The AMD Reality Check Challenge

MacLeod said:
True, and Phenom 1's actually had a literal defect that they could hunt down and fix. Bulldozer isnt defective, it just isnt fast enough.

Is there nothing that can do to tweak this architecture or are they going to have to go with a totally brand new architecture to get performance up again?
Click to expand...

No, Phenom 1's were also not fast enough. Forget that defect nonsense your mentioning as it had little to nothing to do with performance. The fact is Phenom 1's were the first of a new architecture, just like BD, had cache issues, just like BD, and didn't clock as high as expected, just like BD. AMD will address these issues, just like it did for Phenom II, and the fab process will mature, just like it did for Phenom II. You see a pattern?
A lot of these AMD/BD haters, just look at this thread as an example (don't you have lives dudes?) need to realize BD is a first release of a very ambitious future thinking architecture, where as Intel currently lies with an extremely mature highly performing architecture.
To put things into perspective this is EXACTLY like Intels first release of the P4. It ate the ass of AMD's mature Athlon architecture and was slower in most things compared to Intels own P3. But as we all know the P4 matured over time and sold in all its variations for a very long time.
 
OldPueblo said:
Actually it's entirely possible in certain circumstances. The framerate can skyrocket in many places and utterly plummet in others creating a jerky performance over all, but then at the end the average FPS can still be considered awesome. It doesn't mean it was an enjoyable gaming experience though. Why do you think HardOCP tests the way they do?

What would have been nice to see is testimonials from the testers about why they chose a certain system.
Click to expand...

What is the point discussing a hypothetical result that has never actually happened?

AMD processors do not deliver any empirically better gaming performance than Intel processors...period!
 
Aluisious said:
What is the point discussing a hypothetical result that has never actually happened?

AMD processors do not deliver any empirically better gaming performance than Intel processors...period!
Click to expand...

(Except in a blind test of course) :p
 
Aluisious said:
What is the point discussing a hypothetical result that has never actually happened?

AMD processors do not deliver any empirically better gaming performance than Intel processors...period!
Click to expand...

The idea is that not just the blind test but also the marketing which claims that people can't notice the difference which plays to why buy Intel while AMD gives you the same or better "experience" it is a cheesy way of saying we can't go head to head on benchmarks but look blindtest says were "better".

it is one big distraction from what AMD is doing at the moment.
 
Makaveli@BETA said:
Actually I also want to know how buys a 6970 Xfire setup to play at 1920x1080. It like the guy I saw on another forum who had quadfire 6990's and plays on a single 1920x1080.....
Click to expand...

I had a single GTX 570 before I got the second one, and at 1920x1080 one card does not always cut it in games like BF3 or Metro 2033.

Quadfire is a little extreme, yes, but not dual cards.
 
Aluisious said:
tl dr buddy
Click to expand...
Laziness and ignorance go hand in hand. Also, I am not your buddy.

The fact is there is simply no way that an AMD processor could be BETTER than an Intel processor for playing a game. That's the empirical test.
Click to expand...
No, that's not a test. That's an assertion on your part. The empirical test is running the two side by side and seeing how they perform under otherwise identical conditions... which is what AMD claims they did.

Inference comes from a test result that favors AMD heavily.
Click to expand...
In your case, inference comes from you being an Intel fanboy.

Obviously they rigged the test.
Click to expand...
Obviously you are biased. Saying that they could have rigged the test or that they probably rigged the test is one thing, but saying they definitely 100% did rig the test? No, that's you being an Intel fanboy again. You did not witness the test, you were not there, so you cannot speak with certainty. In YOUR OPINION they rigged the test, but you cannot prove they did any more than I can prove that they did not.
 
Aluisious said:
tl dr buddy

The fact is there is simply no way that an AMD processor could be BETTER than an Intel processor for playing a game. That's the empirical test. It doesn't make more colors on the screen or massage your prostrate while you play, the only thing both of them do is affect frame rate. It could be equivalent if the CPU is not the important factor, but never better.

Inference comes from a test result that favors AMD heavily. Obviously they rigged the test. It could be as simple as having different chairs, or one monitor that has unfavorable ambient lighting conditions.
Click to expand...

I am inclined to agree. I might be able to see an argument for preferring the visuals provided by an AMD/ATI video card as opposed to an NV card, but the CPU is very far removed from rendering compared to that. I had this friend who swore he just preferred the way ATI cards looked in motion and in general use. Don't know if he was telling the truth, but he never stuck with NV cards because of it. I just don't see what the CPU can possibly influence other than pure compute power.
 
krameriffic said:
I am inclined to agree. I might be able to see an argument for preferring the visuals provided by an AMD/ATI video card as opposed to an NV card, but the CPU is very far removed from rendering compared to that. I had this friend who swore he just preferred the way ATI cards looked in motion and in general use. Don't know if he was telling the truth, but he never stuck with NV cards because of it. I just don't see what the CPU can possibly influence other than pure compute power.
Click to expand...

I concur, and I am having a hard time understanding why people are surprised that an AMD card on an AMD platform performs as well or better than the same card on a more capable Intel system. If this were a test of cpu computing power, and people were running multi-thread apps, then I would be shocked. I thought it was common knowledge that AMD platforms are just as capable, or the difference so minimal as to be unnoticable, when it comes to gaming on Intel based platforms. When I read the article, this is what I assumed the writer meant when he said that AMD was shooting for a no difference, and were pleasantly surprised to get the majority.
 
