So, BD is just another cpu in the market? A dissapointed cpu?
That's sad since i was really waiting a serious competition head to head with Intel, looks like my hands will have a sb or sb-e cpu soon.
Sent from my Android using TapaTalk
Printable View
So, BD is just another cpu in the market? A dissapointed cpu?
That's sad since i was really waiting a serious competition head to head with Intel, looks like my hands will have a sb or sb-e cpu soon.
Sent from my Android using TapaTalk
This is just bad. This makes zero business sense and the CEO should be fired...oh wait. The clock for clock page on hardware Cannucks between the Phenom II vs BD where the BD only wins 1 category (15%) yet loses 10-15 other ones by a margin as much as 80%...people were right when they said yesterday AMD should have just tweaked the most recent core, added cash, and done a die shrink. BD is basically worse than its predecessor in every category except a few categories. It is like AMD never heard of the netburst fiasco.
*insert I am disappoint*
Hi,
here you have in Italian review :)
Link: http://www.techstation.it/hardware/a...e/introduzione
Bye
Alex
This is why over hyping a product is not a good idea.
I still think its looking to be a decent option for the price depending on what you use it for.
This did actually happen... Dirk Meyer "resigned" **Was firedQuote:
Originally Posted by Stukov
Anantech and Techpowerup did not publish anything yet ...
Well would believing that it would beat phenom x6 in most cases count as over hyping?Quote:
Originally Posted by highoctane
Bingo!Quote:
Originally Posted by highoctane
Phenom I was crap. Phenom II was actually pretty good.
History repeating itself once again it seems... piledriver should clean up this mess.
Not sure how long you had your processor but we had ours for about 1.5 weeks. Not everyone has the luxury of pulling several all nighters to get a proper review done. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Micutzu
vrzone is my favorite :D
http://vr-zone.com/articles/amd-fx-8.../13694-12.html
Don't worry guys, you'll get it straightened out. Great review, recommended :up: One page didn't work, I think it was 11.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
Man, read a hand full of reviews and Hardware Heaven came off are seriously bias. They are telling it as if it was best thing since sliced bread :p:
Not at all of course, and I genuinely think AMD (or at least its marketing and commercial) expected this architecture to deliver more IPC and 35% faster performance than previous gen. However IMO something went terribly wrong or was hugely overseen with the engineering of the new core (maybe why Bergman left?) which caused this huge failure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgt.McRuff
I don't think AMD expected BD to suck and decided to call it "FX" anyway.
So, instead of Intel getting Athlon'd AMD got Netburst'd?
Looking at the OC power consumption numbers, I can see this thing nuking some "supporting" mobos like the Phenom did when it was first released. I mean wow...
I bought into the Hype, and AMD delivered a less than expected product.
I'm pretty sure Piledriver will need more than a damned 10% increase to fix this mess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Vodka
Basically goes like this:
30-40% lower IPC than Phenom II X4 in some applications, ~5-10% estimate less than K8 90nm Windsor X2's from 2006 IPC wise.
5-10% more power consumption than Thuban, let alone Phenom II X4 which consumes much less than Thuban.
5-10% performance hit in multi-threaded applications over Thuban due to absolutely :banana::banana::banana::banana:ty IPC.
Better OC headroom than Thuban, but who gives a :banana::banana::banana::banana: when 4.6 Ghz uses 200% more power than stock.
Thuban OC - ~4.2 Ghz...
FX OC - ~4.8(Will it even get that far?) In MT Thuban will be very close in performance most likely at lower power consumption, ST it will still win some applications. However, by the time you get up in 4.8 Ghz land you are pushing 30% more power over Thuban.
This is while on a shrunk process which in Theory should have given 30% less power consumption at Thuban performance. 60% less efficient, is this CPU.
If we can get a 40% IPC increase retaining same clocks or clock up to 6 Ghz on air with Piledriver maybe I will consider.
when did that all go wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by highoctane
oh it performs less than 3% better in games than 1100t way to over hype themselves!
should change it to SX brand
power phase design will hurt some boards...Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
OC power consumption numberz are really shocking :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
Then imagine what kind of W level the 8.4ghz LHe or 8Ghz LN2 by cookie draw....Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
I must say.... I got quite alot more respect for 990 UD7 and Crosshair 5 after seeing those numbers at "silly low overclock", I am thinking.... 800W+
No -- not strange, how many temperature reports do you see from AMD processors at IDLE that are below room temperature? AMD does not provide calibration data for their ODTS, and software has to make it's best 'guess'. The temps are never accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stukov
I wonder how many fruit baskets Intel has sent the new CEO of AMD for this debacle ?
All those people [s]waiting[/s] expecting something better than their older CPU from AMD... well, they all just went to intel's camp. :shakes:
All is not lost though, they can still make this launch better, just lower the price about $50, and most people will be OK with it.
As for that certain person who falsely kept people's hopes up...
Attachment 121177