AMD FX 8120 Listed on Ukrainian Store

[Damn_Smooth]

SuperPI still holds a lot of weight in the community. Look at this thread, people talking about Bulldozers disappointing performance based on fake SuperPI results, yet they claim they don't care about PI.



Agreed.

BTW isn't Bulldozer out tomorrow. Overclockers.co.uk are preparing to list them
...looks like they've taken it down again!

I'll give you that a lot of people make a big fuss over SuperPi, but if Bulldozer takes a fair share of the gaming benchmarks, I'm putting anyone that complains about SuperPi on the ignore list.

 

[Frick]

What about the people who run SuperPi for a living godblessthem? Selfish bastards.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Super Pi is single threaded. I honestly haven't seen it relevant in some time.

 

[cadaveca]

Super Pi is single threaded. I honestly haven't seen it relevant in some time.

Relevant for what? It's useful if used in the proper context; to measure gains from stock when overclocking, and stress-testing memory.

The numbers given are useless, really, as the code it runs will not be run often, but at the same time, the load placed on the memory subsystem can be used both to test it's efficiency, and it's stability.


I hear people all the time bitching about SuperPi...and clearly there's a great mis-understanding on what SuperPi is actually used for. In regards to efficiency, there is a "performance product", or calculation that can be made, based onteh result time, that can show if your system is running ideally or not. Not many other than extreme clockers from yesteryear will remember how people have been outted from posting fake clocks thanks to the "perforamcne product".

So I guess it can also be used to validate clocks, in a weird way.

It shouldn't be used to compare say, Intel to AMD, but comparing clocks from stock to an overclock, can be useful. The fact it's running x87 code is not important..that's CPU-side, and Spi is a MEMORY-focused benchmark, thanks to it's single-threaded nature.

 

[NdMk2o1o]

Super Pi is single threaded. I honestly haven't seen it relevant in some time.

its also based on an ancient instruction set so you are indeed right it is completely irrelevant these days there are much better benchmarks that give a better indication of real world performance.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Relevant for what? It's useful if used in the proper context; to measure gains from stock when overclocking, and stress-testing memory.

The numbers given are useless, really, as the code it runs will not be run often, but at the same time, the load placed on the memory subsystem can be used both to test it's efficiency, and it's stability.


I hear people all the time bitching about SuperPi...and clearly there's a great mis-understanding on what SuperPi is actually used for. In regards to efficiency, there is a "performance product", or calculation that can be made, based onteh result time, that can show if your system is running ideally or not. Not many other than extreme clockers from yesteryear will remember how people have been outted from posting fake clocks thanks to the "perforamcne product".

So I guess it can also be used to validate clocks, in a weird way.

It shouldn't be used to compare say, Intel to AMD, but comparing clocks from stock to an overclock, can be useful. The fact it's running x87 code is not important..that's CPU-side, and Spi is a MEMORY-focused benchmark, thanks to it's single-threaded nature.

I can see that. I was talking more of using it for a comparison base ie. "AMD vs Intel" more then anything. I would thank you but......I'm 1337.

 

[Damn_Smooth]

Relevant for what? It's useful if used in the proper context; to measure gains from stock when overclocking, and stress-testing memory.

The numbers given are useless, really, as the code it runs will not be run often, but at the same time, the load placed on the memory subsystem can be used both to test it's efficiency, and it's stability.


I hear people all the time bitching about SuperPi...and clearly there's a great mis-understanding on what SuperPi is actually used for. In regards to efficiency, there is a "performance product", or calculation that can be made, based onteh result time, that can show if your system is running ideally or not. Not many other than extreme clockers from yesteryear will remember how people have been outted from posting fake clocks thanks to the "perforamcne product".

So I guess it can also be used to validate clocks, in a weird way.

It shouldn't be used to compare say, Intel to AMD, but comparing clocks from stock to an overclock, can be useful. The fact it's running x87 code is not important..that's CPU-side, and Spi is a MEMORY-focused benchmark, thanks to it's single-threaded nature.

You are very much correct in that it serves a purpose there. The problem is that most people are using the scores to compare Intel with AMD.

D'oh, ninja'd

 

[cadaveca]

its also based on an ancient instruction set so you are indeed right it is completely irrelevant these days there are much better benchmarks that give a better indication of real world performance.

If it was completely irrelevant, than every extreme overclcoker and reviewer wouldn't be running it, but they do. There is a method behind the madness, and it's natural for those that do not understand to hesitate or fear the things they don't understand.

