Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Who is buying Bulldozer and WHY?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 12, 2011 9:43:38 PM

Today is a pretty big day as many people have been waiting a long, long time for Bulldozer to arrive. There seems to be a lot of disappointment with what Bulldozer has to offer. I, for one, am not too terribly disappointed because I can't say I expected much more. I pretty much lost all confidence in AMD as a competent competitor to Intel a long time ago. With that said, some people will obviously buy Bulldozer. As a PhD student in applied economics, drivers behind decisions that people make are something that I deal with everyday. I'm very curious as to the drivers behind people making the decision to purchase Bulldozer.

With all that said, I bring you the question that this post is about. What reasons are you going to purchase Bulldozer for? Even though the reaction has been largely negative, I know you future Bulldozer owners are out there. Tell me what draws you to it.

Edit: This is NOT intended to be an AMD vs. Intel or bash on Bulldozer thread. This thread is simply to poll the drivers behind the decision to purchase Bulldozer. Nothing more, nothing less.

More about : buying bulldozer

October 12, 2011 10:15:48 PM

I will buy it. Reasons are very simple:
I don't need it for gameing, but for work and for what I need it it's better than an i5. SQL server allways running on my pc with a few databases needed on the network, Virtual PC, Visual Studio, 3DS Max, Photoshop and video conversion. Benchmarks are allmost never real world performance, since you allmost never run just one thing on your pc. For instance, on my pc sql server is allways running, I run video conversions it the background while programing in visual studio.
Last, but not least it will be a simple upgrade, no need to buy a new mbo.
Score
0
October 12, 2011 10:39:56 PM

I will buy it (The FX-8120) because :

1. It's a huge upgrade over my 4 years old Athlon X2 6000+
2. the 230$ price tag is good for the performance it offers
3. Someone needs to help AMD or they will go bankrupt (and that means intel will charge us whatever they want)
4. Intel is evil and threatens stores to buy from them or bribes companies like Dell and were charged for unfair practices. I don't give my money to crooks. AMD is a company that is trying hard to get back on track and I want to help them do it.

Also, having a FPS of 70 instead of 80 is not such a big deal...the games will still be playable.
Score
0
Related resources
a b à CPUs
October 12, 2011 10:42:48 PM

Bulldozer is very competitively priced processing power if you're not gaming. For many professional applications that can use n cores, the 8150 will steamroll (bulldoze?) the 2500k and sometimes the 2600k.
Score
0
October 12, 2011 10:44:00 PM

samal90 said:

3. Someone needs to help AMD or they will go bankrupt (and that means intel will charge us whatever they want)

Lol have you ever heard of the economic train of thought known as rational self-interest?

And yeah, if I were doing something such as 3D rendering, I'd be on it.
Score
0
October 12, 2011 11:27:35 PM

I will purchase a 8150 for a dedicated Photoshop CS5 machine. I do not game at all so those benchmarks are meaningless to me.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 12, 2011 11:36:58 PM

I'm not buying BD, but I think I would if need a new machine for Photoshop CS5.
I'm saying thinking, and not 'for sure', cause: Yes, in this software it's faster, but indeed pricier than i5 2500. Maybe it scales linear with the price? Don't know..
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 12, 2011 11:52:24 PM

I will buy Bulldozer/Zambezi because:

1. It is an upgrade over my current system AMD X2 system

2. Intel is a multi-time convicted criminal corporation who I would never financially support

3. AMD needs customer support or we lose all choice in the x86 CPU market

4. Few people need bleeding edge, max speed CPUs. AMD has plenty of cost effective FX CPUs to meet most people's needs

5. I can move from Zambezi to it's replacement in the future should I desire, without replacing the mobo
Score
0
October 13, 2011 12:09:31 AM

cuecuemore said:
Bulldozer is very competitively priced processing power if you're not gaming. For many professional applications that can use n cores, the 8150 will steamroll (bulldoze?) the 2500k and sometimes the 2600k.



Man, At time. Maybe 8 out of a 100 benches. I wouldn't buy the FX8150. The FX-4100 is better and a lot cheaper!!!!!
Score
0
October 13, 2011 1:43:11 AM

Alright guys, thanks for the responses! I'm recording all of this. This kind of stuff is totally outside of my research area right now, but someday I'm interested in researching the build-it-yourself PC industry. I'm really interested in what users as a whole value the most and what drives their purchasing decisions. Just a lot of different economic factors to look at. I may be a nerd, but I think it's cool stuff.

