Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

AMD's FX-8150 After Two Windows 7 Hotfixes And UEFI Updates

Last response: in Reviews comments
Share
January 25, 2012 3:13:40 AM

Sigh* I was expecting to see small gains of maybe ~8% optimistically, but instead I see microscopic improvements.

It is simply embarrassing for an eight core processor to be beaten by a quad core, even considering some apps don't support more then two or four cores.
Score
27
January 25, 2012 3:23:12 AM

Quote:
In our own exploration of performance in the developer build, FX did, in fact, yield better numbers.


There it is. That's all you need to know. AMD made a processor that was too ahead of software to be viable. Forward thinking is good, but the software just wasn't ready for it. I have a feeling they'll be ahead though when it comes to the next architectural design. They are after all, pioneering the way.
Score
-5
Related resources
January 25, 2012 3:28:04 AM

Like putting lipstick on a pig. I don't understand the method behind AMD's madness with these chips. They're basically relying on software to take advantage of optimization instead of developing a truly fast and efficient architecture. More cores may be the way of the future, but AMD can't compete with intel if it's using twice as much silicon (or more) to achieve similar results. They're reputation as a value alternative can only hang around so long before consumers wake up. I sure hope their next chip takes a large step forward, if for no other reason than to keep intel CPUs affordable.
Score
22
January 25, 2012 3:32:57 AM

I still cant get past that the 8 core 8150 is slower then a quad core no hyper threading 2500k doing a 3DS Max Render. 248 frames, 8 at once on the 8150, 4 at once on the 2500k, but the 2500k actually finishes rendering each frames in under half the time it takes the 8150 to render a frame.

That is just pathetic for an 8 core to fail at rendering.
Score
27
January 25, 2012 3:40:30 AM

Sigh... The change is so insignificant that they don't even need to exist...
My God, AMD... the 2500K just shhhh all over your face again... Why would you do such thing!
Score
3
January 25, 2012 3:44:12 AM

stm1185I still cant get past that the 8 core 8150 is slower then a quad core no hyper threading 2500k doing a 3DS Max Render. 248 frames, 8 at once on the 8150, 4 at once on the 2500k, but the 2500k actually finishes rendering each frames in under half the time it takes the 8150 to render a frame. That is just pathetic for an 8 core to fail at rendering.


Is rendering a floating point operation or integer operation? The 8150 is not truly an 8 core processor. Although it may perform like one in some aspects, it does not have 8 full cores.
Score
18
January 25, 2012 3:54:07 AM

Lets hope the new stepping brings about larger improvements...
Score
12
a b $ Windows 7
a b À AMD
January 25, 2012 4:03:09 AM

great read. too bad the patches didn't improve performance. hopefully win 8 will change it. by then, piledriver and trinity might become available.
it was funny to see stock 2500k's superior capability (especially at 1080p) as a gaming cpu. i recently read in some thread - one guy claiming that 8150's 8 cores (2500k has only 4 cores) improve performance in cpu bound scenarios.
power consumption is still bad. if amd gets at least 10% better with win 8, that will mean 23 watts less! there's still hope there....i hope...
i wonder what will happen in multiplayer games e.g. bf3 where cpu is important. from starcraft figures, looks like stock 8150 won't be able to keep up with stock 2500k.
Score
3
January 25, 2012 4:21:25 AM

hmm well if there are "8" cores divided in 4 modules . Then why not do multitasking on both AMD "Octa" and Intel quadcore "Hyper treaded CPU's" with multiple programs and see what numbers/time are droped out. Is think my idea could probably show something different.. let's keep giving a try to AMD's new architecture....
Score
7
January 25, 2012 4:34:42 AM

ZOOMMGGG SOO MUCH UNLEASSHEED POTENTIAL!!!!!!!!1!1
Score
-8
January 25, 2012 4:56:21 AM

