anyone else think newegg is being biased towards intel?

Where bulldozer excells is running many things at once, as in, a real world scenario. As it stands I have; chrome with 10 tabs, photoshop, dreamweaver, steam, diablo3, putty, youtube, internet explorer, windows media player classic all open and running right now.

All the benchmarks have windows + whatever they are benchmarking, which something that has strong single threaded performance will excell.

I don't care two shakes for useless benchmarks, I care about real world usability and that is where AMD processors shine.

GummiRaccoon

[QUOTE="godzillavskong"][QUOTE="C_Rule"] Sandy/Ivy quads are more than enough to run games + all the other insignificant programs at once. Normal people don't run multiple server VMs, render movies and do a heap of other nonsense at the same time as playing BF3. I'd rather good performance in a game, than average performance in a game with the ability to simultaneously do a heap of other unnecessary things.Obiwan_1O

the point is you can get better performance for the same price, the price perperformance of AMD chips is a myth more cores does not equal more performance. yes it works fine, but anything does, if you want the best though which is what all ppl building their own PCs want then AMD is not the best even if its fine.

[QUOTE="godzillavskong"][QUOTE="C_Rule"] Sandy/Ivy quads are more than enough to run games + all the other insignificant programs at once. Normal people don't run multiple server VMs, render movies and do a heap of other nonsense at the same time as playing BF3. I'd rather good performance in a game, than average performance in a game with the ability to simultaneously do a heap of other unnecessary things.Obiwan_1O

the point is you can get better performance for the same price, the price perperformance of AMD chips is a myth more cores does not equal more performance. yes it works fine, but anything does, if you want the best though which is what all ppl building their own PCs want then AMD is not the best even if its fine.

Most people have >9000 things running in the background that they aren't even aware of, most of those things I never had installed because I don't ever click yes. I would say that me power using is about as intensive as someone who clicks yes and doesn't unclick all the things that get co-installed whenever they do anything.

GummiRaccoon

And you are really over rating what those programs do, they increase boot up time and use more ram not much to do with CPU usage.

[QUOTE="Obiwan_1O"]

[QUOTE="godzillavskong"] I'm getting great performance in games. I guess it's cause I'm playing games and not benchmarks?C_Rule

the point is you can get better performance for the same price, the price perperformance of AMD chips is a myth more cores does not equal more performance. yes it works fine, but anything does, if you want the best though which is what all ppl building their own PCs want then AMD is not the best even if its fine.

You discount the idea that that the extra cores on BD as being useless as something better will come along before things take advantage of the extra cores and then turn around and say the sandy bridges will last longer because they do better on current lightly threaded benchmarks? When the clear trend is towards more heavily threaded applications?

Also I find Anands testing methidology flawed, as you can see he has CS4 up there, but when bulldozer came out there was CS5 available, and maybe even CS5.5 and currently there is CS6 out.

I don't even know anyone that uses CS4 anymore, it's obsolete.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

Most people have >9000 things running in the background that they aren't even aware of, most of those things I never had installed because I don't ever click yes. I would say that me power using is about as intensive as someone who clicks yes and doesn't unclick all the things that get co-installed whenever they do anything.

Gambler_3

And you are really over rating what those programs do, they increase boot up time and use more ram not much to do with CPU usage.

For someone that adds together the Hz of each core to get a performance estimate, you sure have a lot of guts to be calling anyone a noob.

[QUOTE="Obiwan_1O"]

[QUOTE="godzillavskong"] I'm getting great performance in games. I guess it's cause I'm playing games and not benchmarks?C_Rule

the point is you can get better performance for the same price, the price perperformance of AMD chips is a myth more cores does not equal more performance. yes it works fine, but anything does, if you want the best though which is what all ppl building their own PCs want then AMD is not the best even if its fine.

wow even I did not think it was that distinct of a difference, the i5 trounces the gaming benchmarks by like >30 frames in every game

[QUOTE="Obiwan_1O"]

[QUOTE="godzillavskong"] I'm getting great performance in games. I guess it's cause I'm playing games and not benchmarks?godzillavskong

the point is you can get better performance for the same price, the price perperformance of AMD chips is a myth more cores does not equal more performance. yes it works fine, but anything does, if you want the best though which is what all ppl building their own PCs want then AMD is not the best even if its fine.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

Where bulldozer excells is running many things at once, as in, a real world scenario. As it stands I have; chrome with 10 tabs, photoshop, dreamweaver, steam, diablo3, putty, youtube, internet explorer, windows media player classic all open and running right now.

All the benchmarks have windows + whatever they are benchmarking, which something that has strong single threaded performance will excell.

I don't care two shakes for useless benchmarks, I care about real world usability and that is where AMD processors shine.

Gambler_3

[QUOTE="C_Rule"][QUOTE="Obiwan_1O"]

the point is you can get better performance for the same price, the price perperformance of AMD chips is a myth more cores does not equal more performance. yes it works fine, but anything does, if you want the best though which is what all ppl building their own PCs want then AMD is not the best even if its fine.

