# AMD 2012 CPU'S?



## tanveerahmed2k (Jan 25, 2011)

What CPU's can I look forward to in 2012, right now I know how i7 is the best
so what is the equivalent of i7 but from AMD so I can get it when I start working in the summer hopefully

and when is ddr4 ram coming out


----------



## PoWn3d_0704 (Aug 17, 2009)

We don't know, but don't expect a crazy sexy processor from AMD.
HOWEVER, price to performance cannot be beat.

I am running my AMD 1090t Hexacore at 3.9GHz on air cooling and it will do ANYTHING I throw at it. I picked her up for less than $130.

The 8 core FX processors aren't much better, but they do have some real OCing headroom and there are 8 cores. You need an AM3+ motherboard for those, and I only have AM3 at the moment though.


----------



## Tyree (May 10, 2009)

The time to look for components is when you have the funds to purchase. PC components change frequently.


----------



## A1tecice (Jun 1, 2010)

I believe the makers of BlackBerry (RIM) and AMD have teamed up to produce new mobile CPU's so i cant say i expect anything from AMD in the Desktop scope anytime soon.


----------



## tanveerahmed2k (Jan 25, 2011)

omg AMD those basterds, blackberry is a fail company...I was expecting big CPU's this year..


----------



## darcinator (Jul 9, 2011)

Piledriver and trinity. Look em up


----------



## toothman (Jul 13, 2008)

darcinator said:


> Piledriver and trinity. Look em up


^ this

Basically, AMD only offers mid-ranged solutions that are cost efficient.

The Llano (and upcoming Trinity) APUs are pretty awesome for what you pay. The $500 build in our recommended sticky can play any game smoothly, albeit only on medium on the more demanding games.

The $100-150 quad core chips, FX and Phenom II both, are probably the most cost-effective CPUs for home use and gaming on the market.

The six-core and eight-core CPUs match the more expensive Intel CPUs at multithreaded tasks like video encoding while costing less, but aren't any better at gaming. Bulldozer is very cost-effective here.


AMD actually announced they won't be trying to compete with Intel on high-end desktop processors anymore, and that they'll be focusing more on mobile devices with their Trinity platform.


----------



## tanveerahmed2k (Jan 25, 2011)

so is pile driver the new bulldozer? and when can i expect it to hit the UK markets


----------



## Timer5 (Dec 13, 2009)

Well according to reports Pile driver is supposed to be farther into the 4GHz area. That I am looking forward too.


----------



## A1tecice (Jun 1, 2010)

^ 

Wonder what the OC'ing capability is...


----------



## darcinator (Jul 9, 2011)

I hope windows 8 makes both bulldozer and piledriver faster. Oh man.


----------



## Timer5 (Dec 13, 2009)

IDK but I can't wait. Heck I am hoping that pile driver will be powerful enough for me to dump my Phenom II X6 1075. I mean AMD already has one 4GHz CPU. 

Newegg.com - AMD FX-4170 Zambezi 4.2GHz (4.3GHz Turbo) Socket AM3+ 125W Quad-Core Desktop Processor FD4170FRGUBOX

I can't wait for AMD to have an entire Line up of 4Ghz CPUs. If they are lucky they could get their competitive edge back. I mean Right now Intel has then in the Ropes. I hope that pile driver will be a better launch than bulldozer was. And I really hope they refine the architecture better to make it as fast if not faster than Intel's.


----------



## darcinator (Jul 9, 2011)

It won't be faster or as fast as sandy bridge unless they pull a rabbit out of a hat. But I have hope that they can pull really close to a 2600k i7 for 100 dollars less which in my books is an instant buy.


----------



## Timer5 (Dec 13, 2009)

Well from what I was reading the 3rd gen Intel has a few problems with them. BUT I have faith in AMD. They had the crown once and Intel pulled a rabbit out of their hat. Let's just hope AMD can do it too. But I really do hope they make one as fast or faster than the core i7 2600 K that would be AMAZING


----------



## darcinator (Jul 9, 2011)

Yeah heat specifically. I hope that after piledriver they go to the 22nm like intel because power consumption is a bigger deal. That's when I will completely update my system.


----------



## toothman (Jul 13, 2008)

Ghz is only a number, unfortunately, and being bigger doesn't necessarily mean a better processor. 4.5Ghz on a single piledriver core will still deliver fewer fps than 3.6Ghz on an i5's core (and when said i5 is overclocked to 4.5Ghz itself...). A Phenom II core @3.6Ghz is still slightly faster than an FX @3.6Ghz.

Not that I still don't like AMD, they just can't compete with the i5s.


