- Joined
- Dec 22, 2004
- Messages
- 2,701
- Reaction score
- 192
Ohh how dissapointing....
Discuss.....
You must be registered to see links
Discuss.....
Well i haveYou must be registered to see links. bought it so I can use the FX series, but now....will I see a major difference between the 8150 and 1100T?? all I do is gaming and some video editing.
No, i can't see there being a noticeable difference between the two at all, not for that kind of usage anyway.
Just like how the i5 2500 gave no noticeable difference from the i5 760 at all. If you're upgrading from a much earlier CPU then sure, but just upgrading to the latest every time it comes out, you won't notice alot of difference.
We already knew it wasn't a performance/gaming CPU, it was predominantly for workstations or small servers. I'm not so sure why everyone is so surprised.
Well I have an Athlon X4 640 (bought it while waiting for Bulldozer) so which one should I upgrade to? the new FX 8150 or get the cheaper 1100T and overclock it to 3.9ghz??
OK FOLKS SOME GOOD NEWS (for some people!)
BTW: This is not my work, I just compiled info and ported it here from the thread posted on Xtremesys a couple pages back
Disabling one core per module to avoid resource sharing improves single-threaded IPC ALOT - ACROSS THE BOARD! And surely fixes some of the stranger results we've seen!
Credit to DGLee @ XS who tested this, and to chew who stepped in to confirm having similar results when he was playing around with the chip, so here go the benches improvement when comparing 2M/4C vs 4M/4C:
Fritz Chess: 39,1% improvement
wPrime 32M: 31% improvement
Winrar: 9,5% improvement
3DMark06 CPU: 5.8% improvement
3DMark Vantage CPU: 22.1% improvement
3DMark11 Physics: 14.1% improvement
Cinebench R10: 21.4% improvement
Cinebench R11.5: 19.1% improvement
Blender: 21.7% improvement
TechARP x264 enc: 20% improvement
Daum PotEncoding H264 transcoding: 11,7% improvement
-------------- EDIT TO ELLABORATE ----------------
Now there isn't a direct comparison benchmark but word going around is that these gains across the board seem to leave Bulldozer with a bit more IPC than phenom II!
This means, for people willing to turn off 4 of their threads, that bulldozer will NOT SUCK AS HARD as originally intended in gaming and lightly threaded apps (although we are still waiting on gaming benches to confirm!).. In particular, gains by this are particulary big in some of the weirder results we had seen in original reviews.
IMO this makes BD at least a bit more viable as with 4 cores disabled, you will likely be seeing close to or actual 5Ghz on air and more on water with slightly higher IPC than Phenom! And all the while lowering power draw and heat output!
Ergo, not a 2500k killer by any stretch BUT AT LEAST a viable upgrade for those who already have a 990FX board..
ATTENTION, Currently it is not known if all boards support disabling individual cores, testing was done on a CHV, can't comment on others!
SOURCE:You must be registered to see links.
Even still for the average user in a home PC it would be very good. I barely find myself needing 3 / 4 cores in my PC. I assume this is the same for pretty much everyone unless you play alot of games...
well if its "good" for the average home user then a standard quad is more than enough. The 2500k outperforms it.