Phenom II X8

[Mishkin]

Intel did the same thing...so...i expect this to be a learning experience, its not a total failure, the chip still does work, just not as much as people were expecting it to. I am kinda getting tired of people shoving AMD's face in the dirt over this...its annoying. If you had the expectation that AMD would jump 2 generations in one CPU release, your missing something. Because at this point that is what AMD is behind by, if they totally failed to release anything with any significant change, then they would have been 3.

First of all, IMO Phenom 2 is better than Bulldozer when everything is considered together, from performance to price to power consumption to execution and management.

I wouldn't exactly call myself an AMD fanboy, but I am definitely a fan, and very much prefer AMD over Intel. Have only built a few systems over the past several years, but they have all been AMD for the great price/performance. And you know what? All things considered, Bulldozer just may be the biggest processor fail of all time. How many years has it been since we first heard the name "Bulldozer" and knew that AMD was working on it? We have been waiting for the almighty BD for goddamn YEARS now. It's touted as energy-efficient, but is outrageously power-hungry, overpriced, has absolute crap performance compared to what was expected, and is still not 100% flawless when it comes to certain software. I personally didn't expect BD to destroy Intel's current high-end, or even come close. But I DID expect it to be at least a good processor for a good price.

You know what I'm tired of? I'm tired of AMD fanboys desperately in denial, making up bs reasons as to why Bulldozer WASN'T a complete failure. This is coming from a guy who very much wanted BD to be a huge hit. An AMD fan and a fan of processor competition.

You know Bulldozer sucks when a lot of people would rather have a Phenom 2. That pretty much sums it up right there, and that fact is beyond pathetic for AMD. Think about that. Think about the reaction to AMD's pulling of the majority of the Athlon and Phenom 2 lines. If Bulldozer wasn't a big steaming pile of crap, that wouldn't have mattered.

I hope Piledriver pleasantly surprises me, but I doubt it. Given what I have heard and know as of now, in terms of current BD performance and projected and expected % improvements -- Piledriver will essentially still be in the very same league as Phenom 2. (PD 10% better than BD?) At least for gaming and most applications, anyway. If you were generous, you could MAYBE consider the improvement between Phenom 2 and what I expect for Piledriver as a semi-worthy one generational upgrade. And that's for what? How many years?

I don't care what anyone says, Bulldozer failed, and they failed hard.

 

[87dtna]

but I am definitely a fan, and very much prefer AMD over Intel. Have only built a few systems over the past several years, but they have all been AMD for the great price/performance.

Thats like saying you prefer Dominos over Pizza Hut, but you've never had a Pizza Hut pizza.

 

[Mishkin]

Thats like saying you prefer Dominos over Pizza Hut, but you've never had a Pizza Hut pizza.

1. I've had several Intel systems. I just haven't BUILT one.

2. The entire point of me saying that (along with a little more), was to reinforce the fact that I think Bulldozer was an epic fail, DESPITE the fact that I am a big AMD fan. You know, as opposed to big AMD fans that are biased and claim that Bulldozer wasn't a fail. (basically to infer that my opinion is as unbiased as possible, because in this case it truly and unfortunately is)

3. What was your point exactly? That I'm naughty because I've only built AMD systems? What does my preference for paying less money on past systems have to do with Bulldozer being a pile of crap? You ****ing tool.

 

[87dtna]

1. I've had several Intel systems. I just haven't BUILT one.

2. The entire point of me saying that (along with a little more), was to reinforce the fact that I think Bulldozer was an epic fail, DESPITE the fact that I am a big AMD fan. You know, as opposed to big AMD fans that are biased and claim that Bulldozer wasn't a fail. (basically to infer that my opinion is as unbiased as possible, because in this case it truly and unfortunately is)

3. What was your point exactly? That I'm naughty because I've only built AMD systems? What does my preference for paying less money on past systems have to do with Bulldozer being a pile of crap? You ****ing tool.

1. Willing to put money on the fact that they were 775 or older systems, and probably never a quad core. Q9xxx core2quads are faster than Phenom II clock for clock.

2. Yes I agree

3. Your implication is that AMD is better price/performance ratio. But not having sampled core series performance you have no idea how much better performance it is. Did you know that the 2500k plays most games 20-50 FPS higher than an 1100t same clocks? That it will take 20 seconds less to compress a 300mb file? That it will consume 30 watts less at full load?

My point is, you get what you pay for so to say AMD has better price/performance is simply false.

 

[linkin]

1. Willing to put money on the fact that they were 775 or older systems, and probably never a quad core. Q9xxx core2quads are faster than Phenom II clock for clock.

