New Processing CHIP for extreme gaming

AMD's bulldog architecture does not play nice with Windows 7(do to it not being able to properly initiate multi-threading). That being said AMD does promise it is properly optimized for Windows 8. If they can optimize it for Windows 8 then I would say AMD could be a good buy for the buck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soukyuu

Are we talking about the time it takes from pressing the on button to desktop appearing here? I'm not using raid, ssd is the crucial m4. My brother has a similar boot time as you with the same SSD but Intel's Z78 chipset. My booting time is about 24-31 seconds.

---

yes 13 seconds, until the PC is in the ready state using Intel 320 SSD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Presbytier

AMD's bulldog architecture does not play nice with Windows 7(do to it not being able to properly initiate multi-threading). That being said AMD does promise it is properly optimized for Windows 8. If they can optimize it for Windows 8 then I would say AMD could be a good buy for the buck.

---

there's nothing wrong with the bulldozers, save for the fact that there more of a Budget Server Processor than an actual Desktop Processor. Ive compared both the FX 4100 and the Phenom 2 x4 965 and found that the FX processors performed better for data crunching but flopped at actual raw data throughput. while the phenom was notably weaker at data crunching it blew the FX-4100 out of the water at raw data throughput.

As a side note the FX series do not multi thread in the same traditional matter as one might expect, its more along the lines of Data Sharing between two cores to get things done faster....kinda like SLI or Crossfire. the FX Line CPU's are interesting in the fact that 2 cores are one thread, its also easy to confuse as one thinks of 4 cores being 4 threads this is not the case with the FX series as the proper Core to thread ratio is 2:1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Presbytier

AMD's bulldozer architecture does not play nice with Windows 7(do to it not being able to properly initiate multi-threading). That being said AMD does promise it is properly optimized for Windows 8. If they can optimize it for Windows 8 then I would say AMD could be a good buy for the buck.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valmonte

there's nothing wrong with the bulldozers, save for the fact that there more of a Budget Server Processor than an actual Desktop Processor. Ive compared both the FX 4100 and the Phenom 2 x4 965 and found that the FX processors performed better for data crunching but flopped at actual raw data throughput. while the phenom was notably weaker at data crunching it blew the FX-4100 out of the water at raw data throughput.

As a side note the FX series do not multi thread in the same traditional matter as one might expect, its more along the lines of Data Sharing between two cores to get things done faster....kinda like SLI or Crossfire. the FX Line CPU's are interesting in the fact that 2 cores are one thread, its also easy to confuse as one thinks of 4 cores being 4 threads this is not the case with the FX series as the proper Core to thread ratio is 2:1

---

To clarify some more what I meant. According to AMD, Windows 7 doesn’t understand Bulldozer’s resource allocation very well. Windows 7 “sees” eight independent CPU cores, despite the fact that each module shares scheduling and execution resources. Sometimes it makes the most sense to spin threads off to idle cores before scheduling them on cores already busy with something else. Other times, it’s best to spin two related threads off to the same core. Windows 8 will apparently be much more proficient at scheduling workloads where it makes the most sense to execute them. So, whether it is bad design by AMD is certainly disputable it is interesting to not several executives at AMD left right before Bulldozer was launched.

APU's for extreme gaming = nonsence. Is ok for the casual gamer that plays at medium settings. The GPU in that APU is about the same as a 6650 and thats a really cheap entry gaming card.
As for the discussion about AMD vs Intel i run a i7 3930k @4.5ghz my brother runs a AMD phenom 965 @4.0Ghz we both have a 7970 and we get pretty much the same fps on any game.

AMDs are cheap for a reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Issachar

AMDs are cheap for a reason.

---

there boot leg intel's. funny thing is it true.

Quote:

---

If you don't need the latest i5/i7, why pay for it? The mainstream AMD CPU is cheaper and will work just as well for most people in most situations. Only if you're a really hardcore user does most of this even matter. Even if you buy the more expensive or better "price/performance ratio" CPU, you're still going to replace it just as / nearly as often, so are you really saving money? Answer: Probably not.

---

im running a intel i7 860 @4ghz, 8GB DDR3 dualchannel, 2x 480gtx, and still can run anything maxed out built back in 2008. no way a AMD has ever laster me that long before i started getting jerky frames..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valmonte

yes 13 seconds, until the PC is in the ready state using Intel 320 SSD.

---

That is interesting. Which board do you have? BIOS or UEFI?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by indira

there boot leg intel's. funny thing is it true.


im running a intel i7 860 @4ghz, 8GB DDR3 dualchannel, 2x 480gtx, and still can run anything maxed out built back in 2008. no way a AMD has ever laster me that long before i started getting jerky frames..

---

Phenom cpus are older then that yet my brother's pc maxes everything >.> ppl buying i7's for gaming are just wasting money unless they run crossfire/sli of top cards which a 480 is not. Even when it was lauched the 480 lost against AMD top gpus. Noway quad core phenom would limit that 480 lol. Like i said my brother runs a 7970 which beats yr SLI setup and his cpu doesnt bottleneck the card.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by indira

there boot leg intel's. funny thing is it true.


im running a intel i7 860 @4ghz, 8GB DDR3 dualchannel, 2x 480gtx, and still can run anything maxed out built back in 2008. no way a AMD has ever laster me that long before i started getting jerky frames..

---

No Intel has ever lasted me that long before i started getting jerky frames. Apples and oranges and pears and pomegranites. None of the different CPUs you ever used could be directly compared in any fair unbiased manner. I can't claim that either. User experience is everything. Just because something works for you doesn't mean it will work for everyone else.

Also: What the guy above said.

You're just throwing the brand names around in a fanboy like way.