----------



## darcinator (Jul 9, 2011)

Yeah sadly it's true. They did a poopy job on the new architecture trying to keep up with hyper threading. but I have faith in a few years they will bounce back.


----------



## Timer5 (Dec 13, 2009)

What I do not understand is Why AMD does not use Hyper threading. I was doing some research and look at what I found. It seems AMD owns the patent for Hyper Threading!?!?! Heck look this patent was made back in 1996. 

United States Patent: 5944816,

So my big question is WHY DOES AMD NOT USE IT!?!?!?!?!?


----------



## darcinator (Jul 9, 2011)

Wow I never saw that before! That's really interesting. Amd is struggling hard.


----------



## Timer5 (Dec 13, 2009)

They could really get their competitive edge back if they put HT in I mean Come on They OWN IT. Why are they not using it?


----------



## Rich-M (May 2, 2007)

Just to add, I think the FM1 chips are very decent for a low price and so are the FX cpus as well and for most chores, they compare nicely with the i series from Intel.


----------



## darcinator (Jul 9, 2011)

Yeah I mean I have a fx 6100 at 4.5 ghz and it does everything I throw at it. So I'm happy saving 100 dollars.


----------



## A1tecice (Jun 1, 2010)

What ever happend to that ... 80 core processor Intel are ment to be brining out?
Intel pledges 80 cores in five years - CNET News

80 cores @ 3.17ghz.
trillion floating-point operations per second.
GIMMY :grin:


----------



## darcinator (Jul 9, 2011)

Haha there is nooooo way


----------



## darcinator (Jul 9, 2011)

I'm buying this  http://pulse.me/s/9VDxq


----------



## A1tecice (Jun 1, 2010)

:O This blew my mind:

"three billion people using a pocket calculator would have to perform one million operations per second to reach equivalent SuperMUC performance."

Nerd-vana


----------



## darcinator (Jul 9, 2011)

Yeah mine too! But I wonder if it can play crysis?


----------



## toothman (Jul 13, 2008)

darcinator said:


> Yeah mine too! But I wonder if it can play crysis?


probably doesn't have the the gpu power! :rofl:


----------



## darcinator (Jul 9, 2011)

Hahaha more like not enough ram... Pfff 1.6 petabytes, hardly enough for doom.


----------



## A1tecice (Jun 1, 2010)

Yes yes, It seems like a fast computer!.... But i bet you any one of us can beat it in a running competition.

(unless its a transformer!) shhh!


----------



## darcinator (Jul 9, 2011)

Hahahaha it probably is!


----------



## Silverj2k7 (Aug 31, 2008)

Desktop CPUS:









Mobile CPUS:


----------



## darcinator (Jul 9, 2011)

Isn't steamroller for 2013?


----------



## PoWn3d_0704 (Aug 17, 2009)

Meh. I bought an AMD Phenom II x6 1090t and it's OCed to 4 GHz at the moment on air. It does fine, and has 6 real cores.

It only cost me somewhere around $150, and has no issues with anything I throw at it. The only real reason to upgrade for me will be when I either need a new motherboard... or when my CPU become my bottleneck.

For instance, a dual core Phenom is usually always the bottleneck on Battlefield 3. Unlock that sucker to a four core, and you have silky gameplay. There is no reason my 1090t shouldn't last me another 3 years, and I didn't have to pay out the nose for it.

That's why I like AMD. The processor will play any game, and it doesn't blink. Sure, all intel's chips are better. But I don't need that kind of performance, as long as I can hold 60FPS with Vsync.


----------



## darcinator (Jul 9, 2011)

Same with an fx 6100


----------



## PoWn3d_0704 (Aug 17, 2009)

Without googling this... I'm fairly certain that the FX chips don't actually have 6 cores. It's one core with two Bulldozer modules on it that have to share one thread or something.

EDIT: Meaning that the 4000 series have two cores, and the 6000 three cores, and the 8000 four cores.


----------



## gcavan (Aug 13, 2009)

You have it backward. Each Bulldozer 'module' holds two distinct cpu cores.


----------



## PoWn3d_0704 (Aug 17, 2009)

Ah, thanks for clarifying. Right, so its something like 8 cores with the resources of 4 cores, since there are 4 modules.

Anyways, still wore than Intel, either way. And not any better than the X6's, are they?


----------



## gcavan (Aug 13, 2009)

No. There are 8 distinct cores. each with its own L1 and L2 cache. The 2 cores on each module will share an L3 cache. The only resource shared amongst all cores is the on-die memory controller.