Obiwan_1O

wow even I did not think it was that distinct of a difference, the i5 trounces the gaming benchmarks by like >30 frames in every game

What they do is called "cherry picking" Do you notice all the different games are run at different resolutions? Some of the programs they benchmark with are the newest release while some are so old as to be obsolete and the bulldozer system is running DDR3 1600 while it supports DDR3 1866. They are literally picking the benchmarks that show the widest margin when intel wins and show the lowest margin when AMD wins.

Run everything at the same res, on software that is either up-to-date or at a snapshot time (like january 2012) and run that. Not pick CS4 from 2008(!) and then the newest things that take advantage of the sandybridge quick sync.

Everything new, everything the same res, everything the same settings or its pointless.

[QUOTE="Obiwan_1O"]

[QUOTE="godzillavskong"] I'm getting great performance in games. I guess it's cause I'm playing games and not benchmarks?C_Rule

the point is you can get better performance for the same price, the price perperformance of AMD chips is a myth more cores does not equal more performance. yes it works fine, but anything does, if you want the best though which is what all ppl building their own PCs want then AMD is not the best even if its fine.

I don't understand why AMD fanboys get so defensive. It's like they feel they need to fly the flag for the underdog.

I'm sure everyone would wish AMD were competitive with Intel, it'd be stupid to not want that, but it's just currently not the case.

For someone that adds together the Hz of each core to get a performance estimate

GummiRaccoon

Funny, faildozer. Not really. Its like telling you that you shouldn't have invested in the Intel Q8400, but instead invested in the Core i7-980, or above. I'm sure you would have liked to, but then again you're happy with what you got. godzillavskong

The bulldozer never had good price performance especially the octa core ones.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

For someone that adds together the Hz of each core to get a performance estimate

Gambler_3

Yeah and the fact that you think that is ok is borderline special needs.

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

For someone that adds together the Hz of each core to get a performance estimate

GummiRaccoon

Yeah and the fact that you think that is ok is borderline special needs.

The guy who bought an 8-core bulldozer living in a fantasy world that he gets better real world performance than intel is the one who needs help my friend.

[QUOTE="godzillavskong"]Funny, faildozer. Not really. Its like telling you that you shouldn't have invested in the Intel Q8400, but instead invested in the Core i7-980, or above. I'm sure you would have liked to, but then again you're happy with what you got. Gambler_3

The bulldozer never had good price performance especially the octa core ones.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]Comparing same architecture yes I do that.

Gambler_3

Yeah and the fact that you think that is ok is borderline special needs.

No

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="godzillavskong"]Funny, faildozer. Not really. Its like telling you that you shouldn't have invested in the Intel Q8400, but instead invested in the Core i7-980, or above. I'm sure you would have liked to, but then again you're happy with what you got. godzillavskong

The bulldozer never had good price performance especially the octa core ones.

Intel didn't have a reasonable competitor at the same price level of a 6100. If you had the cash for a 2500k that would have been the only viable option. But if it cost you a better graphics card, it would have been a net downgrade.

[QUOTE="godzillavskong"][QUOTE="Gambler_3"]When I got the Q8400 it was the best I could get for my money and there was nothing that was slightly more expensive but much better.

The bulldozer never had good price performance especially the octa core ones.

GummiRaccoon

Intel didn't have a reasonable competitor at the same price level of a 6100. If you had the cash for a 2500k that would have been the only viable option. But if it cost you a better graphics card, it would have been a net downgrade.

.

.

V4LENT1NE

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

Yeah and the fact that you think that is ok is borderline special needs.

GummiRaccoon

No

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]Thats the right way to compare the maximum theoretical processing power of 2 CPU's using the same/similar architecture.

Marfoo

No

No

Program requires n number of non-sequential iterations for random data set x. Each iteration requires y amount of instructions. CPU can carry out i instructions per clock. Data set is split to two cores and iterations are carried out in parrallel. Cores 1 and 2 have the same clock speed. All iterations are finished in half the time. Now, this is a very crude theoretical model, there is always going to be real application overhead as it is always a trick feeding all those cores and syncing their outputs, managing memory etc. But in essence not a terrible comparison to go by for things like encoding movies.Marfoo

And then after 2 cores? 3? 4? 6?

[QUOTE="Marfoo"]Program requires n number of non-sequential iterations for random data set x. Each iteration requires y amount of instructions. CPU can carry out i instructions per clock. Data set is split to two cores and iterations are carried out in parrallel. Cores 1 and 2 have the same clock speed. All iterations are finished in half the time. Now, this is a very crude theoretical model, there is always going to be real application overhead as it is always a trick feeding all those cores and syncing their outputs, managing memory etc. But in essence not a terrible comparison to go by for things like encoding movies.GummiRaccoon

And then after 2 cores? 3? 4? 6?