From: Nava2
I'd say go with the FX core as you are future-proofing. They are also better on power than their Phenom counter parts.
Plus, its always cool to have the newest stuff :stirthepot:
Bulldozer is horrible really, it's only really good for something that can ALL the threading capabilities.
The only time it comes close to or beats Intel's i5/i7 is when you have a program using ALL of the resources on a BD chip.
That may be decent if future programs come to support 8 threads (I highly doubt they will) but an important thing to note is that software moves really, really slow. A lot of stuff is still single threaded, and BD sucks huge ass in single threaded.
It doesn't matter if you have six trillion billion cores if that software that was contracted to Indian code monkeys only uses one thread
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4955/41690.png
From: Markus
Just thread hijacking here, but imagine your granny/other semi computer-illiterate uses a PC and it's slow. €200 gives me new motherboard, CPU, 4gb of RAM and a 80gb SSD which is plenty because out of the current 160gb HDD, only 30/40gb is used after 5 years. Would it be worth the money in terms of snappiness?
SSD in general make a computer feel a lot snappier. What you'll want to do is move your grandmas download/picture/movie/music folder onto the HDD though. In my opinion a SSD is probably one of the better upgrades to buy that will make your computer feel snappy. It's kind of like upgrading from 1 gb of ram to 2 or something.
From: YoHoJo
I unno. Lot cheaper :)? I'm just and AMD guy but I'll tell him.
I don't know how the 4 and 6 core BD performs, but I'm curious. I haven't decided on them yet because I haven't seen any benchmarks yet, but I'm curious because they are at a lower price and hopefully better able to compete.
Intel has a big gap between the i3-2400 and the i5-2500k, the only problem is AMD would be cutting into their product lines too.
From: kingarabian
Grats you need to realize we are still in the 4 core era. Most games, programs, and software have not utilized past 4 cores. 6 cores is future proof yes, and it is useful for gfx people that render videos and such. But right now an OC'd Phenom x4 will run any game you throw at it.
I don't think most people are even going to bother to fix up their software for highly parallel computing. It's a lot of extra work. Games have it easier because they can split up the audio and physics from the graphics, but that still gets you maybe only 4 threads. Soon we'll hit the wall for how far we can parallelize our programs and we're probably already hitting there. Sure there are some problems that have nice beautiful solutions that we could throw 1000 cores at, but if 10% of it is still only single threaded it doesn't matter how many cores we throw at it because that 10% still can only be done by one core. Amdahl's law article on wikipedia covers this fairly well.
From: ggzz
OMG… To the guy flaming grats about cores.. how bout u go do ur own research… gtfo u intel fanboy..
The Bulldozer is definitely better than the thuban.. don't listen to that retard… He just copies whatever he hears on overclock.net..
Anyone taking a computer hardware and technician course can tell this noob that the benchmark sites clearly support the Intel Architectures more than it does for AMD.. The specs on the Bulldozer 8 Core definitely outweigh that of the Thuban but yet it scored a lower benchmark which is clearly bs.. Not only that but AMD CLEARLY stated that the drivers aren't fully developed for the chipset so how bout u stop fuckin flaming cuz u think u know ur shit.. The thing just got released and yet your comparing to something already fully developed.. Just pike down cuz the only thing u were right about is that U can't have L3 without L2 And L1..
Yeah, so if games support Intel better why in the world would you buy AMD?(for a gaming PC)
And really? You're going to pay full price for a CPU that still needs "drivers"? And no, I don't give a shit about synthetic benchmarks because I don't sit on my ass all day playing 3dmax. All I know is that in World of Warcraft, Dragon Age, Dirt 3, Dawn of War II, Crysis Warhead and who knows how many other games, the FX-8150 delivers lower FPS than the 1100T. I don't look at brand names, just the numbers. Check my posts bro, I think you'll find I've been happy to suggest AMD before.