The biggest mistake of AMD was that they sayd the FX 8150 is an 8 core CPU. They simply could say, "hey its a quad infact", many Intel fans even say that its a quad core not an full 8 core CPU. The FX 6100 should be called a triple core. Then, we the critics, would have better benchmarks. If we consider the 8150 as a quad core we have to admit that AMD made a big step on catching up the 3 year gap to Intel. I did not expect that AMD could beat intel with BD, the gap to them was to big.
Score
10
a b $ Windows 7
January 25, 2012 5:48:18 AM

WTF?
AMD, ur a bucket of fail....
Come back after u pulled ur head out of ur a$$
Score
-17
a b $ Windows 7
January 25, 2012 5:50:22 AM

You know what's sad?

They asked microsoft to help fix their fail................
Score
-11
January 25, 2012 5:54:18 AM

crisan_tiberiuThe biggest mistake of AMD was that they sayd the FX 8150 is an 8 core CPU. They simply could say, "hey its a quad infact", many Intel fans even say that its a quad core not an full 8 core CPU. The FX 6100 should be called a triple core. Then, we the critics, would have better benchmarks. If we consider the 8150 as a quad core we have to admit that AMD made a big step on catching up the 3 year gap to Intel.

... except it's not a quad-core. It falls far closer to an 8-core processor in terms of parallel hardware, power consumption, and transistor count, especially in comparison to Sandy Bridge. If you absolutely have to define it by core count, it's more accurate to call a 4-module Bulldozer an octa-core as opposed to a quad-core processor. Bulldozer has some issues, and shifting its classification to make the performance results feel better on the surface isn't the solution. It needs a series of hardware revisions to reduce its power consumption, increase its performance, and decrease its transistor count. We'll see what Pile Driver can do later this year. Only then can AMD compete with Intel in the $200 - $300 market.
Score
13
January 25, 2012 6:17:22 AM

Solid work crash.

This is something we have been waiting to hear about.

:) 
Score
4
January 25, 2012 6:22:34 AM

4 Modules with 2 cores each ... for once stop comparing Intel with AMD directly .. now they are really different architectures. Intel goes with 4 cores and 2 logical threads per core , AMD is a total different story that at the moment it is clear that the current software has absolutely no clue about it. And seriously TOM ... start pushing multicore CPU to their intended use ... multi tasking .. i`ve read a lot of user reviews from the ones who actually bought this CPU and they were delighted on how it handles multitasking compared to intel, put 2 -3 workloads on the CPU and get some scores ...there are many ppl out there that are actually interested in this kind of performance.
Score
22
January 25, 2012 6:35:57 AM

reynodSolid work crash.This is something we have been waiting to hear about.
Waited for the second update since the first one actually showed the same thing. After going through this twice it was time to publish something :p 
Score
8
January 25, 2012 6:58:59 AM

Yup , a multitasking Benchmark could provide us more info. Stress the CPUs to the max. A few seconds or FPS difference between CPUs is insignificant IMO.
Score
4
January 25, 2012 7:03:55 AM

I hope it would turn out like phenom: first was a bit disappointing ,the second solid performer with low price. What test fail to show us is multitasking, witch this processor is made for.I know not many people would do 2 heavy things at the same time , but not many people need an 8 core processor.
Score
0
January 25, 2012 7:06:51 AM

i would have loved to see a phenom II quad core in there, for a perspective view, because there are really only 3 processors to look at, new amd, old amd, intel.

amd has never been about the best of the best in recent years, just good value for the price, and through phenom II they were just that.

now the games portion, i threw out the 2560x1600 resolution just because the people who have that monitor, are going for an intel, they have the money to burn for a better processor than what amd has out, but for the 1920x1080 (still think it should be 1920x1200) none of the games went into a not playable frame rate... well except metro, and no single gpu can really play that game well at dx11 settings (yea its cpu, but if you got dual high end gpus for that game you got an intel).

that said im a bit surprised, i was guessing win 8 would have a 5-10% advantage over 7 on the cpu side, just because bottom up built for it, but this thing can barely gain a 1% difference on hotfixes... now im a bit less hopeful than i was before that win 8 would fix many of the problems with hic ups in the software... but its still a wait and see i guess, that said, piledriver will probably be what bulldozer should have been, and bulldozer is more or less an expensive beta test.

