aha! the answer is here or is it?
http://techreport.com/articles.x/21865
Printable View
aha! the answer is here or is it?
http://techreport.com/articles.x/21865
This really has to be the ultimate comment... c'mon so they test with a high end GPU iso 6970 and then they are pro Intel ? So what I make of that comment is : if you go high end GPU and not extreme resolutions go Intel, if you go mainstream GPU go AMD ? Or is the real world scenario this, you need to cover up the less stellar performance by limiting GPU power and use extreme resolutions to make it sort of perform alike in games ?Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
In my opinions it's a decent CPU, it has it's strenghts, but far too many weaknesses. Initial design was great, surely when it all started, thinking Intel engineers peed in their pants at one moment. what's a normal cycle to bring out a new CPU ? 3 years ? There's the first issue, too long... PR understood it all wrong and overhyped the product : issue two and to make it all worse Global foundries provided the last blow as power consumption once pushed ( and this CPU needs to be OC'ed to be 2011 performance worthy ) is over the top... and the FX8150 price is still way to high...
They tested Battlefield 3 with two other GPU configurations that did get higher FPS, Geforce GTX 580 SLI got the highest FPS numbers. Why not use that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeghoofd
Just look at the graphs, it is easy to se that they have selected one area in the game that shows intel at is best. The Phenom 980 really looks bad. I can promise you that other sites that test will get better numbers for AMD compared to Sweclockers, they allways get better numbers for intel compared to other review sites.
Sweclockers is a profitable company, customers need to get what they want
What about 320 x 240 resolution? Got any graphs?Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
lol! I only care about real life situations.
low resolution may not be considered "real life" but everyone needs to stop bashing low res gaming benchmarks to show off a CPU's power. The point is to not bottleneck by anything but the CPU. Running at 640x480 shows how much the CPU can feed the GPU and is a completely valid way to show this in a gaming situation. The alternative is to use 3DMark, which is even less of a real life situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by mR Yellow
You need to wait for more reviews, game is just out. I can assure that your wishes will be fulfilledQuote:
Originally Posted by Mats
This discussion is for those who understand
Well I understand that a high end review must have:
1 - Realistic settings, anything under 1680 x 1050 is too low (yes, it can be too high as well).
2 - A graph starts from ZERO, anything else is just misleading.
Edit: Well it seems to start from zero, but it's till misleading.
Are you for real? Since when is 640 x 480 useful in a high end review?Quote:
This discussion is for those who understand
There are other benchmarks for that. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by EniGmA1987
The irony in this hurts so much....Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
It isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mats
So how difficult would it be to make a patch for W7? AMD have been planning for at least five years, how come there's no patch?Quote:
Originally Posted by duron
Given all the delays of Zambezi, the patch would have been finished a long time ago, so I can't really see it showing up anytime soon.
Maybe the patch will come with 8170? It should be able to use the all module turbo which will be the same or higher as half core turbo on 8150 (4 threads running @ 4.2Ghz with "full cores Turbo" on 8170 via 4 modules Vs 4 threads running @ 4.2Ghz with "half cores Turbo mode" @ 8150 via 2 modules). In this case the power efficiency may end higher on 8170 since it will do more work per watt than the 8150.
If it doesn't improve current CPU's performance then it's not a patch, right? Just a newer revision.
But yeah, I hope they fix this somehow, together with lower power consumption.
That will come when GloFo fixes their process and it matures. It's not a matter of if but a matter of when, unless GloFo happens to completely fail as a chip fab.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mats
Well, the tech report article looks promising. Would be great if AMD releases an app that does something similar.
My 8120 should be here next week sometime. Can't wait. Busy installing BF3 :)
I'm really pleased with how the polyurethane coating worked out on this 990FXA-UD3. While the Gigabyte board looked great in its original matte black finish, it looks absolutely spectacular now that it is glossy. It's not like regular PCB shiny, either, this is a whole new level. :D Best of all of course is that it did indeed form an excellent moisture barrier. I can't even get a reading on my meter when I go poking metal pieces with both of my pointy micro probes (lightly). I should have taped up the whole board and done it all instead of just the CPU socket area. heh
Dry ice will commence this weekend.
You should show us some pics of it before you run in on ice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Particle
You should show us some pics of it before you run in on ice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Particle
when will bulldozer be in stock? where?
some improvement in Windows 8.?
http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=2622
http://www.pcstats.com/articleimages...0_Win8task.jpg
I haven't seen any improvement in Windows 8 myself, but I must not have the same build as the one you've pictured. My task manager is still old style. Cinebench R11.5 scores actually went down by a few tenths on average versus Windows 7.
On Newegg the AMD FX-8120 has been listed as sold out for awhile but tonight it is back in stock.
I'm temped to order one but I'm going to wait for this FX-8120(FD8120WMW8KGU),3.1GHz,8C,95W,rev.B2G,AM3+ that is listed in the ASUS Sabertooth 990FX CPU support page. Just hope I don't have to wait too long.
^^^^^^
Sold out again now
I've only tested the Developer Preview, I noticed that the old Task manager came back if I disabled Metro. Maybe that's what you did?Quote:
Originally Posted by Particle