By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC - AMD FX 8-core

Solid-Stark on 16 October 2011
Snesboy said:
Solid-Stark said:

I really don't get the disappointment people are expressing. From what i understand an i-5/i-7 25k+ is more than enough for gaming and everyday use; and from the FX early test it seems like AMD is just barely catching up to Intel in some fialds, more or less in others. Therefore Ivy Bridge will leave them behind soon. I don't see how this is a bad thing, unless you must have the fastest, latest CPU in your rig just for the sake of having it. Or people just wanted to see AMD back on top. It seems an FX will be a good CPU for gaming and everyday use, imo.

Mind you i'm a pc noob.

It is a good CPU. It's just not as good as Sandy Bridge.

However, Bulldozer has been in development since forever and most of us were expecting Bulldozer (AMD FX) to well, bulldoze Intel's line of Sandy Bridge processors.

Apparently, Piledriver (the successor to Bulldozer) is coming in the next few months so most of us are hoping that those are going to be better than Sandy Bridge, hopefully match Ivy Bridge (but probably not). Since I don't really care for Intel, either way, my next CPU is going to be AMD FX8150 or a Piledriver CPU.

Here's a link to newegg. I mean, you are getting a pretty good processor for much less money than an i7 2500k.

Intel i7 six-core: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115079 999.99 USD

AMD FX 8-core: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103960 279.99 USD

You decide man.

Exactly one of my points! :D I'll be getting a new computer next year, therefore for casual gaming and everyday use such as internet surfing, checking email, doing school work, even a phenom x4 is more than enough. But just for the sake of having one i'll put fx in it (or piledriver), not that im doomed for not having something stronger than SB intel.



e=mc^2

Gaming on: PS4 Pro, Switch, SNES Mini, Wii U, PC (i5-7400, GTX 1060)

Around the Network
SnesTea on 16 October 2011
Xen said:
Snesboy said:
Solid-Stark said:

I really don't get the disappointment people are expressing. From what i understand an i-5/i-7 25k+ is more than enough for gaming and everyday use; and from the FX early test it seems like AMD is just barely catching up to Intel in some fialds, more or less in others. Therefore Ivy Bridge will leave them behind soon. I don't see how this is a bad thing, unless you must have the fastest, latest CPU in your rig just for the sake of having it. Or people just wanted to see AMD back on top. It seems an FX will be a good CPU for gaming and everyday use, imo.

Mind you i'm a pc noob.

It is a good CPU. It's just not as good as Sandy Bridge.

However, Bulldozer has been in development since forever and most of us were expecting Bulldozer (AMD FX) to well, bulldoze Intel's line of Sandy Bridge processors.

Apparently, Piledriver (the successor to Bulldozer) is coming in the next few months so most of us are hoping that those are going to be better than Sandy Bridge, hopefully match Ivy Bridge (but probably not). Since I don't really care for Intel, either way, my next CPU is going to be AMD FX8150 or a Piledriver CPU.

Here's a link to newegg. I mean, you are getting a pretty good processor for much less money than an i7 2500k.

Intel i7 six-core: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115079 999.99 USD

AMD FX 8-core: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103960 279.99 USD

You decide man.

And for the same (less!) amount of money you can get a 2500k which annihilates the FX-8150 in most uses, even some encoding ones where zambezi should thrash it. Plus, with the 15% MAX gain AMD is predicting for piledriver, its single-core (and everything thats not threaded to a pulp) perfomance is still going to be pathetic compared to sandy, not to mention ivy.

This bang for buck argument is getting tired, mainly because Intel offers the better value these days, with the only AMD processors being a wise purchase IMO - Athlon II x4 645, and Phenom II 965 (even got the latter for my parents  - they won't need a new PC in a loooooooooooooong time).

Bulldozer is an architecure with lots of potential, but Intel is far and away the better choice now.

Processor fanboyism is downright stupid. I don't see why people dislike Intel as much as they do. Expensive CPU's? Swing back to FX-51, FX-60, and 64x2 4800+ and check how much these cost before the C2D rolled out.

