Discussion in 'News' started by btarunr, Oct 12, 2011.
The amazing win8 improvements... just enough t o put it on par with a Thuban
The only good thing that AMD ...err ATI knows how to make are their graphic cards. AMDs C50 and C30 are slower than Intel's Atom CPUs. fail again
Isn't their power draw total system in those charts?
No, not really. At the same clockspeed Brazos eats it for breakfast. The problem is that the GPU sucks too much power and the CPU has to be clocked down to help keep the TDP under control for the form factor.
Edit: Damn I'd have preferred to see 16 core Brazos than this lol.
I think some people saw those results and thought Platform only power draw. (CPU, RAM, Mobo+chipsets) They forgot that graphics were part of the package.
Hitler finds out about the AMD Bulldozer benchmarks
Even Hitler is pissed off lol
this looks really sad http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Processors-Benchmarklist.2436.0.html
Probably. Have nearly a whole system in my cart and even after BD is in stock and its added in, the total won't even top $1K.
Yeah from Anandtech...
So the consensus is to wait for Piledriver and Win8?
I put off upgrading for so long, I feel kind of weird right now. It's gotten easier to just wait.
Maybe I'll just wait for SB-e and piledriver, run this dying rig right into the ground!
Depending on what you do it's a good option. I know I do not need anything extra right now.
I don't understand this logic. This is "cutting edge" tech that software is proven not to be on par with yet people expected AMD to developer for the current gen software and old tech?
Talking about that Anandtech comment.
I dont recall any other processor improving its clock for clock performance with a jump to a different OS? Does anyone?
Cutting edge tech that's useless to me is, well, useless.
It's sounds like BS excuse to be honest. They're saying Windows 7 isn't ''updated'' to handle the new architecture, yet it's been out since 2009, they had more then enough time. And yet by the time Windows 8 releases (2012) a new line of BD chips will be out anyways.
Ive decided im just going to upgrade my video card and since im already running a 990FX board, i'll just wait till Piledriver in hopes of better performance, but currently it doesn't look like my X6 1055T will be going anywhere soon.
No but I do remember when Intel debuted hyper threading windows didn't know WTF to do and was later patched with great success. Now I'm not saying that will happen with BD. But its not far fetched ether.
Yeah, I just dont know. Im truly asking and not trying to start stuff. Im apprehensive of course, but...
I know this is different with their architecture...but its waaaaaaaaaaaaay over my head right now for that making sense.
Over all I'm lost also lol
AMD just wants to pin the blame on someone else for their fail.nothing new in this world
So amd has acess to future software that beyound modern tech and isn't available to anyone......I didn't know they hired Michael Bay to design cpus. Totally possible
I'll be basing this off Tech Report (since they have a scatter plot of perf/price)
FX-8150 at $245 is 355% ($0.69 per percentage point)
FX-8120 at $205 is 330% ($0.62 per percentage point)
Core i7 2600K at $317 is 425% ($0.74 per percentage point)
Core i5 2500K at $216 is 360% ($0.60 per percentage point)
Looking at them in terms of price per performance, they're not that bad.
However, the 8150 can by no means match the 2600K In pure overall performance (425% v. 355% = 70% difference), and is actually behind by 5% to the 2500K while being a bit more expensive ($0.69 v. $0.6).
The 8120 is even worse, just add $11 and you get 30% more performance (at $0.37 per percentage point) with the 2500K.
And there is still the power consumption to talk about. Core i7 2600K and i5 2500K both idles at 64W. Peak power consumption is 144W and 132W respectively. The FX-8150 has an idle power consumption at 76W and peaks at 209W. There is also a "task energy" graph for them; 8.5W and 9.9W respectively for the two Intel CPUs while it's 14.4W for the FX-8150. Comparing the 2600K with the 8150, $317:$245 means you save $72, but you end up using more power (12W more at idle, 65W more peak, 5.9W more task energy).
If the 8150 and 8120 is priced at $200 and $165 respectively, then it would be $0.56 per percentage point for the 8150 and $0.50 per percentage point for the 8120. This would offset, at least, the raw performance advantages of the 2600K and 2500K respectively.
Take note that those performance percentages are as "percentage points." Meaning, "behind by 5%" doesn't mean that it (8150) is 95% the performance of the 2500K (355/360 = 98.61%). And "30% more performance" is "30 percentage points more in terms of performance."
Separate names with a comma.