Vishera 5Ghz FX-9000/8770

[Rollo]

How arrogant must people be to claim that a certain game is "poorly optimized or coded"? Especially when looking at other results that are GPU bottlenecked...oh my.

If the games weren't "poorly optimized", the reviewers would have been "paid off by intel", or "NVIDIA has sabotaged that game". You've been around long enough to recognize this for what it is.

Nonetheless, his links have showed us when running multi gpu, AMDs flagship CPU is inferior at F1 2012, Skyrim, and Civilization V and that is helpful.

And of course there are the VRZone benches where AMD gets p3wned in every benchmark:
http://vr-zone.com/articles/amd-fx-8...nce/17494.html

Where I'm sure the answer is again, "B-b-but those framerates are good enuff!".

Why would anyone who spends $800 on a couple video cards buy a $200 CPU that all the reviews agree cripple them?

Especially when there are $200 CPUs like the 2500K that don't cripple them?

"People don't play those games anyway"?

Huh? If the AMD CPU cripples performance in those games, which others fail on AMD?

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...0_6.html#sect0

Looks like Borderlands 2 is another game AMD fails at, never heard of anyone playing that.

(prepares for wall of text wherein we'll learn it's crazy and un-American to buy parts that cost the same but perform better, use less power, and give off less heat)

Can't wait for reviews of this $920 chip.

[madcho]

Power is the ennemy of the gamer, so ...


this is really strange that AMD get out these products.




the actual FX8350 is enough to get 60 fps on all modern engines.



i think this is a bad move.





Rollo i watched the video you posted. I think this guy is smoking crack. it' amazing how movie can change being seen 30 years after be captured.

[AzureSky]

If the games weren't "poorly optimized", the reviewers would have been "paid off by intel", or "NVIDIA has sabotaged that game". You've been around long enough to recognize this for what it is.

Nonetheless, his links have showed us when running multi gpu, AMDs flagship CPU is inferior at F1 2012, Skyrim, and Civilization V and that is helpful.

so the of all the games on the market only f1 2012, skyrim and civ v matter, those are the most popular games and the only ones anybody plays?

interesting...since i know nobody who plays f1, i only know a few people who play CivV(and the amd users still say they get smooth fps...so whats it matter?), and skyrim, sorry but even most people who have reviewed the games perf on intel admit it should run better then it does, the fact they didnt optimize it for more cores because they where lazy and where more worried about console porting then anything else.....yeah its poorly optimized, the same has been said in more then 1 review of f1 where they didnt even use amd chips....

And of course there are the VRZone benches where AMD gets p3wned in every benchmark:
http://vr-zone.com/articles/amd-fx-8...nce/17494.html

wont get into why i dont even look at vrzone anymore and havent for many years......long story short i have no respect for their staff anymore.

Where I'm sure the answer is again, "B-b-but those framerates are good enuff!".

um, most people have 60hz monitors, so anything over 60fps isnt going to matter....so yes, even in civ5 pretty much any game system you builds gonna be "good enough", if all you play is f1, skyrim, civ5 and just have to have over 60fps, then yes you need to get yourself intel/nvidia, other then that.....sorry but most people dont spend this kinda money on videocards or processors.....most popular cpu's are under 200bucks in my exp, the most popular videocards are around the same price each(for true gamer buyers that is)

Why would anyone who spends $800 on a couple video cards buy a $200 CPU that all the reviews agree cripple them?

how about they guy who already has

1. an AMD system with 1 7870/7950/7970 and just wants a boost in gfx perf?

2. has an AMD am3+ system and want a newer cpu and videocard?

Oh wait they should spend more, and replace everything so they can go intel/nvidia......

sorry but I see alot of the above and I cant justify them replacing their board(even if its not high end) just so they can get an dead end intel platform...

I personally have see at most 5 people buy dual 7900 cards, I have seen far more buy a 7870 then later grab a 2nd OR a 7770 and grab a 2nd, or a 650/660 series and grab a 2nd....this makes more sense, and it gives a nice perf boost be it amd or intel platforms......despite your bull assertion that amd cant drive multi gpu configs(soundly prove false above..)

Especially when there are $200 CPUs like the 2500K that don't cripple them?

so 60+fps in non shooter games is crippling them? must be a new definition of crippling im no familiar with....

"People don't play those games anyway"?

some do , and if thats the only games they play and they need over 66fps, its probably a good idea to go with intel.