Keep the responses coming!
Score
0
a c 82 à CPUs
October 13, 2011 2:12:11 AM

the question is, what the hell are AMD doing? they could have done this with minimal R&D and just added 2 extra cores, some additional instructions, faster cache/memory controller and a die shrink to their phenom core and have better performance and the same aweful power useage and actually have released it on time. Instead, they stuffed everyone around with delays and gave us a pile of steaming crap, that is in no way better than a phenom for any of the purposes listed in above posts, it just has more cores.

yours truly, 1 disappointed ex AMD enthusiast.
Score
0
October 13, 2011 2:30:23 AM

i plan to get bulldozer (eventually...when i can afford it)
The reason? cost effectiveness...i don't like changing motherboard everytime i change the processor.
Oh and i use pc for gaming purpose...
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 2:37:06 AM

I'm not buying an FX CPU until Piledriver is out. I'm somewhat disappointed with AMD. The price vs performance ratio doesn't fit it ($280 for a FX-8150 yet it is slow than the $220 i5 2500K). I hope Piledriver will correct whatever AMD did wrong. Not necessarily an enthusiast class CPU, but an upgrade for those with older systems. I'll hold off until PD or IB.

I will be looking forward to Piledriver though. I want AMD back on top like they use to be 5 years ago, but it just doesn't seem likely any time soon. Piledriver can still be a competitive CPU, so I hope for the best. However, the 4-core BD looks nice and offers decent performance. Same price range as the i3 2100, and I believe it beats it (have yet to see a bench of the 4 core vs an i3). I'll look into that.
Score
0
a c 82 à CPUs
October 13, 2011 2:47:10 AM

cumi2k4 said:
i plan to get bulldozer (eventually...when i can afford it)
The reason? cost effectiveness...i don't like changing motherboard everytime i change the processor.
Oh and i use pc for gaming purpose...

you have an AM3+ motherboard? if you dont, then go with intel. Their current z68 gen 3 motherboards will be compatable with their next CPU release. Its also likely that AMD's next CPU will need a different socket.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 2:49:49 AM

I admit that the FX 8150 is somewhat of a letdown, but I will probably buy a bulldozer or whatever they're calling the next batch of CPU's coming in the first half of next year.
What AMD has done is come up with a new architecture that is ahead of its time. Windows 7 doesn't know how to schedule correctly, and this should be fixed in Windows 8. But I'm not going to explain all the ways that the current chip is being held back by current technology. All everyone cares about is IPC, and Intel is definitely winning on that front.

For me, the reasons listed above for healthy competition are very valid. I will be adopting win8 early, so I will see first hand if the new OS will show some gains for BD. I used the 7 Beta and RC for 7 months, so I may as well move to 8 earlier than expected.

I also believe that by this time next year, software will continue to scale better for more cores. This is a trend I see as a linear slope, although not as quick as I or anyone else would like.
What does BD have for me? Well, higher overclocks will be good for my pet project. I had to go down to a triple core for daily use, so 8 cores will be good too. I already invested in a 990FX motherboard, so it seems silly to put a AM3 X6 in there.

I won't have money for an upgrade until January anyway, so I'll have some time to think about all this. I suppose the main problem is AMD has over-innovated, under-achieved as far as current software is concerned, and over-prepared for the server market. If all I cared about was gaming, I'd already have a core i5. So I don't see any reason why I shouldn't go forward with my bulldozer plans. I just need to readjust my thinking to appreciate bulldozer for what it is, and hope that software will catch up quickly and I can hit 4.5+ Ghz.
Score
0
a c 126 à CPUs
October 13, 2011 2:53:18 AM

beenthere said:
I will buy Bulldozer/Zambezi because:

1. It is an upgrade over my current system AMD X2 system

2. Intel is a multi-time convicted criminal corporation who I would never financially support

3. AMD needs customer support or we lose all choice in the x86 CPU market

4. Few people need bleeding edge, max speed CPUs. AMD has plenty of cost effective FX CPUs to meet most people's needs

5. I can move from Zambezi to it's replacement in the future should I desire, without replacing the mobo


I will only adress a few points:

2. Intel has never been convicted. Just fined. Fines do not mean conviction.

3. AMD needs to also trust their customers more and not keep them in the dark, hype a CPU then release one thats meh.

5. You can also move from Sandy Bridge to Ivy Bridge. No mobo change needed.

iam2thecrowe said:
you have an AM3+ motherboard? if you dont, then go with intel. Their current z68 gen 3 motherboards will be compatable with their next CPU release. Its also likely that AMD's next CPU will need a different socket.