---- didnt read the comments yet so all this above was before i read them -----

AzathothSigh* I was expecting to see small gains of maybe ~8% optimistically, but instead I see microscopic improvements.It is simply embarrassing for an eight core processor to be beaten by a quad core, even considering some apps don't support more then two or four cores.


its realistically a 4 core processor with threads, but it comes down to how you slice what is a core. i never expected 8% as intel with their first threading solution had some serious problems. amd just cant really back out of its solution like intel did till they figured it out.

JonnyDoughThere it is. That's all you need to know. AMD made a processor that was too ahead of software to be viable. Forward thinking is good, but the software just wasn't ready for it. I have a feeling they'll be ahead though when it comes to the next architectural design. They are after all, pioneering the way.


they were probably thinking by now, there would be next to no single thread software around, when they first designed this, but sadly, we have barely moved ahead in consumer software, only where time is money do they ever acutlly try to take advantage of everything.

clownbabyLike putting lipstick on a pig. I don't understand the method behind AMD's madness with these chips. They're basically relying on software to take advantage of optimization instead of developing a truly fast and efficient architecture. More cores may be the way of the future, but AMD can't compete with intel if it's using twice as much silicon (or more) to achieve similar results. They're reputation as a value alternative can only hang around so long before consumers wake up. I sure hope their next chip takes a large step forward, if for no other reason than to keep intel CPUs affordable.


i did the math awhile ago on these, they apparently still make money per chip, and to be honest, if programs really took advantage of threads, amd would be ahead of intel with this architecture... but they still go for single cores and dont care about threads in most programs.

stm1185I still cant get past that the 8 core 8150 is slower then a quad core no hyper threading 2500k doing a 3DS Max Render. 248 frames, 8 at once on the 8150, 4 at once on the 2500k, but the 2500k actually finishes rendering each frames in under half the time it takes the 8150 to render a frame. That is just pathetic for an 8 core to fail at rendering.


note the 2010, not sure how much that matters, but im sure it wasn't built for amds bulldozer and am unsure if it ever got patched for it. i don't know if thats relevant, but keep that in mind.

memadmaxYou know what's sad?They asked microsoft to help fix their fail................


and intel didn't go to microsoft for the i7...

dragonsqrrl... except it's not a quad-core. It falls far closer to an 8-core processor in terms of parallel hardware, power consumption, and transistor count, especially in comparison to Sandy Bridge. If you absolutely have to define it by core count, it's more accurate to call a 4-module Bulldozer an octa-core as opposed to a quad-core processor. Bulldozer has some issues, and shifting its classification to make the performance results feel better on the surface isn't the solution. It needs a series of hardware revisions to reduce its power consumption, increase its performance, and decrease its transistor count. We'll see what Pile Driver can do later this year. Only then can AMD compete with Intel in the $200 - $300 market.


amd had to redefine what a core is to make it called an 8 core system... really its closer to 8 core but is still just a threading solution, granted one with potential, just implemented poorly.

ohim4 Modules with 2 cores each ... for once stop comparing Intel with AMD directly .. now they are really different architectures. Intel goes with 4 cores and 2 logical threads per core , AMD is a total different story that at the moment it is clear that the current software has absolutely no clue about it. And seriously TOM ... start pushing multicore CPU to their intended use ... multi tasking .. i`ve read a lot of user reviews from the ones who actually bought this CPU and they were delighted on how it handles multitasking compared to intel, put 2 -3 workloads on the CPU and get some scores ...there are many ppl out there that are actually interested in this kind of performance.


