Go Back   Steam Users' Forums > Steam Discussions > Hardware and Operating Systems

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-21-2012, 06:42 AM   #31
MADDOGGE
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Reputation: 10543
Posts: 25,910
Quote:
Originally Posted by dosbox View Post
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=287

Add a few percent to the i7-2600K results and you get the idea.

Just for laughs, I predict the following will occur in this thread:

a) statements about the i7-2700K not being worth the money
b) recommendation that you buy the i5-2500K as that is the sweet spot
c) comments about Bulldozer systems crashing/BSOD in various games, and that a BIOS update is required
d) how anandtech are intel shills
e) how you don't need that much CPU horsepower for gaming
f) how Windows 7 is holding Bulldozer back
g) how intel motherboards are more expensive than AMD motherboards
h) how intel/AMD chips run hotter than AMD/intel chips
i) how cpu X is a great overclocker - sometimes from the same people who make claim (e)
j) tell you to wait for Ivy Bridge/Piledriver
Damn spot on!
MADDOGGE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2012, 09:34 AM   #32
dosbox
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Reputation: 2573
Posts: 8,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by MADDOGGE View Post
Damn spot on!
I wasn't expecting the Linux one, especially as the stated purpose is for gaming.
dosbox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2012, 04:52 AM   #33
XxaP
 
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Reputation: 7
Posts: 118
the 2600k is better than the 2700k for gaming, it is the faster of the two. The 2700k is optimized for multithreading and more .. scientific.. applications, where the 4 cores of the 2600k are just starting to be tapped into by programmers
80% (approximately) of games benchmark better on the 2600k
XxaP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2012, 05:09 AM   #34
Overclocker_
 
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Reputation: 439
Posts: 2,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by dosbox View Post
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=287

Add a few percent to the i7-2600K results and you get the idea.

Just for laughs, I predict the following will occur in this thread:

a) statements about the i7-2700K not being worth the money
b) recommendation that you buy the i5-2500K as that is the sweet spot
c) comments about Bulldozer systems crashing/BSOD in various games, and that a BIOS update is required
d) how anandtech are intel shills
e) how you don't need that much CPU horsepower for gaming
f) how Windows 7 is holding Bulldozer back
g) how intel motherboards are more expensive than AMD motherboards
h) how intel/AMD chips run hotter than AMD/intel chips
i) how cpu X is a great overclocker - sometimes from the same people who make claim (e)
j) tell you to wait for Ivy Bridge/Piledriver
a) It's not, compared to the 2500k and 2600k
b) It is the sweet spot
c) For some motherboard, yeah
d) No comment
e) That's just untrue. MOAR POWAH!
f) Windows 7 is blissfully ignorant of how Bulldozer works, it has no knowledge of the module based design
g) Most of them are
h) Intel chips run warmer, but they can handle the higher temperatures. AMD chips run cooler, but they can't handle as much head as intel ones.
i) Almost any CPU is a great overclocker these days
j) Or whatever AMD is going to fart out in a poor response to Intel
Overclocker_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2012, 06:40 AM   #35
madpistol
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Reputation: 923
Posts: 4,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by XxaP View Post
the 2600k is better than the 2700k for gaming, it is the faster of the two. The 2700k is optimized for multithreading and more .. scientific.. applications, where the 4 cores of the 2600k are just starting to be tapped into by programmers
80% (approximately) of games benchmark better on the 2600k
You should probably check your facts on that statement. The 2600k and 2700k are identical chips except for the fact that the 2700k is clocked 100mhz higher. That makes the 2700k a tiny bit faster.
madpistol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2012, 07:32 AM   #36
wuliheron
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Reputation: 298
Posts: 2,677
Just gotta add k) to the list:

k) AMD used automated design tools to create bulldozer making it less efficient then sandy bridge, but better suited for economically adapting it to their upcoming heterogeneous architectures and general push towards mobile computing.
wuliheron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2012, 03:36 PM   #37
mmstick
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Reputation: 74
Posts: 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuliheron View Post
Just gotta add k) to the list:

k) AMD used automated design tools to create bulldozer making it less efficient then sandy bridge, but better suited for economically adapting it to their upcoming heterogeneous architectures and general push towards mobile computing.
Um, both Intel and AMD use automated design tools... they both have for years...doesn't make them less efficient. Would you like to design a processor with 1.2 billion transistors by hand? Only difference is Intel can spend more time doing automatic design tweaks while AMD has a fixed tight budget because few people buy AMD. But on the budget that AMD has they do very good at keeping up with Intel, spending less than 1/6th the R&D.

And as for others, AMD Bulldozer doesnt have BSOD issues with any games, all motherboards shipped today as of December have the latest BIOS which makes BSOD a non-issue and all people with older motherboards just need latest BIOS. Don't try bringing up an issue that was fixed two months ago and is irrelevant to today's consumer.

Overall, I think the choice should be between FX-8120 and Core i7 2600k. Both are good, depends on what fits your needs at the moment and if your upgrade path suits your wallet, either way, you won't notice much, if any difference in gaming.
mmstick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2012, 04:24 PM   #38
wuliheron
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Reputation: 298
Posts: 2,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmstick View Post
Um, both Intel and AMD use automated design tools... they both have for years...doesn't make them less efficient.
Check out this article if you don't believe me:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...er_Fiasco.html

"Cliff A. Maier, an AMD engineer who left the company several years ago, the chip designer decided to abandon practice of hand-crafting various performance-critical parts of its chips and rely completely on automatic tools....The management decided there should be such cross-engineering [between AMD and ATI teams within the company] ,which meant we had to stop hand-crafting our CPU designs and switch to an SoC design style...Apparently, automatically-generated designs are 20% bigger and 20% slower than hand-crafted designs, which results in increased transistor count, die space, cost and power efficiency."