 

[TheMailMan78]

If it was completely irrelevant, than every extreme overclcoker and reviewer wouldn't be running it, but they do. There is a method behind the madness, and it's natural for those that do not understand to hesitate or fear the things they don't understand.

Thats why I don't like clowns and midgets.

 

[NdMk2o1o]

If it was completely irrelevant, than every extreme overclcoker and reviewer wouldn't be running it, but they do. There is a method behind the madness, and it's natural for those that do not understand to hesitate or fear the things they don't understand.

It's irrelevant in the context of my sentance and as MM said to compare Intel/AMD, so I agree with what you said, why you need to repeat it I am not so sure...

 

[cadaveca]

why you need to repeat it I am not so sure...

It seems that people ignore that not everyone has the same needs, and I think it's a bit arrogant to call an app completely useles, when it isn't. I mean, sure, you may have no use for it, but that doesn't make it unimportant.

It's a tool "professionals" use to judge system performance, like how AIDA64's bandwidth test is used, but with a bit of error checking thrown in.

And while you feel it may not be useful to compare AMD and Intel, it's useful to show architectural differences that may or may not have an impact on performance. It shouldn't be used to say that if Intel completes Pi in half the time, it's twice as fast, but, it does highlight how contoroller differences can affect memory performance, but have little impact on daily usage.

Stop saying it's useless, and I'll stop explaining why you're wrong. I'm not saying at a personal level, you are wrong, but looking at the bigger picture, it's far from useless, and the comment about what code it runs highlights your lack of understanding the app as it's used by those "professionals".

 

[TheMailMan78]

It seems that people ignore that not everyone has the same needs, and I think it's a bit arrogant to call an app completely useles, when it isn't. I mean, sure, you may have no use for it, but that doesn't make it unimportant.

It's a tool "professionals" use to judge system performance, like how AIDA64's bandwidth test is used, but with a bit of error checking thrown in.

And while you feel it may not be useful to compare AMD and Intel, it's useful to show architectural differences that may or may not have an impact on performance. It shouldn't be used to say that if Intel completes Pi in half the time, it's twice as fast, but, it does highlight how contoroller differences can affect memory performance, but have little impact on daily usage.

Stop saying it's useless, and I'll stop explaining why you're wrong. I'm not saying at a personal level, you are wrong, but looking at the bigger picture, it's far from useless, and the comment about what code it runs highlights your lack of understanding the app as it's used by those "professionals".

I'm rather useless......but I doubt you'll argue I'm wrong.

 

[cadaveca]

I'm rather useless......but I doubt you'll argue I'm wrong.

Anyway, none of this has much bearing on the launch and availability of BD chips. I guess this(as in the OP) kinda shows they are at least shipping...


My god, I hope they hit local tomorrow.

 

[Super XP]

Actually the FX-8150 chip is a little slower in SuperPI 1M than the Phenom II x6 1100T. It takes around 20s. But hey, what do i know, right?

And how on earth do you know this? Oh, I forgot, you have one sitting on your desk.
Previews don't count, official reviews do....

 

[heky]

Sure, we will just have to wait and see who was right. I will have no problem admitting i was wrong, will you?

 

[TheMailMan78]

Sure, we will just have to wait and see who was right. I will have no problem admitting i was wrong, will you?

And will you admit you are wrong again when the patch windows?

 

[faramir]

Anandtech has a full review out.

Absolutely no way IMHO.

You were saying ?

It appears that BD is actually slightly inferior to Phenom II in IPC rather than just on par (with the exception of new instructions, such as AES-NI, which obviously weren't present in Phenom II).

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

I wonder if seronx and DamnSt00pid will muster the testicular capacity to apologize for being such pricks when we pointed out the obvious to them.

 

[heky]

And will you admit you are wrong again when the patch windows?

Sure, no problem. If it delivers, it delivers. But for now, it doesnt. Period. After all the wait. SB is out for almost a year now. And win 8 wont be until late next year.

@Dent1
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...md-bulldozer-fx-8150-processor-review-20.html

Who is mentally challenged now? Sorry but your posts look kind of challenged now. Still think the new AMD flagship is that great?

 

[Super XP]

Anandtech has a full review out.

You were saying ?

It appears that BD is actually slightly inferior to Phenom II in IPC rather than just on par (with the exception of new instructions, such as AES-NI, which obviously weren't present in Phenom II).