general multi tasking apposed to speed of the 4 working as one...
i currently have 11 explorer windows open, task manager, dragon naturally speaking 11, 5 firefox windows with 500+ tabs across them all, foobar 2000, 2 win rar, 2 acdsee 8 instances, 1 acdsee pro 5, zoom player 8, cheome with about 70 tabs, and mirc

all useing 6.4gb of ram on a 120gb ssd boot (intel 320), and a phenom 955 be no overclock, and a hd5770

sense i went to an ssd and 8gb of ram (was at 3gb before and pushed my computer harder than i am now) i have noticed a massive improvement in speed, i don't know what to attribute it to, as my brother has win 7 64bit and his still feals sluggish as hell.

in all honesty, even if my processor was 10X faster than it is now, im not sure i would see much of a difference.

the real people you are talking about may fall under the placebo effect, or may have come off a significant upgrade. they may even be lieing to themselves because they spent 300$ on a cpu... i know if i am given a game for free my opinion on its allot different than if i buy the game myself.
Score
-6
January 25, 2012 7:09:57 AM

ivyanevI hope it would turn out like phenom: first was a bit disappointing ,the second solid performer with low price. What test fail to show us is multitasking, witch this processor is made for.I know not many people would do 2 heavy things at the same time , but not many people need an 8 core processor.


lol i encode video in hd, while re encodeing a dvd to a different format, and play games like doungons of dredmore at the same time, though i haven't done that all on one pc sense we got the laptop and my little brother got a computer. but what i posted above is fairly demanding of my computer.
Score
2
January 25, 2012 7:57:02 AM

20p/$0.31/kwhr for electricity means it'll be Intel for the foreseeable future.
Score
1
January 25, 2012 8:16:23 AM

@alidan browsing internet with many tabs is not multitasking .... render a project in premiere and use after effecs at the same time or even photoshop ... that`s multitasking ... and if this CPU will keep the pace with all those running and not getting sluggish OS response then this CPU is quite fine. But no one wants to test them like this .. they only resume to some game titles and itunes! i don`t even fukin have itunes in my pc ...
Score
6
January 25, 2012 8:31:52 AM

stm1185I still cant get past that the 8 core 8150 is slower then a quad core no hyper threading 2500k doing a 3DS Max Render. 248 frames, 8 at once on the 8150, 4 at once on the 2500k, but the 2500k actually finishes rendering each frames in under half the time it takes the 8150 to render a frame. That is just pathetic for an 8 core to fail at rendering.


The two CPUs have the same number of floating point cores. If AMD wanted to have the kind of FPU performance we would associate with 'eight cores' then they needed to double the number of FPUs in each processor module, which they said they didnt because systems are supposedly not reliant on FPUs...

of course, most of the benchmarks we're looing at are VERY FPU-heavy... 3dsMax, games, etc.
Score
5
January 25, 2012 10:04:44 AM

Glad i bought my 2500k last august when the whole world was telling me to wait and see how bulldozer does. Mmm, impatience paid off this time i guess.
Score
5
January 25, 2012 10:17:03 AM

1/2/48/16/etc cores blah blah blah. You guys know there is no industry standard definition that is accepted to all of what a core is right?
Score
2
a b $ Windows 7
January 25, 2012 11:05:05 AM

The unfortunate part of all this is we as consumers lose out. AMD no longer provides competition in the desktop processor space. Additionally, after the BD flop, they pretty much announced they are going to focus on the APU/mobile market.

Intel has a monopoly in the desktop space. Since everything seems to be going to finger swipes on a mobile device, we might find AMD on top (at least in sales) in the next decade. But for now, a sandy bridge processor (i3-2100 or above) on an H, P or Z would even compete price/performance wise with the best AMD desktop processors. This is not good for competition in the desktop market.

If we look at the laptop market, the mobile i3s compete price-wise with the newer mobile AMD chips.