2. Yes I agree

3. Your implication is that AMD is better price/performance ratio. But not having sampled core series performance you have no idea how much better performance it is. Did you know that the 2500k plays most games 20-50 FPS higher than an 1100t same clocks? That it will take 20 seconds less to compress a 300mb file? That it will consume 30 watts less at full load?

My point is, you get what you pay for so to say AMD has better price/performance is simply false.

1) According to this the difference is negligible when one has a lead over the other. Either one wins in various scenarios.

2) Yes, it failed to deliver more than negligible gains over the Phenom II X6 CPU's. Anyone who has an X6 probably shouldn't get an FX.

3) Refer to this quote from #2:

Thanks for the results.

They pretty much summarize the current state - Phenom II is very near C2Q, but costs 25% less, while i7 is in it's own class, but damn expensive.

How much does C2Q cost now, compare to Phenom II now? And the performance has been shown to be the same or in favour of either with a negligible difference. Thus, you are wrong

 

[87dtna]

Linkin do you really think the whole intention of my post was to start comparing C2Q to Phenom II? It was not, the only point of bringing C2Q up was that he said he used intel but I was betting it was 775 or older....which is MORE comparable to Phenom II but even the higher end Q9xxx quads still beat Phenom II clock for clock (and my point by saying that was he never even used one of those)

Phenom II is still AMD's mainstream CPU, of course it's going to be cheaper than Core 2 at this point. It's called supply and demand? duh. When I said you get what you pay for, it's quite assumed we are talking about current mainstream CPU's here.


And for some reason ALL you amd fans ever look at is multithreaded performance, when 90% of apps are single threaded and intel dominates at by a LOT.

 

[M1kkelZR]

Linkin do you really think the whole intention of my post was to start comparing C2Q to Phenom II? It was not, the only point of bringing C2Q up was that he said he used intel but I was betting it was 775 or older....which is MORE comparable to Phenom II but even the higher end Q9xxx quads still beat Phenom II clock for clock (and my point by saying that was he never even used one of those)

Phenom II is still AMD's mainstream CPU, of course it's going to be cheaper than Core 2 at this point. It's called supply and demand? duh. When I said you get what you pay for, it's quite assumed we are talking about current mainstream CPU's here.


And for some reason ALL you amd fans ever look at is multithreaded performance, when 90% of apps are single threaded and intel dominates at by a LOT.

i have to agree with you on some parts. even though ive never built a system, planning to though, i still have to prefer AMD to intel. my current laptop is an intel yes. its not bad at all. core i3 380M dualcore, hyperthread blah blah. but my older systems ive used were all AMDs.

AMD Sempron, yeah its bloody old but it did its job and could handle alot for what we see nowadays as crappy single cores.

AMD Athlon64, that is one of my favorite single cores out there. did all the same things as the sempron but better.

intel dominates in most things when it comes to power consumption, solutions etc. but AMD is still a leading market holder. yeah the BDs are a pile of dog crap on the floor that were set on fire but i think AMD has "redeemed" them selves with the APUs, in my eyes anyway. but comparing a C2Q to the Phenom2 series is kind of stupid. as the C2Q is an epic CPU no doubt about that, but i still prefer AMD.

 

[87dtna]

but AMD is still a leading market holder.

Whoa, no way man. Intel sells 3 cpu's for every one AMD.

i think AMD has "redeemed" them selves with the APUs, in my eyes anyway.

This I agree with, in fact I've got a 3870k in my cart at newegg right now along with an ASrock Pro4. The boards are cheap for FM1, and are not bad. CPU's are fairly cheap for what you get, they use AM3 heatsinks, 32nm, and have a WAY better IMC. And of course it goes without saying, but the best onboard graphics ever should your card fail and you need to RMA you will likely still be able to play most games with the onboard.

 

[M1kkelZR]

Whoa, no way man. Intel sells 3 cpu's for every one AMD.



This I agree with, in fact I've got a 3870k in my cart at newegg right now along with an ASrock Pro4. The boards are cheap for FM1, and are not bad. CPU's are fairly cheap for what you get, they use AM3 heatsinks, 32nm, and have a WAY better IMC. And of course it goes without saying, but the best onboard graphics ever should your card fail and you need to RMA you will likely still be able to play most games with the onboard.

i dont mean as in sales etc as market holder, but more that they are big in the market. comparing AMD to intel, which is possible but stupid, i will still take AMD anyday. but my passion for AMD is slowly fading, because of the grave mistake they made called: Bulldozer...

and yeah the APUs are AWESOMESAUCE! i think that the mobo + APU is cheaper than anything else, and if your like me who is not the wisest of people when money is involved, a GPU isnt needed yet, as the onboard GPU is a 5xxx series if im right, and still these are pretty damn good for the age they are.