Worse than Intel? In what way and in what application? In all the reviews I've read (the ones which use a wide variety of benchmarks), the overall difference is generally minimal. And if you are talking about gaming performance, at these CPU speeds and with all else being equal, you will see no difference whatsoever.


----------



## PoWn3d_0704 (Aug 17, 2009)

Hmm, poor wording on my part, good sir.

I read a bunch of tech on the new AMD chips and all, but apparently all that knowledge is gone.

I simply meant that it seems like Intel routinely builds a better chip. (This is coming from a guy who has built probably 20 PCs, and NEVER even mounted an Intel chip onto a board. I am an AMD boy)
They can stand more heat, and overclock better. Is that not, generally, correct?
Also, in synthetic benchmarks of the CPU, all Intels medium to high end chips score higher than any AMD chip made.

I'm not saying Intel is better for gaming. Quite the contrary, in fact. As there is no perfomance gain in using anything more than a quad core at mild 3GHz or so, why the hell would a gamer ever buy an I7 extreme?

My 1090t cost me $150 on sale. It does every thing I could possibly tell it to do. And its pretty fast when I'm working in Premier.


----------



## A1tecice (Jun 1, 2010)

I agree, Its disappointing to see how all the Intel CPU seem to be less inclined to take the heat before damaging themselves, Quite disappointing for us OCers.

On another note, It will take a VERY LONG TIME for a gaming pc to need to replace an 8 core CPU due to It being the bottleneck.


----------



## Tyree (May 10, 2009)

Simple solution to avoid CPU heat problems caused by OC. Purchase a CPU that meets your needs/demands.


----------



## toothman (Jul 13, 2008)

Check out Skyrim's CPU scaling:

The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim Performance Test > CPU Scaling and Performance - TechSpot Reviews

The best gaming power you can get from AMD is a quad-core at 3.7Ghz or higher (if you have a 6 or 8 core, you can actually get a higher overclock if you disable it down to 4). Just under an i3-2120. And although average fps on said CPU is 54, when I moved from my 960T @4Ghz to an i5-2500k at stock settings, I could instantly notice smoother framerates in-town and when I spawn a bajillion dragons with the console (too much fun). I'm talking about minimum fps, not average.

Note that if you just tone the graphics down to a high/ultra mix, rather than just max everything, these differences are nonexistent. I understand this is true for all of the most CPU-intensive games right now, but Skyrim's the only one I have experience with right now. And in all honesty the difference between high/ultra and ultra isn't really worth the extra cost.


----------



## darcinator (Jul 9, 2011)

That's interesting that the fx series beat the phenom x6 especially sense on every forum everyone screams 'sell you fx And get a phenom ii!' I'm personally happy with my fx 6100 and all I really play is bf3 which is gpu dependent so my gtx 670 can do ultra but I play on high cause it keeps my gpu cooler. Do you guys think watchdogs will be a CPU or gpu game? That will probably be the next game I buy.


----------



## toothman (Jul 13, 2008)

No way to know until the beta gets benchmarked.

The reason the 6100 beats out the 1100T is because FX performance-per-core scales a little better with additional cores. A 960T, which is basically just a hex-core with two cores disabled, will reach a higher stable overclock at 4x than at 6x. You can even disable the fourth core and push it even farther, which would probably increase fps. FX processors do the same, but just to a lesser degree. So gamers aren't as disincentivized to buying the more expensive 8-cores.


----------



## darcinator (Jul 9, 2011)

I also use the 6 core for rendering video as that is my job. I initially thought I was never going to game on pc cause I had a ps3 but I was wrong haha.


----------



## toothman (Jul 13, 2008)

darcinator said:


> I also use the 6 core for rendering video as that is my job. I initially thought I was never going to game on pc cause I had a ps3 but I was wrong haha.


Yea console gaming just isn't as fulfilling as PC. You have so much more control on a PC that you get to personalize the entire experience. Only reason I even have a 360 is for Halo.


----------



## darcinator (Jul 9, 2011)

Yup +1 ^


----------



## Thrall (Feb 19, 2011)

Well the only good thing about consoles in my opinion is that when you buy a game you know it works no matter what. 

And thats great if you have a weak PC like I had and had to look at the covers of the games I bought just to see if my computer could meet the minium requirements. 
But now that I got a PC that I feel is powerful enough I don't use my PS3 much anymore, except when I am watching blu-ray videos or dvd's.

I am bit interesting in finding out how the FX CPU will perform in Windows 8 compared to Intel as from what I read somewhere AMD says their FX CPU is generally designed with Windows 8 in mind. But with that said I am happy with my FX 6100.


