1) http://www.hardware.fr/me...news/00/36/IMG0036242.png

2) PIIs have been going EoL for the past few quarters now. Heck, even C2Q is "viable high-end Gaming solution" if you compare it to a PII (OEMs are trying to empty their inventory of the last shipment of Q9505).

If someone asks me for the CPU to stick into a high end gaming rig, i don't know what else i can suggest apart from a i5 2400-and-above processor

But you're defining high end as fastest which excludes the 2400. High end means playing games at 2560 or using Quadros\Fire Pros.

When the FX was the fastest, I don't remember seeing boutique shops with custom systems which says to me Intel paid them off too.

They dropped the bottom out of the PC industry with the lowest priced, "performance" CPU ever. They changed their FMAC implementation a few times leaving AMD holding the bag. AVX seems to be an afterthought to hurt XOP. And I have two Opteron systems. One had to turn off AVX because it's not supported YET under HyperV.

This means that - indeed - Bulldozer is ahead of it's time and would have been moreso if it had come out in 2009.

Beenthere, Much better you post Link/Proff what Anton said is a LIE. It might Convince People here to give you Good Vote.

Thank You

Power consumption is much worse for Bulldozer

Even if it were true that Bulldozer was as fast as Ivy Bridge, why would anyone get an FX8120/8150, overclock it to 4.6-4.8ghz, just to put up with 319-340W of extra power consumption at load over a 5.0ghz 3570K or 4.8-4.9ghz 3770K?
http://www.bit-tech.net/h...el-core-i7-3770k-review/8

Gaming performance with multiple fast GPUs is much worse with Bulldozer

However, we know Bulldozer is not even as fast. AMD's CPU may be fine for the majority of games when paired with a mid-range GPU such as HD7870, but start adding HD7970 or 2 of those and the bottleneck appears:

http://www.hardocp.com/ar...play_performance_review/2

Limited longevity, imminent CPU bottlenecking is much more likely with Bulldozer in the future

Further, even if you have 1 mid-range GPU where FX4100 or something similar is adequate, sooner or later you'll upgrade your GPU to something faster and you'll be CPU limited. Suddenly, you'll have to buy a new motherboard, new CPU and upgrade in 2 years. So much for saving $70-80 over Intel's superior CPU. How much $ did people waste going form Phenom II to Bulldozer? Ironically that Core i5 750/760 @ 3.8ghz+ or i7 860 @ 3.8ghz+ from 2009 still mop the floor with FX series in games. So again, Intel was the smarter and cheaper option all this time; just as it continues to be that way with IVB.

People who buy high-end GPUs don't really buy $100-120 budget CPUs. The $80-90 savings for say an FX4100 isn't worth it over a $212 3570K

Most importantly, we can keep our CPU for 3-4 years now and upgrade GPUs 2-3x in that timeframe. 2500k @ 4.5ghz or 3570K @ 4.5ghz will last another 3-4 years while FX8150 is already bottlenecking GTX680/HD7970 OC in some games (Civilization V, SKYRIM, Starcraft II, etc.).

Why Bulldozer currently doesn't make sense

Why bother buying a processor that doesn't even cost less and consumes a lot more power but at best offers similar performance and in some cases far worse performance? Also, for guys like us who spend $400-600 on GPU hardware, it simply makes no sense to buy something crappy like a $120 FX4100. Might as well spend $90 more and get the real deal - 2500k/3570K. Over the course of 3-4 years of CPU ownership, that $90 savings is just $25-30 a year....

Seriously, do you work for AMD? It's perfectly fine to purchase AMD's CPUs if you are a fan of AMD, but there is no question they are inferior in performance/watt, or gaming performance, or overclocking performance. You seem to be defending Bulldozer line-up of chips every time it's put in bad light, which ironically is the truth. Accusing Xbitlabs of being biased against AMD is laughable since they have praised Athlon XP+, Athlon 64 and Athlon X2. You can just search for older reviews.

Even AMD advises reviewers to test their HD7950/7970 cards with Intel's CPUs......

BS. As usual. Why do you like being abused by anti-trust loving, OEM depriving bunch of crap heads?

Intel purposefully dropped Core 2 prices to hurt their ONLY competitor - as if normal growth of 12% was not good enough.

Just like with 3DNow, Intel used "cheating" to get their implementation mainstream. They continue the same behavior and embarrasses me.

Free market? Not with Intel around.

What are we? Babies now? You still live in the past and not the present. The present now is who cares what happen in the past. The present said Intel is the leader in performance and also the leader in low power consumption. AMD can reach to Intel, but not with Bulldozer micro-architecture.

