Go Back   Hardware Canucks > HARDWARE > CPU's and Motherboards

    
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61 (permalink)  
Old October 12, 2011, 03:32 AM
bradleyg5's Avatar
Top Prospect
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 60
Default

Can i ask what the reasoning behind the games you picked? Why not test F1 2010/11 or Bad Company 2? those games are known to scale well with additional threads. Or how about Shogun 2 or Arma or GTA IV, games that are known to be some the most heavily CPU dependent games around. I really hate the games you guys choose to test, like left for dead 2 AND team fortress 2? you include two games that run on virtually the same engine? Far Cry 2/ Dirt 3/ Street Fighter 4/ Crysis 2... FOUR console ports? World in conflict and X3 maybe would be good choices if this review was written 5 years ago. So basically the only result that matters is Crysis and Civ 5 which both seem to be GPU bottlenecked near the top.

Drives me up the wall that you spend so much time testing games that don't matter.
Reply With Quote
  #62 (permalink)  
Old October 12, 2011, 04:10 AM
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,924

My System Specs

Default

what a flop. I love the ability to upgrade with AMD, but I think they need to start with a clean slate and forget the AMx socket. I wouldn't use this processor for power consumption alone (unless the performance was dramatically higher). Great review as always. Looks like any recommendations I make for the next year+ will be intel unless there is a dramatic pricing change.
__________________
Desktop: Antec Three Hundred, Z77-D3H, 3570K undervolt @4.1ghz with Zalman Optima Cooler, Corsair Vengeance 2x4gb@1866mhz, MSI Cyclone GTX 460, Seasonic S12II 500W, WD Black 1TB, Intel 530 120GB
Away from home light Gamer: Acer Aspire 15.6", A8-3500m undervolt and OC to 2Ghz, 2x4gb Corsair Vengeance, Crucial M500 240gb
Reply With Quote
  #63 (permalink)  
Old October 12, 2011, 04:44 AM
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Montreal
Posts: 1,521

My System Specs

Default

a quick look around at other websites posting reviews about 8150 and no one offers folding numbers. Why is that? Reviewers didn't have enough time to test with the press kit? Toms Hardware offers a sneak peak on Widows 8 but no folding numbers.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #64 (permalink)  
Old October 12, 2011, 05:08 AM
BlueByte's Avatar
Allstar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Maynooth
Posts: 541
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAC View Post
I actually ran wPrime 1024M at 4.6GHz in the review, got 241 seconds.

By the way, I updated that section to include the overclocked power consumption numbers, you will be...impressed.
Damn, I did actually sit down and read the whole review...but it was after my bedtime
Reply With Quote
  #65 (permalink)  
Old October 12, 2011, 05:18 AM
SKYMTL's Avatar
HardwareCanuck Review Editor
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 11,663
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bradleyg5 View Post
Can i ask what the reasoning behind the games you picked? Why not test F1 2010/11 or Bad Company 2? those games are known to scale well with additional threads. Or how about Shogun 2 or Arma or GTA IV, games that are known to be some the most heavily CPU dependent games around. I really hate the games you guys choose to test, like left for dead 2 AND team fortress 2? you include two games that run on virtually the same engine? Far Cry 2/ Dirt 3/ Street Fighter 4/ Crysis 2... FOUR console ports? World in conflict and X3 maybe would be good choices if this review was written 5 years ago. So basically the only result that matters is Crysis and Civ 5 which both seem to be GPU bottlenecked near the top.

Drives me up the wall that you spend so much time testing games that don't matter.
F1 2010 / F1 2011 uses the EXACT same engine as Dirt 3. Same multicore scaling as well.

Shogun 2 is VERY GPU bound unless you are playing at lower detail levels. Plus, there is no AI being used in Shogun 2's built in test.

I could go on and on but I really don't see an issue with the games picked. Do you HONESTLY think that Bulldozer would look that much better in newer GPU-bound games?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #66 (permalink)  
Old October 12, 2011, 05:30 AM
Arinoth's Avatar
Moderator
F@H
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Halifax
Posts: 8,589

My System Specs

Default

That review makes me feel rather good about my 1366 socket system still seeing as the 920 actually beat the FX-8150 sometimes and it seems uses less power overclocked as well.

Big disappointment to see AMD come up short, as well lack of competition means Intel can drive prices up and lower innovation
Reply With Quote
  #67 (permalink)  
Old October 12, 2011, 05:34 AM
Top Prospect
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 146
Default

What a disappointment.. I'm also glad I went for 2500K, people that have been waiting wont be happy..

I'm not completely surprised because AMD had said earlier the delay was due to bulldozer not being competitive enough.
Reply With Quote
  #68 (permalink)  
Old October 12, 2011, 05:41 AM
Your_friendly_gamer's Avatar
Allstar
F@H
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 680

My System Specs

Default

AMD seems like always 2 generations behind. I like my 2600K.
Reply With Quote
  #69 (permalink)  
Old October 12, 2011, 06:16 AM
Sagath's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Petawawa, ON
Posts: 2,509

My System Specs

Default

Chris, and other folders;

from another review is the following:

Quote:
Despite a 9% higher base clock speed (more if you include turbo core), a 3.6GHz 8-core Bulldozer is only able to outperform a 3.3GHz 6-core Phenom II by less than 2%. Heavily threaded floating point workloads may not see huge gains on Bulldozer compared to their 6-core predecessors.

There's another issue. Bulldozer, at least at launch, won't have to simply outperform its quad-core predecessor. It will need to do better than a six-core Phenom II. In this comparison unfortunately, the Phenom II has the definite throughput advantage. The Phenom II X6 can execute 50% more SSE2/3 and x87 FP instructions than a Bulldozer based FX.

Since the release of the Phenom II X6, AMD's major advantage has been in heavily threaded workloads—particularly floating point workloads thanks to the sheer number of resources available per chip. Bulldozer actually takes a step back in this regard and as a result, you will see some of those same workloads perform worse, if not the same as the outgoing Phenom II X6.
Not good. One guy said 13-14k on SMP.....
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lpfan4ever View Post
AKG shot the hamsters, and then Perineum drove his Mustang with summer tires into the server.
My Disclaimer to any advice or comment I make;
Quote:
Originally Posted by CroSsFiRe2009 View Post
I'm a self certified whizbang repair technician with 20 years of professional bullshit so I don't know what I'm talking about
Reply With Quote
  #70 (permalink)  
Old October 12, 2011, 06:20 AM
stoanee's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Lacombe Alberta
Posts: 3,251

My System Specs

Default

Hmmm, throws a monkey wrench into my future folding build. I guess I will wait for a SR-3 to come out.
__________________
heatware
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AMD Phenom II X4 980 Black Edition Processor Review Comment Thread SKYMTL CPU's and Motherboards 12 May 3, 2011 06:27 PM
Intel Core i7-980X Gulftown Processor Review Comment Thread SKYMTL CPU's and Motherboards 103 September 23, 2010 01:21 PM
BFG GTX 260 Review Comment Thread SKYMTL Video Cards 33 November 15, 2008 10:26 PM
BFG GTX 280 OCX Review Comment Thread SKYMTL Video Cards 15 August 19, 2008 08:07 PM