Windows 7 Forums

Welcome to Windows 7 Forums. Our forum is dedicated to helping you find support and solutions for any problems regarding your Windows 7 PC be it Dell, HP, Acer, Asus or a custom build. We also provide an extensive Windows 7 tutorial section that covers a wide range of tips and tricks.


Windows 7: Bulldozer is out and it sucks

27 Dec 2011   #131
lehnerus2000

W7 Ultimate SP1, LM18 MATE, W10IP VM, W10 Home, #All 64 bit
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Phone Man View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by lehnerus2000 View Post
IMO, Intel CPUs vs AMD CPUs, is just like SSDs vs HDDs.

Unless you absolutely need the fastest, most expensive equipment that money can buy ...
You make a good point on the price difference, however if you compare the AMD FX-8150 to an Intel I7-2600k which is close to the same price it is no contest, the Intel is faster.
...
The newest thinking is the GPU taking over a lot of the CPU processing and that is where AMD has a big advantage over Intel. As more programs take advantage of GPU computing things will change in the market.
That is true enough.

My point was, some people seem to assume that the most expensive CPU is the best investment (for a complete PC setup).
IMO, skimping on the other parts, so you can have the most expensive CPU, is a bad option.

As you mentioned, graphics cards are becoming more important, as more "ordinary" programs (e.g. Firefox, IE, etc.) start using GPU acceleration.
A decent monitor is important, especially if you spend a lot of time working with your desktop PC.

IMO, buying top-of-the-line AMD CPU, an SSD, a big HDD and a decent monitor, would make most people's computers more pleasant (and probably useful) than skimping on those items to buy the top-of-the-line Intel CPU.

I'm not an SSD guy (too expensive currently) but I would get more benefit from one of those than a top-of-the-line Intel CPU.
My CPU (AMD Phenom II x6 1055T, 2.8 GHz) only "maxes out" when I encode video, which is rarely.


My System SpecsSystem Spec
.
27 Dec 2011   #132
M1GU31

Windows 10 64bit
 
 

sdd arent really worth buying imo since im a gamer i dont see a big difference besides the loading areas coming up 4secs earlier which i don't care for but would be nice to own one mabye in the future when they cost as much as hdd's do now with big memory and hdds are really out dated then ill buy one
My System SpecsSystem Spec
28 Dec 2011   #133
pparks1

Windows 7 Ultimate x64
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by lehnerus2000 View Post
AMD saves you so much money that you can upgrade other parts of your system (e.g. MB, graphics card, RAM, HDD or SSD, case, monitor, PSU, expansion cards & software).
I disagree and I will explain more in a bit.

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by lehnerus2000 View Post
Based on my local supplier's prices, I can literally almost build 2 complete systems using the top-of-the-line AMD CPU, for the cost of just the top-of-the-line Intel CPU!
You are making the common mistake of taking the "over the top priced high end Intel which is always absurdly priced. Very few people build systems with these chips.

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by lehnerus2000 View Post
Based on my local supplier's stock & prices:
  • Intel Core i7-3960X - $1245
  • AMD AM3+ x8 FX-8150 - $288
$957 gives you a lot of options for MB, graphics card, RAM, HDD or SSD, case, monitor, PSU, expansion cards & software.
However, if you want to compare from a performance standpoint, you don't need an i7-3960X at $1245 to be faster than the AMD FX-8150. A Core i7-2600K for $299 will do the trick.


Before the bulldozer came out, people were buying the 1090T and the 1100T CPU's and these would come in around $199. They would compare to the Core i7-990X at $1000 and say, "Woah...Intel is overpriced" However, a Core i5-2500K is faster in most tasks than the 1100T and runs $219. So, yeah, the Intel costs $19 more, but that's a pretty reasonable difference.

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by lehnerus2000 View Post
My point was, some people seem to assume that the most expensive CPU is the best investment (for a complete PC setup).
IMO, skimping on the other parts, so you can have the most expensive CPU, is a bad option.
I've never had the most expensive CPU option. Wouldn't even consider it for a second. Far better things to spend money on.

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by lehnerus2000 View Post
A decent monitor is important, especially if you spend a lot of time working with your desktop PC.
This is very true and so many people buy fancy rigs, overclock them, excessively cool them, and then use a craptastic monitor because it was cheap. Always makes me shake my head, the monitor is the one thing that you see, and must use, 24x7 when using the computer. Spend the money on a quality monitor.