BestJinjo, I agree. Some people do not know any better. All they know is worst and they can not see anything else.

I just find it amusing that people here are accusing Xbitlabs of bias when they have continuously praised AMD's CPUs when they were superior to Intel's offerings.

Furthermore, Intel has made unsuccessful CPUs in the past, including Pentium 4 and Pentium-D. I know many of us made fun of PrescHOT. People are trying to make this a fanboy war of Intel vs. AMD. It's not about Intel vs. AMD, but a case of supporting an inferior product vs. spending $ on a much superior alternative. Efficient markets with rational consumers implies supporting the latter, not the former. Supporting an inferior alternative is simply being irrational, regardless of any brand preferences.

It's also ironic that some people here advocate supporting AMD because they desire competition, and yet supporting Bulldozer is supporting the idea that a hot, slow and expensive CPU is actually good for us consumers. I know when Intel released Pentium 4 and Pentium D, I skipped right over that and grabbed Athlon 64 3000+; later upgraded to X2 3800+. Why would we throw $ to support an inferior product since that actually sends a signal to the company that making crap products is good enough.

Here is another way to look at it. Recall Fermi being criticized by gamers for 2 years ("Thermi", nuclear reactor, etc.). Well Jen-Hsen Huang didn't ignore the constructive criticism but spent considerable resources and got the engineers to rethink the GPU architecture from a performance/watt perspective and what did we end up with? The most power efficient high-end GPU with Kepler architecture.

Perhaps AMD should actually do the same and listen to consumer criticism for low IPC, high power consumption, low performance/core, etc. and work to improve their architecture. Sitting there and spending marketing dollars to convince people that Bulldozer provides similar gaming experience in an "AMD sponsored" event isn't doing them any favours. In fact, it makes the company look worse because they are not admitting they need to improve on the product!!

Intel even admitted their failure with Netburst and what did we get? Conroe.

Fermi and Netburst are just two modern examples in semiconductors off the top of my head where the first step to a turn-around was admitting that those companies had inferior products. There are all kinds of examples like this in business, like Domino's completely rethinking their pizza recipe!

Translation "Compare a 3.5 Ghz quad core to a 4.8 ghz octo-core...that'll show Intel!!"

I refuse to feed the beast. They give the Free Market system a black eye.

OEMs: we need you to lower CPU prices o we can actually amke a few bucks.

Intel: (maniacal laughter)

OEMs: We may be suckers. Is Trinity ready?

How Much did you Spend on Water Cooling the FX4100 and Power Consumption over an Overclock FX4100. Surely Intel SB wont comsume that power over a Stock Air Cooler or Water Cool

http://www.xbitlabs.com/a...20-6100-4100_9.html#sect0

http://www.xbitlabs.com/a...-fx-8120-6100-4100_8.html

You have bought an Inexpensive Processor but i might not last long due to Overclocking

Both Processor are using Discrete Video During Test. What is tested there was the CPU Performance.

as I said one is designed with an inbuilt graphics it should be compaired to the cpu's with inbuilt graphics, the one without inbuilt graphic should be compaired to no-graphic cpu's. Don't mix apples with oranges. compair like with like Or price segment with price segements.

True. Its something like this.

AMD vs Intel in IGP = AMD Wins
AMD vs Intel in CPU = Intel Wins

AMD vs Intel in Power Efficiency = Intel Wins
AMD vs Intel in Entry Level Processor = AMD Wins.
Both AMD and Intel Running with Discrete GPU = Intel Wins

2 to AMD
2 to Intel
make a draw.
This pleases neither camp so status quo remains its personal choice and it boils down to who one thinks is the more ethical of the 2

For Intel IGP is a bonus and for AMD IGP is their life. If you use high demand office or 2D apps (Photoshop, SQL, dll) a powerless IGP is enough. But for a gamer, I think SB/IB with an add on card is the best choice. Unless you don't have enough money but still insist want to be called a(low-res)gamer then A6-A10 w/o add on is the best solution for you. (And WTH can buy i7 but can't buy add on GPU)

If you read it well. The Benchmark Anton Was referring was this.

" Based on a recent review conducted by X-bit labs, quad-core Intel Core i7-3770K outperforms eight-core AMD FX-8150 by almost two times in many cases. "

http://www.xbitlabs.com/a...re-i7-3770k-i5-3570k.html

The Graph is relevant over Intel Quad Core vs AMD 8 Core. which gives better performance. The only part that Intel looks fair are the IGP and Power/Heat when you OC the Processor.

I want them to be broken up...