Look at the results of Multi GPU tests....
Results aren't good, THOSE are the folks looking for maximum performance, and are willing to spend the cash on top tier cpus.
Just sayin'
Look at the results of Multi GPU tests....
Results aren't good, THOSE are the folks looking for maximum performance, and are willing to spend the cash on top tier cpus.
Just sayin'
Good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by muzz
FX-8150 being $270, it's not exactly a cheap CPU and SB obliterates any hope for it and PD when overclocked in that area.
Here you go,end user results with pair of OCed 6990. If BD can't bottleneck a pair of these monsters it won't be a bad CPU.Quote:
Originally Posted by muzz
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2217355
Lol, you're so funny informal ... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by informal
We all know that BD is an awful gaming CPU, they're plenty reviewz on the net from trusties respected sites.
But you, not ...
You prefer using a chart with 1 game on it, done by an 8's post guy on AT forum who is doing promo for his own amdfx.blogspot.com ...
You really think we're stupid ? :rofl:
Got a link to this? Doesn't sound anything near from what I've heard.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Thank You :clap:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
i wonder about AMD A10 APU with Piledriver Cores. A friend tell me it park with 2 Modules and 384 Stream Processor VLIW4. Good to go?
Smartidiot89The info is from Anand and AMD slides if I am not mistaken they can be found in this thread at the beginning.Quote:
Got a link to this? Doesn't sound anything near from what I've heard.
What did you hear? If I remember correctly you said you heard something about 15% will be just from IPC or am I wrong?
About BD and gaming. Techpowerup did a comparision between SB,BD and Nehalem on Radeon 7970. Here is the link:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/A...Scaling/1.html
It's on this page from THG article:Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartidiot89
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...fx,3043-9.html
@informal
In most situations FX loses to Phenom II X6 and even Phenom II X4 980 in gaming as well as overclocked. No need to make BD out to be a gaming monster, we all know it's a failure.
It's not a monster at all. It's just good enough. There is no question that i7/i5 is better. As for Phenoms,they are just not THAT better than FX,that's all.
It's not like in Cyrix time when it was totally useless for gaming while K6 and Celerons were great in this tasks(while Cyrix was again faster in pure integer workloads,it only had a poor FPU).
different with the test informal posted is actually the ddr-2200 cl7 ram. That makes a difference over these crappy cl8 1333 that are used elsewhere for BD benching :shakes:
dunno if it changes anything tho, but i guess there are games that are not cpu nor gpu limited but ram. I have a good experience with the BD over my x6 in my unoptimized, oldfashioned but alltime favorite game, that improved a lot.
realistically the difference in gaming is 2-3 FPS or none in some gamesQuote:
Originally Posted by Oese
thats about what is seen as difference on some gaming tests anyway at resolution > 1024x860 except some singlethreaded games.
No sugarcoat, but thats what it is, good enough...
Anyway, this is PD thread, looking forward to it :)
it'd be nice!Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
If next version of trinity (not PD) bases on GCN, it would be good htpc that does anything you throw at. Instead of cpu they uses raw Gpu power for heavier loads when we get new softwares for that (it takes long time i guess). I saw Boxx machine calculating Vray 3d in almost real time using Nvidia Cuda on Quadro/Tesla cards. Alone for that workload, cpu is not close to that tflop calculation power (not even a hundred high end as Intel 39xx can compete to triple/quad sli cards).
I believe more on GPU in future. It is taking more care of heavy load, at the same time cpu is getting less imporant. What we need is high clocked ,leaner, smaller cpu that does required work between ram,nb and card.
the future looks interesting :up:
Well yeah,but that smaller and fater cpu is SB no way bulldozer.SB is fast as hell,super optimized IMC.Not that thing called bulldozer,which costs the same,consumes more power,and is damn ineffective..
Actually a lot of games separate BD and SB by 10FPS+, and BD is often 1-5 FPS behind Phenom II stock/overclocked, despite Phenom II's IMC being 60% slower.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oese
mhm k
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/AMD/HD_797...rfrel_1920.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Oese
:shrug:
In the games where FPS difference is 2-4 FPS, memory isn't going to do anything. (Besides, memory was equal on all systems except Nehalem which was in triple channel but 1066 instead of 1333)
Ye i saw it. looks horrible :)
That is again from the same brief I heard, so I heard the same information as TomsHardware but it looks like you can interpret it both ways... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
I don't get you guys. This thread is about Piledriver, and you're ragging on Bulldozer. Bulldozer may not be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but it's far from the worst also. I've had a TON of fun tweaking it and just playing around. And it actually runs great.
I built a "Budget" BD system and it has been rock solid for me. I love it. Yes I've read all the "reviews" out there and what not. Frankly I don't much care. I go for how it feels. And BD is feeling mighty fun atm.
And I cant wait to see what Piledriver does, should be better than the Phenom - Phenom II advances.
Friggen relax guys, have a shot of vodka and chill and enjoy tweaking and benching and having fun.
Yeah I'm bout halfway through a bottle right now and feeling mighty fine. Till I started reading all the emo crap in this thread.
Lol, took like 30 mins to type this post.
Peace
you know, the might of excel bars.... enjoying bd much also but you are right too in the aspect that this is offtopic... just, waiting for pd :)
Well i sure love vodka!
What is the current projected release date of PD? I've seen so many dates I'm :confused2