The Gen 3 is only needed if you want PCIe 3.0 on a Z68 mobo. If you don't care then you can get a Gen 2 Z68 and IB will work on it.

As for the OP, I would not buy BD if I was doing a new build. For $250-$300, which is what I spend on a CPU when I build a system I would make the choice between a 2500K and 2600K. BD just is not worth it.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 4:57:51 AM

I may buy it...when I can afford a solid +1000 USD gaming rig.

1) I will mostly use it for FSX,( if I can get a response form someone over its perf.)

2) F@H. Seems like a legit SMP and bigadv- system CPU

3) AMD pricing/perf. It may not be the king of all processors, but it beats my Intel dual core 775 CPU!

4) Potential seller. If I can figure out how to sell computers I build, this will be one of my main attractions,( as well as Ivy.)
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b \ Driver
October 13, 2011 5:14:04 AM

I am going to buy it, just because I want to move from a 4 Cores to 8 Cores.
I'm pretty happy with their performances until now, I don't see why I wouldn't want to spend some more on their products.
It'll certainly be helping me Fold, games aren't going to be necessarily the primary objective, although if they were, I'd still go for the AMD and OC it. Cos my folding doesn't go off when I game....

There was a lot of fuss about the Hyped AMD product, people feel really let down. But what really surprises me is I have checked all the benchmarks from nearly 30 Sites and it seems to me that they are all identical.
Something still makes me believe there a mess up somewhere, so, I'll go ahead and buy one and check the damn thing for myself and see which of these sites were paid to do what they did.
Although, still waiting for Toms to rewrite their articles after the FX8150 floods the market.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b \ Driver
October 13, 2011 6:03:34 AM

Yeah, checked it out too and the results are in the same line......:(  Someone in AMD has messed up big time......
Score
0
October 13, 2011 6:28:48 AM

I'll be buying Bulldozer for gaming. If you pay attention to benchmarks (and take a look at several reviews, not just the Tom's Hardware one) 8150 is faster or on par with 2500/2600 in most modern games. And it can only become better, because games become more mutli-threaded not less. In current games with light threading it still achieves more fps than you could possibly need.
I will be playing a lot of BF3 and the beta benchmarks favour 8150.








I know 2500k is also a perfetcly good choice, but none of the Z68 motheroards really appealed to me. For AM3+ I will be getting Asus Sabretooth. In addition, everyone and his (gamer)dog owns a 2500k/2600k machine now (I just built one for my brother) and I find it terribly uninspiring to just hop on the SB train like everyone else.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 6:33:08 AM

Where did you get those reviews?
Score
0
October 13, 2011 6:43:09 AM

There is definitely an error in the standard press kit being given out. The Asus Cross hair has been used on almost all sites. The numbers vary wildly across the board on other mother boards.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 6:46:46 AM

So, change the variables in the testing?
Score
0
October 13, 2011 6:47:17 AM

iam2thecrowe said:
WTF is that, it shows totally different results to what we have seen across the board from reputable reviewers.


There is something rotten going on. AMD cards and non Asus mo bo's show a win for bulldozer. I have a feeling the update for RAGE for Nvidia had something to do with this. What if they purposely put a patch to hamper AMD processors? Is it really that impossible if you come to think about it?
Score
0
October 13, 2011 6:47:33 AM

mailpranshu said:
There is definitely an error in the standard press kit being given out. The Asus Cross hair has been used on almost all sites. The numbers vary wildly across the board on other mother boards.


To be expected from a new architecture and "older" motherboards. I'm sure we'll see a clearer picture once the initial "OMFG FX didn't destroy Intel and now AMD will die!!!" frenzy calms down.
Score
0
October 13, 2011 6:54:05 AM

tulx said:
To be expected from a new architecture and "older" motherboards. I'm sure we'll see a clearer picture once the initial "OMFG FX didn't destroy Intel and now AMD will die!!!" frenzy calms down.