There was a time when AMD really provided competition for Intel and sold comparable performance in a less expensive package. Can you really say you're getting a better deal at this point with AMD desktop processors? I really don't think so.
Score
4
January 25, 2012 11:16:15 AM

Almost 16 FPS in Skyrim at 1920 - 1080 is just too much...kmon!
Thats a game im playing and that difference is BIG!
Score
2
January 25, 2012 11:23:15 AM

"low-resolution gaming situations that no self-proclaimed enthusiast would ever want to use."

So I guess my 120 inch 1280x720 projector that I sit 12-15 feet away from disqualifies from the "self-proclaimed enthusiast" group.

I wonder how this would compare to my i7 920 @ 4Ghz.
Score
2
January 25, 2012 11:34:20 AM

I am really feeling sorry for AMD. However, their marketing department needs a nice talking to. As if it wasn't bad enough that they acted like Bulldozer would be an Sandy Bridge killer, but then they tried to claim their design's performance would be much improved by correcting these core-parking issues only to show that they didn't make a difference at all.

I have no doubt that AMD CAN produce a better product based on this design idea, but in the mean time they need to stop placing blame on other things like software. In other words, AMD just keep your mouth shut for the time being and just quietly work on tuning Piledriver.
Score
7
January 25, 2012 11:36:49 AM

alidanamd had to redefine what a core is to make it called an 8 core system... really its closer to 8 core but is still just a threading solution, granted one with potential, just implemented poorly.

Most of you claiming this do so simply because the FPU is conjoined. If Orochi is 4-core, then each core is a helluva lot more complex than Sandy Bridge.

The oddity present is how Bulldozer handles AVX... And it's not like Sandy Bridge handles it in a non-odd way either. The FPU is a "twin" FPU in Bulldozer: each module's FPU can act as (typically, using SSE) a pair of 4x32-bit FP units, which has been the standard type for years, or, (when using AVX extensions) a single 4x64-bit or a single 8x32-bit FP unit.

Yes, in theory, a quad-core Sandy Bridge could handle four AVX instructions at once... But it'd suffer in a different way: by standard setup, again the FPUs only act as 4x32-bit FP units. Running AVX means that the FPUs actually take over the INTEGER units and convert them, which also entails a bit of lag. And, of course, it means that integer/logic instructions cannot be processed at the same time.

So, if Orochi is 4-core, then Sandy Bridge, by the same logic, lacks ALUs, which makes it in fact a DSP, not a CPU.

Draven35The two CPUs have the same number of floating point cores. If AMD wanted to have the kind of FPU performance we would associate with 'eight cores' then they needed to double the number of FPUs in each processor module, which they said they didnt because systems are supposedly not reliant on FPUs...

You are wildly mistaken here. For one, I'd recommend quite pulling cockamamie explanations out of thin air to explain things. ("supposedly not FPU-heavy" never enter the minds of AMD's engineers)

When running in modern SSE, Orochi (the 8-core bulldozer) has, in fact, twice as many FPUs as Sandy Bridge. It can handle a total of 32 operand sets in the format of 8 4x32 vectors. This contrasts to 16 for Sandy Bridge, in the format of 4 4x32 vectors.

A single Bulldozer module's FPU and a single Sandy Bridge core's FPU are *not* equivalent in the slightest.
Score
2
January 25, 2012 12:08:04 PM

AMD screwed up trying to imitate Intels 2 threads per core. AMD should have made a 3 integer, dual independent FPU, triple independent SSE/AVX in a module with up to 3 modules on a CPU. This would give servers up to 9 threads and a massive boost to 1 to 3 threads on the consumer space. The FX design is to focused on the server space.

AMD gave up on the consumer space about 2 years ago so no big deal here. If AMD ever want a shot at my business they need to redesign their socket for 2 CPU's with 16 cores like the servers.

I want a 3GHz+ 12 core version of Magny-cours or a 3GHz+ 16 core version of Interlagos. Even the old Magny-cours would be better on the consumer space than anything AMD has at this time.
Score
-1
a b $ Windows 7
January 25, 2012 12:17:37 PM

Consumers Lose! I'm not interested in AMD vs Intel and which is better in manner that you might think. Consumers Win! when both AMD and Intel leapfrog each other because it forces both AMD and Intel to fight for a better, faster, cheaper, etc components benefiting 'us' the consumer. My fear is that now Intel can take an easy road and frankly overcharge consumers for 'performance'.