a friend of mine, who has an i5 2500k all nice and stuff but i dont care too much, says APU's suck. i told him to stick it where the sun dont shine and spammed him with positive links, reviews and benchmarks on just onboard gpu lol.

but i wonder what AMD is going to do with these phenom2 X8's. redeem themselves or just suck at it again

 

[87dtna]

The 3850 and 3870k have the onboard equivalent of about a 5570 video card. Nothing super great, but can play some games. No other onboard is capable of any decent gaming, so it's still a huge leap forward.
The APU's have 400 stream processors, to get it into context a 5770 has 800 so it's not even 1/2 as strong as a 5770 (when you take memory bandwidth into account as the 5770 has wayyy more). So again it's nothing spectacular and would not fully replace a discreet GPU at all for even moderate gamers.

 

[M1kkelZR]

The 3850 and 3870k have the onboard equivalent of about a 5570 video card. Nothing super great, but can play some games. No other onboard is capable of any decent gaming, so it's still a huge leap forward.
The APU's have 400 stream processors, to get it into context a 5770 has 800 so it's not even 1/2 as strong as a 5770 (when you take memory bandwidth into account as the 5770 has wayyy more). So again it's nothing spectacular and would not fully replace a discreet GPU at all for even moderate gamers.

yeah thats very true, but AMD has the right idea with the APU. i actually cant wait to see what upgrades they do to them. maybe then a GPU isnt necesary anymore, but still cool in dual GPU mode

 

[87dtna]

I'm not totally against AMD, I've owned and built atleast 20-30 amd setups in the last 2 years. But I just know exactly how much better and faster intel is, and they are worth the extra cost. Intel costs more, but you get extra speed. AMD fans think that intel is not THAT much faster, but thats because they've never owned sandy bridge or even lynnfield/bloomfield cpu's.
So again I say, you cannot say you PREFER something over another having not tried the other thing. When you say prefer, it's implied that you have tried it.

 

[M1kkelZR]

I'm not totally against AMD, I've owned and built atleast 20-30 amd setups in the last 2 years. But I just know exactly how much better and faster intel is, and they are worth the extra cost. Intel costs more, but you get extra speed. AMD fans think that intel is not THAT much faster, but thats because they've never owned sandy bridge or even lynnfield/bloomfield cpu's.
So again I say, you cannot say you PREFER something over another having not tried the other thing. When you say prefer, it's implied that you have tried it.

yeah, in all honesty ive never had a sandybridge. i have the first gen corei3 380m. it does its job and am stil pleasently suprised that it keeps up with lots of sandybridge i3's. in the mobile section anyway.

when i do build, i need to think long and hard about cpu. maybe ill get a 2500k maybe ill get an APU, i still have atleast 5months so i have time to think it all through

 

[Mishkin]

1. Willing to put money on the fact that they were 775 or older systems, and probably never a quad core. Q9xxx core2quads are faster than Phenom II clock for clock.

2. Yes I agree

3. Your implication is that AMD is better price/performance ratio. But not having sampled core series performance you have no idea how much better performance it is. Did you know that the 2500k plays most games 20-50 FPS higher than an 1100t same clocks? That it will take 20 seconds less to compress a 300mb file? That it will consume 30 watts less at full load?

My point is, you get what you pay for so to say AMD has better price/performance is simply false.

You're correct, they were older systems. My first build was actually an Athlon 64 3500+, so that should give you a good timeframe.

My implication was and is that AMD had been better price/performance ratio, at least for me. My current system has a 1090T and a GTX 460. I multitask, encode, and am a moderate gamer. Back when I bought my current components, an AMD hexacore was an easy choice for me, based on price (remember the mobo) and what I was going to do with it. It complements my 460 pretty well in terms of balance in games and is nice for video work and multitasking. Go back a few months and tell me what Intel processor (along with mobo) that would both be cheaper and perform better for my needs. Isn't that what price/performance is all about? Unfortunately, part of the problem with Bulldozer is the price (which I already mentioned). Bulldozer is horrible price/performance, which presently reflects on AMD itself. You do realize that I haven't built my "several past AMD systems" all in the last week right? Just because Bulldozer (and by extension AMD's current line) are bad price/performance doesn't mean AMD was like that in the past. Context is a pretty important thing.

I have a pretty damn good idea how good Intel processors have been. I have used the Core series (Duos and Quads) quite a bit, even though I haven't actually built and owned one. More importantly, I have a great idea exactly how good current Intel processors are, and am aware of just how badly they trounce AMDs current offerings. I've never been shy at looking up benchmarks (countless times since my first build), and the AMD beat-down is pretty clear. Believe me, I am the first to admit that Intel destroys AMD at this point, when it comes to performance. After all, the entire point of my first post in this thread was to basically rant at how much Bulldozer sucks. You remember this, correct?

