Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Guru3D News, Oct 12, 2011.
It is 8 cores, but to me it is still like 4 cores with hyper threading.
I agree 100% with that. I have been telling all(friends, clients, atleast interested ones) since the leaked benches on SB, that Cpu wasn't made to even compete with the 980x. It just happened that the architecture was so good so it competed with the 980x and even outperformed it mostly. But that wasn't Intel's plan on the first place afaik.
So here we have the SB released and gave performance that NONE(well most) did not expect. A cpu beating the cpu? That looked like some kind of "suicide" move by Intel for the 980x, but I'm sure we all agree that the 980x is stil a superior cpu imo.
So we can safely say Intel release a golden CPU, and that for BD to even come close to the SB(2500K/2600K) is NOT bad at all. I considered it acceptable and ok. Remember that Cpu beats the 980x. Not bad in my book.
Heck even those benches floating around with the 3960x shows it getting beaten(very small margin) in games by the 2600k and its just a 10-20% faster in a few Synthetic Benches and in some difference are NIL and that's while been a 6C/12T.
But what's NOT acceptable and very disappointing to an extent, is the performance difference from Thubans. That's bad. I have been postponing my build for so long like many of you, to see what will offer and I can say, 2600k/Genie-z GEN3 here I come.
P.S: Also I agree with many on the something's wrong with the performance. Like it has much more to offer but it's performance is hindered. Been reading about bios fault, Win7 faullts etc. Well, only time will tell.
Cmon AMD, you can and deserve better than this.
you can say that. according to amd, its their version of HT done right. obviously it was done wrong. :nerd:
200 likes/ 400 dislikes
So if this is just hyper threading done wrong and the architecture is failing, maybe its main issues can be software fixed. Such as the examples of the difference when used with windows 8.
LOL they disabled comments. Probalby to keep people from writing what a failure it is. And seriously 280 USD the 2500k is 220 what are they thinking. It was supposed to be 245usd.
So glad I built by new system last week and went intel instead of waiting.
its not that they aren't interested in competing in the high end..they just cant right now..also the SB out now isn't the "high" end..i mean its mid-high but not "enthusiast" but im not sure how they are trying to classify things..
either way this chip isn't doing it which makes me a little sad i was going to sell my x58 setup and switch over cause i liked some of the 990fx boards and figured its been a long time since ive been on amd (s939 x2) so as long as they performed on par i wouldn't mind switching..but sadly they are not..hopefully they get it together...i mean intel had p4 which was fail and after that went to core 2 duo which was amazing...so cant ever count amd out maybe a few new employees will put the company in the right direction..like most said they should of shrunk what they had "glued" that **** together upped the clocks and called it a day..
Btw anyone selling an AMD Rig? Complete/parted. And yes I'm serious in case someone thinks I'm being sarcastic. 1075/1090/1100 only and CH-IV-V preferably. Pm me if you do.
they had to of tested this in w7 and saw there was something worng. maybe theres an issue with windows 7 and it cant use the fx 8150 properly. idk. but like i said, something is obviously wrong. weather it be the cpu or with windows.
i am wondering if the fx 6100 will be affected as well. hopefull not, considering its a true 6 core cpu. i wonder when hilbert will post a review or if hes even got a sample to test yet.
So does the 2x16 PCIe slots make any difference to people about BD vs SB
nah 3% Im guessing 8x sli vs 16x sli. games run better on SB anyways. probably have better performance anyways with the performance hit even
However their flagship BD costs more then a 2500k (though about $50 less then a 2600k), so if they want to compete in the budget market, I'd like to see it priced lower then a 2500k. Then I'd probably buy it (and I'm talking about the 8150, the others perform even worse and thus shouldn't be considered unless for casual budget builds).
FX-8150 beat the i5 2500K in Dhrystone ALU, Whetstone FPU tests, CineBench, Espresso, 3DMark Vantage CPU test, Zlib, and 3DMark 11
FX-8150 beat the i7 2600K in Handbrake, CPU Hash
Hilbert's review shows the FX-8150 winning in Sandra's memory bench....but since memory performance has a negligible effect on real-world performance, I've excluded it from this list.
FX-8150 is really only a disappointment when it comes to gaming. It actually performs reasonably well for a mainstream processor in the benchmarks, winning more against the i5 2500K than it loses.
Not sure exactly how SB is segmented. Nehalem was i3 = entry/budget, i5 = budget/mainstream, i7 = mainstream/high-end/enthusiast
considering vantage loves threads, BD beats a 4 core SB thats to be expected. the 2500k is only 1000 points less give or take. it gets spanked by a quad core 2600k (8 threads= 4 cores and 4 fake cores) at stock speed. that does not say much for vantage supremacy over a 2500k
Vantage also relies heavily on Floating Point operations.....
ht vs no ht on vantage is several thousand points.like 7000 iirc from my benchmarks and gaming is exactly the same for me with ht on and ht off. a couple games make use of 8 threads but I have not seen any difference in fps. thats why the 2500k is better at gaming than BD. a 1000 point difference from an 8 core amd and a 2500k is rather pathetic. its a victory yes but a hollow one. If you winrar 24/7 BD is a good choice, but gaming? meh P2 gives BD strong competition in gaming.
When will this AMD Fanboys Will Realize that theres nothing AMD can do about It microsoft will never release a patch and the processor is a failure everything was just a Hype. fx 8150 is indeed faster than phenom 2 6 core but u cant really squeeze that much perfomance if u only add 2 more cores.
AMD only has APUs and GPUS now. Well it isnt a bad thing as most consumers will buy low end anyway..
I just hope people wont Judge these CPUS against APUs and think APUs are underperformers in their catergories.
Apparently if you disable every 2nd core in bios it frees up the shared resources and it performs much better.
wouldnt it be cheaper to buy a quad core then?^^