?

70$ cheaper than the Intel Core i7 2600K and as fast / faster? If this is confirmed then I don't mind postponing my upgrade plans to a later date in October .

. Going by my calculations and according to [H]ARDOCP, an Intel Core i7 2600K is about 29.88% or 30% faster than an Intel Core i5 2500K . Perhaps I have gotten my calculations wrong?

Anyway, even if it's not 42% faster the benchmarks do indeed seem rather suspicious with those mistakes .

That is a big negative .

The "average consumers" are usually people who do not know a lot about computer hardware and would rather buy and use, also known as "plug & play" in a figurative way . Most of these type of consumers would priotize processors with a high clock speed because theoretically the bigger the GHz, the better the performance. What they don't know is that there are other factors which affect the performance of a processor, which would not allow them to get the best of the best for their budget. Other than priotizing high-clock speed processors, they would also go for a processor with a bigger core count if possible .

This can be applied for Intel processors too. You can take an Intel Core i7 2600 / 2600K and an Intel Core i7 990X as an example . The former is better than the latter in the majority of stuff except applications which can utilize more than 4 cores / threads well. The i7 990X has a slightly higher clock speed and two extra cores .

The release date has already been stated, which would be the 12th of October.

Apparently the retail stores are already getting stock for the new processors, so by the 12th of October they should have already gotten quite a bit of the new processors and you should be able to buy it then on that day.

While you're right that processor performance at high resolutions may not matter much, eventually the much more powerful processor will prevail as more and more games come out. You don't just want to buy a processor enough to last for several new games before losing the required horsepower.

If the FX-8150 is indeed confirmed to be slower / way slower than the i7 2600K when every results have been released fully on its release date, then the only thing I'd say that can save it is its price. Currently it doesn't look really enticing though especially with claims that the retailers are intending to price it at over RM900, close to an Intel Core i7 2600K.

Anyway, SLI requires tweaking and constant checks to keep it in place. Quad SLI hasn't been a very popular option for most as in many cases it can actually be worst than a triple SLI set up due to scaling issues.

Gaming wise it may not be worth choosing an FX processor over an Intel Core i5 2400 if the highest end Bulldozer processor, the FX-8150, is really slower than an Intel Core i5 2500K for such a matter. In terms of multi-threaded applications, it will probably be better.

By theory, if an FX-8150 is slower than an Intel Core i5 2500K in gaming, then the lower end processors would probably be worse. While the FX processors are pretty good overclockers, the price is what sets them back. By referring to lingloong's price list, something like the FX-6100 already costs RM639. I would gladly pay an extra RM20 ( following Viewnet's price ) for an Intel Core i5 2500K for the promise of being able to overclock to over 4.5GHz as well as the promise of having a better gaming performance at stock speed.

Add-on : The above applies only if the leaked results are true. Otherwise take my statement with a grain of salt until it is really confirmed.

I'm not trying to deny the possibility that the Bulldozer processors may actually beat the current Sandy Bridge processors available by a big margin, but judging by the way the person wrote his findings I am forced to take his findings with a pinch of salt as I sense that his testing is bias / certain level of fanboyism included in the testing :




This post has been edited by TDUEnthusiast: Oct 11 2011, 03:45 PM

10% drop in price I'd say, is rather ambitious .

While I expected the Bulldozer processors to have a bad gaming performance compared to Sandy Bridge processors, I never imagined that in some cases it can be so bad, for example the FX-8150 only obtains 32 FPS in Civilization V, 3 FPS less than an Intel Core i5 760, or 92FPS, 7FPS less than an Intel Core i5 760 in "no render" mode. It's quite a sad news, especially for solid AMD fans .

This post has been edited by TDUEnthusiast: Oct 12 2011, 02:30 PM

I'll cross my fingers and hope that AMD will be able to get back on track as a manufacturer of best bang for bucks CPU. Not that I want to return back to AMD ( which I probably won't for quite a long time ), but I don't want to pay RM1500 for an Intel Core i3 ( assuming that they're still going to use such a name ).

All hope's not lost for AMD anyway. Reduced profit is better than little to no profit, so they better make a smart move now to save themselves from collapsing .

That's pretty nice . But to be honest people would still choose an Intel Core i5 2500K over the FX-8150 unless the latter's price is lowered substantially. An average of 51.3 FPS ( at ultra settings 1920x1200, mind you ) is already pretty good. What's more is that it ( i5 2500K ) achieved a minimum of 41FPS, which is recommended for a smooth gameplay.

But strangely, an Intel Core i7 2600K at 4.8GHz managing only a maximum of 72 FPS versus an Intel Core i5 2500K at 4.8GHz with a maximum FPS of 87? Doesn't seem too logical, or perhaps optimization issues like what beta games usually suffer from.

Maybe for Battlefield 3 the FX-8150 performs well, but for the majority of the games the Intel Sandy Bridge processors are still much faster. But still for the i7 2600K to lose 5FPS when overclocked to 4.8GHz compared to stock speed, it doesn't seem right .

The Bulldozer processors aren't entirely useless though. If they're priced much cheaper than they are now they would still probably sell. And well, yes, I have gotten it ( Sabertooth ) . But I don't have time to do a review yet, let alone any ideas on what to write.

This post has been edited by TDUEnthusiast: Oct 13 2011, 02:31 PM

Since when did that happen?

CPUs are bench'd with games on low resolutions since they will be the biggest bottleneck at such resolutions.


But it's also true that at higher resolutions the processor doesn't matter much. Then again, it will show what are the processors really like in games when the load start increasing on them.

The majority of the reviews above show the FX-8150 losing pretty badly or losing to an Intel Core i7 2600K and even an Intel Core i5 2500K.

This post has been edited by TDUEnthusiast: Oct 14 2011, 01:48 PM