Thursday, October 13, 2011

AMD FX did win some benchmarks against i7 2600k

There are a lot of negative sentiment about the AMD FX CPU. Many of us expected a wonder weapon that destroys everything Intel. It didn't happen.

Now, if you look at the benchmarks, the FX did score some points against the core i7 2600k. So, the results are software-compiler dependent.

It will be interesting see some Linux+GCC benchmark results.


Anonymous Anonymous said...


Got a sore cornhole?

Did you get a new box of kneepads, KY, and tucks to heal your chaffed sensitive skin?

Buldozer is fragged. Owned. Pwned.

Just like you. Every day.

Don't forget to swallow.




9:33 PM, October 13, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The REAL disappointment they did to me is that the hype (including fucking yours) made me wait for that uber-fast, Sandy-fragging rig for SIX FUCKING MONTHS. Screw AMD, as if they were such good guys! Just like the crap you threw me with Phenom I still stuck to you with PII. Now this? Hypocrite! No better than Intel with lies!

FUCK YOU AMD! You made me expect this two-billion-tranz-CMT-shit was two to five times faster (check your fucking blog!)???

Now you console me with another "fast enough" and "slightly more expensive" pile????


12:54 AM, October 14, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And another thing... FUCK THIS STUPID "Unbiased" Blog. WHAT A JOKE!

1:00 AM, October 14, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...



1:05 AM, October 14, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No reason to buy expensive Intel crap while theres AMD around

Never had Intel, and I don't plan to

1:20 AM, October 14, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bulldozer FX


Overheating, underperforming, busted and pathetic.

2:25 AM, October 14, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Spin it anyway you want it loser it's still a big pile of fail.

By the time anyone gets anything optimized out there Ivy Bridge will be destroying what few cherry picked benchmarks and results this steaming pile of feces AMD calls a CPU manages to win.

BTW - you should point out that AMD's NEW CPU loses to, 99% of the time, Intels now two year old architecture. Congrats on being two years behind.

You are a complete disgrace and a backpeddling liar. Take this "unbiased" blog offline before you embarass yourself further.

7:53 AM, October 14, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>>Now, if you look at the benchmarks, the FX did score some points against the core i7 2600k. So, the results are software-compiler dependent.

This is BS and I suspect you know it. Although I don't much care for the d-bag replies you've mostly gotten on this, you kind of have it coming for trying to spin this debacle.

I'm very sorry for you, because you clearly love AMD, but the FX has a much, much higher transistor count and area than the i7 2600k, it should've DESTROYED the i7. Simply beating the i7 by 5% would've been disappointing in reality (although you'd have crowed about it, because it's been a while since AMD had much of a win here), because this chip is so friggin' huge. Losing like this is an absolute disaster! (They have twice as many transistors and they can't figure out SOMETHING to do with them to win - the hell with the compiler?!?) Hopefully there is some part of the market where this thing shines and where AMD can capture some share, because otherwise they are in real trouble.

Whether or not people like AMD or Intel, the fact remains that AMD will have difficulty selling these parts for much of a profit margin when Intel's parts are smaller, cooler, and cheaper to build. This is a real business problem for AMD. The degree to which they have fallen behind Intel must be a real concern to any major OEM.

9:56 AM, October 14, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

He gets the "d-bag" replies because:

1) He's a liar. He is fraudulently claiming he has a ph.d when he does not.

2) Read through this sorry excuse for a blog - his journalistic skills are that of a 7th grader - nothing more.

3) Everything he has "published" has been proven incorrect, shown as lies, or just plain stupid.

So why you'd feel sorry for this poor excuse for a tech "journalist" is beyond me. Don't. No one else does.

10:26 AM, October 14, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>>So why you'd feel sorry for this poor excuse for a tech "journalist" is beyond me. Don't. No one else does.

Heh alright, you have a point. It's hard watching someone get owned this hard, even though everything you are saying appears to be correct, and Sharikou has it coming. He certainly doesn't have much to back up his tough talk over these past few months. It is unbelievable (and shameful really) that someone would try to spin this as anything but a disaster.

Nobody who knows much about the semiconductor business could categorize this as anything except a disaster. (Note to AMD fans: If you can't recognize this as a disaster, then you don't know enough to even discuss these matters.)

