AMD FX OC to 8.429

[HK4113]

[KaHuNaZ]

bulldozer was a flop. sooooo disappointing!!

[Merc1138]

Except to get that crazy overclock, they severely gimped the processor to do so. Overclocking and not having a performance gain = failure. You can clearly see at 1:54 that 6 of the 8 cores have been disabled, most of the L2 cache is disabled(because of the cores being disabled), and it took liquid oxygen to do it. There was also no real stability testing done either, the thing might as well have exploded 30 seconds later.

Even at stock or overclocked speeds on air, AMD really screwed this one up. They've been hyping up this CPU for close to a year now, as an 8 core performance monster, yet it's on par with an i5 2500 that costs less and uses less power.

I'm sure someone has read this reply and is thinking "OMG, INTEL FANBOY" well piss off. I've purchased many Intel AND AMD CPUs over the years. I buy from whichever company can get me the most bang for my buck. This was AMDs chance to keep Intel in check with regards to price/performance, something they haven't been able to do for the past couple of years and they completely blew it. Back in "ye olden days of athlon" Intel couldn't touch AMD when it came to high performance for a reasonable cost, but AMD has launched another turd of a CPU that can't beat Intel's 10 month old product, and Intel is set to update their products in 3 months.

[2shotjoe]

its cool and all, but its a big flop when it comes to single thread processes. I guess I have to wait another 5 years for a good AMD cpu.

[ExtremeX]

I'm all into computers and tech but when I see videos like this and I just don't really care... Its not an AMD vs Intel thing, I just see a bunch of people playing with clock rates yet the entire thing looks totally impractical...

Maybe im just too into the server world where stability and reliability are the key selling points. Its nice to have fast clock rates, but whats the application, bragging rights?

Why not just cluster a few reliable servers to get the loads you need.

[resident-shooter]

Except to get that crazy overclock, they severely gimped the processor to do so. Overclocking and not having a performance gain = failure. You can clearly see at 1:54 that 6 of the 8 cores have been disabled, most of the L2 cache is disabled(because of the cores being disabled), and it took liquid oxygen to do it. There was also no real stability testing done either, the thing might as well have exploded 30 seconds later.

Even at stock or overclocked speeds on air, AMD really screwed this one up. They've been hyping up this CPU for close to a year now, as an 8 core performance monster, yet it's on par with an i5 2500 that costs less and uses less power.

I'm sure someone has read this reply and is thinking "OMG, INTEL FANBOY" well piss off. I've purchased many Intel AND AMD CPUs over the years. I buy from whichever company can get me the most bang for my buck. This was AMDs chance to keep Intel in check with regards to price/performance, something they haven't been able to do for the past couple of years and they completely blew it. Back in "ye olden days of athlon" Intel couldn't touch AMD when it came to high performance for a reasonable cost, but AMD has launched another turd of a CPU that can't beat Intel's 10 month old product, and Intel is set to update their products in 3 months.

haha I completely agree about running only a couple of cores at that speed being pointless. Bulldozer was indeed disappointing. AMD needs to do something about the architecture of their CPU's. I mean I still think that the value of phenom's is good, but simply adding a million cores does not help. Most games cant use more than 4 cores anyways, so whats the point? Intel actually works on the quality of cores.

[Nick1236]

I'll stick with my AMD 955 BE OCed to 3.5Ghz.

Works just fine.

[Merc1138]

haha I completely agree about running only a couple of cores at that speed being pointless. Bulldozer was indeed disappointing. AMD needs to do something about the architecture of their CPU's. I mean I still think that the value of phenom's is good, but simply adding a million cores does not help. Most games cant use more than 4 cores anyways, so whats the point? Intel actually works on the quality of cores.

Exactly, AMD seriously screwed the pooch with this. Back when AMD was pretty much curb stomping Intel for CPUs people would buy to put in high end gaming systems, Intel was criticized on a regular basis for doing nothing but marketing megahertz(and then gigahertz) while AMD was actually doing something with their core besides making the transistors switch faster.

There are even a few benchmarks that show AMD's older 6 core CPU beating their new 8 core. What?

Now we've got the opposite with AMD just adding cores and getting nothing out of it, and then using a completely impractical overclocking stunt to market how fast they can get the transistors to switch(on a cherry picked sample). This is not going to encourage Intel to bring their $300 CPUs back down to $200-$250.

Then there is the power consumption. Yeah, the value of AMD's CPUs on a strictly cost vs. performance basis isn't horrible, but those 8 cores do eat more power. More power costs more money, increases the cost of the required power supply, more heat produced by the CPU, more aggressive(and possibly louder/expensive) cooling required, more heat dumped into the room where the system is(last winter my computer room never dropped below 60 degrees with the window open and fan running all winter long, heat output does make a difference).

The lack of anything worth while from AMD over the past year is why I'm still running a q9650(well, technically an x3370), and I had been waiting for AMD to give Intel a run for their money with "bulldozer", but it's more like a tonka toy. This late in the sandy bridge i7 game, I'll just wait for Intel's ivy bridge launch next year.

Yes, I'm pissed about AMD failing to produce a processor that performs great or forces Intel to keep pricing in check.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SArxcnpXStE

edit: probably not best to embed that due to some warranted NSFW language.

[pc_load_letter]

That Downfall parody pretty much says it all. You can get cheaper and faster CPU's from intel.

AMD use to make such great CPU's. Remember the original FX-55. That was fast CPU and blew the doors off the P4.

MP

[resident-shooter]

Exactly, AMD seriously screwed the pooch with this. Back when AMD was pretty much curb stomping Intel for CPUs people would buy to put in high end gaming systems, Intel was criticized on a regular basis for doing nothing but marketing megahertz(and then gigahertz) while AMD was actually doing something with their core besides making the transistors switch faster.

There are even a few benchmarks that show AMD's older 6 core CPU beating their new 8 core. What?

Now we've got the opposite with AMD just adding cores and getting nothing out of it, and then using a completely impractical overclocking stunt to market how fast they can get the transistors to switch(on a cherry picked sample). This is not going to encourage Intel to bring their $300 CPUs back down to $200-$250.

Then there is the power consumption. Yeah, the value of AMD's CPUs on a strictly cost vs. performance basis isn't horrible, but those 8 cores do eat more power. More power costs more money, increases the cost of the required power supply, more heat produced by the CPU, more aggressive(and possibly louder/expensive) cooling required, more heat dumped into the room where the system is(last winter my computer room never dropped below 60 degrees with the window open and fan running all winter long, heat output does make a difference).

The lack of anything worth while from AMD over the past year is why I'm still running a q9650(well, technically an x3370), and I had been waiting for AMD to give Intel a run for their money with "bulldozer", but it's more like a tonka toy. This late in the sandy bridge i7 game, I'll just wait for Intel's ivy bridge launch next year.

Yes, I'm pissed about AMD failing to produce a processor that performs great or forces Intel to keep pricing in check.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SArxcnpXStE

edit: probably not best to embed that due to some warranted NSFW language.

Yep, I remember those older Pentium 4 processors with hyper threading and like 3.8 ghz. Like what is the point when there is only one core? Split it between 2 threads and u only get 1.9ghz per thread. Then pentium D dual cores came along and they sucked, so they quickly replaces them with core 2 (duo/quad) cpu's which were significantly better, but expensive to produce. Even today they are about as expensive as Core i CPU's. Intel now got the ball....


Then again, the value of Intel processors is still questionable.