IMO, buying top-of-the-line AMD CPU, an SSD, a big HDD and a decent monitor, would make most people's computers more pleasant (and probably useful) than skimping on those items to buy the top-of-the-line Intel CPU.

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by lehnerus2000 View Post
My CPU (AMD Phenom II x6 1055T, 2.8 GHz) only "maxes out" when I encode video, which is rarely.
Yep, I'm on an older CPU too. Intel Q9550 which is almost never maxed out. It does everything that I throw at it and it spits out the results plenty fast enough. I'm playing BF3 on this rig nearly maxed out and it's never struggling. I'll probably be on this chip for at least 1 more year, if not 2.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
.

28 Dec 2011   #134
lehnerus2000

W7 Ultimate SP1, LM18 MATE, W10IP VM, W10 Home, #All 64 bit
 
 
Believe it or not ...

My quotes got a bit mangled in your post (not out of context though).

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by pparks1 View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by lehnerus2000 View Post
IMO, Intel CPUs vs AMD CPUs, is just like SSDs vs HDDs.

Unless you absolutely need the fastest, most expensive equipment that money can buy, AMD saves you so much money that you can upgrade other parts of your system (e.g. MB, graphics card, RAM, HDD or SSD, case, monitor, PSU, expansion cards & software).

Based on my local supplier's prices, I can literally almost build 2 complete systems using the top-of-the-line AMD CPU, for the cost of just the top-of-the-line Intel CPU!
You are making the common mistake of taking the "over the top priced high end Intel which is always absurdly priced.
Believe it or not, I basically agree with you.

My point was some people believe that the most expensive is always the best.
If you research the components, you can find a better performance/$ comparison.

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by pparks1 View Post
Very few people build systems with these chips.
Enough people must buy them or they wouldn't be released at any price.

If the price was lower more people would buy them (just like SSDs).
The other chip in that series (that my supplier stocks) is half the price (i7-3930K = $679).

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by pparks1 View Post
However, if you want to compare from a performance standpoint, you don't need an i7-3960X at $1245 to be faster than the AMD FX-8150. A Core i7-2600K for $299 will do the trick.
My point was some people believe that the most expensive is always the best.
If you research the components, you can find a better performance/$ comparison.

I've always used AMD, because most of my PCs were built from hand-me-down parts.

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by pparks1 View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by lehnerus2000 View Post
A decent monitor is important, especially if you spend a lot of time working with your desktop PC.
This is very true and so many people buy fancy rigs, overclock them, excessively cool them, and then use a craptastic monitor because it was cheap. Always makes me shake my head, the monitor is the one thing that you see, and must use, 24x7 when using the computer. Spend the money on a quality monitor.
Spend over $500 on a graphics card and then buy a $100 monitor. WTF?

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by pparks1 View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by lehnerus2000 View Post
IMO, buying top-of-the-line AMD CPU, an SSD, a big HDD and a decent monitor, would make most people's computers more pleasant (and probably useful) than skimping on those items to buy the top-of-the-line Intel CPU.
...
My CPU (AMD Phenom II x6 1055T, 2.8 GHz) only "maxes out" when I encode video, which is rarely.
Yep, I'm on an older CPU too. Intel Q9550 which is almost never maxed out. It does everything that I throw at it and it spits out the results plenty fast enough. I'm playing BF3 on this rig nearly maxed out and it's never struggling. I'll probably be on this chip for at least 1 more year, if not 2.
It makes me angry, when I'm waiting for some program to do something and I check my system monitor (Process Explorer) only to see that I'm using 16% of my CPU power and I've still got 2 GB of RAM sitting idle!
My System SpecsSystem Spec
29 Dec 2011   #135
Darththorn

Windows 7 Ultimate x64 Windows Vista home premium x32
 
 

That sucks
My System SpecsSystem Spec
29 Dec 2011   #136
pparks1

Windows 7 Ultimate x64
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by lehnerus2000 View Post
My point was some people believe that the most expensive is always the best.
If you research the components, you can find a better performance/$ comparison.
Technically, from a pure benchmark perspective, the $1,000+ Intel is the "best" in terms of full raw performance.

