Pass me some of what you are smokin' ... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentential
Printable View
Pass me some of what you are smokin' ... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentential
(First off, I want to apologize in advance if the following comments cause anyone to get upset.)
Ouch. If these early benchmarks are accurate, this is going to make Fermi's launch look good. Seriously though... there were a lot of signs that were clear as day pointing to Bulldozer being a flop. The price was way too low for the hyped performance claims, combined with the delays, repeated yield problems, and the deafening silence from AMD and their cheerleaders like Charlie over at "rarely-accurate". Then top it off with the arrogance in naming it Bulldozer, implying it's going to 'bury the competition'.... and you have a perfect storm.
As expected, many of you are having a hard time dealing with being let down, and as SKYMTL mentioned... the 5 stages of grieving are clearly illustrated in this thread.
This is the one and only post i'll make poking fun at the fanboys even though it would be fun to flood these threads with bulldozer jokes and photochopped images like many here did a couple years ago. Oh the irony.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-y2aiXhQnfp...1600/joke1.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by rintamarotta
:rofl:
Well, i do agnowledge that Zambezi is litlebit failure compared what we expected but this arch have alot to tweak before we can say final word if its going to be alot of faster in form of Piledriver, there aint even final bios's released for Zambezi yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by pipoo
Piledriver will indeed show true power of Bulldozer arch, it can be equal or faster than Zambezi it can even suprice us but we dont know till Piledriver gets released, server part is really where amd gets most of its income at the moment.
I know, i know. I was bit too optimistic at that time about preformance, what is true is that i will still be buying Zambezi cpu's only due its Box, i want still one for candy, one for lollipops and one for screws.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brice MJ
lol, I cannot believe your sig actually came true.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Brice MJ
So it looks like Terrance was right. The more we post about it, the more ipc decreases :p:
It still has best multi-threaded performance but crappy at single-threaded performance.
Oh yeah, im bit too optimistic at times :D
i thought you said you had one when you posted that about beating the 2600K and 990x? were you just speaking from opinion?Quote:
Originally Posted by rintamarotta
how many more hours till N.D.A. be D.E.A.D.
1:33 to go ?
Amidoinitrite?Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew LB
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...l/trololol.jpg
So much for the bulldozer thread from a few weeks back when movieman hyped up the fx like it was way faster than what intel is offering. I had a feeling it was smoke and mirrors
Meanwhile at Dresden...
http://i47.tinypic.com/2vnhzra.gif
FX8120 is not beating i5 2500 even in many highly MT apps, Game performance comparisons are not even funny
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/hardware/pr...u-1-2?start=14
I'd give him a 10 for that epic faceplant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentential
Ouch...
-PB
Considering AMD has only 5.5% of the Server CPU market, I doubt that segment is whats keeping them afloat.Quote:
Originally Posted by rintamarotta
Oh... and there's this:
Intel’s server processor profit margins were 50% in 2009, versus 10% for AMD.
Those look suspiciously like the benches from 'the one who we shall not name'....Quote:
Originally Posted by cold2010
So Bulldozer starts to show its potential in WinRAR and Photoshop benches.. which is exactly what one should expect with 8 *integer* cores. Parallel integer workloads (think: SERVER) is where this thing will shine. (And probably special HPC apps that are designed for FMAC4).Quote:
Originally Posted by cold2010
That's probably why they released it as "FX", unlocked, processors for consumers. Since it's mainly fun for overclockers. Low IPC and only 4 FP cores isn't great for PI and Cinebench :)
Whelp, this is thing is possibly one of the worst releases this year. If current reviews are an indication.
At least we know why JF-AMD has been absent! LOL!
What a surprise...our results were 100% accurate (...again), the BIOS version was good, the silicone version was good, and the numbers that other got were exactly the same as anybody else.... Or, as Vr-Zone said...
Quote:
Clock for clock in multithreading heavy scenarios the FX-8150 is typically behind the quad core i7-2600K by ~20%, and in single-threaded workloads it gets totally annihilated. Overclocking was also nothing to shout about, as it needed a significant voltage bump to even reach a (prime stable) 4.7GHz on noisy air. Bluntly, the performance we are seeing from the 8-core FX-8150 today is only marginally better than last year's high end quad core Intel i7 "Nehelam" and AMD's own Phenom II "Thuban" 6-core offerings, and definitely not a "i7-990X killer" as hyped over the last few months. No disrespect intended to the record holders but disabling cores to achieve high frequencies is just going to confuse unsuspecting buyers and split-second CPU-Z screenshots is not a measure of true stability.
In you, I have faith :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Monstru
Didnt question the results, but certainly question AMDs future for desktop/workstation segment.... Oh and their marketing, 0 overclocking samples and 1 press samples for this country, thumbs up, they really did count on success.. ;)
You're a legend to us Monstru, breaking rules :D