Microsoft released a patch for W7 earlier this year that fixed the scheduler issue. Performance improved by 1-3% in moderately threaded workloads. That's all you get, that's all you're going to get. Bulldozer's problems are directly tied to certain architectural decisions and cache performance.
Have to love those Intel fanboys first off u r right that amd does not preform as hi as some highly priced intel chips but i can do things with my amd 8 core that i cant do with my i2700 for one i can open 3 games at once on 3 monitors with no lag cant do that with my i 2700 lags like a [censored],so my amd 8 cores loves me to feed it all the software i can and still runs great try that with your intel cpu.
Comparison video or it didn't happen. :)
When comparing Intel and AMD CPUs, I suspect a lot of the gamers here will find this recent Tech Report article of great interest : http://techreport.com/articles.x/23246 ....
Your link is a good read, but it only reinforces what most already know. AMD's FX CPUs have left them trailing Intel by a lot.
The good news is that the FX4170 and the 980 Black are a decent deal and I can say from personal experience that they do perform well.
You may not top the benchmarks with either of them, but they play games at decent frame-rates (with a good GPU installed in the system) without getting too hot.
I think, realneil, that the main point of the article was to show that frame rate is not an adequate measurement of the gaming experience and that frame latency is a superior metrological instrument for this purpose. Thus it has - if I understand it aright - a wider relevance than just the current situation obtaining between Intel and AMD CPUs (which I hope will at least in part be rectified by the Steamroller series) ; it teaches us - or at least should teach us - not to stare ourselves blind on frame rates. If more reviewers adopt these methods and the general public (or at least its enthusiast component) becomes aware of these facts, perhaps manufacturers will be forced to provide us with better processors (but they'd better not have rounded corners !)...
And the results of their testing was damn close to standard testing methodologies anyways. Intel still rules the roost and AMD CPUs don't.
My point was that (leaving benchmarks of any sort out of it) both of my AMD gaming CPUs, the 980 and the 4170 deliver a good 'real world' gaming experience if you have a decent GPU in the system. People keep pointing to benches and they ridicule AMD's efforts, but I say that they're OK with me.
Spot on my friend, not everyone is aiming for the highest benchmark scores, some people need solutions that fit their need and are affordable. Intels prices though better then before do not compare to AMD, especially in regards to economy builds. AMD CPU's perform very well and are more then sufficient for most average users, Intels lead has captured the enthusiasts but the low to mid range belongs more to AMD. Piledriver looks very promising but steamroller will have a new architecture, that IMO will put AMD back into the minds of the benchmark obsessed. I have my x6 1055t @ 3.65 GHZ and it outperforms i5 2500k in every benchmark and is excellent for video rendering.
Yes, but they also stated it is not the equivalent to Windows 8 core parking and module accessing, the hotfix is a meager attempt at rectifying the addressing issues by accessing modules as though they were SMT threads and not physical cores, the CMT design is flawed because it ignores the current standard for fetching and decoding found in most OS's. Linux is much better in this situation, the FX thrives in a Linux environment. Also, I have benched the FX on a Windows 8 machine, there were HUGE gains, Im talking 15-20% on most benchmarks, the BD architecture is fundamentally flawed several ways but if utilized properly is a real power house, the next step which will be addressed with Piledriver will be the TDP and IPC, but we will not see a true revision of the architecture until steamroller.
Its hilarious when people get ecstatic by reaching an extra 20 frames in games while the competition performs at 100 frames, I guarantee those 20 frames will not be noticeable, as long as you get a steady FPS at 60 or better, you will have an equally satisfying experience. As for intel CPU's out performing AMD, sure the high end intel is light years ahead of AMD in most benchmarks, that however does not render all AMD CPU's useless, especially if you know how to properly overclock. My current x6 1055t which I bought for 70 dollars less then the i5 2500k completely blows it out of the water at 3.65 GHZ. Dont count out AMD just yet, intel has been here before too, veterans of tech know how the market trends can change instantly. Also even if AMD decides to drop out of the enthusiast segment, believe me they have plenty of other ventures to follow. When ARM shows up to the enthusiast desktop scene, things will get very interesting, and Nvidia has also made remarks about releasing a desktop CPU! The future looks very exciting, in any case I root for technology and competition, without a good competitor intels already inflated prices will only go up!
I think many (but, it would seem, not all) participants in this discussion share your hope, RMadatyan, that AMD gets back in the game with respect to high-end CPUs - not merely because of the effect that this would exert on prices, but also because it would stimulate innovation. Intel, for example, would hardly feel the same pressure to improve their products if AMD weren't around (and vice versa). For my part, I also hope that when testing CPU performance in a gaming context, the present somewhat excessive emphasis on frame rates (surely there's a limit above which an increase in frame rates provides no noticeable improvement in user experience, although just where that limit goes is open to debate) is toned down and that other considerations, like frame latency are taken into account. In any event, I'm greatly looking forward to Steamroller - if it does the job and the price is reasonable, I'll consider using one of the versions in a new build, even though I hardly need it - my trusty Phenom II X4 955 does everything I ask of it....
as for me I have the I7 and I have a FX6100 and sorry to say but my amd fx6100 runs alot better than my i7. the I7 locks up all the time and my amd never slows down. I replaced my I7 thinking it was the processor being bad but my new one does the same thing
Your i7 has configuration problems.
They usually work without any hiccups.
Mine seems to be bulletproof. (it's like the Energizer Bunny)
It usually isn't the CPU that goes. The mainboard or the PSU are usually the culprits.
The statement "You can STILL buy x4 955 BE (Which are unlocked and OC them to 4.5ghz on air)" is HIGHLY unlikely.I have the 955 and an aftermarket air cooler and cant even get it stable @ 4Ghz.Matter of fact the sweet spot for the majority of 955 users is at around 3.8Ghz..Even with water cooling its harder than you think to get 4Ghz stable.With that being said I still love my 955 and still love AMD and would not get an Intel ove an AMD product any day.Intel charges WAY too much for their chips, and AMD can hold its own on a lot of different programs and games.
TLDR: I love AMD and Intel is way overpriced.