Whats really sad is that people are so quick to judge base on reviews from only 1 platform ( Asus cross hair + 580GTX). Isn't the point of building your own computers mixing and matching various parts to get the best possible performance???

Its a shame mate....
Score
0
October 13, 2011 6:54:12 AM

mailpranshu said:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/315775-28-asus-crossh...

Let me know your thoughts. Have a look....


Heh, I'm usually not one for conspiracy theories, but the facts somehow speak for themselfes this time. You might have a point there. Though why would AMD include a Mobo in the press kit which doesn't utilize the processor properly? Or is it Nvidia's cards?
Score
0
October 13, 2011 6:55:30 AM

dogman_1234 said:
So, change the variables in the testing?


Exactly. Use a new board with a different card!!!!!!!!
Score
0
October 13, 2011 6:57:03 AM

I'm getting the Quad core if the price is right for my HTPC upgrade!
Score
0
October 13, 2011 6:58:47 AM

tulx said:
Heh, I'm usually not one for conspiracy theories, but the facts somehow speak for themselfes this time. You might have a point there. Though why would AMD include a Mobo in the press kit which doesn't utilize the processor properly? Or is it Nvidia's cards?


Who knows?? I am surprised no one even picked up on this till about 3 hours ago.. It is very biased though. Would the same have happened to an Intel? I dont think so..
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b \ Driver
October 13, 2011 6:59:45 AM

Now, I guess everyone see's it. I had this feeling from the way the benches flooded the net as soon as the BD was released. They came out too soon with too many benches all of a sudden.
If you go back a little in history ( past 2 years) every one of the processors Intel or AMD, the reviews came out by the day not all at once and most of them were tested on different hardware combos. This present release is far too well synchronized for my liking, that's the main reason I really feel like getting one for my own testing, there couldn't be such a wide difference between the AMD slides from before and the actual performance that the FX8150 is giving.
Even the power seems way off.
The sad part is, it's going to come out into my market only after a month. But what the heck, I'll be trying to get one from the US ASAP.
Score
0
October 13, 2011 7:05:09 AM

alyoshka said:
Now, I guess everyone see's it. I had this feeling from the way the benches flooded the net as soon as the BD was released. They came out too soon with too many benches all of a sudden.
If you go back a little in history ( past 2 years) every one of the processors Intel or AMD, the reviews came out by the day not all at once and most of them were tested on different hardware combos. This present release is far too well synchronized for my liking, that's the main reason I really feel like getting one for my own testing, there couldn't be such a wide difference between the AMD slides from before and the actual performance that the FX8150 is giving.
Even the power seems way off.
The sad part is, it's going to come out into my market only after a month. But what the heck, I'll be trying to get one from the US ASAP.


I have a feeling I know what happened. Tech sites do compete with each other for views. They probably benched it on the standard press kit along with a 580 GTX and rushed to publish without checking further.

Would a 6990 be a win or a loss?? I really wonder..

Score
0
October 13, 2011 7:13:30 AM

I'm totally jumped ship now, Intel all the way from here out.
Score
0
October 13, 2011 7:14:29 AM

mailpranshu said:
I have a feeling I know what happened. Tech sites do compete with each other for views. They probably benched it on the standard press kit along with a 580 GTX and rushed to publish without checking further.

Would a 6990 be a win or a loss?? I really wonder..


I remember one of the sites said AMD advised to review with a AMD garphics card, but the site used a GTX 580 to "eliminate any bottlenecks". Can't remember which site that was.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b \ Driver
October 13, 2011 7:14:43 AM

The 6990 with the FX8150 will be the thing...............:) 
Hell's I's love to see the FX with a 5970.......... I bet that be real kick for the competition......
Score
0
October 13, 2011 7:17:10 AM

alyoshka said:
The 6990 with the FX8150 will be the thing...............:) 
Hell's I's love to see the FX with a 5970.......... I bet that be real kick for the competition......


I happen to have a 5870 (paired with a Phenom I :D  ), so that makes me quite hopeful for a good combo.
Score
0
October 13, 2011 7:19:20 AM

dormantreign said:
I'm totally jumped ship now, Intel all the way from here out.