Huh? If the AMD CPU cripples performance in those games, which others fail on AMD?

again, cripples, if you look at the charts I posted, and reviews I have seen, I have yet to see a case where AMD wasnt able to produce 60+fps in a modern game.....and since very few gamers have 120hz or higher monitors, it really dosnt matter if the system dosnt produce 160-200-300-500-1000 fps, since only 60 can be displayed by the vast majority of computer monitors.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...0_6.html#sect0

thanks for proving my point

lets start with the fact nobody cares about 1280x800, so lets focus on 1920x1080


a delta of 3 fps(intel is 3 whopping fps faster!!!) in Batman Arkham City....amazing, guess 70 is unplayable and 73 is smooth as silk..... mind you thats between the $200 8350 and the $320 3770k....


lets move on to Borderlands 2
a delta of 9.2fps between the $200 8350 and the $320 3770k....
so 60.3fps is totally unplayable and crippled and 69.5fps is smooth as silk...interesting.



but lets move on to crysis2
with a delta of 0.9fps between the $200 8350 and the $320 3770k....
so 61.3 is unplable and crippling, but 62.2 is smooth as silk....ok......


how about dirt showdown....
with a delta of 3.2fps between the $200 8350 and the $320 3770k...
so,58.8 is unplayable and crippling but 62 is smooth as silk...


next is Far Cry 2
with a delta of 19.6 fps between the $200 8350 and the $320 3770k....
it may seem amd?s being destroied, but, to put this in perspective thats
113.9fps for the 8350 and 133.5 fps for the 3770k, is 19.6fps worth 120usd?



on to Metro 2033
with a delta of 1.4fps between the $200 8350 and the $320 3770k....
so, 28.8fps is unplayable but 29.4 is smooth as silk?

it amazes me what you Intel/nVidia fanboi's will call crippling and unplayable.....

Looks like Borderlands 2 is another game AMD fails at, never heard of anyone playing that.

a delta of 9.2fps between the $200 8350 and the $320 3770k....
so 60.3fps is totally unplayable and crippled and 69.5fps is smooth as silk...interesting.

amazes me what you fanboi's will call total failure and unplable and crippling.....it really does...your own numbers show a whole 9.2fps slower where both are over 60fps....and thats "fail"

(prepares for wall of text wherein we'll learn it's crazy and un-American to buy parts that cost the same but perform better, use less power, and give off less heat)

funny, last I checked, ivybridge runs hotter then my FX line stock cooler for stock cooler, hell, i could run at 4.4 on my stock cooler and get better temps then a 3770k at stock on its stock cooler.....perhaps if your lovely intel hadnt cheaped out and used shoddy TIM under the IHS temps would be better.....

Can't wait for reviews of this $920 chip.

yes im sure, you cant wait to troll those threads like you do every other AMD thread you can find....

what you fail to understand is, this simply isnt a chip for noobs, just like your 990x isnt a chip for noobs, its a niche market product for people who have to much money and to little brains, it will sell if it goes retail, just as the X series chips sell, and just as the EE chips and first gen FX chips sold(athlon64 fx chips that is)

these arent there to "rippoff noobs" they are there because theres a niche market that will buy them.....same as the X series from intel, Just like the Titan was/is a niche market product made for people with to much money and to little brains to see that if they had waited they could have got over 90% of the perf at just over half the price or as anand says

The end result is that with the GTX 780 delivering an average of 90% of Titan?s gaming performance for 65% of the price

Link

guess titan was nvidia ripping off stupid noobs with a $1000 videocard that isnt as fast as their 690(thats cheaper) or even as fast as 2 of their 660ti's.....

http://www.techspot.com/review/644-n...tan/page4.html

wow man, you should be PISSED at nVidia for ripping you off, they could have sold you 2*660ti's or a dual 660 card and given you better perf for alot less money.

its amazing how you defend the titan and even 990x, despite the fact you got ripped off and could have bought a far cheaper product and gotten the same performance!!!!

[Rollo]

I like AMD parts. I don't care if other companies make better parts that are either the same price, or in this case, much less expensive because I like AMD parts. To me, if AMD sells parts 10-20% slower for a huge price premium, it's the same as other companies selling parts that are 10-20% faster for a huge price premium, because I like AMD. Maybe if I post AMD's PR lines over and over and over and over, someone will believe me. I like AMD.

Fixed.