I am happy to see that at least the AMD GPU's offer outstanding performance and I look forward to nVidia's offerings over the next couple of months.
Score
4
January 25, 2012 12:19:14 PM

I bet even a Intel Quad Core still beats this thing.
Score
-2
January 25, 2012 1:48:59 PM

I was looking for not even 8% ,, just 2% but... fail... again...
Score
-2
January 25, 2012 1:54:34 PM

Engineering vs. PR Department... it is a rigged game as the PR people always win.
So you end up with '8' cored (for the advertising) in 4 'modules'.
Every time a product review starts with some construction like that you know that you
are looking at build in problems from the start.
Reviewers are not dumb, they will find out that your '8' cores are just keeping up with the '4' of your competitor and bang, millions of development are down the drain.
I wish some PR guy came up with the brilliant idea of under-reporting performance so that reviewers can find out -surprise- it actually does better than advertised !

Score
0
a b À AMD
January 25, 2012 2:08:04 PM

An older 4 core i5-2500k beats out the latest and greatest 8 CORE 8150 IN RENDERING????? :lol: 
Score
1
January 25, 2012 2:14:35 PM

Sad to see the actual results. Try and try until the consumers lose hope.
Score
0
a b $ Windows 7
January 25, 2012 2:24:19 PM

Like the article says:

This is by no means indicative of the way it may perform on Windows 8.
Score
3
January 25, 2012 2:35:42 PM

I would also really like to see a multitasking suite comparing the FX4-6-8 vs the Core i3-5-7. I'm pretty sure I know how it'll turn out, but it would be interesting to see nonetheless.
Score
6
January 25, 2012 2:36:57 PM

jaquithConsumers Lose! I'm not interested in AMD vs Intel and which is better in manner that you might think. Consumers Win! when both AMD and Intel leapfrog each other because it forces both AMD and Intel to fight for a better, faster, cheaper, etc components benefiting 'us' the consumer. My fear is that now Intel can take an easy road and frankly overcharge consumers for 'performance'. I am happy to see that at least the AMD GPU's offer outstanding performance and I look forward to nVidia's offerings over the next couple of months.


there is a bare minimum cost, which is 50k per wafer, try doing the math once, amd and intel don't pull in serious profit from their chips, intel pulls more in from the high end chips, but not as much as you think, amd sells the bad chips with locked cores, no not waste any wafer if possible.
Score
0
January 25, 2012 2:42:29 PM

The FX-8150 has eight integer execution engines, or cores, and four floating point execution engines. So if you're looking at an integer workload, which represents most in the computer world, it's an eight core processor. If it's mainly a FP intensive workload, it'll be more like a quad-core. The problem in integer is that each of those cores is 50-65% slower than Intel's, meaning it can only match a vanilla Intel quad-core in multi-threaded programs.
Score
1
January 25, 2012 2:45:57 PM

ubercakeThe unfortunate part of all this is we as consumers lose out. AMD no longer provides competition in the desktop processor space. Additionally, after the BD flop, they pretty much announced they are going to focus on the APU/mobile market.Intel has a monopoly in the desktop space. Since everything seems to be going to finger swipes on a mobile device, we might find AMD on top (at least in sales) in the next decade. But for now, a sandy bridge processor (i3-2100 or above) on an H, P or Z would even compete price/performance wise with the best AMD desktop processors. This is not good for competition in the desktop market. If we look at the laptop market, the mobile i3s compete price-wise with the newer mobile AMD chips. There was a time when AMD really provided competition for Intel and sold comparable performance in a less expensive package. Can you really say you're getting a better deal at this point with AMD desktop processors? I really don't think so.
Actually you`re quite wrong but the masses fall for poorly made benchmarks ... in the old line only the I7 was worth buying since the I3 and I5 were only dual cores and at multitasking they were shit compared to the line of quad cores from AMD, now I3 sandy bridge is still a big crap even with the new improvements ... for me the performance starts from the I5 2500k ... the below are only intel crap. Worked on those kind of computers and they totally not worth it
Score
-6
January 25, 2012 3:21:33 PM

This proves two things.

