Bulldozer, best gamer cpu because high min values?

F

facebook

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
179
Is Bulldozer the best gamer cpu today?

Checking graphs for battlefield 3 on hardocp, the lowest fps values har higher than 2500K and 2600K. I don't care if a cpu can produce 10 000 FPS in sertain parts if it also have bottlenecks. What is important is that the lowest FPS har high.

Looking att battlefield 3 beta multiplayer, bulldozer seems to have much higher min fps

http://hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTMxODIzNDM3ODFEM0pGUjlMaUhfMl8yX2wuZ2lm
 
Denial is an amazing thing. You can pick one undigested corn nugget out of a giant turd, and somehow think its not a turd at all but delicious summer sweet corn.
 
If you're going to make that argument and want it to be credible, wait for BF3 release code and/or a repeatable BF3 benchmark. Additionally:
{H} Bulldozer Gameplay Evaluation said:
Please note that BF3 does not contain all the features the full version will include, this means the driver multithreading might not be enabled yet. To test BF3 we found it rather difficult to get consistent runs, but we did our best to test in the same conditions each time, and perform the same actions and same path, in the same areas as best we could.
Click to expand...

The differences in minimum FPS could be down to lack of consistency between the runs.

If you were really serious about this argument, I'd use this picture, since the delta in minimum FPS is ever-so-slightly larger. ;)
 
facebook said:
have you seen the graph?
Click to expand...

yeah and its not bad. and in a couple of areas it will even hand sandy bridge its ass once its optimized for it.

now the remaining 98% ................................
 
Valset said:
yeah and its not bad. and in a couple of areas it will even hand sandy bridge its ass once its optimized for it.

now the remaining 98% ................................
Click to expand...

Do you know any other game that need more cpu compared to battlefield 3?

If the other 98% of the games don't need a fast cpu, it doesn't matter
 
facebook said:
Do you know any other game that need more cpu compared to battlefield 3?

If the other 98% of the games don't need a fast cpu, it doesn't matter
Click to expand...

Yes, StarCraft II. Bulldozer takes a 20 FPS drop (compared to 2500) just for being 'dozer, regardless of whether you're running quad SLI or a 6850.
 
facebook said:
I am interested in games that need cpu power, games that don't tax the cpu isn't important for obvious reasons ;)

Looking for a CPU that is future safe, not the one that is fast on older games
Click to expand...



What? You looking for some one to co-sign on you buying it? I'll do it!

BUY IT DAWG!

Bulldozer rocks, these guys just jelly
 
The BF3 tests are hard to say, since it's not very consistent. It looks like GPU bound results with some randomness from the whole "trying to bench online" thing. Guess we'll see more soon since it sounds like they're doing so more gaming tests.
 
iconiK said:
Yes, StarCraft II. Bulldozer takes a 20 FPS drop (compared to 2500) just for being 'dozer, regardless of whether you're running quad SLI or a 6850.
Click to expand...

I am playing starcraft II with a Phenom X3 2.5 GHz. Works super.
Also, that game don't need high fps
 
facebook said:
I am playing starcraft II with a Phenom X3 2.5 GHz. Works super.
Also, that game don't need high fps
Click to expand...

Yeah, for most players in SC2, 30fps will work okay. For high levels (and there are not many) where the FPS would actually tangibly affect them... well.... :p
 
facebook said:
Is Bulldozer the best gamer cpu today?

Checking graphs for battlefield 3 on hardocp, the lowest fps values har higher than 2500K and 2600K. I don't care if a cpu can produce 10 000 FPS in sertain parts if it also have bottlenecks. What is important is that the lowest FPS har high.

Looking att battlefield 3 beta multiplayer, bulldozer seems to have much higher min fps

http://hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTMxODIzNDM3ODFEM0pGUjlMaUhfMl8yX2wuZ2lm
Click to expand...
Early on in the review browsing I was trying to make this case for BD as well since BF3 is the sole reason for me upgrading after 6 years. Unfortunately we need to wait until the full game comes out to see what's what or at the very least, see how it does on the Caspian map since it's much more taxing on the CPU. Even if BD somehow is the boss at BF3, it has tragic results in some other major games which makes its performance very uncertain on the next game I decide to try out.
 
facebook said:
Do you know any other game that need more cpu compared to battlefield 3?

