There isn't going to be any patch for Windows (7). AMD was talking about the fact that Windows 8 has a slightly better scheduler, but even then the difference isn't significant:
With that single-threaded performance, I wonder if a die shrink of thuban with 2 extra cores would actually perform better than bulldozer...
The problem in a nutshell is that the bulldozer is slower core to core then intels SB line. They try to make up for that by introducing more cores. More cores is only faster in applications where the program code supports a higher thread count. Not always is a higher thread count actually faster since in all parallel processing there are bottlenecks in the code where multiple threads will have to wait for a single thread to execute. There whole plan is fail. Either they develop something with a near to 80% core to core performance and then make up for the slower core performance with a few more cores and use it as a marketing sell point. Or You do as intel you design something that is faster core to core and then you add as many cores you can until the price gets too high for the end consumer. At 150 euros this CPU will sell at 244 noone will buy it from a performance pov. Even at 178 euro it will be a hard sell since the 2500k beat it in gaming and everyday applications. Hobby server owners, other progammers and media enthusiasts that run programs that they know take advantage of the added cores will also be buying this since in specific tasks it offers 990x performance.
Comment from AMDZone.. Poor AMD though.. what a disaster. Barcelona (performance), Prescott (clocks/power) and Fermi (die size) all rolled into one..
Many of us on this forum, if not all, are gamers. The FX was aggresively marketed as a "gaming" "enthusiast" CPU. Slides, comparison with the 1000$ intel extreme and how good it is. Well, it turns out it's total crap compared to less expensive Intel offerings. Some will never learn a lesson. "Waiting for Bulldozer..." was the motto of people who wanted to upgrade. Nine months since Sandy Bridge is on the market, nine months were lost waiting for the Holy Grail when all you had to do was go out and buy the best CPU that suits your needs and offers best performance or best perf/money. Which by the way, gaming wise, since nine months and probably 9 more until Ivy is out, is the 2500K.
Ouch... You know this is really strange for me. Maybe I love to go for the underdog but I have been an Intel PC builder since my very first PC back in 1996. I have always supported Intel and refused to buy anything with the AMD logo attached to it. But just this year my two step-daughters wanted new PC's to play mindcraft and some steam games. S0, me and the wifey bought them each an 2.7GHz tri-core Acer pre-built with onboard Nvidia 9200 GPU's. And to be perfectly honest-they both love these computers. The games they play run smooth and they really enjoy there systems. I was curious and decided to fiddle around with the systems in there rooms. I was pleasently surprized how smooth they performed. If I didn't know any better I never would have known if was not Intel. For the first time since I started playing with PC's I am actually sad for AMD and I feel they are getting a bad rep this time around. AMD and even this chip are good chips! It just didn't beat out Intel. I don't think they deserve all the flak. I would have no problems buying anything AMD anymore. And this means something commin from a pure Intel fanboy!
what res? i7 2600k at 4.5ghz with all settings on ultra at 1080p gets me and my mates 110+fps on SC2. my old 1090t only managed 45fps at 1080p with the same settings.
March-April according to wikipedia, so 5-6 months to ivy bridge. wikipedia / vr-zone is claiming a further 15-20% boost. That's likely to boost intels performance advantage to near 2-1 over AMD in many cases.
The problem isn't just that FX didn't beat Intel. While FX was being marketed as an enthusiast gamers CPU, it only matches the performance of the older Phenom II processors in games, and that's just sad. ._.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150-processor-review/7 the thing consumes an extra ~203w when clocked up at 4.6ghz. if they originally planned to release it at 4.3ghz the tdp would be 250w at the very least, which is not viable considering sandy bridge will still spank it whilst using less power.
Yeah....thats not what we were expecting, but on the other hand - Price is where AMD shines. But i prefer 2600k right now=] And for the pictures those made my day ;D 1up ;D
Just have to go to anand.com and look for yourself on the bulldozer benches, don't think the bossman approves of hotlinking to anand.
