- Dec 14, 2004
- 7,665
- 0
- 71
If the FX-8150 were priced the same as the i5-2500K, it would be a better value unless you were primarily a single-threaded application user. It's a harder sell at its current pricing. For gaming, it would be a moot point since anyone using these chips is gaming at 1080P and is GPU-bound, not CPU-bound. As the prices align now, the FX-8150 is not a particularly compelling value, unless you primarily use heavily-multithreaded applications.
Which is exactly why I already ordered two for my lab - it costs less than the i7-2600K and either rivals or bests it in modern multi-threaded titles. My genomics research uses modern software. But my uses are not typical of the average desktop user. Bulldozer clearly illustrates how a chip can absolutely dominate in one type of task (see Anand's 7-Zip benchmark) while downright stinking for another task (see any single-threaded application benchmark). Five years ago, everyone benefited from moving to a dual core from a single core. Today, not many people will benefit from moving from four to eight cores. My work computing absolutely will benefit from Bulldozer. My home computing absolutely will not. "What are you going to do with your computer?" is now more important than ever in determining what CPU will suit you best.
Are there really so many enthusiasts here and elsewhere who are so myopic they fail to see the flagship Bulldozer SKU beating the flagship Core SKU in a few relevant, real world applications? Are there really so many failing to see that while Bulldozer did not wrest the performance crown from Intel, it finally brings some semblance of competition to the i5-2500 and i7-2600? Again, some people are going to benefit from Bulldozer over the high-end Core SKUs. But not everyone.
Finally, where are the reviews of the $165 FX-6100 vs. the $180 i5-2300? ...What about the $115 FX-4100 vs. the $125 i3-2100? First, you can actually overclock the AMD chips. You can't overclock the i5-2300 nor the i3-2100. Second, Anand's review made it very clear that Turbo Core in the Bulldozer CPUs works really well - better than it did in the 6-core Thubans, and better than Intel's Turbo Boost. What effects does this have in typical real-world usage scenarios given the i5-2300's comparatively anemic and i3-2100's non-existent Turbo Boost? There are a lot more people who drop <$200 than >$200 on CPUs - and right now, do we have definitive knowledge of the specific, relevant comparisons I mentioned? Why would anyone dismiss an entire architecture when really all we know is how its high-end compares to the competition's high end?
Which is exactly why I already ordered two for my lab - it costs less than the i7-2600K and either rivals or bests it in modern multi-threaded titles. My genomics research uses modern software. But my uses are not typical of the average desktop user. Bulldozer clearly illustrates how a chip can absolutely dominate in one type of task (see Anand's 7-Zip benchmark) while downright stinking for another task (see any single-threaded application benchmark). Five years ago, everyone benefited from moving to a dual core from a single core. Today, not many people will benefit from moving from four to eight cores. My work computing absolutely will benefit from Bulldozer. My home computing absolutely will not. "What are you going to do with your computer?" is now more important than ever in determining what CPU will suit you best.
Are there really so many enthusiasts here and elsewhere who are so myopic they fail to see the flagship Bulldozer SKU beating the flagship Core SKU in a few relevant, real world applications? Are there really so many failing to see that while Bulldozer did not wrest the performance crown from Intel, it finally brings some semblance of competition to the i5-2500 and i7-2600? Again, some people are going to benefit from Bulldozer over the high-end Core SKUs. But not everyone.
Finally, where are the reviews of the $165 FX-6100 vs. the $180 i5-2300? ...What about the $115 FX-4100 vs. the $125 i3-2100? First, you can actually overclock the AMD chips. You can't overclock the i5-2300 nor the i3-2100. Second, Anand's review made it very clear that Turbo Core in the Bulldozer CPUs works really well - better than it did in the 6-core Thubans, and better than Intel's Turbo Boost. What effects does this have in typical real-world usage scenarios given the i5-2300's comparatively anemic and i3-2100's non-existent Turbo Boost? There are a lot more people who drop <$200 than >$200 on CPUs - and right now, do we have definitive knowledge of the specific, relevant comparisons I mentioned? Why would anyone dismiss an entire architecture when really all we know is how its high-end compares to the competition's high end?