I'm not saying this will happen to AMD, but this is the type of thing that ends companies. It is likely that big of a disaster. Between this and their manufacturing problems, AMD is in trouble. They are NOT in the type of financial shape that really allows for multiple simultaneous disasters.

If I worked there, I would be really, really worried right about now. (Indeed, I showed my wife some of the reviews on this product, and she was like "wow, I'm really glad you don't work there!")

10:46 AM, October 14, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So let's restate a few of the most obvious parts:

1. Bulldozer is not a sufficiently compelling product to sway a new consumer to AMD, but is not enough of a disaster to drive them away in droves. In general, the performance that Bulldozer provides can be coined as "sufficient" for the sort of machine that my parents would need, or anyone else who isn't going to be doing video transcoding, 3D rendering, playing video games, et al. Essentially what I'm saying is, AMD's performance nor price puts them out of the commodity range of PC hardware.

2. Bulldozer may not be a compelling product for those who already have an AM3+ capable board. In fact, it appears that existing AMD users would be better served by buying the cheaper Phenom 6-core and just overclocking it.

3. Bulldozer is likely not a compelling product for consumer enthusiasts looking to buy a new platform. Another $100 to move from an 8150 to a 2600k can buy a significant power savings, a significant overclocking experience, and a significant performance gain. An enthusiast wno is buying an SSD (or two), a high end video card (or two), 8GB of ram (or more) and an offboard PCI audio card is not going to suddenly "go cheap" when it comes to CPU power. The extra $100 on top of a $1500 uber-gaming rig is insignificant compared to the extra capacity that the 2600k platform would bring.

4. Llano is, so far, the only seriously compelling product of this line. There is quite a bit of value in having that good midrange-capable video power as part of the processor. I currently have an i5-520 + AMD 5650M in my Lenovo 460, and it's well performing rig for most games (at the native 1366x768 rez of the LCD.) But I've had a chance to play with an HP Llano-based platform and it was every bit as fast as my Lenovo while needing less battery power. This has legitimately "won me over", and I am otherwise a pretty devout Intel fan. I haven't owned an AMD processor since back when they were making 5x86 overdrive chips for the 486 platform :-)

All in all, I think this whole thing is a flop. But I'm also a huge ATI graphics fan, and it pisses me off that AMD has such a terrible showing in the CPU space. This could mean that my ATI graphics options could start to suffer as AMD starts losing sales (and thus, money) from their CPU division.

Here's hoping that Llano and ATI makes them enough money to keep afloat, because I don't see Bulldozer doing much to help the bottom line.

11:04 AM, October 14, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Posting for the AdChoices pennies, aren't you?

ride the giant salami into the sunset.......................lmao

3:44 PM, October 14, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


How come you won't answer you cell when it rings?

I can't help to think whether I did something wrong.

I have introspected for a while but I have no clear answers.

Did I penetrate you too hard? Too fast? Not fast enough?

Did you swallow too much? Was it too warm? Too cold? Too viscuous?

You always asked for more, and I gave you all I asked.

Why won't you answer my calls anymore? Please, won't your answer?


9:22 PM, October 14, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Asus is to blame, not AMD
BD has up to 30% better performance on Asrock and MSI boards

8:59 AM, October 15, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now blaming Asus?

AMD sent out the review kits and what you are saying is that AMD did not know which mobo would give it the best results for tech reviewers?


12:00 PM, October 15, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe someone paid Asus to make bad bios? I mean, certain company already paid a billion for such practices
You're obviously too dumb to google it, but then again, thats to be expected from someone favoring Intel

12:03 PM, October 15, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's right. Blame anyone except AMD for AMD's failure.

12:31 PM, October 15, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Stop AMD-fanboy idiocy: Mention the Intel Timna processor

Intel Timna, a processor with an integrated memory controller, were rolling off Intel assembly lines back in the year 2000 before it was cancelled. It also had integrated graphics incorporated, far before AMD had any plans about "Fusion".

It's funny the first few times reading moronic comments like "Intel copied AMD" and "AMD is the one that innovates" but I think enough is enough.

9:55 PM, October 18, 2011  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home