Discussion for AMD CPU/APU owners


Recommended Posts

Also, PRICE!

Cheapest FX AMD Motherboard, Ram + CPU vs Similar Priced Intel Motherboard, Ram + CPU. (i3)

GIGABYTE GA-970A-DS3 AMD 970A (Socket AM3+) DDR3 PCI-Express ATX Motherboard ? 44.99

AMD Bulldozer FX-4100 3.60GHz (3.80GHz Turbo) Socket AM3+ 4-Core Processor ? 70.79

8GB Exceleram Value Series (1x8GB) DDR3 PC3-10666C9 1333MHz 1.5v SODIMM Memory - E30804S ? 27.99

?172.52 w/VAT

Intel Core i3-2100 3.10GHz (Sandybridge) Socket LGA1155 Processor - Retail ? 69.95

MSI Z68A-G43-G3 Intel Z68 (REV B3) Socket 1155 DDR3 PCI-Express Motherboard ? 59.99

8GB Exceleram Value Series (1x8GB) DDR3 PC3-10666C9 1333MHz 1.5v SODIMM Memory - E30804S ? 27.99

?189.52 w/VAT

FX-4100 is a quad-core, 3.60GHz processor. The i3-2100 is a dual core, 3.10Ghz processor.

In passmark benchmarks, the i3 scores 3851 points and the FX scores 3988 points. The FX-4100 system is also ?17 cheaper.

And the best bit is LINUX BENCHMARKS :p.

embed.php?i=1110171-AR-BULLDOZER86&sha=830ac33&p=2

embed.php?i=1110171-AR-BULLDOZER86&sha=7729929&p=2

embed.php?i=1110171-AR-BULLDOZER86&sha=42f98cd&p=2

WINDOWS

DiRT3%206850.png

DiRT3%20B%205570.png

Intel_VS_AMD.png

AMD_4100_Cinebench.png

This is all without the Bulldozer Patch that will hopefully increase the gap :)

Intel fanboys bashing amd, nothing new indeed... but they are indeed very mad because ivy bridge line up turned to be not quite good... and they can't even overclock because it heats like hell. To bad for them.

Really? Whatever the scenario? I got alot of results that say otherweise. As soon as it comes to multithreading AMD's FX will pull ahead, I'm not even going to talk about Linux benchmarks as thats a different story, FX has a whole new life over there.

Whoever was comparing IB to FX (Currently bulldozer) should look up when BD was release and when was IB released.

Anyway to the people who plan to buy Piledriver, there are some big changes.

Quad-channel DDR3

Up to 10 cores

HT

Dynamic scheduling and speculative execution

8 CUs with two cores per a CU.

AMD released a software optimization guide for Piledriver in January. You can read more about it here.

http://support.amd.c...w_opt_guide.pdf

That PDF you linked to is not what you think it is. It's a very technical rundown of architecture improvements(not specs). It's covering things like fetch-decode optimizations. That's a good thing though. Things like quad channel and 16-cores are nice back of the box features, especially for high end buyers, but architecture improvements is really what AMD needs to do now and it's something every consumer is going to benefit from. I mean, if you throw in an extra 2 Bulldozer cores that's going to help you boost performance when every other core becomes saturated, but if you manage to shave .0001 billionth of a second off of fetch-decode, that's time off of every single operation executing and that adds up to large performance gains.

From my understanding AMD is starting to focus its attention on the low end/portable market. Hopefully they take some of the optimizations they make there and translate them in to performance on the high end.

Anyway, I'm hoping AMD starts leveraging their APU line into their high end in their second Bulldozers. GPGPU is starting to become a big thing and having the GPU and CPU on the same chip could really be leveraged into something big.

That PDF you linked to is not what you think it is. It's a very technical rundown of architecture improvements(not specs). It's covering things like fetch-decode optimizations. That's a good thing though. Things like quad channel and 16-cores are nice back of the box features, especially for high end buyers, but architecture improvements is really what AMD needs to do now and it's something every consumer is going to benefit from. I mean, if you throw in an extra 2 Bulldozer cores that's going to help you boost performance when every other core becomes saturated, but if you manage to shave .0001 billionth of a second off of fetch-decode, that's time off of every single operation executing and that adds up to large performance gains.

From my understanding AMD is starting to focus its attention on the low end/portable market. Hopefully they take some of the optimizations they make there and translate them in to performance on the high end.

Anyway, I'm hoping AMD starts leveraging their APU line into their high end in their second Bulldozers. GPGPU is starting to become a big thing and having the GPU and CPU on the same chip could really be leveraged into something big.

Actually I do know exactly what that .pdf is about. I also know that major architectual changes come in Steamroller in 2013. But its good to know that they are atleast doing some changes in some levels with PD to keep up.

