They're back ... "our take on amd fx"

[Kobaltrock]

http://blogs.amd.com/play/2011/10/13...ake-on-amd-fx/

Playing the Latest Games

A perfect example is Battlefield 3. Take a look at how our test of AMD FX CPU compared to the Core i7 2600K and AMD Phenom™ II X6 1100T processors at full settings:
Map Resolution AMD FX-8150 Sandy Bridge i7 2600k AMD Phenom™ II X6 1100T
MP_011 1650x1080x32 max settings 39.3 37.5 36.3
MP_011 1920x1200x32 max settings 33.2 31.8 30.6
MP_011 2560x1600x32 max settings 21.4 20.4 19.9

Benchmarking done with a single AMD Radeon™ HD 6970 graphics card

Creating in HD

Those users running time intensive tasks are going to want an AMD FX processor for applications like x264, HandBrake, Cinema4D where an eight-core processor will rip right along.

Building for the Future

This is a new architecture. Compilers have recently been updated, and programs have just started exploring the new instructions like XOP and FMA4 (two new instructions first supported by the AMD FX CPU) to speed up many applications, especially when compared to our older generation.

If you are running lightly threaded apps most of the time, then there are plenty of other solutions out there. But if you’re like me and use your desktop for high resolution gaming and want to tackle time intensive tasks with newer multi-threaded applications, the AMD FX processor won’t let you down.

We are a company committed to our customers and we’re constantly listening and working to improve our products. Please let us know what questions you have and we’ll do our best to respond.

[BoredByLife]

I really cant understand why they screwed this (edit: this implying BullDozer) up

Every student which studies anything pc/software oriented comes across Amdahl's law at least once...

[paulbagz]

Rofl.

So by they're own admissions, the FX is only 1-3 FPS on average better then the 1100T.

That in itself is enough to be considered not good enough.

-PB

[STaRGaZeR]

Adam Kozak is a product marketing manager at AMD...

/thread

[stangracin3]

Rofl.

So by they're own admissions, the FX is only 1-3 FPS on average better then the 1100T.

That in itself is enough to be considered not good enough.

-PB

wow dude in a game at only 20-30 fps, 3 fps is 10-15 %

[Spectrobozo]

this is only useful to show how inappropriate a HD6970 is for this game at "max settings",
you could throw a i3 2100, i5 2300, PII X4 945, and performance would be about the same anyway.

[Hornet331]

lol the comments are hilarious...

[Syn.]

No matter what AMD tries to explain about Bulldozer things are very simple. Bulldozer is too slow in TODAY's PC workload compared old AMD CPU's and Intels. It is a completely wrong architecture to launch at the end of 2011 since Windows 7 does not even know how to utilise it properly.

AMD should have launched Bulldozer after Windows 8 was released. Today they needed a CPU design that has each core performing better then Intel's. Bulldozer is a wrong CPU for today's market, its that simple. Worse thing is no matter how good the Bulldozer CPU's are they will forever be seen as the AMD's version of P4's. And that is just proper you know what.

[zalbard]

/thread

This.

[cx-ray]

Some shops in the EU are taking advantage of the disappointing BD desktop performance. After the launch they jacked up Intel i5 and i7 prices by 10-15%.

[god_43]

...looks like amd really should have chosen a different review kit combination, these are great results if they hold true.


http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/31...lldozer-inside

[Brice MJ]

You could always handpick tests where P4 beat Athlon64, too bad they were 1 in 20.

[Spectrobozo]

...looks like amd really should have chosen a different review kit combination, these are great results if they hold true.

they did exactly that,
all their gaming performance claims are based on GPU limited tests, like the ones you posted.

[Frontl1ne]

...looks like amd really should have chosen a different review kit combination, these are great results if they hold true.

Also, the thing to note is that Hardware Secrets and HardwareHaven both used 1866MHz RAM (where as every other review I read used 1333MHz or 1600MHz). And if you go have a mosey over at madshrimps (leeghoofd's) review, he shows you a bit about RAM speed scaling with BD

[stangracin3]

they did exactly that,
all their gaming performance claims are based on GPU limited tests, like the ones you posted.

so you would rather it be tested on crysis which runs like on anything other than a 85 GHz SB and yes i mean 85

[zalbard]

so you would rather it be tested on crysis which runs like on anything other than a 85 GHz SB and yes i mean 85

Ironically, 2GHz i7 is enough to max Crysis out.

[stangracin3]

Ironically, 2GHz i7 is enough to max Crysis out.

oh you know what i meant though, i may have used the wrong game but you got the general idea.

[Spectrobozo]

so you would rather it be tested on crysis which runs like on anything other than a 85 GHz SB and yes i mean 85

there are far more cpu demanding games out there,

but the only thing you prove by comparing the 2600k and the 8150 at a GPU limited test, and achieving around the same performance, is how irrelevant the CPU is in this case, and whoever is testing should feel the need to point out this, and show how a phenom II x4, or i3 2100 does at the same test, and tell you reader how useless in this case, is paying an extra 100 usd+, if that's what you are going to do...
or you are going to end up looking like one of the AMD marketing guys.

[kazuyakun]

Doesn't this test just show that most games are GPU bottlenecked? I think they should of advertised, buy cheap AMD cpus and our high end HD 6990 Radeon. You all know that while BD is slower than Intel's 2600k, BD ain't terrible. A little worse but they at least its justified in their pricing.

[stangracin3]

if you would like then sell your computer and buy a 2100 that you can't overclock have fun while i get a cpu that will kick its ass

[Frontl1ne]

I think AMD's marketing depertment should just STFU and let their engineers do their job...

[paulbagz]

wow dude in a game at only 20-30 fps, 3 fps is 10-15 %

But that's not what my gripe was.

My gripe was that they talked this up to be 10% etc better then its principle competitor the 2500k/2600k.

I just wanted AMD to really take BD to a good place that's all.

A bitter pill to swallow.

-PB

[Tha Last Meal]

Jesus!! WTF

[cold2010]

AMD Do not feel ashamed

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu..._10.html#sect0

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/t...x8150-tested/8



^

hardware.fr

[SubZero.it]

this is only useful to show how inappropriate a HD6970 is for this game at "max settings",
you could throw a i3 2100, i5 2300, PII X4 945, and performance would be about the same anyway.

This