You and many others. Yet if you look at the benches I posted and MailPranshu's thread, you'll see that, with the right Mobo and graphics card, 8150 beats or is on par with SB.
Score
0
October 13, 2011 7:19:35 AM

tulx said:
I remember one of the sites said AMD advised to review with a AMD garphics card, but the site used a GTX 580 to "eliminate any bottlenecks". Can't remember which site that was.


All sites used the 580 GTX. Maybe there is an issue with the drivers? Or the card itself?
Score
0
October 13, 2011 7:47:36 AM

tulx said:
I'll be buying Bulldozer for gaming. If you pay attention to benchmarks (and take a look at several reviews, not just the Tom's Hardware one) 8150 is faster or on par with 2500/2600 in most modern games. And it can only become better, because games become more mutli-threaded not less. In current games with light threading it still achieves more fps than you could possibly need.
I will be playing a lot of BF3 and the beta benchmarks favour 8150.

http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/4715/capturehwp.png
http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/6596/capture2m.png
http://img803.imageshack.us/img803/3866/capture3vj.png
http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/9777/capture4e.png
http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/6399/capture5g.png
http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/1585/capture6j.png

I know 2500k is also a perfetcly good choice, but none of the Z68 motheroards really appealed to me. For AM3+ I will be getting Asus Sabretooth. In addition, everyone and his (gamer)dog owns a 2500k/2600k machine now (I just built one for my brother) and I find it terribly uninspiring to just hop on the SB train like everyone else.


+1000. Awesome benchmark finds!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks again!!!!!!!!!
Score
0
October 13, 2011 8:14:21 AM

what i am thinking with the bulldozer CPU of AMD's is AMD wrote its own drivers to work better with the new CPU design thus they graphics cards work better with their new CPUs because of how they constructed the driver. With a Intel CPU the nVidia 590 card would be the best for totally no graphics card bottle neck as nVidia does not optimize their drivers in the same way as AMD so nVidia's drivers work better with Intel CPUs by what the benchmarks say. In short it is how the drivers are written that make the Benchmarks say what they are for the Bulldozer CPU but if you are going to go with a nVidia Graphics Card then you should go with a Intel CPU while if you want the Bulldozer CPU then go with a AMD graphics card for the best performance the CPU can give.
With all of that the i7-2600K is only a few frames or a few points behind the AMD Bulldozer depending on the benchmark and Bulldozer sounds more like it was made more for severs then for consumer computers as a server will take advantage of all 8 CPUs in the new AMD CPU boosting its performance while most consumer applications are only able to use CPU core 0 through CPU core 3 as they are written with a quad core or below in mind. WinZip is a Single core program and thus it does not perform well with AMD since it is not optimized for single core applications a video converter will perform alot better having 8 cores instead of just 4 or 6 cores for it to use.
In conclusion it all depends on what you actually use and don't let the number of programs which you use trick you into thinking you will need more CPU cores for it to go faster as the abstraction layer does not work like that for windows vista and below. I have not had time with windows 7 and windows 8 to see how their abstraction layers work. A consumer computer will have the best price/performance with a relatively modern but low end CPU with integrated graphics since they have gotten very good now. For a gamer i suggest either Intel with nVidia graphics or AMD with an AMD/ATI graphics card. What i am wondering about is how the Bulldozer CPU design would work on a sever line of applications since that is probably where it will beat out most of the other CPUs tested in all the benchmarks shown on this forum.
Score
0
October 13, 2011 8:23:20 AM

i 'might' buy a bulldozer chip, the only reason why bulldozer doesnt perform as well as the core i5 or i7 chips is because most software only fully utilise 2 - 4 cores let alone 6 or 8. In the future when software, especially games become more multi threaded is where chips like the 8150 will get to stretch its legs.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 8:37:47 AM

buzznut said:
I admit that the FX 8150 is somewhat of a letdown, but I will probably buy a bulldozer or whatever they're calling the next batch of CPU's coming in the first half of next year.
What AMD has done is come up with a new architecture that is ahead of its time. Windows 7 doesn't know how to schedule correctly, and this should be fixed in Windows 8. But I'm not going to explain all the ways that the current chip is being held back by current technology. All everyone cares about is IPC, and Intel is definitely winning on that front.