1) that two bulldozer cores on one module provide almost the same performance as two separate cores of the same design.

2) bulldozer is a crappy core :p 
Score
1
Anonymous
a b $ Windows 7
January 25, 2012 4:29:52 PM

I would like to know what compilers where used to build the different applications used in the benchmarks. Intel compilers disable any compiler optimizations if it detects a non-Intel CPU (AMD), so the performance of any AMD cpus will be significantly affected if the benchmarking applications were compiled with Intel compilers.

That's why many companies do not use Intel compilers if they know that their customers will use AMD cpus. Companies that use AMD computers should ask their software providers to provide software that is not built with the Intel compilers.
Score
3
January 25, 2012 5:13:48 PM

Actually, i7-2600 is $279.99 right now on newegg, so it is by far the closest-priced competitor to FX-8150 which is $269.99 on the same newegg. With it's higher frequency and larger cache it will increase Intel's lead in single-threaded applications, and with hyperthreading beat FX-8150 in multithreaded applications too. Plus free video (not everybody plays demanding 3D games) and QuickSync.
Unfortunately, we lost AMD as a formidable rival in desktop space.

But it is 2012 and it is the whole new game is being played in mobile space, and Qualcomm and Nvidia totally destroy Intel there. Intel is like IBM with their mainframes now. Sure, IBM won the mainframe competition...
Score
2
a b $ Windows 7
January 25, 2012 5:23:25 PM

ohimActually you`re quite wrong but the masses fall for poorly made benchmarks ... in the old line only the I7 was worth buying since the I3 and I5 were only dual cores and at multitasking they were shit compared to the line of quad cores from AMD, now I3 sandy bridge is still a big crap even with the new improvements ... for me the performance starts from the I5 2500k ... the below are only intel crap. Worked on those kind of computers and they totally not worth it

See... That's what I'm saying (ignoring the fanboy rant)... When the Intel crap competes with AMD's best, we have no competition in the marketplace.

In theory and on paper is the only place AMD performance is realized. This is why they can talk something up prior to release and disappoint us all with the release. Again, we as consumers lose.
Score
2
January 25, 2012 5:42:59 PM

Well the consume looses because is blind , choosing i3 over competion just because is intel and that intel holds the top performance ... I3 might do pretty well running 1 application at a time but is a total disaster when applications start to add up, as for AMD as a looser ... well he`s not really trailing that far behind Intel, and if 2 -3 seconds or 5 fps (except few titles that have more than 10 fps difference about all fall under 10 fps ) the whole users go to intel ... well you deserve your fate for 1000$ future I3 cpus. And is clear as daylight that the current software doesn`t work well with that CPU, some guy even said "did you saw intel go to MS when they released I7 ? , well Intel didn`t changed the architecture that much .. still going to 4 cores with 2 logicals , and as always most of the software out there is compiled for these kind of CPUs ... read some shit around the internet that on some benchmarks when changing the CPUID from authentic AMD to Genuine Intel the scores started to differ ... so i say again .. if you chose 5 more fps and find it drasticaly unacceptable ... then don`t complain about the future.
Score
-5
January 25, 2012 5:49:48 PM

AzathothSigh* I was expecting to see small gains of maybe ~8% optimistically, but instead I see microscopic improvements.It is simply embarrassing for an eight core processor to be beaten by a quad core, even considering some apps don't support more then two or four cores.


It's very hard to program for multi thread/cores cpu (more bugs, performance issues, etc). Having 8 core doesn't mean anything until programming takes advantage of the cores which will be a years.
Score
3
!