Gaming performance of 4ghz Bulldozer ES vs i7-990X

[Pestilence]

Intel is already planning a strategy like that with SB-E. The problem is that prices are expected to be pretty high.

Agreed. I was planning on going SB-E but i'd rather wait for Ivy

 

[20mmrain]

I did a couple of really quick comparisons of i7 2600k vs i7 990x (In gaming situations) and again what I found from just looking quickly the i7 2600k does better a better job against the i7 990x then AMD's bulldozer dose if the benchmarks that are listed here are true. In most cases from what I saw there was less then 1 fps differnece between i7 2600k and i7 990X. It appears in the benches here AMD's Chip get a bigger difference then that sometimes 2 fps

 

[seronx]

http://fudzilla.com/processors/item/23381-bulldozer-performance-figures-are-in

3.2GHz Zambezi 8130P ES vs 3.4GHz Sandy Bridge-P1 i7 2600K

Zambezi wins

 

[Dent1]

http://fudzilla.com/processors/item/23381-bulldozer-performance-figures-are-in

3.2GHz Zambezi 8130P ES vs 3.4GHz Sandy Bridge-P1 i7 2600K

Zambezi wins

Funny how all the Intel fanboy's whom have been bashing AMD for weeks have disappeared and gone quiet now more credible results have been published.

 

[caleb]

Funny how all the Intel fanboy's whom have been bashing AMD for weeks have disappeared and gone quiet now more credible results have been published.

Oh I'm here. You still got no review on TPU and no price so its still 2:0 for the i5 2500K

 

[brandonwh64]

Its a FUD review. I'm not taking sides until a NON ES chip is benched and reviewed by a trusted site.

 

[Thatguy]

Funny how all the Intel fanboy's whom have been bashing AMD for weeks have disappeared and gone quiet now more credible results have been published.

If you want to call those sources "credible" you'll not see me backing that assertion.

 

[Red_Machine]

its a fud review. I'm not taking sides until a non es chip is benched and reviewed by a trusted site.

+1

 

[Pestilence]

Funny how all the Intel fanboy's whom have been bashing AMD for weeks have disappeared and gone quiet now more credible results have been published.

We're still here.

An 8 core beating a 4 core processor.. Way to go Amd

I smell a price cut coming to the Sandy Bridge lineup. Mmmm 280 dollar 2600K, 180 dollar 2500K

 

[Goodman]

AMD can't beat Intel they don't have the necessary money to do it , period.

But AMD can get close in performance to Intel chips at a better price & take some market back little by little & with more money in about ~3 years from now we may see AMD kick ass of Intel chips (Win more than 70% of Benchmarks) but i seriously doubt that AMD can do this before that. IMO

 

[Thatguy]

AMD can't beat Intel they don't have the necessary money to do it , period.

But AMD can get close in performance to Intel chips at a better price & take some market back little by little & with more money in about ~3 years from now we may see AMD kick ass of Intel chips (Win more than 70% of Benchmarks) but i seriously doubt that AMD can do this before that. IMO

Its not about the $$$ it about the design and process. The only real advantage intel has had is in house FAB and better process tch then amdn for a long time.

 

[Pestilence]

Its not about the $$$ it about the design and process. The only real advantage intel has had is in house FAB and better process tch then amdn for a long time.

Intel also has better architecture

 

[Thatguy]

Intel also has better architecture

Not really.they have a bigger transistor budget.

 

[Dent1]

If you want to call those sources "credible" you'll not see me backing that assertion.

I actually said "more credible". As in more credible than those Chinese or Japanese websites we had before with shady blacked out screenshots.

We're still here.

An 8 core beating a 4 core processor.. Way to go Amd

http://i474.photobucket.com/albums/rr104/cp1708/Clappinggif.gif

I smell a price cut coming to the Sandy Bridge lineup. Mmmm 280 dollar 2600K, 180 dollar 2500K

If AMDs 8 core works out cheaper than i7s 4 core who cares?

AMD can't beat Intel they don't have the necessary money to do it , period.

Seriously? So how did AMD beat Intel all those times in the past with less than 1/10th of Intel's budget?