I was contemplating bulldozer too, but I'm going with the 2600k.

Bolded 1: The Phenom II series is pretty solid. Even the X6's, even if they are a bit pointless. But you are right about Intel's processors. They are great, especially when you are building your own machine (like most of us do). However, a lot of companies like to overcharge on laptop's just because they're powered by an i5 dual-core.

Bolded 2: The AMD Athlon 64x2 series was ridiculous. Thankfully, prices have gone down a lot for those, but since they're so old, who would want one anymore? Well, except for me. I got the last one on Newegg http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103980



Xen on 17 October 2011
Snesboy said:
Xen said:
Snesboy said:
Solid-Stark said:

I really don't get the disappointment people are expressing. From what i understand an i-5/i-7 25k+ is more than enough for gaming and everyday use; and from the FX early test it seems like AMD is just barely catching up to Intel in some fialds, more or less in others. Therefore Ivy Bridge will leave them behind soon. I don't see how this is a bad thing, unless you must have the fastest, latest CPU in your rig just for the sake of having it. Or people just wanted to see AMD back on top. It seems an FX will be a good CPU for gaming and everyday use, imo.

Mind you i'm a pc noob.

It is a good CPU. It's just not as good as Sandy Bridge.

However, Bulldozer has been in development since forever and most of us were expecting Bulldozer (AMD FX) to well, bulldoze Intel's line of Sandy Bridge processors.

Apparently, Piledriver (the successor to Bulldozer) is coming in the next few months so most of us are hoping that those are going to be better than Sandy Bridge, hopefully match Ivy Bridge (but probably not). Since I don't really care for Intel, either way, my next CPU is going to be AMD FX8150 or a Piledriver CPU.

Here's a link to newegg. I mean, you are getting a pretty good processor for much less money than an i7 2500k.

Intel i7 six-core: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115079 999.99 USD

AMD FX 8-core: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103960 279.99 USD

You decide man.

And for the same (less!) amount of money you can get a 2500k which annihilates the FX-8150 in most uses, even some encoding ones where zambezi should thrash it. Plus, with the 15% MAX gain AMD is predicting for piledriver, its single-core (and everything thats not threaded to a pulp) perfomance is still going to be pathetic compared to sandy, not to mention ivy.

This bang for buck argument is getting tired, mainly because Intel offers the better value these days, with the only AMD processors being a wise purchase IMO - Athlon II x4 645, and Phenom II 965 (even got the latter for my parents  - they won't need a new PC in a loooooooooooooong time).

Bulldozer is an architecure with lots of potential, but Intel is far and away the better choice now.

Processor fanboyism is downright stupid. I don't see why people dislike Intel as much as they do. Expensive CPU's? Swing back to FX-51, FX-60, and 64x2 4800+ and check how much these cost before the C2D rolled out.

I was contemplating bulldozer too, but I'm going with the 2600k.

Bolded 1: The Phenom II series is pretty solid. Even the X6's, even if they are a bit pointless. But you are right about Intel's processors. They are great, especially when you are building your own machine (like most of us do). However, a lot of companies like to overcharge on laptop's just because they're powered by an i5 dual-core.

Bolded 2: The AMD Athlon 64x2 series was ridiculous. Thankfully, prices have gone down a lot for those, but since they're so old, who would want one anymore? Well, except for me. I got the last one on Newegg http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103980

AM2? Haha, you must really love your AMD CPU's. AM2 accepts CPU's that are better than any 64x2.



SnesTea on 17 October 2011
Xen said:
Snesboy said:

Bolded 1: The Phenom II series is pretty solid. Even the X6's, even if they are a bit pointless. But you are right about Intel's processors. They are great, especially when you are building your own machine (like most of us do). However, a lot of companies like to overcharge on laptop's just because they're powered by an i5 dual-core.

Bolded 2: The AMD Athlon 64x2 series was ridiculous. Thankfully, prices have gone down a lot for those, but since they're so old, who would want one anymore? Well, except for me. I got the last one on Newegg http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103980

AM2? Haha, you must really love your AMD CPU's. AM2 accepts CPU's that are better than any 64x2.