If the other 98% of the games don't need a fast cpu, it doesn't matter
Click to expand...

Read the Civ V parts of the review including the last page. All 8 cores are being utilized yet look at the results. At max video settings (2560x1600, 4X AA, and 16X AF), the FX-8150 couldn't even create a playable experience but the i5-2500k can. They had to drop the AA to 2X to in order for it to be playable, and still couldn't acheive the same FPS as the i5 at 4X AA. Civ V is a very multi-threaded intensive game.
 
NotSureIfSerious.jpg
 
In a world where paying $50 more than a 2500K for less performance is desirable, BD is the best gaming CPU... I don't live in that world.
 
RamonGTP said:
In a world where paying $50 more than a 2500K for less performance is desirable, BD is the best gaming CPU... I don't live in that world.
Click to expand...

I was planing to get FX-8120

If all games stoped beeing developed today, no more power needed then my X3 @ 2.5 GHz would do just fine except for BF3
FX-8120 will run all games fine too. But lets say one or two years from now

edit: I also think we will se some price drops soon
 
Last edited:
facebook said:
I was planing to get FX-8120

If all games stoped beeing developed today, no more power needed then my X3 @ 2.5 GHz would do just fine except for BF3
FX-8120 will run all games fine too. But lets say one or two years from now

edit: I also think we will se some price drops soon
Click to expand...

It's a crappy CPU, regardless of which one you buy, what your current one does and when games will cease development.
 
RamonGTP said:
It's a crappy CPU, regardless of which one you buy, what your current one does and when games will cease development.
Click to expand...

I have to wonder if these AMD fanboys truly believe themselves, or if they truly know if their brain that their lame, crap excuses are just that.
 
FX-8120 is a nice chip, happy 450 watts.
make sure you have an 1200 watt PSU if you want to go 4.8 :p
 
I have to wonder if these AMD fanboys truly believe themselves, or if they truly know if their brain that their lame, crap excuses are just that.
Click to expand...

i guess this makes you a intel fanboy.

The FX is not a bad cpu. Everyone is talking about the amount of power it uses. Blame the new 32nm process. Even with Llano they are having process issues. Bulldozer is completely new so its bound to have a few more process issues, which can been seen in its power efficiency. At stock clocks its not all that bad, but start to overclock it gets outta hand quick.

Fx has some strong points. Anything that uses AES encryption the fx is on par with the intel extreme edition i7's, and blows the sandy bridge away. It's poor Ipc can be partially blamed on windows 7 scheduler. Running on windows 8 beta build i have noticed decent ipc increase in single threaded applications and a overall increase in most applications.

Honestly these were not ready for release. I can see why Amd decided to go ahead and release them. They were premature, but they have to keep moving forward in their plans for piledriver and so forth.

Read the Civ V parts of the review including the last page. All 8 cores are being utilized yet look at the results. At max video settings (2560x1600, 4X AA, and 16X AF), the FX-8150 couldn't even create a playable experience but the i5-2500k can. They had to drop the AA to 2X to in order for it to be playable, and still couldn't acheive the same FPS as the i5 at 4X AA. Civ V is a very multi-threaded intensive game.
Click to expand...

honestly Civilization V is a poor example of a game. Even on the most extreme of systems a match on the biggest map against AI gets terribly slow to the point its unplayable (at least for me) I've played on a (i7 2600k@ 5ghz, 990x@4ghz, amd phenom x6@ 4ghz, and now FX8150@ 5.1ghz) something is not quite right with this game.

Is the FX a good gaming cpu? well its better than phenom II as long as the game is not single threaded. I wouldn't put it up there with the Sandy bridge processors, unless your running super high resolutions.

Bottom line, I wouldn't buy a FX cpu at this time. If you have a 990fx board or compatible Am3+ board, i would continue to wait if you can. You are waiting for process refinements and possibly a windows 7 scheduler fix.
 
facebook said:
I was planing to get FX-8120

If all games stoped beeing developed today, no more power needed then my X3 @ 2.5 GHz would do just fine except for BF3
FX-8120 will run all games fine too. But lets say one or two years from now
Click to expand...


