- Oct 30, 2008
- 1,627 (0.40/day)
|System Name||Lailalo / Edelweiss|
|Processor||Ryzen 1700 @ 3.8Ghz / i7 3610QM @2.3-3.2Ghz|
|Motherboard||Asus X370 Prime/ Lenovo Y580|
|Cooling||Noctua / Big hunk of copper|
|Memory||16GB DDR4 3200 Ripjaws with Samsung chips / 8GB Hyundai DDR3 1600|
|Video Card(s)||XFX R9 390 / GTX 660M 2GB|
|Storage||Crucial 1TB MX500 SSD, Segate 3TB, 64GB Synapse SSD as Pagefile drive / Western Digital 1TB 7200RPM|
|Display(s)||LG Ultrawide 29in @ 2560x1080 / Lenovo 15.6 @ 1920x1080|
|Case||Coolermaster Storm Sniper / Lenovo Y580|
|Audio Device(s)||Asus Xonar DG / Whatever Lenovo used|
|Power Supply||Antec Truepower Blue 750W + Thermaltake 5.25in 250W / Big Power Brick|
|Software||Windows 10 Pro / Windows 10 Home|
Bulldozer has been a quirky design. Theres always been 2 camps. Those that consider it a form of HTT, then those that consider them legitimate cores. Lets face it, the weakest FX were always the quads. But then those were just 2 module units. You didn't get to 4 modules till you got to the 8 core models. Performance was only decent with the quad module units.It helps AMD cpu more cause it allowed to use 4 cores of the cpu, but still that is a dual core cpu vs quad core. As for 9590 test, well sure that could change when you see power bill spiking since use of all 8 cores of the cpu will draw more power.
If you subscribe to the AMD HTT camp, then this explains perfectly why a "quad" APU paces with a dual i3.
More interested in seeing the eventual FX vs i5/i7 benches. If they show similar results that the dual module APUs deliver then it'll be interesting.