AMD FX "Vishera" reviews info (again, after mod mistake)

[BeepBeep2]

Just my 2c:

I like Vishera a lot They made considerable improvements and now it beats Phenom II almost all the time in all scenarios both stock and overclocked, minus x87 and SOME single thread, but that doesn't matter anyway with the extra clock headroom now. It almost always makes up the difference for single thread and that makes me happy

Still wonder a little teeny bit what a "Llano" based X6 with more L3 (equal to 45nm PII X4 per core), and BD's IMC would have been, but that's something to ...dream of in dreams and it may not have done nearly as well I think it would have. If they had followed a "tick/tock" type method, that would have been the first 32nm product followed by...hopefully it would have been what Piledriver is currently which is an improvement for sure.

I find the difference between Trinity and Vishera interesting, seems Vishera clocks a bit better than Trinity, like I thought it would. Trinity and Llano were both made to be power efficient at stock, they weren't supposed to clock extremely high I think, and maybe that is related to Llano clocking bad too, I don't think it correctly represented a performance part's OC ability.

The discussion in the original review thread was all over the place anyway. Many people were attacking many people - it was just AMD fanboy vs intel fanboy vs both fanboys vs people trying to be neutral and people trying to be neutral looking like fanboys too when arguing with AMD/intel fanboys... ...Quite a mess!

I wish we could keep all the charts out of the posts and stop trying to prove X better than Y though or prove X bad and prove Z good or etc...
I'm guilty of that too in the past...so is flanker, even in this thread...and informal in a few past threads...personally I'm guilty because I was so disappointed with AMD FX-8100 series...at launch because they spent more time hyping it than any other past CPU, and it flopped really hard. Since then, I've tried not to prove really hard to people why it was so bad...I feel others that try to prove it good should do the same. Shouldn't ignore the shortcomings, shouldn't ignore the good either. For someone like me, the only good, was over MT performance at launch over 2500/2600Ks, but unfortunately the power consumption was so large over 2600K (200-300w difference @ 4.6-4.8 GHz) that nothing mattered...I know for others, they didn't care about power consumption nor did they care about gaming performance or single thread performance. And in reality, the difference was at most 5-10FPS at ~60-120FPS behind Sandy Bridge, and that was huge for someone like me. Some AMD fanboys, and I know informal said this, they talk as if the gaming difference only existed when running high end GPU and low detail and resolution of 800x600, they could at least be real about it. Nobody was upset about something like that.... It's just, that crossfire scaling decreased compared to better ST CPUs, same with Eyefinity scaling...on top of already losing that 0-10 FPS. Simply not a CPU good for gaming...nobody said the games don't run.

If we're gonna link reviews I think the thread should just link reviews and let people read them, to make up their own ideas...
Not to try and shove 60% of a review in someones face to skew their opinion or to force an opinion on them, while also talking about how worthless the other 40% of the review was, because what is useless to some is not useless to others. I know in my cases, I try to acknowledge the strengths too, but I look at overall performance while some write off single thread completely...gotta acknowledge that we are discussing an enthusiast class desktop CPU too and not a workstation CPU, those are called "Opteron" and "Xeon"...that if someone like me is disappointed, it is because when it comes to most desktop workloads it doesn't keep up with the competing offer. That at all mean it's unusable, like I know I read out of informal's fingertips, when he was talking about the "haters" ...it is quite useable...but if the competing desktop option that does leaps and bounds better in that 40%, is equal in another 30% with lower power consumption, and 10-15% worse performance in the last 30%, I'm not going to be happy with the product for several reasons...Fanboys probably should not have argued that I was dumb for saying so, because the architecture is designed for servers or parallel workloads or whatever, which I already knew, because we're discussing a desktop product, it's as simple as that...AMD produced these models for desktop and we were discussing common desktop workloads, not server/workstation workloads.

Wow, I really ranted a lot here.

Anyway I'm glad PD is doing so much better, I wish PD was released a year ago, but it's a great improvement hands down over where they were a year ago and I'm happy that I can start recommending AMD CPUs again.