However, I just wanted to get the cheapest possible CPU and I remember my first computer had a 64x2 that wasn't too bad... Just wanted to construct a similar computer to my first one with updated graphics and WinXP...here I made a thread about it:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=135579&page=1#



Xen on 17 October 2011
Snesboy said:
Xen said:
Snesboy said:

Bolded 1: The Phenom II series is pretty solid. Even the X6's, even if they are a bit pointless. But you are right about Intel's processors. They are great, especially when you are building your own machine (like most of us do). However, a lot of companies like to overcharge on laptop's just because they're powered by an i5 dual-core.

Bolded 2: The AMD Athlon 64x2 series was ridiculous. Thankfully, prices have gone down a lot for those, but since they're so old, who would want one anymore? Well, except for me. I got the last one on Newegg http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103980

AM2? Haha, you must really love your AMD CPU's. AM2 accepts CPU's that are better than any 64x2.

However, I just wanted to get the cheapest possible CPU and I remember my first computer had a 64x2 that wasn't too bad... Just wanted to construct a similar computer to my first one with updated graphics and WinXP...here I made a thread about it:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=135579&page=1#

Not a bad choice. I'm going through updating my Pentium 4 set right now as well - getting a Pentium E6700 soon, so I can play more LAN games with friends (for a total of 3 PC's for that!).



Around the Network
Noobie on 17 October 2011
Scoobes said:
Slimebeast said:
I am so sad. Is AMD done now?

As a company I think they'll be fine. The Bulldozer is good for multi-threaded applications so should be good in the lucrative server market but the power draw is a concern. At the other end of the spectrum, the Fusion line seem to be selling well in laptops, it's only the gaming/enthusiast users they've really screwed up on and I think that's more down to poor marketing. Seriously, why hype something with the FX names, the world record overclock, the marketing slides etc. if the chip is worse then current offerings from Intel and even fails on price/performance? They had to know reviews would be brutal.

Bizzarely, I think Bulldozer is ahed of its time. AMD gambled that they'd be more multi-threaded programs by this point, but they aren't. Sadly, by the time software devs catch up with the new architecture there'll be plenty of superior alternatives (from both Intel and AMD) anyway that there's no point in getting Bulldozer now.

i totally disagree. they made the same blunder Intel made that reaching higher clockspeed will be piece of cake. but they failed miserable, even after knowing that such an attempt have failed earlier. 

Only in very specific multithreaded benchmarks AMD is winning. 



http://techorate.blogspot.com/

http://caylu.wordpress.com/

Scoobes on 17 October 2011
Noobie said:
Scoobes said:
Slimebeast said:
I am so sad. Is AMD done now?

As a company I think they'll be fine. The Bulldozer is good for multi-threaded applications so should be good in the lucrative server market but the power draw is a concern. At the other end of the spectrum, the Fusion line seem to be selling well in laptops, it's only the gaming/enthusiast users they've really screwed up on and I think that's more down to poor marketing. Seriously, why hype something with the FX names, the world record overclock, the marketing slides etc. if the chip is worse then current offerings from Intel and even fails on price/performance? They had to know reviews would be brutal.

Bizzarely, I think Bulldozer is ahed of its time. AMD gambled that they'd be more multi-threaded programs by this point, but they aren't. Sadly, by the time software devs catch up with the new architecture there'll be plenty of superior alternatives (from both Intel and AMD) anyway that there's no point in getting Bulldozer now.

i totally disagree. they made the same blunder Intel made that reaching higher clockspeed will be piece of cake. but they failed miserable, even after knowing that such an attempt have failed earlier. 

Only in very specific multithreaded benchmarks AMD is winning. 

They did make a major mistake as you point out, but I also think they gambled big time on the multi-threaded programs (which is the Bulldozer's only strength) thinking single threaded performance would be count for nothing at this stage. Obviously, that hasn't come to pass and by the time it does the bulldozer line will be useless.




Get your Portable ID!