to performance. It would have been nice to see it vs a 2600k at 4ghz for a realistic comparison... Unless I'm mistaken and the AMD chip is also a $1k cpu...
We'll have to see the actual benchmarks being verifiable by all reviewers and the consumers before we believe these numbers. There's just too many conflicting reports upon how Bulldozer might perform... Hopefully it can stack up to at least the 2600K for the 8130P. deltatux
Im more than sure there will be comparisons of that when the CPUs launch. And personally i dont think AMD will price there top of the line processor for 1k
The 2600k in now way 'beats the crap' out of the 980/990x CPU's. In some game benchmarks its faster sure, but I don't think most who will spend 1k on a CPU will be using it just for gaming. But the comparison is rubbish anyway, the resolution used basically removes any CPU bottleneck, and even an Athlon II would show similar results. I'd imagine the differences in results are more platform / driver related.
That's the reason I questioned the motives of comparing this CPU to a 1k CPU, especially when in gaming a 2600k performs just as good or better than the 9900x. I think this is either propaganda or just potential hit seeking ( good on Hilbert for not linking to the site ). I'll wait for Guru3d or Anandtech reviews...
That or using programs that are actually multithreaded to take advantage of so many cores. Games suck at pushing CPUs these days, we need to use scientific or multimedia software that does so. deltatux
I've yet to see an Anandtech or Guru3D article completely contradict leaked benchmarks tbh. Leaks the past few years have all been pretty accurate.. Yep. Exactly what I was alluding to. If you drop 1k on a 990x for a gaming rig, you've either more money than sense, or are completely stupid. If you're constantly modelling, rendering/encoding video, running highly threaded apps etc, then sure. But gaming?? No.
well its still trash if you think about the old i7 basicly destroying the new bulldozer which has more cores and is clocked higher
http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/intel_core_i7_990x_hexcore_1366/6 http://hothardware.com/Reviews/Intel-Core-i7990X-Extreme-Edition-Crazy-Fast-Got-Faster/?page=9 http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-990x-extreme-edition-gulftown,2874-12.html http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/03/23/intel-core-i7-990x-extreme-edition-review/1 It at least keeps up with it in the games benched and even if you look at the 2600k reviews where they compare it to the 980x ( there are much mire comprehensive gaming benches of the 980x because it was the first hexacore and people actually cared... ) EG: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/...core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/20 So even if the margin wasn't as much as I said, it easily keeps up with it and the motives of using it as a comparison smell of propaganda/stealth-Charlie. @Dublin_Gunner Go and have a look at the Guru3d Starcraft 2 performance review so you can see how far from reality it was, it said it ran it 120+ fps avg on a gtx480 at stock......where in reality it was more like 60 avg overclocked to good god, which all the other benchmarks backed up. That is unless it was edited after being posted
You realise that due to the long 'approval' aka 'it installs on windows' process by microsoft often the beta's have more features/are more stable/ and perform better than the latest WQHL. In fact often the latest WQHL is actually an older build of a beta driver that has been out for a few days/weeks. The fact that you got so defensive/specificially mentioned Nvidia makes me think it's poor old basement charlie behind your purposefully 'insta-ban' account. It's ok to be fat, old single and angry....oh wait no it's not, ahaha.
"at least keeps up with" is a far cry from "beats the crap out of" in fairness. I don't know what you're getting at with Starcraft. I'd never pick out 1 single game as an indication of relative performance. I know the 2600k and 2500k are on a par with, and faster than the 980/990x in certain games and some other. That wasn't the point I made though. As to why the 'reviewer' chose a 990x to compare it to - only he will know. But my main point was nearly ANY cpu would show similar performance running SLI at 25x16, as any CPU bottleneck is nearly completely removed. And I also hate reviews where they bench the CPU's at stupid resolutions like 800x600, as they're not relative to real world gaming anyway.
I agree with the last part but you misunderstood my Starcraft 2 comment, you said Yet the leaked benches showed sub 60 frames with no AA ( and so did every other site ) but guru3d showed 120...........maybe they benched the menu or something... I agree that my statement was overstated and I already admitted it, but there are some games where it really does perform 30% better at 1080p maxed with AA etc, which is of course a real gaming scenario as you said.
Ah, now I see what the Starcraft thing was in relation to. Cool. My point though was that in general, new hardware over the past few years seems to perform fairly close to leaked benchmarks. And yes, SB can indeed perform better than i7 980/990x in certain games and other apps. I also agree considering the proposed price points, the BD chip should have been benched against SB anyway. Not having an argument with you by the way, 'tis becoming a nice discussion
Yeah arguing on the internet is fruitless, I just finished one and I wish I hadn't wasted my time so that's why I might come across as defensive. I had to spend 2 hours proving to an 'electrician' that audio was capable through a DVI-D to HDMI converter even though proof was in the first post in the thread asking that question... I had to post like 10 screenshots, upload and resize them, post links etc....and he still didn't believe me. The fact that I am currently doing so apparently is also not proof enough :bang: So yeah let's either hope for world ( forum ) peace or armageddon, I'm up for either tbh...
Oh right. He obviously didn;t know the gfx cards have had audio inputs for HDMI output for years - even with only DVI ports on the back??? lol Teach him that HDMI = DVI-D + Audio. Same standard, and same signals passed through.