I wouldn't buy bulldozer for optimizations that might happen one or two years from now. Maybe Windows 8's better scheduler will finally let bulldozer competitive with Intel's counterparts, but by the time Windows 8 comes out, there is going to be Ivy Bridges and Bulldozer's successor.
 
Even if we want to positive spin BD to death, at the very least BD is not timed at all to the marketplace and what current demands are. It may be the revolutionary of the future and all that, but that future is not one where BD will ever compete. So, best case scenario, BD is a "rebuilding season," just one that took years to put together...
 
Please...can we stop this already??? this cpu is horrid. Its expensive for what you get. You need a nuclear power plant just to power it. its overclock at 4.7 or whatever has the same performance as the thuban 6 core overclocked to 4.0. Its horrid in crossfire (dont ask for link just google it its out there) And all the fan boys are saying, "we just need to discover it, it needs windows 8, it needs this and that." 2500k or 2600k. Hands down.
 
ebduncan said:
i guess this makes you a intel fanboy.

The FX is not a bad cpu. Everyone is talking about the amount of power it uses. Blame the new 32nm process.
Click to expand...

Oh that makes sense. A nice CPU based on a shit processes. Not sure how that changes anything.
 
facebook said:
Is Bulldozer the best gamer cpu today?
Looking att battlefield 3 beta multiplayer, bulldozer seems to have much higher min fps
Click to expand...

much higher minimum frames.....:confused:

You must mean consistent lower frames.
 
The absolute minimum is a mere 3 FPS higher than the 2600k, and just by inspection of the graph, the 8150 spends just as much time as the lowest of the three lines as the other two. And given that this is a real world test, FPS minima can result from huge spikes of activity that don't happen consistently.
 
This CPU has some body guards I swear. It sucks that its not what it should of been but oh well so what .
 
facebook said:
Not for me. The lowest 5% is the most important

average fps on BF3 for bulldozer is ok though, maybe better than intel
Click to expand...

Yes the graphs do show a higher min. FPS, which I agree is important.

However, as noted in the review, and clear if you played the beta, there are way to many variables that come into play in a multiplayer beta with a destructible environment, random spawn points, and other people.

I would hold out until the game is released and benchmarks can be done with fixed variables before using that data to influence any purchase.
 
Why are you even asking?

Every one has told you it's not the best cpu or even a good value and you keep defending it. It's clear you have already made up your mind. Buy it already.
 
ebduncan said:
i guess this makes you a intel fanboy.

The FX is not a bad cpu. Everyone is talking about the amount of power it uses. Blame the new 32nm process. Even with Llano they are having process issues. Bulldozer is completely new so its bound to have a few more process issues, which can been seen in its power efficiency. At stock clocks its not all that bad, but start to overclock it gets outta hand quick.

Fx has some strong points. Anything that uses AES encryption the fx is on par with the intel extreme edition i7's, and blows the sandy bridge away. It's poor Ipc can be partially blamed on windows 7 scheduler. Running on windows 8 beta build i have noticed decent ipc increase in single threaded applications and a overall increase in most applications.

Honestly these were not ready for release. I can see why Amd decided to go ahead and release them. They were premature, but they have to keep moving forward in their plans for piledriver and so forth.



honestly Civilization V is a poor example of a game. Even on the most extreme of systems a match on the biggest map against AI gets terribly slow to the point its unplayable (at least for me) I've played on a (i7 2600k@ 5ghz, 990x@4ghz, amd phenom x6@ 4ghz, and now FX8150@ 5.1ghz) something is not quite right with this game.

Is the FX a good gaming cpu? well its better than phenom II as long as the game is not single threaded. I wouldn't put it up there with the Sandy bridge processors, unless your running super high resolutions.

Bottom line, I wouldn't buy a FX cpu at this time. If you have a 990fx board or compatible Am3+ board, i would continue to wait if you can. You are waiting for process refinements and possibly a windows 7 scheduler fix.
Click to expand...



I'm not sure how you believe this not to be a bad cpu.

According to you, its only good point is AES encryption. How many customers consider that their priority?

Also from you:

Honestly these were not ready for release

Bottom line, I wouldn't buy a FX cpu at this time


I don't see how after reading what you wrote that anyone can consider this a good cpu.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top