Spire3660 said:
context > grammar in this mode of communication. Grow up.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: When someone is criticizing my vocabulary it's a fair shot. I don't even know what "grow up" is supposed to refer to, but I don't care anyway.

Threads like this are great for figuring out whose opinions I could never possibly care about.
 
Aluisious said:
Threads like this are great for figuring out whose opinions I could never possibly care about.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you in any particular way, but in an AMD-related thread in the AMD sub-forum it stands to reason that you might get more than a few rabid AMD apologists. :D
 
I would really like to see the same test done in a multi-GPU setup. I prefer AMD motherboards over Intel the majority of the time, and it seems like BD is holding its own for gaming which is my primary use. I have a 2500k now because at the time I bought it 6-core AMD processors still weren't released yet (I upgraded from a 955BE). I don't have anything against BD but it wasn't good enough for me to sell my SB setup when it came out.

krameriffic said:
... had this friend who swore he just preferred the way ATI cards looked in motion and in general use. Don't know if he was telling the truth, but he never stuck with NV cards because of it. I just don't see what the CPU can possibly influence other than pure compute power.
Click to expand...

I know exactly what he is talking about. Back in the day, I used to switch between my Geforce GTS and my Radeon All-in-Wonder and there was a definite difference bewteen the two. ATi cards seemed to have softer and smoother colors for whatever reason. I still notice the difference now when I switch back and forth within the same day.
 
I can definitively prove the test was rigged. Rigged by Intel!

There simply is no other logic as to how Intel managed to get 5 votes in the i3-2150 vs. A8-3850. :D
 
I was there....saw the systems and didn't know till I got back that there was a single intel system in the house.

It was a blind test, not just rabid amd fanboys picking their favorites...

I have seen HardOCP and others in past reviews mention this "anomaly" where subjectively the amd cpu amd gpu rig felt smoother than the intel cpu amd gpu system despite the Intel system winning the particular benchmark.

perhaps this should be repeated at an Intel conference....might be interesting.
 
Patriot said:
I was there....saw the systems and didn't know till I got back that there was a single intel system in the house.

It was a blind test, not just rabid amd fanboys picking their favorites...

I have seen HardOCP and others in past reviews mention this "anomaly" where subjectively the amd cpu amd gpu rig felt smoother than the intel cpu amd gpu system despite the Intel system winning the particular benchmark.

perhaps this should be repeated at an Intel conference....might be interesting.
Click to expand...

It's not a "test" when it's chock full of uncontrolled (or purposefully manipulated) factors. Playing a game on two rigs is not the same complexity as drinking from two dixie cups.

Instead of "I have seen" why don't you find a link?
 
Aluisious said:
It's not a "test" when it's chock full of uncontrolled (or purposefully manipulated) factors. Playing a game on two rigs is not the same complexity as drinking from two dixie cups.

Instead of "I have seen" why don't you find a link?
Click to expand...

And even with something that simple they were able to bias the results by treating people a different way each time they handed them a drink. When there are so many other variables to account for, interviewer bias should become a bigger risk.

^^^ Not trying to say AMD rigged the results, just saying it could happen.

Also, everyone please keep in mind that when you ask people "which one is faster?" people have a tendency to try and make a definitive choice even if both are subjectively the same. In other words, if both systems had identical performance and people were basically guessing, having a 51% to 28% victory for AMD is statistically significant, but it does not rule out that people were guessing. If someone actually participated in this poll I'd love to hear from you, please tell us if you could actually feel that one rig was faster than the other.

EDIT Also keep in mind that the people who participated in the SB vs. BD test probably participated in the Llano vs. SB test. If they just came from one test where one was dramatically faster than the other they may feel like they need to make a definitive choice in this test too. Just an idea.
 
I didn't actually take this test but I stood and watched people for a while trying to figure out what they were doing. The 2 high end systems, from a "standing over the shoulder and watching you play" were close enough that I couldn't have made a guess which system is which.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Yeah, so I own a SB system and a 960T system.. I like both sides. Up until Sandy Bridge I had owned 3 intel chips and about 8 AMD chips.
 
When are you people going understand that Bulldozer runs BF3 Just as well as SB, I mean neck and neck.
Intel has absolutely NO ADVANTAGE over BD in BF3. BF3 was coded VERY WELL and makes use of heavy multi-threading
The test was not rigged, however, the game they chose to run gives a false representation of the 8150's overall performance, as BD
does not perform as well as SB in other games. But at the same time, BF3 is very popular right now and is a great way to show
off hardware as it is GPU and CPU demanding. Even though the game was "cherry picked" by AMD, and it was. It's just kind of
a coincidence that the BD chip runs the most popular and resource demanding multi-player FPS right now, just as well as SB
and that is a damn fact. You guys can hate on BD all you want, in some areas, it deserves it. But it's performance in BF3 is
surprisingly very good and competes directly with 2500k/2600k/2700k, if you don't believe it your in denial.
Enough shit about it being "rigged" or "biased" as many review sites have compared BD with SB in BF3 multi-player and
said that they perform the same (the same non-biased sites that tore BD to shreds during their review, including [H]).
 
Last edited:
XacTactX said:
And even with something that simple they were able to bias the results by treating people a different way each time they handed them a drink. When there are so many other variables to account for, interviewer bias should become a bigger risk.
Click to expand...

That's why people do double-blind tests, if they want to know the real result.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top