For me, the reasons listed above for healthy competition are very valid. I will be adopting win8 early, so I will see first hand if the new OS will show some gains for BD. I used the 7 Beta and RC for 7 months, so I may as well move to 8 earlier than expected.

I also believe that by this time next year, software will continue to scale better for more cores. This is a trend I see as a linear slope, although not as quick as I or anyone else would like.
What does BD have for me? Well, higher overclocks will be good for my pet project. I had to go down to a triple core for daily use, so 8 cores will be good too. I already invested in a 990FX motherboard, so it seems silly to put a AM3 X6 in there.

I won't have money for an upgrade until January anyway, so I'll have some time to think about all this. I suppose the main problem is AMD has over-innovated, under-achieved as far as current software is concerned, and over-prepared for the server market. If all I cared about was gaming, I'd already have a core i5. So I don't see any reason why I shouldn't go forward with my bulldozer plans. I just need to readjust my thinking to appreciate bulldozer for what it is, and hope that software will catch up quickly and I can hit 4.5+ Ghz.


Some good points there. It's nice to think AMD might be "ahead of their time" and following future tech upgrades (windows 8 being an important one) the processor market could easily shift once more.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 8:42:55 AM

jimmysmitty said:
I will only adress a few points:

2. Intel has never been convicted. Just fined. Fines do not mean conviction.

3. AMD needs to also trust their customers more and not keep them in the dark, hype a CPU then release one thats meh.

5. You can also move from Sandy Bridge to Ivy Bridge. No mobo change needed.



The Gen 3 is only needed if you want PCIe 3.0 on a Z68 mobo. If you don't care then you can get a Gen 2 Z68 and IB will work on it.

As for the OP, I would not buy BD if I was doing a new build. For $250-$300, which is what I spend on a CPU when I build a system I would make the choice between a 2500K and 2600K. BD just is not worth it.


These are the FACTS:

Re. #2 - Actually Intel has been CONVICTED of numerous anti-trust violations in the U.S., Europe, (EU), and Asia. In addition Intel has been convicted of U.S. tax FRAUD numerous times.

Re. #3. Zambezi and Opteron 6200/4200 CPUs have a significant improvement in heavy load processing capacity so it's not hype - it's reality. As a consumer you need to understand what each CPU does best as it relates to what you use a PC for. Most people will be completely happy with any current CPU be it Zambezi/AMD or Intel.

Re. #5 - Sandy Bridge does not work on an AMD mobo. ;) 

SUPPORTING a convicted criminal corporation such as Intel is NOT an option for any ethical person as Intel has tried to and continues to try to eliminate consumer choice!
Score
0
October 13, 2011 8:51:15 AM

At last, a compelling and accurate assessment of gaming performance ( tweaktown), first ive read since all the intel loverboys have been doom mongering. Will actually get a bulldozer am3+ system now, not much in game performance, and all those synthetic and real world benchmarks have no relevance to my daily use of pc/laptop.

Stopped building my own pc,s a couple of years ago because of the slave to benchmarks that somehow justify your purchase, now just use laptop, but will buy into bulldozer and am3+ just to keep AMD alive. *** the useless benchmarks which have no place in my real-world-usage.
Score
0
October 13, 2011 8:58:54 AM

I might look into a 4170, if it's price below an i3. The price/performance would be great. The 8150 however is pretty poop, and even where it bests the i2500k, it doesn't represent value of any kind.

When piledriver comes, Ivybridge will have been our for a year, and it will be status quo.

The only interesting thing I await is someone to make good use of the new AMD, while also wondering if AMD are very future looking (and have made a great prediction) or have just flat out bombed.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b \ Driver
October 13, 2011 10:23:07 AM

We need a Moderator to look into the issue, a lot of people here are commenting on the BD in a very negative way, on other threads, we have reached a conclusion that the Benches may not be genuine or may not be what they actually are.
Is there a possibility of stopping this, the sites are doing a bad job as it is of dissing the processor and people here who aren't participating in the debate are really going a little over board by telling OPs new to the forum to switch to Intel.....
This is bad, let us first get the whole thing right and then it'd ok to tell people but not when we are faced with such contradictions ourselves.
Score
0
!