AMD FX-8120 review

Comments 51 to 59 of 59

.//TuNdRa 30th July 2012, 00:08 Quote
Part of that is just the dieshrink, too.
xxxsonic1971 31st July 2012, 22:41 Quote
would AMD be better making cpu's that compete with i3, and maybe leave the higher -end chips to intel?
.//TuNdRa 31st July 2012, 22:46 Quote
Not really. Even the i3 is pretty damn fast in relation to some stuff. They need something at the high-end, too, because that's where most of the Server research goes, too.

Bulldozer is basically just a server chip, after all.

No, AMD's current best product is Llano. It's just a shame you can't get good FM1 motherboards. They're all low-end cheapy stuff. Give us a slightly more expensive, but feature packed FM1 motherboard and it'll be cool.
NethLyn 1st August 2012, 20:59 Quote
This is turning into the Ebay situation when that company decided it didn't want all those pesky loft-clearing casual sellers anymore, just the big boys and SMEs.

The equivalent here is AMD not wanting all us pesky but loyal/tight consumer desktop CPU buyers, only the GPU speed freaks.

I never liked paying Intel's motherboard tax, but if it gets me a working CPU with all cores [EDIT] effectively threaded then I'll just save up more dough for it and eke it out to 6 years instead of 5, and as AMD wants, just stick to Radeons within the next couple of years.
.//TuNdRa 1st August 2012, 21:17 Quote
All physical cores? I think you're getting confused about the state of Hyperthreading. Even the I3 is just a Dual core, but hyperthreaded.
NethLyn 1st August 2012, 21:26 Quote
You caught me out - seems like Intel are able to make their hyperthreading more effective, so now I'm just dispassionate about CPUs, always used to set a £150 limit on them, now it's just who's got the best one, and any time before 2014 that's going to be Intel.
.//TuNdRa 1st August 2012, 21:46 Quote
Part of it is that Windows 7 currently doesn't schedule properly for the Bulldozer cores without an optional Hotfix, and another part is that while bulldozer has more potential; It's limited by the much lower IPC over the Intel chip, so the bottlenecks where Hypertheading slows things down, (Hence the "Only" 30% boost in performance) Aren't so obvious as they are with the module design in BD.
Jediron 5th August 2012, 17:43 Quote
Originally Posted by .//TuNdRa
Originally Posted by Hustler
Still only a Quad Core with some fancy new Hyper Threading thrown in.

Dishonest marketing from AMD.

Not entirely. Some parts of it are completely doubled. It's more like 1.7 cores per module. It's just the Integer units aren't doubled, which means Bulldozer Tanks in any mathematical tests that stress more than four cores.
Worng. The INT = doubled, the FP(u) unit is NOT.
.//TuNdRa 5th August 2012, 17:46 Quote
Whoops. I always get the two confused, t'ever. It's still a flaw in the design, you'd think with all the other doubled points; they'd alleviate that choking-point in the design.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.

Discuss in the forums