VaporX Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 The take away from all of this is that the FX is an okay chiop but that is all. In most of the apps in use today it is only on par with the Phenom II and that is disappointing. The FX does not truly shine until you get apps that make full use of the the cores it has available and puts them to work. Then this chip can put out some horsepower, however for most people that is just not something they will see everyday. The weakness here is the very strength AMD is hoping for. This chip is targetted at what might be, not what is. AMD is looking forward and banking on the way software is heading, that is great but at the present this does not translate well. What makes this worse is that while AMD is likely aimed at the right spot, it is a spot still a few years down the road for MOST applications. For me the FX4100 is the real story of this release. The 4100 is priced right at the same point as the 955. The higher clock speed means it is actually, likely, faster than the 955 and so becomes an awesome budget choice. I am hoping we can get a 4100 to put this theory to the test. However I am concerned that with the lackluster numbers when using most of todays apps the 4100 might end up being a wash. That is the way I feel the 8150 ended up, being a wash. If you have an existing Phenom II system with a 965 or higher quad core or a 1090T or so in the six core then there is really not a lot that suggests this is a good upgrade, it is more of s step sideways. The FX can beat both chips but only if the app can fill it's thread pipeline. The same goes for the 2500K the target of the 8150. If you do a lot of heavily threaded apps the 8150 is a solid choice but if you are a typcial user of your PC in any way then the 2500k is just a better value. AMD is investing it's future in this architecture and that future needs developer support to really be leveraged. If things go the way AMD is aiming this could end up being a smart move, it could also blow up in their face. This is not a bad chip and in the haze of the future it might even be a great chip, in the reality of today it is an okay chip but not anything to get excited about. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cery25 Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 i am a amd fan since i have buy my first pc in 2002 ( amd duron 1100 mhz ). i think that this year is time to go with intel because i am verry dissapointed with the new FX arhitecture. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black64 Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 (edited) Intel has it right Architecture is far more important then the number of cores and the core speed. BD just proved this. And my next CPU will be a i72600K, 55 bucks more, DDR3(tri-channel) better OC ability and the same number of threads. Intel is the obvious choice now. AMD has failed us. Edited October 12, 2011 by Black6464 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
El_Capitan Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 @ ComputerEd Yeah, the FX-4100 would be interesting, anyone wanting to buy a budget gaming computer, usually go for the 955BE (and maybe the i3 2100). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MandoPatriot Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 Well that just... sucks. Guess I should have gone Intel. Didn't think my 965 would be on par with it at all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Smith Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 a i72600K, [...] DDR3(tri-channel) Oh rly? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
El_Capitan Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 Oh rly? Yeah, I saw that, lol, but I didn't want to say anything... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black64 Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 I know you can use DDR3, but you can't run it in tri channel. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
airman Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 Ouch, sorry to see AMD having troubles again...really a bummer to see some of those results especially when they're fairly close to the 1090 and 980... Good thing their video cards rock though! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locutus Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 But can it fold? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryTaco Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 (edited) Okay so somehow it IS an improvement. Probably on a par with a 2500k and not a 2600k. What isnt being discussed is Intels Answer for todays release. The 2700k will arrive and while some of you say yeah but thats just a speed bump but its arriving at 2600k pricing. This means that the 2600k will now be priced lower and the whole product line lower. I paid only $179 for my 2500k a month ago. Pricing is already going lower now. Due to the Mobo choice I made, I will be able to upgrade to the new Ivy 1155 chips when they come out. I forsee a price drop within a couple months or sooner for the Bulldozer to make it competetive and attractive for AMD peoples. Perhaps we will see a small die revision in a few months who knows. I dont see this as a failure. This kind of launch has been an AMD commonality for a several years now. They will make a few small improvements and price it competative and people will be happy. Edited October 12, 2011 by Kwok Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
potatochobit Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 ugh, did you miss the phenom II launch? because it was nothing like this the phenom II was well worth upgrading over most all intel and amd chips at the time of launch Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts