TRWOVThat's what I mean. The suckers work, not as fine as people liked to imagine that they would, though, but they don't have show stopping bugs or anything and their performance is good for most tasks. It isn't like your PC is being thrown back a decade or anything.

Yes, you're correct sir :laugh:.

But

It's slower than even Phenom II in some or most tasks...

ensabrenoirlimited supplies = easier to sell out & Hey I got an 8 core
Still ...the bottom line is its your money, buy what ever makes you happy.

exactly

qubitIn short, in Intel's shoes I think they'd be just as ruthless and underhanded, maybe even worse.

Well seeing as how they all exist to make a profit in the first place I don't see why this should be any surprise. Honestly, I may be overlooking some smaller, more-niched players but I think Steve Jobs is the only tech exec of late who truly gave a shit about something deeper and cooler than just the bottom line. Maybe Gabe Newell too...

WrigleyvillainWell seeing as how they all exist to make a profit in the first place I don't see why this should be any surprise. Honestly, I may be overlooking some smaller, more-niched players but I think Steve Jobs is the only tech exec of late who truly gave a shit about something deeper than just the bottom line...

and that is exactly why Apple has always been so innovative. Steve would ask himself, what would I want as a consumer? more CEOs need to ask themselves the same question instead of being 'me toos'

a current example is the upcoming iPad. it will bring higher resolution to the masses cause no other company has the balls to do it. its too much about the bottom line to them. Apple will still prove that the bottom line can benefit from it though even with higher production costs

qubitIt's my belief that AMD are no better than Intel ethically. They simply have either not been caught or didn't have the opportunity. In short, in Intel's shoes I think they'd be just as ruthless and underhanded, maybe even worse.

My suggestion is not to let these moral issues get in the way of you buying an Intel CPU to get better performance.

I think the fact that for the short time that AMD was in the lead, they resorted to all the "shady" business practices that Intel did is kind of proof of that.

They were just as quick to charge $1000 for their processors, and make shady under the table deals with OEMs.

newtekie1I think the fact that for the short time that AMD was in the lead, they resorted to all the "shady" business practices that Intel did is kind of proof of that.

They were just as quick to charge $1000 for their processors, and make shady under the table deals with OEMs.

sure they had $1k cpus. it was their top of the line product... they also had lower prices for other tiers. I recall that I didnt buy it at the time

but this is besides the point. Intel has been found guilty of illegal business practices internationally. AMD has always been guilty of trying to out-innovate

Fxand that is exactly why Apple has always been so innovative. Steve would ask himself, what would I want as a consumer? more CEOs need to ask themselves the same question instead of being 'me toos'

a current example is the upcoming iPad. it will bring higher resolution to the masses cause no other company has the balls to do it. its too much about the bottom line to them. Apple will still prove that the bottom line can benefit from it though even with higher production costs

:wtf::shadedshu

I'm sorry, but you have just lost your credibility after saying that. :laugh:

entropy13:wtf::shadedshu

I'm sorry, but you have just lost your credibility after saying that. :laugh:

I hate Apple and I have never owned any product made by Apple but at least I recognize their ability to make some good products

FxI hate Apple but at least I recognize their ability to make some good-looking products

Fixed.

Their only "innovations" would be these:
1) Aesthetics is now the most important aspect to consider
2) Macs are not PCs even though they are
3) Apple is always right, and you're wrong, so buy our products
4) Stiff competition? Sue competitors

entropy13Fixed.

Their only "innovations" would be these:
1) Aesthetics is now the most important aspect to consider
2) Macs are not PCs even though they are
3) Apple is always right, and you're wrong, so buy our products
4) Stiff competition? Sue competitors

they are mostly good at doing just that- I agree

but in this case they are pushing the 1080p boundary... the rest of the market is going to follow suit. how can you hate them for that?

I am only going to disagree with 1)

they do focus on aesthetics and in doing so have some credit for raising the standard of appearance in PCs

ensabrenoir:wtf:

ummm, its called a typo. the first "like" should have been a "runs". Use your context clues like you were taught in the 3rd grade.

newtekie1I think the fact that for the short time that AMD was in the lead, they resorted to all the "shady" business practices that Intel did is kind of proof of that.

They were just as quick to charge $1000 for their processors, and make shady under the table deals with OEMs.

I don't remember an shady business practices? Being quick to charge $1k for a processor is business. If you didn't like the price, don't buy the chip. And I don't recall any under the table OEM deals what so ever.

I am not saying AMD is run by saints, I am just saying I don't remember any underhanded deals like Intel and the kick backs.

i think that people need to not pay so much attention to synthetic benchmarks and the like. i guess if you want to pay the sort of money where you can squeeze three more fps than the guy that spent $300-$500 less than you because you like to brag about having the best rig that is one thing. in these days the thing that matters the most at least for gaming is the gpu. i have an average cpu from amd but a nice gpu from amd and can play everything pretty comfortably and the games look better than on consoles. that is enough for me. i guess if you are doing video encoding or something along those lines for a living or on more than a regular basis you would prefer intel and there is nothing wrong with that. but for most things i do the cpu isn't that relevant as long as it doesn't bottlekneck rest of my system and as long as you have a half decent cpu then you will be ok but unless you are spending $350 or more on your gpu i don't really see that most modern multi core systems can't do what most people want.

proof is in the pudding amd sells crap loads of cpu's because of value. intel sells crap loads of i3's not because they are the best available but because they do what most people want without breaking the bank. simple as that.

bulldozeri think that people need to not pay so much attention to synthetic benchmarks and the like. i guess if you want to pay the sort of money where you can squeeze three more fps than the guy that spent $300-$500 less than you because you like to brag about having the best rig that is one thing. in these days the thing that matters the most at least for gaming is the gpu. i have an average cpu from amd but a nice gpu from amd and can play everything pretty comfortably and the games look better than on consoles. that is enough for me. i guess if you are doing video encoding or something along those lines for a living or on more than a regular basis you would prefer intel and there is nothing wrong with that. but for most things i do the cpu isn't that relevant as long as it doesn't bottlekneck rest of my system and as long as you have a half decent cpu then you will be ok but unless you are spending $350 or more on your gpu i don't really see that most modern multi core systems can't do what most people want.

proof is in the pudding amd sells crap loads of cpu's because of value. intel sells crap loads of i3's not because they are the best available but because they do what most people want without breaking the bank. simple as that.

While I will agree people need to ignore synthetic benchmarks and what not, I can't discount some of the strange behavior BD has displayed. None of my Valve games work with the latest BIOS from GIGABYTE and I have heard the same from ASUS users. That simply should not happen. And the single threaded performance drop, while not noticeable in 99% of applications should not have happened either. The integer core itself seems to be the weakness in the design. While other things about the chip and its layout were drastically changed, the integer core itself was just shrank in size or at least that is all that should have happened. I am not sure what is different there, though I heard the rumors about the move away from hand crafting the chip transistor layout, so I can't say for sure.

In then end, my FX-8150 is overall better than my AMD PII 1100T. I think there is a lot to sort out in the BIOS/software and I think there is a lot of tweaking to be done with the chip itself especially inter-core communication. Design is solid, execution could use a lot of work and I don't think AMD's latest business moves were good ideas. I want to keep this short so I will stop there.

These BD kill Xeons in data mining!

Fxsure they had $1k cpus. it was their top of the line product... they also had lower prices for other tiers. I recall that I didnt buy it at the time

but this is besides the point. Intel has been found guilty of illegal business practices internationally. AMD has always been guilty of trying to out-innovate

Of course they had lower prices for other tiers, but their processors were still overpriced. Even in the areas that Intel was able to compete at, AMD was overpricing their processors because they had the lead.

And Intel might have been found guilty, but AMD did the same when they were in the lead. They just didn't get called out on it because they were only in the lead for like 6-months. But in that time, there was a huge shift in the OEMs towards AMD, ever wonder how that happened? Once AMD had the money flow by being able to sell a high margins with higher volume thanks to being in the performance lead, they started throwing that money around to try and oust Intel the same way Intel was. Shady deals with OEMs to exclude Intel from their products and all.

newtekie1Of course they had lower prices for other tiers, but their processors were still overpriced. Even in the areas that Intel was able to compete at, AMD was overpricing their processors because they had the lead.

And Intel might have been found guilty, but AMD did the same when they were in the lead. They just didn't get called out on it because they were only in the lead for like 6-months. But in that time, there was a huge shift in the OEMs towards AMD, ever wonder how that happened? Once AMD had the money flow by being able to sell a high margins with higher volume thanks to being in the performance lead, they started throwing that money around to try and oust Intel the same way Intel was. Shady deals with OEMs to exclude Intel from their products and all.

they have never been found guilty of that in court so I will deduce that to a theory

no I didnt wonder. it was because OEMs were impressed with AMD's performance. vendors want to offer their customers the best performance and value

I love how in synthetic benchmarks the Bulldozer chips are falling behind but according to everyone I know that has a machine built around an FX Processor is absolutely in love with it. They are loving everything from more FPS in games to faster startup times. "No bad, just misunderstood" is definitely a good way to put it. I would love an 8150 in my machine. Not because of "8-CORE OMG" or "ENTHUSIAST-LEVEL PERFORMANCE" but because it is AMD's top of the line, and the most advanced technology they have put out in a while. Of course I'm loyal to AMD. I'm stuck with them. I spent 180 bucks on an AM3+ Motherboard. Might as well keep up with the times.

You pays yer money, you makes yer choice.

Personally I buy the best bang for my buck, be it Intel or Amd. If Amd released a chip that is imo the best performance for my money at the time, i will buy that.

It is a bit anal to stick to one manufacturer, surely it is better to buy the best performance chip for your money, even if it means switching camps.