 

[LordJummy]

Funny how all the Intel fanboy's whom have been bashing AMD for weeks have disappeared and gone quiet now more credible results have been published.

I think most of the people you are referring to are just not chiming in because the AMD fanboys in this thread will keep quoting a bunch of "credible" results.

I am neither an intel or AMD fanboy though. I will purchase whatever has the best overall performance for my needs. These threads are just completely pointless. There should be a sub forum for useless rumors and all of these posts about BD etc should go in there.

We're still here.

An 8 core beating a 4 core processor.. Way to go Amd

http://i474.photobucket.com/albums/rr104/cp1708/Clappinggif.gif

I smell a price cut coming to the Sandy Bridge lineup. Mmmm 280 dollar 2600K, 180 dollar 2500K

This price cut happened a long time ago, but I'm guessing you're being sarcastic?

The 2500k has been available for $179 for the past couple months here. I guess maybe the prices haven't gone down all over.

http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0354589

 

[max_minimalist]

This price cut happened a long time ago, but I'm guessing you're being sarcastic?

The 2500k has been available for $179 for the past couple months here. I guess maybe the prices haven't gone down all over.

http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0354589

Price cuts won't happen till Intel releases official price adjustments. Microcenter is unique as it tries to be a loss leader - they severely undercut CPU prices so that you buy other stuff (generally higher than average) at their store. Unless you live close to a MC, you have to pay normal prices (~$220) as release at Newegg, Amazon, Superbiiz etc. It's also why they don't have online order/shipping (at least not for important stuff) without visiting their B&M store--they want eye 'viewership'.

 

[bucketface]

We're still here.

An 8 core beating a 4 core processor.. Way to go Amd

I smell a price cut coming to the Sandy Bridge lineup. Mmmm 280 dollar 2600K, 180 dollar 2500K

the bulldozer die is supposedly 294mm2 and sandy is 216mm2 so about 40-45% die increase for twice the number of "cores" doesn't sound all that bad. anyway there may be a smaller 4 "core" BD die in the pipes. (has anyone heared anything about this.)
Both top products use 8 threads, they just go about getting there differently. one saves on die space and brute-forces everything with 4 big cores. the other uses 8 less robust cores that share resources. it remains to be seen which is better, and at what.
why all the hate. intel/amd are both just companies servicing you people with a product. don't get too emotianlly invested... they'll never love you back.

 

[ctrain]

I'm more worried about the per core performance than anything.

Even games that actually scale to that many threads start having diminishing returns. The majority of the heavy lifting is probably done by a few threads and everything else is just icing. I'd imagine it would help once DX11 becomes the norm and NV / ATI get around to getting all their shit ironed out with driver support for it.

 

[Thatguy]

the bulldozer die is supposedly 294mm2 and sandy is 216mm2 so about 40-45% die increase for twice the number of "cores" doesn't sound all that bad. anyway there may be a smaller 4 "core" BD die in the pipes. (has anyone heared anything about this.)
Both top products use 8 threads, they just go about getting there differently. one saves on die space and brute-forces everything with 4 big cores. the other uses 8 less robust cores that share resources. it remains to be seen which is better, and at what.
why all the hate. intel/amd are both just companies servicing you people with a product. don't get too emotianlly invested... they'll never love you back.

Now you tell us ? WTF ?

 

[Thatguy]

I'm more worried about the per core performance than anything.

Even games that actually scale to that many threads start having diminishing returns. The majority of the heavy lifting is probably done by a few threads and everything else is just icing. I'd imagine it would help once DX11 becomes the norm and NV / ATI get around to getting all their shit ironed out with driver support for it.

It'll be competitive at a minimum.

 

[Pestilence]

I look at that graph and say to myself if it's that bad at 2560X1600. How much worse is it going to get at lower resolutions when the processor comes more into play then the graphics cards.

 

[Thatguy]

I look at that graph and say to myself if it's that bad at 2560X1600. How much worse is it going to get at lower resolutions when the processor comes more into play then the graphics cards.

Actually the chart shows a more typically cpu bottle necked load, dual graphics cards.