But then your second comment, brings into scope the price/performance ratio. This is where things go awry and aren't clear cut. What is the "best" for 1 person, might not be the "best" for somebody else. Everything depends upon what you are using the computer to achieve.

The comments that I don't agree with are the ones that say "AMD is always cheaper, way cheaper and far more bang for the buck". These people often then compare the $1000 Intel to the $200 AMD. Sure enough, it costs 5x as much. However, a $215 Intel could also outperform the AMD. And I wouldn't say $15 is way cheaper.

I agree you can save a few bucks most times and get adequate/equivalent performance from an AMD based rig...but it's not going to be substantially cheaper in the end. And for many people, we are after the most performance we can possibly get. Since the Core 2 Duo days, i've found Intel to be leader without question for nearly the same price. My last AMD box was an AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+. I wouldn't hesitate to buy an AMD again if they could ever get the performance edge back. In todays market, it would be an Intel recommendation 100 out of 100 times for me thought...because I don't see enough cost savings to sacrifice performance.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
29 Dec 2011   #137
lehnerus2000

W7 Ultimate SP1, LM18 MATE, W10IP VM, W10 Home, #All 64 bit
 
 
I still think that we mostly agree

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by pparks1 View Post
Technically, from a pure benchmark perspective, the $1,000+ Intel is the "best" in terms of full raw performance.

But then your second comment, brings into scope the price/performance ratio. This is where things go awry and aren't clear cut. What is the "best" for 1 person, might not be the "best" for somebody else. Everything depends upon what you are using the computer to achieve.
Agreed.

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by pparks1 View Post
The comments that I don't agree with are the ones that say "AMD is always cheaper, way cheaper and far more bang for the buck".
Agreed, but I didn't really say that (or mean to say that - extra emphasis added).
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by lehnerus2000 View Post
Unless you absolutely need the fastest, most expensive equipment that money can buy, AMD saves you so much money that you can upgrade other parts of your system (e.g. MB, graphics card, RAM, HDD or SSD, case, monitor, PSU, expansion cards & software).

Based on my local supplier's prices, I can literally almost build 2 complete systems using the top-of-the-line AMD CPU, for the cost of just the top-of-the-line Intel CPU!
...
If you only have $1000 to spend, the top-of-the-line AMD CPU automatically wins vs the top-of-the-line Intel CPU.
...
Just a clarification, I probably wouldn't buy the top-of-the-line CPU from either company, as I don't need the performance for the computing that I do.

Poor phrasing by me though.
I should have included "top-of-the-line" in the first sentence (I thought that "... most expensive equipment ..." and the second sentence implied that).

Gamers, "number crunchers" and video editors need every CPU cycle they can get.
For "general" use, CPU cycles aren't the critical factor.

IMO, for "general" use
these are more important:
  • RAM (capacity vs speed complicates the issue).
  • A good monitor is a big factor.
  • Graphics cards are becoming more important, as more "ordinary" programs start using GPU acceleration (e.g. Firefox, IE, etc.).
  • The "little things" also play an important role (keyboard, mouse, etc.).
  • A good chair and workdesk.
It would be interesting to compare two $1000 systems (an Intel and an AMD) to work out how the "ideal" combination of parts can perform in various "real world" situations (not just benchmarks).

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by pparks1 View Post
These people often then compare the $1000 Intel to the $200 AMD. Sure enough, it costs 5x as much. However, a $215 Intel could also outperform the AMD. And I wouldn't say $15 is way cheaper.
Agreed (at my supplier, the price difference for the Intel Core i7-2600K vs AMD FX-8150 is about $30).

Even $30 would buy one of the following (based on my supplier's prices):
  • Better RAM (capacity or speed)
  • Better PSU (brand or Wattage)
  • Better monitor (brand or size)
  • Better MB (brand or features)
  • Better graphics card (possibly)
  • Better HDD
  • Better case (construction)
  • etc.
If the price difference was $900 ...

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by pparks1 View Post
In todays market, it would be an Intel recommendation 100 out of 100 times for me thought...because I don't see enough cost savings to sacrifice performance.
I would suggest that is because you are prepared to do the required research.


