Would you like to interphase with a complete spaz that can do your homework in 5 minutes or a smooth talker who can do it in 10?
LOL Just kidding, a spaz doesn't hitch that bad.
I don't get sucked into the whole experience hype.
My buddies i5 seemed to have visual artifacts while browsing the desktop, hitchiness issues as well. I find the AMD a much smoother experience.
That has been my experience with SB. I would explain it like oc'ing while in the os, u get those kind of visual goobers in certain places, aero may stop working, stuff like that. Wasnt my system so I didnt get a chance to poke around, but it was my deciding factor. I needed to be wowed to pry me out of my am3 stuff anyway, and it certainly didn't do that.Lol, are you trying to say this is common or not his configuration or a rare defect?
That has been my experience with SB. I would explain it like oc'ing while in the os, u get those kind of visual goobers in certain places, aero may stop working, stuff like that. Wasnt my system so I didnt get a chance to poke around, but it was my deciding factor. I needed to be wowed to pry me out of my am3 stuff anyway, and it certainly didn't do that.
When I started this thread, and through out it, I have mentioned that for the same price (cpu/mb) or nearly the same price, the Intel wins the benchies over the AMD. No argument from me, eventhough the 8150 is just as much fun as the 2500ks in m 3 rigs below.Sounds like your friend has computer issues.
I'm no intel fanboy or anything, i love whatever the best product is at the best price... but its hard to really justify AMD cpus over Intel's with the performance numbers that are out there.
When I started this thread, and through out it, I have mentioned that for the same price (cpu/mb) or nearly the same price, the Intel wins the benchies over the AMD. No argument from me, eventhough the 8150 is just as much fun as the 2500ks in m 3 rigs below.
I enjoyed reading your experience with Bulldozer, gives some nice insight. This thread unfortunately seems to have drawn the fanboys to a flame war and some of the argument is just plain ridiculous.
Sounds like your friend has computer issues.
I'm no intel fanboy or anything, i love whatever the best product is at the best price... but its hard to really justify AMD cpus over Intel's with the performance numbers that are out there.
Ironically, I'm in the SFF forum praising the mobile ivy bridge ultrabook stuff. Its amazing.
But this is a BD 8150 thread, and after some bios updates and ms hotfixes, I'm impressed with the chip as well.
Bios updates = +0% performance.
Win 8 = +1 to +5% performance, and all other CPUs get the same boosts, not just FX.
Any performance difference is a placebo effect.
And I'm here with the machine stating that it's not. But w/e I don't need to browbeat anymore, I think I made my findings clear.
I believe data not "statements". In multiple testings the gain is 1-5% and even then, all the cpus got boosted not FX specificaly. So your statement holds little value until backed up with proof.
Maybe it's that Win 8 is more "light" OS on resources gave you the impression that your CPU got better. My Intel Atom rubish notebook is performing a lot better in Win 8 but that's because of kernel optimizations not because my poor atom became better.
I guess we should throw out everything you just said as well, we can't beleive you without proof.
There are many win7 vs win8 cpu comparisons, it's not my fault you can't use google. You, however, provide zero data.
I have enjoyed Athlon II and Phenom II builds, my only "complaint" is my choice of "bargain" prices when SB came out.
I have built and owned SB computers and have been impressed with their performance.
ATM it appears pricing and performance for FX can be a worthwhile choice.
I do wonder how much performance is motherboard driven. Even cheap motherboards perform well with SB, they have in my experience.
For FX I do wonder if this is true. No real way to tell.
The "latest" question is with new chips out, juust how much better they perform.
As always the low end gets the least coverage.
FX-4100 vs FX-4170, etc, anyone have experience? There appears to be worthwhile differences.
Good point infoiltrator. The 8150, to be OC'd at a higher rate, needs a solid mb with good phase control. I use an Asus Sabertooth 990FX which is hardly cheap. The purists that appear to have the highest OCs use even higher priced mbs. Conversely, an Intel 2500k SB can use a $100 to $120 mb and get veru high OCs. Dollar for dollar the I5-2500k SB+mb combo is probably no more expensive than the 8150 FX+mb combo.I have enjoyed Athlon II and Phenom II builds, my only "complaint" is my choice of "bargain" prices when SB came out.
I have built and owned SB computers and have been impressed with their performance.
ATM it appears pricing and performance for FX can be a worthwhile choice.
I do wonder how much performance is motherboard driven. Even cheap motherboards perform well with SB, they have in my experience.
For FX I do wonder if this is true. No real way to tell.
The "latest" question is with new chips out, juust how much better they perform.
As always the low end gets the least coverage.
FX-4100 vs FX-4170, etc, anyone have experience? There appears to be worthwhile differences.
^Actually its all about the silicon lottery
moonbogg: I won't mince words. Your 3930k is far superior and much more expensive (@$500 vs $170 for the 8150). You have 6 core BUT Hyperthreading so you really have 12. Plus as evidenced by my SandyBridge 2500ks the Intels have much better IPC. In the Bulldozer case "more cores" does not mean more performance.
Jeff7181: You are correct but Win7/Win8 considers it 12 cores. As a matter of fact, considering the architecture of the Bulldozer, as I understand it, it is a 4 module CPU with each module haveing 2 cores that share certain hardware. The number of cores argument has been beaten to death but I stand corrected on the 3930k.