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

I wonder if seronx and DamnSt00pid will muster the testicular capacity to apologize for being such pricks when we pointed out the obvious to them.

Give me a sec will you, I just swallowed my nuts

Can this be the reason why AMD got rid of Dirk Meyer? If Bulldozer needs a Windows 7 patch for it to perform much better, then why didn't AMD push for this patch to get completed B4 Bulldozer's launch? Anyhow I am lost with words.....

 

[Damn_Smooth]

Give me a sec will you, I just swallowed my nuts

Can this be the reason why AMD got rid of Dirk Meyer? If Bulldozer needs a Windows 7 patch for it to perform much better, then why didn't AMD push for this patch to get completed B4 Bulldozer's launch? Anyhow I am lost with words.....

I see the post that you quoted was removed, but I'll reply to it anyway.

First off, your spelling is horrendous, there is no t,p,i or d in smooth.

I am man enough to admit when I'm wrong and I was wrong this time.

As for an apology, I don't think so. I'm not going to apologize when this could have turned out the other way. Nobody knew for sure and I just continuously had to point that out to you.

Good day.

 

[faramir]

First off, your spelling is horrendous, there is no t,p,i or d in smooth.

My apologies for that, a tad immature of me perhaps.

I am man enough to admit when I'm wrong and I was wrong this time.

Oh ?

As for an apology, I don't think so. I'm not going to apologize when this could have turned out the other way. Nobody knew for sure and I just continuously had to point that out to you.

You made some pretty bold statements back then, claiming that I'm making things up [when I quoted AMD's CEO's statement given to public and recorded online], daring me to come up with any statements of the kind [that Bulldozer's IPC would be along the lines of that of Phenom II] which, in your words, would take forever [it took me 30 seconds].

It *couldn't* have turned out any other way for a very simple reason: I was merely quoting another man's statement. Had he been wrong in his estimate (which sounds extremely unlikely, given his position ...), it would have been his mistake in estimate to make, not mine. And as it turns out he was right (surprise, surprise).

Now *if* you indeed are man enough I'm sure you're going to manage to cough up something better than this sorry attempt at back-paddling.

Good day.

That, or good riddance

 

[Damn_Smooth]

My apologies for that, a tad immature of me perhaps.

No more immature than this one.

You made some pretty bold statements back then, claiming that I'm making things up [when I quoted AMD's CEO's statement given to public and recorded online], daring me to come up with any statements of the kind [that Bulldozer's IPC would be along the lines of that of Phenom II] which, in your words, would take forever [it took me 30 seconds].

It *couldn't* have turned out any other way for a very simple reason: I was merely quoting another man's statement. Had he been wrong in his estimate (which sounds extremely unlikely, given his position ...), it would have been his mistake in estimate to make, not mine. And as it turns out he was right (surprise, surprise).

And I provided you with a link of JF-AMD disputing it, how was I supposed to know he was wrong.

Now *if* you indeed are man enough I'm sure you're going to manage to cough up something better than this sorry attempt at back-paddling.

You have clearly proven that you have no ability to comprehend what you read. Nowhere in my post was I backpedaling (Proper spelling, I don't have a boat. ) about anything. I admitted I was wrong, and that's as far as it goes.

That, or good riddance

Take your pick, they both work for me.

 

[erocker]

My apologies for that, a tad immature of me perhaps.



Oh ?



You made some pretty bold statements back then, claiming that I'm making things up [when I quoted AMD's CEO's statement given to public and recorded online], daring me to come up with any statements of the kind [that Bulldozer's IPC would be along the lines of that of Phenom II] which, in your words, would take forever [it took me 30 seconds].

It *couldn't* have turned out any other way for a very simple reason: I was merely quoting another man's statement. Had he been wrong in his estimate (which sounds extremely unlikely, given his position ...), it would have been his mistake in estimate to make, not mine. And as it turns out he was right (surprise, surprise).

Now *if* you indeed are man enough I'm sure you're going to manage to cough up something better than this sorry attempt at back-paddling.



That, or good riddance

No more immature than this one.



And I provided you with a link of JF-AMD disputing it, how was I supposed to know he was wrong.




You have clearly proven that you have no ability to comprehend what you read. Nowhere in my post was I backpedaling (Proper spelling, I don't have a boat. ) about anything. I admitted I was wrong, and that's as far as it goes.



Take your pick, they both work for me.

Guys. Nobody cares. Seriously. Take it to PM's.

 

[Super XP]

Wow, where did Knight Rider GO?