Got this from Legitreviews review of the i7-3770k and Techspot's review of the Core i7 3770k You should compare whatever is the latest/greatest from Intel with whatever is the latest/greatest from AMD

No, you should compare at similar price points. It's about what you can get for X amount of money. We aren't all premium buyers. Just becuase Honda released a new Civic within a week of a new Shelby GT from Ford doesn't mean the two should be directly compared.

Edit: Ever since I started working in the automotive industry everything has become car analogies...

I'm going to be buying an FX chip here soon. I think I'll get a good 6 core. I don't think I need an 8 core.

I suggest wait for Piledriver in Q3 if you're not in a hurry. As much as I've heard they are going to fix somewhat the glitches in Bulldozer. Or go with an Trinity APU, they seem to be good :)

Edit: Q3 - Well they are hoping to release it in that timeframe but might take longer, we all know how long we had to wait for BD :D

I suggest wait for Piledriver in Q3 if you're not in a hurry. As much as I've heard they are going to fix somewhat the glitches in Bulldozer.

If you have an AM2+ slot processor you can upgrade to an AM3+ board and transfer the processor over in preparation. Of course, I tried that and my Phenom didn't want to let go of the heatsink :cry:

You should compare whatever is the latest/greatest from Intel with whatever is the latest/greatest from AMD - these are recently released CPU's from both companies. What more do you want

What about price? If you want to compare apple-to-apple, you should include the price. So, check the current price of the AMD FX CPU, find a comparable Intel CPU and check the performance.

What about price? If you want to compare apple-to-apple, you should include the price. So, check the current price of the AMD FX CPU, find a comparable Intel CPU and check the performance.

Sure. 8150 = 2500k/2600k

There you go.

*Newegg prices. In Estonia both Intels are even more expensive.

Eh let me refrase myself. In Estonia the 8150 is 198$ whereas the 2500k is 230 :)

I was tied between a FX series and a 2500k, the late release of the FX is one reason I decided to go with the 2500k. I do mostly gaming, which the 2500k is faster in most of the time. I also do Encoding/encoding of HD video which most of the time the FX 8150 is faster in but i do more games then anything else. It comes down to buying what you want and whatever makes you happy.

Also, comparison should be done by price not flagship status etc.

First of all, 3770k is a newer CPU then Bulldozer is so I can't understand why do you keep comparing them?

Because they're both the newest and greatest from their respective manufacturers. It's not the consumer's problem if AMD hasn't updated their line for a while.
Secondly.
SPECviewperf is a synthetic performance benchmark tool. C-Ray is a synthetic performance benchmark tool. SiSoft Sandra 2011 is a synthetic performance benchmark tool. Anandtech's "7-zip benchmark" is a synthetic performance test. The only real-world test you've provided is Adobe Photoshop, where FX performed a whopping 12% faster than previous-generation i7. You also didn't mention that for every one of these, there were 10 others where FX was much slower, including in heavily threaded scenarios. So your claim that FX does better in multi-threaded scenarios is bogus.
I love the fact that when ever FX is better in a benchmark it will be labled syntetic instantly but untill then its the most widley used benchmark. Typical.
The usefulness of a CPU comes from its performance in real-world application, not synthetic benchmarks. That a benchmark is used widely doesn't make it any more indicative of real-world performance.

Because they're both the newest and greatest from their respective manufacturers. It's not the consumer's problem if AMD hasn't updated their line for a while.

SPECviewperf is a synthetic performance benchmark tool. C-Ray is a synthetic performance benchmark tool. SiSoft Sandra 2011 is a synthetic performance benchmark tool. Anandtech's "7-zip benchmark" is a synthetic performance test. The only real-world test you've provided is Adobe Photoshop, where FX performed a whopping 12% faster than previous-generation i7. You also didn't mention that for every one of these, there were 10 others where FX was much slower, including in heavily threaded scenarios. So your claim that FX does better in multi-threaded scenarios is bogus.

The usefulness of a CPU comes from its performance in real-world application, not synthetic benchmarks. That a benchmark is used widely doesn't make it any more indicative of real-world performance.

LOL! Do you even know how many people laughed at this?

You more or less labeled 3 of the biggest benchmarks in the world as usless just because your fanbois is too strong, jesus. This s*it is getting hilarious.

Like previously stated, you don't compare CPU's by their "flagship" status, by that logic maybe we should compare something from VIA with 3770k?

You more or less labeled 3 of the biggest benchmarks in the world as usless just because your fanbois is too strong, jesus. This s*it is getting hilarious.
Unless what you plan on doing with your CPU is run synthetic benchmarks all day and salivate at the results, basing a purchase on synthetic performance doesn't make sense.
Like previously stated, you don't compare CPU's by their "flagship" status, by that logic maybe we should compare something from VIA with 3770k?
Well... yes you do. The consumer chooses the best CPU for the price. He doesn't care when they were released. Again, if AMD didn't update their line in a while, it's their problem, not the consumer's.