Again, I'm unclear what your goal here is. It's like you quickly skimmed my first post, and came away with nothing more than that I'm an AMD fan, and completely ignored the rest. Then, you let your inner Intel fanboy out just to make a stupid comment based on your own ignorance of me and what my opinion actually is. You weren't shooting the messenger, but you were damn close.

 

[87dtna]

Go back a few months and tell me what Intel processor (along with mobo) that would both be cheaper and perform better for my needs. Isn't that what price/performance is all about?

I5 750 over a 1090t easily a year ago. They were similarly priced then too, if not the 1090t more anyway. Price/performance doesn't mean cheaper anyway. You pay more, and you get better performance with the I5 (2500k now). There really is very little difference in clock for clock performance of a 750 to a 2500k. The 2500k can usually overclock better though.

 

[wolfeking]

you are wrong on the price to performance just plain out. You could do more with a 2500 (non k) than your 1090T. Any motherboard with a PCIe x16 would work with a 2500 and a GTX460. And you would net more productivity.
Core count isn't everything. efficiency takes a lot of account too. Like for example, what would you rather have, a quad core based on Netburst, or a i3-2100? The 2100 would trample 2 Pentium Ds (to get a quad core netburst).

And on top of that, AMD has lost what it once cherished. The promised land of Unlocked multipliers, and intel kicked arse at that with the k series.

Do not go calling me a damn intel fanboy either. Everyone of my desktops has been AMD, and they all overheated because of a flaw in their design. AMD sucks, and I have tried them both.

 

[Mishkin]

you are wrong on the price to performance just plain out. You could do more with a 2500 (non k) than your 1090T. Any motherboard with a PCIe x16 would work with a 2500 and a GTX460. And you would net more productivity.
Core count isn't everything. efficiency takes a lot of account too. Like for example, what would you rather have, a quad core based on Netburst, or a i3-2100? The 2100 would trample 2 Pentium Ds (to get a quad core netburst).

And on top of that, AMD has lost what it once cherished. The promised land of Unlocked multipliers, and intel kicked arse at that with the k series.

Do not go calling me a damn intel fanboy either. Everyone of my desktops has been AMD, and they all overheated because of a flaw in their design. AMD sucks, and I have tried them both.

So I'm wrong that I think Intel is the best price/performance currently? Because that's what I said. I also happen to agree that the 2500K is better than the 1090T. But...the 1090T fits my needs great and isn't as expensive as the 2500K, even now. And yes, I am aware that you can get awesome 2500K combo deals at microcenter, but that wasn't and still isn't an option for me. If my choice is between "System A" that runs everything I want it to great, and "System B" that runs everything I want it to great, except it costs $50 more....well System A is for me.

That said, if I had to build a system NOW, I would definitely go for a 2500k. Also, in the past I have enjoyed giving money to AMD to do my (in reality insignificant) part to help foster competition and help support AMD. Now, besides the fact that price/performance is in Intel's court, I am reluctant to do my little bit to support AMD after their recent failures and decisions. They don't deserve it, and I'm 99% sure my next build is going to be Intel.

All THAT said, I'd like to touch a little bit on your last comment:

"Everyone of my desktops has been AMD, and they all overheated because of a flaw in their design."

So every one of your AMD desktops has overheated because of a flaw in their design? Do you honestly expect anyone to believe this? I'm having a hard time believing you're SERIOUS. What do you do? Overclock your processors unreasonably? Fail to provide proper cooling? Get drunk and throw your system in the fire at parties? I mean, just saying that all your AMD desktops overheated because of a flaw in their design is just retarded. The REALLY ironic part of all this is that I in no way even thought you might be an Intel fanboy from your post. I disagreed with some of what you said, but also agreed with much of it as well. And then I got to the bottom, which basically goes as follows:

"Don't call me a damn intel fanboy. AMD sucks. Every AMD desktop I've had overheated because of a flaw in its design."

Right.

 

[wolfeking]

They overheat not because of a processor design issue but because of a HSF issue. The one I OCd was on a Artic Freezer 7, and it ran wonderful till the PSU went out. The Stock AMD HSF is crap, and hasn't changed since the shitty design came out with AM2.

 

[87dtna]

There is no good stock HSF for AMD or intel, so just drop it. The best one came with the I7 hex cores, which looks like an arctic freezer anyway...and for a hex core, it's not enough to overclock anyway as those suckers get raging hot (and yes I've owned 2 intel hex cores in case you were wondering).

 

[wolfeking]

well the intal can handle the processor at full load. The stock on the 550 can't it shuts down for thermal protection at full load on stock settings.