There's two types of people in this thread, the people who are Intel fans and want to see Bulldozer fail, and more logical people who are discussing things in a proper manner. Seriously, how does AMD's prior product performance relate at all to the subject at hand? It always seems that somehow and for some reason someone (TheHunter is notorious for this) starts a "AMD's current performance is a joke" argument again. It's rather annoying honestly, because the "proof" is always taken out of context and manipulated.
Lol I'm not saying he was, I'm just saying he has a tendency to bring up the dead horse over and over again consistently. For no reason at all he brought up how Thuban's performance was slower than some Intel CPU. And his benchmark didn't even show the performance of the other CPU....
There's no proof, anyone claims anything that has come out as proof shouldn't be believed since proofs should be verifiable but this can't until the product is out. deltatux
Vsync or no, AA or no, there is no way you van get 160fps with SC2 on ultra with a gtx480, especially with the immature drivers of that time. Like I said, other professional review sites had results no where near yours. http://www.techspot.com/review/305-starcraft2-performance/page7.html 64 frame avg, which clearly exceeds the frame cap of vsync, surely you're not suggesting they too had vsync and AA on even though they state they did no have AA on, hell it was even without AF forced ( if it is not already 16x by default ). So 64 avg with no AA and vsync off vs 160 with no AA and vsync off is quite the difference. They used an i7 @3.7ghz I fail to see how there would be anywhere near that significant difference especially with a gtx480 at stock. Xbit got 98avg with no AA, big difference for an average to 160 especially as they used no AA http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/starcraft2-wings-of-liberty_5.html#sect1 Here is a HD5870 coupled with a 2500k with much more mature drivers and only at 1024x768 and this only a medium quality, also with no AA. 64.9 frame avg. http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/...core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/20 I look forward to my ban for simply disagreeing :S
? I brought it up because the chitchat was leaning towards AMD's older architecture. And because there was a leak about Dirt3 with Intel x980 vs Bulldozer ES in Dirt3. Also what other cpu... in that bench i compared my Q9450 @ 3.56ghz vs Phenom 1100T @ 3.2ghz (4cores vs 6 cores), i used same reso as them 640x480 and same settings (ultra, no AA), although they used 580gtx vs 570gtx. And yet it crushed it like rotten tomato lol. I only despise current PhenomII not AMD in general.. So you're gonna say current Phenom II ownz all? I only pinpointed that out it doesn't, i never said Bulldozer is gonna suck, ever. Except its memory bandwidth but that's still in wraps...
You continue to site Anandtech and their review...you're not helping your case by siting Anandtech. This is the last time I'm going to bother...Look at this "comparison" and scroll down towards the bottom. Look specifically at the "World of Warcraft" results. They claim "1680x1050, ALL settings maxed, no AA" returns 77.6fps average for the Core i3 540 and 69.8fps for the PhenomII X6 1090T. So, according to those figures, the Core i3 540 not only outperforms the PhenomII X6 1090T, but also the Core i7 870...both of which are complete bull**** as World of Warcraft is in fact multi-core aware and multi-thread capable.....which means, the PhenomII X6 1090T can run 6 threads for World of Warcraft while the Core i3 540 can only run 2 without a rather hefty performance loss.. It's been proven that more threads = better performance. If you can trust other "reviews" they've done, when they're willing to post completely FALSE comparisons....feel free, but don't question any other site's review. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/146?vs=143
If you know this site at all then you know we don't ban based on disagreeing -- we ban based on distasteful attitude, and you're a shining star at it.
Don't worry guys look's like BD might actually rock http://forums.aria.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1282447&postcount=1225
All the leaks are "leaks", i´ll say this just my opinion and thought. My personal thought it that these current leaks are a just a try to bash BD to the ground, before its even officially released. I wont make a pure judgement on this chip until Guru3D has a sample and makes a nonbiased tests on it. On the other hand, if the current leaks are true, i´m worried in that case, BD seems promising in my eyes. But also said, thats BD is not in its final silicon, perhaps it gets better, if the leaks are true. I know i said on one of my posts, whats the point for me to upgrade, nothing that benefits me, unless i get more MHz per core, and thats just for my own satisfaction, but in the end, i´m into pc hardware, and i´m buying BD in the end, unless its a total fail.
It doesn't "own all", and you trying to show that it doesn't is what's annoying. I'm just saying, it has no place in the thread.
And sometimes disagreements can be very uneducational The list goes on but For those judging Bulldozer performance don't blow up your brain ignore it till release date(is unknown) please save yourself the disappointment(Don't overestimate or underestimate)
What's to stop anyone that happens to have a B0-B3 stepping out in the (controlled) wild fake a benchmark? What would happen if those people were made to do so by some company? I think the more important thing to think about here is all the BD testers that AREN'T SAYING ANYTHING. ...take it how you will. You all know how I feel about these threads and the conjecture they create. They're breeding grounds for hate-mongering and flamebait in general. In fact, I don't know why I even keep trying to tell you guys to WAIT FOR IT. Psychlone
ok fine.. let me put it this way AMD PhenomII is the best bang for the buck, while 90-95% of the time Intel wins with its raw gaming performance. Well up until now when AMD (Bulldozer) makes a comeback and changes a thing or two.. Better?