Regarding Bulldozer itself, I have read comments stating that:
  • The "old 6-cores" can outperform it.
  • Current software doesn't utilize the new features.
The fact that MS is apparently planning to release a "speed-up" patch, seems to confirm the latter.
Microsoft Releases AMD Bulldozer-Boosting Hotfix
My System SpecsSystem Spec
30 Dec 2011   #138
M1GU31

Windows 10 64bit
 
 

i actually made a presentation for my tech class comparing a 6 core phenom ii vs a 4core i5 at the same clock speeds at 3.0ghz and the i5 has two less cores but guess what its faster then the 6core phenom based on gaming benchmarks and just doing normal task on a desktop so my conclusion was that if your on a budget you can go for amd but for a few more bucks get intel i suggested intel was the better choice and my friend now is going to buy a i5 2500k now its a pretty fast quad core processor and its price at 200$ margin Newegg.com - Intel Core i5-2500 Sandy Bridge 3.3GHz (3.7GHz Turbo Boost) LGA 1155 95W Quad-Core Desktop Processor Intel HD Graphics 2000 BX80623I52500 while a 6core phenom ii is cheaper http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...7BBTkwCjCECjCE and has more cores the i5 still beats it i say its worth the few more extra dollars and im not saying amd is bad either look at my specs i bought myself a budget quad core and it fits all my needs and its around 100$ not bad what im trying to say is short on cash go amd ,for a couple more dollars then get intel


its almost toe and toe but for gamers the i5 beats the phenom ii x6 and thats the i5 is using 4cores imagine if it was x6 woe :P

make sure you read the benckmarks correctly because in some of them it says lower is better and some says higher is better
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/146?vs=288
My System SpecsSystem Spec
30 Dec 2011   #139
lehnerus2000

W7 Ultimate SP1, LM18 MATE, W10IP VM, W10 Home, #All 64 bit
 
 
Flops

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by M1GU31 View Post
make sure you read the benckmarks correctly because in some of them it says lower is better and some says higher is better
AnandTech - Bench - CPU
I remember the "good old days", when the only thing you had to know about CPU benchmarks was "how many FLOPS does it perform".
My System SpecsSystem Spec
30 Dec 2011   #140
ionbasa

Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 x64
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by lehnerus2000 View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by M1GU31 View Post
make sure you read the benckmarks correctly because in some of them it says lower is better and some says higher is better
AnandTech - Bench - CPU
I remember the "good old days", when the only thing you had to know about CPU benchmarks was "how many FLOPS does it perform".
To bad Bulldoser only has 1 FPU per every 2 cores, meaning that FPU intensive operations like prime testing suffer severely. This is also the reason for low FLOPs on Bulldoser.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
Reply

 Bulldozer is out and it sucks




Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search




Similar help and support threads
Thread Forum
Look out Bulldozer, here comes Excavator!
16 cores? Able to leap i7's in a single thread. In 2015
Hardware & Devices
My new Bulldozer has shipped.
I will be joining the ranks of the 8 core processor group. Got great advice from a fellow member here on which model to go with. Looking forward to maximizing my ram's potential and getting a nice overclock on this beast. From what I'm reading users are reporting fantastic results and this chip I...
PC Custom Builds and Overclocking
So, Bulldozer was a disappointment. What now?
Should I get a Phenom II X6 1090T or an FX-8120? I don't have to get one or the other, but I'm not going to buy an Intel CPU. Not yet anyway...:mad:
Hardware & Devices
More details on AMD Bulldozer
More ...
Hardware & Devices
What do you guys think of this Bulldozer MB ?
Hi ,Everyone one of my fav stores has finally gotten the Bulldozer mainboards in . I was looking around most of them start out at 199.99 I found one cheaper by 50.00 us check it out compared to the extreme one's i seen FRYS.com|ASUS
Hardware & Devices
The Bulldozer is coming !
Here you go boys and girls. AMD is going to rock the house with 8 cores, like Windows 8 I can't wait ! https://channel9.msdn.com/Shows/InsideXbox/E3-2011-AMD-and-the-new-eyefinitiy-technology The chip news is at the end of the video....FYI !
Hardware & Devices


Our Sites

Site Links

About Us

Find Us

Windows 7 Forums is an independent web site and has not been authorized, sponsored, or otherwise approved by Microsoft Corporation. "Windows 7" and related materials are trademarks of Microsoft Corp.

Designer Media Ltd

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 23:47.

Twitter Facebook Google+



Windows 7 Forums

Seven Forums Android App Seven Forums IOS App