Also note that AMD later insisted Bulldozer only has 1.2 billion transistors rather then the 2 billion they originally said it has.

Last edited by wuliheron: 02-22-2012 at 04:34 PM.
wuliheron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2012, 06:10 PM   #39
mmstick
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Reputation: 74
Posts: 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuliheron View Post
Check out this article if you don't believe me:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...er_Fiasco.html

"Cliff A. Maier, an AMD engineer who left the company several years ago, the chip designer decided to abandon practice of hand-crafting various performance-critical parts of its chips and rely completely on automatic tools....The management decided there should be such cross-engineering [between AMD and ATI teams within the company] ,which meant we had to stop hand-crafting our CPU designs and switch to an SoC design style...Apparently, automatically-generated designs are 20% bigger and 20% slower than hand-crafted designs, which results in increased transistor count, die space, cost and power efficiency."

Also note that AMD later insisted Bulldozer only has 1.2 billion transistors rather then the 2 billion they originally said it has.
So? Do you not know how they make processors? You can't use hand-crafting anymore, that doesn't work anymore, both AMD and Intel abandoned it a long time ago. Yes, it's not as accurate as hand-crafting was, but it is getting better over time, the tradeoff is that now they can design very complex processors quickly with significantly less R&D costs.

That same article you put reads:

"Another positive, upbeat AMD commentary by Xbit's based on unknowns and one engineer's recollection of what was happening years ago when he left AMD. there's nothing like quality research and reporting to skew public opinion and spread FUD." -beenthere

"What the article does not mention is that Intel has been using mostly automated design tools to design their chips for a long time. Very little of Intel's designs nowadays are handcrafted." -quasi_accurate

Once again, do you think Intel really uses their own hands to craft a processor with over one billion transistors? Intel has been using automated designs since as early as the late 70s and early 80s.

And yes, of course, it stated 2 but changed to 1.2 billion, your point? We already knew it was 1.2 billion to begin with if you had any idea what it was based off, they wouldn't release a desktop processor that has more transistors than the server counter-part its made from.
mmstick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2012, 06:36 PM   #40
addz17
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Reputation: 0
Posts: 31
At the end of the day you get for what you pay for.... However for specifically gaming on any single card solution a well clocked Phenom II quad will be more than adequate for any game at any setting up to 60fps for a couple of years.
Anything more more expensive is just a luxury and you wont see much benefit gaming unless you require 600fps at 800x600
addz17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2012, 07:57 PM   #41
trek554
 
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2005
Reputation: 636
Posts: 8,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by addz17 View Post
At the end of the day you get for what you pay for.... However for specifically gaming on any single card solution a well clocked Phenom II quad will be more than adequate for any game at any setting up to 60fps for a couple of years.
Anything more more expensive is just a luxury and you wont see much benefit gaming unless you require 600fps at 800x600
sorry but a Phenom 2 X4 cannot even average 60fps on highest settings for some games NOW.
trek554 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2012, 03:06 AM   #42
wuliheron
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Reputation: 298
Posts: 2,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmstick View Post
So?
So, people have a right to know if there is even a hint that AMD is moving away from performance cpu designs and towards SoCs. This article hinted that they were and, sure enough, AMD fired a large number of employees including higher management, reorganized, and then announced they were moving away from performance designs toward a greater emphasis on SoCs and heterogeneous architecture.

Personally I'm an AMD fan and hope they kick Intel's butt with heterogeneous designs including PC gaming APUs capable of physics and AI. However, it will be another two years at least before they have integrated the cpu and gpu memory and the transition could be bumpy. Llano has been a huge success and I suspect Trinity will be a smash hit, but if piledriver turns out to be less then overwhelming for PC gaming I won't be horribly disappointed. The under dog has to think of long term strategy instead of competing point for point with the eight hundred pound gorilla.
wuliheron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2012, 08:26 AM   #43
addz17
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Reputation: 0
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by trek554 View Post
sorry but a Phenom 2 X4 cannot even average 60fps on highest settings for some games NOW.

I7 2600k with GTX580 - BF3 1680x1050 - 66fps minimum
Phenom 980 x4 with GTX580 - BF3 1680x1050 64fps minimum

When it comes to gaming throwing money at your CPU does very little lol
addz17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2012, 08:34 AM   #44
trek554
 
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2005
Reputation: 636
Posts: 8,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by addz17 View Post
I7 2600k with GTX580 - BF3 1680x1050 - 66fps minimum
Phenom 980 x4 with GTX580 - BF3 1680x1050 64fps minimum

When it comes to gaming throwing money at your CPU does very little lol
that is single player and that does not change the fact that a Phenom X4 could not provide 60 fps average much less minimums for years to come like you claim. again it cant even do that now for some games.
trek554 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2012, 08:38 AM   #45
Overclocker_
 
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Reputation: 439
Posts: 2,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by trek554 View Post
that is single player and that does not change the fact that a Phenom X4 could not provide 60 fps average much less minimums for years to come like you claim. again it cant even do that now for some games.
Proof, please. Surely you have evidence to back up your claims?
Overclocker_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Steam Users' Forums > Steam Discussions > Hardware and Operating Systems


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site Content Copyright Valve Corporation 1998-2012, All Rights Reserved.