- Joined
- Aug 11, 2008
I wonder if a certain, no longer a member here, just rolled over in his 'grave'...
That one is over my head... I don't get the reference, but I'm glad you got a laugh...lol.
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
I wonder if a certain, no longer a member here, just rolled over in his 'grave'...
It looks like FX is on the fence of our Meh and Approved rating. I highlighted what I think is related to Bulldozer.
I'm disappointed in performance after all the hype, as many other people. Performance is okay, but the power consumption to get that "okay" performance is huge... I will not be buying one... with the 2500K $50 cheaper for about the same performance, the 2600K only $50-65 more for better performance, and the MUCH better performance per watt of Intel, it would be hard for me to suggest a FX CPU to someone too.
Exactly, and PPL are told to buy Intel.
I had quite a few laugh since this morning, but inside I am sorry.
Sorry because why would OEM builders put AMD in their "mainstream" rigs as Intel does better? PhII is sooner than later EOL. i3 and i5 are cheap and perfectly match most of the people needs and have Intel branding.
Pro users will go to Intel for real multi core.
Big companies will go Intel servers: have you seen the power consumption of these 8150? I doubt that server versions of the chip will be much better and when you go to TCO, that counts A LOT.
So yes, I am sorry to see no competition.
Somehow, I hope PPL will be fooled by AMD commercials and buy FX chips, but as you stated, PPL buy what they are told...
And now they can Facebook and Check email at light speed. Oh they can also brag to their friens because they have 8 cores.
That kinda bummed me out about this review.. Two highly OCable chips and only one was benched OC'd.
Yep, IMOG summed it up nicely. It sucks, but that's how it is. We had this chip for 12 days before the review had to be published. Inside that time all that happened, plus this isn't my actual job, which of course takes up most of every day. If this were a full time gig, these could have more content but we do the best with the time we have. Don't forget that in addition to benchmarking, we have to graph the results (which is more time consuming than you might think!) and write these things - this one was ~4,500 words. Hopefully it still made for a well-rounded review.Time constraints, and clock for clock with nothing else changed is going to be virtually equivalent to stock comparison. Hokie's sleeping, but he could comment directly on that, and probably will tomorrow when he has a chance. Only had the chip for a bit over a week, he's got a full time job and family, had a mother in law in town, and was laid out sick for a couple days. Not making excuses, but with the number of runs and tests, these things do take time - wish we had him as a full time reviewer so he could drop his day job.
The product performs well at stock and at overclocking, for modding, etc. where relevant. It isn’t necessarily the best of its type, but it performs well enough that we could recommend it with a clear conscience.
In all honesty, it is AMDs flagship product, clocks VERY well has a strong IMC, and Sometimes outperforms the Thubans.
Also remember people are saying that there is no price difference on boards, but there still is. granted 990FX is carrying a bit of a price premium at the minute which which brings them closer (possibly SLI licensing?), but generally speaking, same feature sets, AMD boards are still cheaper.
newegg listing excluding 890FX and P67 (because we are excluding last gen AMD exclude last gen Intel)
990FX $139-239
Z68 $80-360
990FX does not have the ultra low end boards available ATM, but Z68 wins with more than a dozen boards that cost more than the most expensive AMD. Hell even an ASROCK board costs more than the top of the line AMD.
I spent my thanks, so QFT.Here are 45 P67 boards all under $200 and all will bring a SB close to 5 Ghz if it is a good chip on air, SB boards are very affordable and generally cheaper than 990FX boards
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...=Intel Motherboards&Order=PRICED&Pagesize=100
Man it is a state of the art CPU and has 8 cores. Intel only has four cores in the same price range. The 8150 automatically clocks up to higher speeds than the competition as well.
Do you think they will let you install PCMark on their floor model PC? No! More core + more Speed equals a Phat system in the eyes of the consumer. And now they can Facebook and Check email at light speed. Oh they can also brag to their friens because they have 8 cores.
Good play Sir, good playWe can only open the door, the readers must walk through it. Only through reading will true enlightenment be obtained. Like that? A little Matrix with a little Ghandi'esque-speak.
They have 8 core laptops now?
In all honesty, it is AMDs flagship product, clocks VERY well has a strong IMC, and outperforms the Thubans.
If it has Phenom/Thuban desktop snap thats a thumbs up as well.
It is not better than SandyB, uses too much power and the price is a little high compared to the competition. (not much though...)
Also remember people are saying that there is no price difference on boards, but there still is. granted 990FX is carrying a bit of a price premium at the minute which which brings them closer (possibly SLI licensing?), but generally speaking, same feature sets, AMD boards are still cheaper.
newegg listing excluding 890FX and P67 (because we are excluding last gen AMD exclude last gen Intel)
990FX $139-239
Z68 $80-360
990FX does not have the ultra low end boards available ATM, but Z68 wins with more than a dozen boards that cost more than the most expensive AMD. Hell even an ASROCK board costs more than the top of the line AMD.
It is about feeling good man. Why do PPL drive a car with 3000+ in rims and tires? they do not need it but it makes them feel good.
http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6984861#post6984861This is why I ALMOST went and bought a i7-980 + mobo. Just to look and see 12 threads under Windows Task Manager...
It reaches 2500K folding performance at a higher price point. This isn't too bad as it overclocks decently. Power draw under load is crap. We can likely blame Global Foundries for that. All-in-all it isn't a total loss, but it sure isn't good.
Let's hope server performance, which it was made for, doesn't fail miserably.
Can you explain how a smaller process, that usually uses less power, can be blamed on the fab plant?It reaches 2500K folding performance at a higher price point. This isn't too bad as it overclocks decently. Power draw under load is crap. We can likely blame Global Foundries for that. All-in-all it isn't a total loss, but it sure isn't good.
Let's hope server performance, which it was made for, doesn't fail miserably.