New AMD Processors! Opinions?

Xilorator

Blackpulse Admin
Prolly gettin the new AMD FX-6100 instead of the 1100T. Might even go up to the AMD FX-8150

AMD FX-6100 3.30 GHz Six-Core AM3+ CPU 6MB L2 Cache & Turbo Core Technology
AMD FX-8150 3.60 GHz Eight-Core AM3+ CPU 8MB L2 Cache & Turbo Core Technology
AMD FX-8120 3.10 GHz Eight-Core AM3+ CPU 8MB L2 Cache & Turbo Core Technology
AMD FX-4100 3.60 GHz Quad-Core AM3+ CPU 4MB L2 Cache & Turbo Core Technology

What do you guys think? The overclocking on them seems pretty easy and I think even I could do it.
 

Cock

Cockilicious
Staff member
Both Tom's Hardware and AnandTech, for example, point out the AMD FX's struggles with single- or lightly threaded workloads, are soundly thrashed by Intel's current "Sandy Bridge" processors, and TechSpot concludes that "when it came time to play games the FX range was really no better than the Phenom II."

Oh AMD :( what happened?
 

Cock

Cockilicious
Staff member
Piledriver isn't going to be out until Aug 2012. I'd hope by then AMD can catch up to the i5 of today. LGA 2011 is coming out soon along with PCI-E 3.0 next year intel has got their shit together.

I'd like to see some BF3 benchmarks on these AMD processors. They only seem to suck when doing single threaded programs but rip on multi core/threaded programs.
 

Pyro

TD Admin
They only seem to suck when doing single threaded programs but rip on multi core/threaded programs.

which is why gamers should not want them :(
however, bf3 is going to support multithreading (8 threads), so it will be interesting to see the numbers once they start coming in. im going to not go out on a limb here and guess that the i7 2600k (or the really expensive i7s) will be the top performer. that being said, bf3 will be more gpu bottlenecked from what i understand.
 

Glocky

Drinking your tears
2600K is the best bang for the buck currently, if you had to build a system this week.
 

47

TD Admin, Chicken Licker, Top Shelf Sleeper
2500k is the bang for buck, idk why ppl bother with AMD, i just dont understand
 

LT_Clash

TD Member
<rant>

People still buy amd/ati because 1) as buckyj said there cheaper or 2) AMD still builds the best Processors for doing large format multi core applications, IE, rendering, video or image manipulation, audio rendering. Anything super CPU sided that requierd the use of more than 1 core i would rather have a faster quad-core then intels slower quads with a typically smaller cache size. the reason intel chips are better for the end user, ie gamers, is because they are by far, by far better for running less CPU intense things, like games, movies general work, all due to the way that hyper threading works, is the typically slower individual cores work together on a single thing, which in turns makes them faster. most people do not need a quad core and very few people need an 8core cpu, simply because in everyday use theres nothing that needs it, Under any given time if any of you hit ctr-shift-esc and check your cpu loads i dout you go much above 20% doing reguler things and 50% gaming

wich is why a 2.4 ghz with a 6mb cache i7 will by far out preform my 3.4ghz with a 6 mb cache X4 black (thease were the 2 CPUs competeing on the same level and price range at my time of purchase), but because of the faster speed of the amd for the higher end things, and because i built my machine for work, il take the loose in game preformence for the improovment in render times, each of thos cores is about 33% faster than the intell at full load, full load is basicly imposible for windows users but even a conservitive 20% faster guesstement on a visual effects shot that has 80 frames rendering at 10 mins per frame, thats a difference of finishing the render in 200mins on my cpu or 240mins on the intel. that's 40 more mins i can work on the next shot, or go into gaming :D

all that being said anyone who buys the first iteration of anything computer realated, ie 8 core prossesors or pci 3.0 is kinda dumb, you buy it knowing full well that a better version will be out very very soon. look at quads, a ton of people picked up intels first quads and less than a year later the I5s were out, followed quickly by the I7s. i would not buy any of these chips, there fancy and im sure in 2-4 years im sure they will be awesome. but not yet.

</rant>
 

Glocky

Drinking your tears
2600k is currently over $90 more expensive then 2500k.

Sooooo I fail to see your point.
Bah. I almost bought one because it was on sale for the same price as a 2500K. Went back and looked at it now, and yeah, about $90 more.
With the sale price, for sure the 2600K, without the sale price 2500K for sure.
 

Cock

Cockilicious
Staff member
Clash ~ is it the same for video encoding/transcoding?

Good post, didn't even have to use my 'clashspeak' translator ;)
 

LT_Clash

TD Member
i dont do alot of video encoding, since my work is mostly done with tiff img sequences, ie I render out an invividual tiff format image for every frame of film, and send that to the client, for the higher quality. as far as i know video encoding is a more GPU intensive thing, tho cutting and rendering in a video formate is not my expertise.
 

.44 caliber

TD Admin
@ Clash

So when put into English...

If i want a gaming computer, I stick with intel??

If I want to be a Hyper nerd... and impress chicks with render times, AMD?
 

LT_Clash

TD Member
If I want to be a Hyper nerd... and impress chicks with render times, AMD?

basicly, tho you gotta learn to phrase it better. Open with the line you know that movie, I did that.

also who trys to impress chicks with there computers? im not sure that would have a very high sucsess rate
 
Top