Unless what you plan on doing with your CPU is run synthetic benchmarks all day and salivate at the results, basing a purchase on synthetic performance doesn't make sense.

Well... yes you do. The consumer chooses the best CPU for the price. He doesn't care when they were released. Again, if AMD didn't update their line in a while, it's their problem, not the consumer's.

Indeed, you choose by the price where the FX series (lower then 8150 or not,doesn't really matter) wins over Intel, and that few % of a change you get in Photoshop doesn't really count does it now.

Also like I said before, by your logic please get an VIA C7, it's cheap and for that money good enough of an CPU. See the flaw in that?

Anyway I'm done arguing about whos better in what and where. Not really the topic I was hoping this would be :(

Indeed, you choose by the price where the FX series (lower then 8150 or not,doesn't really matter) wins over Intel, and that few % of a change you get in Photoshop doesn't really count does it now.

Agreed, the question is, where does FX win for the price in real-world performance?

I will agree on that in single-threaded apps it takes an ass-beating from the i-series but I'll stand my ground that in Multi-tasking FX is better.

I use C4D and AE, in those programs it's better then the 2500k as I had an machine to compare it with. Is that real world performance enough for you?

Anyway as I'm at work I should actually do some :rofl:

Back in October 2011, I picked up an AMD 999FX Sabertooth board from ASUS in preparation to upgrade mine or my brothers system to the new FX-8150 (I have a i7 920 - OC to 3.6, he has a Phenom II 956 BE - OC to 3.5). Unfortunately I ended not going with any of the new FX chips, mainly because their single threaded performance was worse than AMD's prior Phenom II generation of chips. It was also not any faster then my OC'd i7 920.

I admit I was disappointed with the FX launch, it was way over hyped and set very high expectations. However the chips are priced reasonably and they offer a tremendous value for gamers. If you look purely at the gaming benchmarks, you will see that Phenom II (AMDK10), Sandy Bridge, and Bulldozer all are virtually even in most games.

Right now you're choices for gaming (not including the new Ivy Bridge) are Phenom II X4 980, i5 2500k, or FX-4170.

Other that I don't consider the FX-4170 a quad core, I think it would be the best choice for gamers on a budget.

I will agree on that in single-threaded apps it takes an ass-beating from the i-series but I'll stand my ground that in Multi-tasking FX is better.

I know you're all talking strictly about performance and yes the FX-8150 has the advantage in some scenarios, price is now ok too. But when I buy a CPU I look at every aspect and where AMD loses horribly is the power consumption, an area where Intel excels nowadays, especially with Ivy Bridge. Was the other way around a few years ago and unfortunately it shows that while Intel has a lot of headroom left if they need it AMDs processors are working at their limits. Not a good sign for the near future.

i bough myself a fx8120 today (almost the 8150), i thought it was a bargain @ ?128, i looked up what a nice intel cpu would set me back and while lntel does have a great performing cpu lineup i just coudlnt justify the price for intel as you only get 10-15% performance, sometimes abit more, sometimes abit less, depends what ya wanna do, but you gotta pay 60% more for the I7 2600k and about 30% more for a I5 2500k its just not woth it for half a frame here 2 seconds there( when ya doing 100fps+ does 1 more really matter), i just felt that amd offered the best bang for buck as they did with the phenon II, intel cpus are good and are better but not better enough and not by enough for me to buy one. but thats just me.

3 2 1 cue fur flying

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • All these CEOs got the biggest boners thinking about firing employees for AI. Turned out it was just a wet dream.
    • And the fact that the majority of people from Poland are white European Christians while the people you are complaining about in post after post are not is just a coincidence... Every sentence in your post I am replying to is racist nonsense. None of it is actually based on any facts whatsoever. All immigrants are seeking a better life too. It's literally the only reason they would risk everything and leave their homes, families, and homeland. They are working and contributing to the economy too, as you even admit. They get the same benefits your partner did AND that YOU are eligible for as well. That is one of the key things of the EU and a mark of a civilization. That is the definition of a society where everyone is given a chance, treated equally and fairly, and is judged by the content of their character, not their different skin color or which version of ignorant superstitious nonsense their parents lied about as children. Racists around the world said the same things about the Irish and Jews and Poles (like your partner) and...every other immigrant movement over the centuries. What's your family's heritage, by the way? Were your ancestors lied about with racist fearmongering crapola by self-entitled locals the same way as you are now? If someone like that said the same things about all people from Poland, like your partner, would they be right? Or would you want them to judge your partner based on who they actually were, not where they just happened to come from?
    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!