PaNiCfanboys are retards, they buy a bad product just because they don't like other company. The bulldozer will make more AMD fanboys then ever be for cause that's how fanboys starts, they buy a bad product, defend it and hate the other company for releasing something better. :laugh:

Just like all the people that bought the Pentium chips even though they performed like crap compared to AMD's chips.

tiggerIt is a bit anal to stick to one manufacturer, surely it is better to buy the best performance chip for your money, even if it means switching camps.

I do venture to other companies that happen to one-up my favorites for pc components but when it comes to the cpu market we really dont have many options... Intel lost my mindshare due to their tactics so that kind of leaves me with AMD

many of us that support AMD are doing just fine with AMD's cpus. please answer me this:
why would we have a reason to leave AMD if they can meet our needs and do so with good pricing?

I game on ultra settings with every game I play so I am not anywhere close to painting myself in a corner now am I?

clothoBuerocracyI love how in synthetic benchmarks the Bulldozer chips are falling behind but according to everyone I know that has a machine built around an FX Processor is absolutely in love with it. They are loving everything from more FPS in games to faster startup times. "No bad, just misunderstood" is definitely a good way to put it. I would love an 8150 in my machine. Not because of "8-CORE OMG" or "ENTHUSIAST-LEVEL PERFORMANCE" but because it is AMD's top of the line, and the most advanced technology they have put out in a while. Of course I'm loyal to AMD. I'm stuck with them. I spent 180 bucks on an AM3+ Motherboard. Might as well keep up with the times.

Screw that. Anyone wanna buy a nice AM3+ motherboard off of me?

Well, in the end, we don't buy "better" cars just because they have the most horsepower or the most torque. Or the fastest acceleration. We also buy cars based on brand itself, even though they may be worse than competition. Me for example, i'm a loyal Hyundai user. It was the first car that i bought and now the second new one as well and i somehow feel attached to it. It doesn't have the most advanced engine, it doesn't have the most gadgets inside and there are other better looking cars. But i just somehow like it. It's the same with PC hardware really. You don't need some logical reason for the buy decision. What difference does it make 5 frames per second worse framerate in a game because of the "crappy CPU" like Bulldozer when you are already getting well over 60fps anyway with that spaking new Radeon card? But you do have the CPU that has 8 physical cores and maybe that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy. Or because of the AMD brand. We don't need any special reason to like one brand over another. So again why not? Honestly, if i was changing my system, i'd probably think about it. Sure Core i5 2500k is good but Bulldozer is not that bad, it's slightly cheaper and well, it's AMD. The first CPU that i bought with my own money. And it was the one that first reached 1GHz threshold. The rather famous AMD Athlon 1GHz aka Thunderbird. And that kinda leaves a mark. Also after reading how dirty Intel business practices were and still are, you just want to go rebel and support the other part, even though it's maybe not perfect in every way. I mean, look the other way around when Intel made the god awful Preshott CPU's. ppl were still buying them like crazy just because it was "Intel". It was hot and not particularly fast and they were still selling. Why!? Well, for the same reason AMD is selling Bulldozers despite not so stellar performance in synthetic benchmarks.

Fxthey have never been found guilty of that in court so I will deduce that to a theory
no I didnt wonder. it was because OEMs were impressed with AMD's performance. vendors want to offer their customers the best performance and value..[]...I tend to go with my gut especially upon seeing hard evidence laid bare

Yeah, me too. But then again my hard evidence is either before some peoples time, or not readily apparent due to blinkers.
Remember Randy Allen? Mr "40% better"
or maybe showing around benchmarks of non-existant products?
Surely you must remember Mr Fruehe's forum based viral marketing campaign over the last couple of years ?

Yes, we have said in public that IPC would be higher and single threaded performance will be higher. Anyone saying otherwise is either uninformed, or has a specific agenda.

Could pay to ditch the rose coloured glasses- they're bad for eyesight

FxI also tend to go for the underdogs

You drive a Saturn and your FX sits in an ECS motherboard perhaps?

If Bulldozer's so commercially successful, what prompted them to move out of the x86 market?

It's certainly no bad thing that Bulldozer's selling. AMD and Intel fans alike should be happy about that.

entropy13Their only "innovations" would be these:
1) Aesthetics is now the most important aspect to consider
2) Macs are not PCs even though they are
3) Apple is always right, and you're wrong, so buy our products
4) Stiff competition? Sue competitors

I feel wary saying anything on a tech forum, but just going from memory...

5) MP3 players were niche prior to the iPod.
6) Smartphones were...where? prior to the iPhone.
7) Tablets were the butt of jokes prior to the iPad.
8) The first decent touchscreens in wide use to my memory?
9) Apps. Hadn't been done as well before.
10) And in response to your no. 1...Have you seen Thermaltake's cases?!

/neverownedanappleproduct

This sounds like the P4, worst CPU ever made, but sold better then any CPU ever made LOL (in its time) if you get what i mean?