----------



## Wrench97 (May 10, 2008)

The os won't make a big difference, the core like win7 is still NT 6.
Win8 is a little lighter yet again, and changes the gui but deep down under the hood lies base NT 6 core.


----------



## darcinator (Jul 9, 2011)

What does that mean ^


----------



## toothman (Jul 13, 2008)

It means performance-per-thread will stay the same for applications between Windows 7 and 8.


----------



## Wrench97 (May 10, 2008)

Years back MS had 2 distinct OS NT 3, NT 4 for business and servers and Win95/98/Me for consumers, with Windows 2000 it became the NT 5 core which XP nad Server 2003 was built from. Longhorn or NT 6 became Server 2007, Vista, Win 7, Server 2012 and the Win 8 core.


----------



## Rich-M (May 2, 2007)

Tyree said:


> Simple solution to avoid CPU heat problems caused by OC. Purchase a CPU that meets your needs/demands.


Boy do I second this thought!


----------



## darcinator (Jul 9, 2011)

Ohhhhh okay thanks for the knowledge.


----------



## tanveerahmed2k (Jan 25, 2011)

what is the difference between Cell processor and the 8 core AMD bulldozer?


----------



## A1tecice (Jun 1, 2010)

Tyree said:


> Simple solution to avoid CPU heat problems caused by OC. Purchase a CPU that meets your needs/demands.


Yeah true, but there wont ever be a CPU that has that. :grin:


----------



## toothman (Jul 13, 2008)

Personally, I don't think I'll ever _not_ overclock one of my personal systems :grin:


----------



## Tyree (May 10, 2009)

A1tecice said:


> Yeah true, but there wont ever be a CPU that has that. :grin:


Assess your needs, use the CPU that will meet those needs.


----------



## A1tecice (Jun 1, 2010)

^
Yes i know but i cant help overclocking its just what i do, I love to squeeze every last Hert of speed out of my components (needed or not) I know its silly but... its just what i do.


----------



## darcinator (Jul 9, 2011)

The cell processor, in the ps3 at least, has 1 main core and 8 synergistic cores. The main core assesses the work that has to be done and distributes the work to the 8 synergistic cores. Not the best for gaming as it is a coding nightmare but for number crunching it is a great idea.


----------



## Rich-M (May 2, 2007)

A1tecice said:


> ^
> Yes i know but i cant help overclocking its just what i do, I love to squeeze every last Hert of speed out of my components (needed or not) I know its silly but... its just what i do.


Silly is not the issue. You realize you will void any warranties you have.


----------



## PoWn3d_0704 (Aug 17, 2009)

Nah. The companies can't tell if you've overclocked, can they? Just looks like the component popped.

I also OC everything. I have my 1090t at 4.0 stable, but typically back her down to 3.8 because of the voltage bump that is required to hold 4.0.

If my CPU failed, I don't think I would bother trying to warranty. I'd just upgrade.


----------



## Dev in need (Mar 17, 2011)

AMD's FX 8150 with ASUS 990FX Could only OC to 4.41 GHz and be 24/7 stable. Theirs alot of AMD haters out there, Intel fan boys are all the rage these days.. AMD isn't too bad.. You don't have to drain your bank account just to have a PC with AMD.. Intel on the other hand... You might as well kiss your money good bye.

Oh yeah, by the way.. With the AMD FX 8150 BullDozer you don't need to change your CPU volts to get 4.01GHz... And its stable too.. 3.91 and 4.01GHz there is no need to up the cpu volts.


----------



## Dev in need (Mar 17, 2011)

Here's some Images.


----------



## toothman (Jul 13, 2008)

I got my 2500k for $160 and my mobo for $90, so... :tongue:

Also, unless you have a use for all those damn cores, there's no reason to buy any AMD processor more expensive than the FX-4170. Fewer cores means higher Ghz, which is of course faster at those single/dual-threaded programs we all love.


----------



## Dev in need (Mar 17, 2011)

toothman said:


> I got my 2500k for $160 and my mobo for $90, so... :tongue:
> 
> Also, unless you have a use for all those damn cores, there's no reason to buy any AMD processor more expensive than the FX-4170. Fewer cores means higher Ghz, which is of course faster at those single/dual-threaded programs we all love.


Thats just it though man, I wouldn't buy the 2500K from Intel I would do much better then that.. I'd buy that 3900K SandyBridge 6Core Intel cpu. But from what I can tell so far from this 8150. You really don't need a bad a$$ cpu to do normal task and gaming. The Intel CPU I want with a Mobo cost 800 dollars and I built my AMD rig for around 1000 dollars. I'm happy with what I have for now.. Once my AMD cpu is fried I'll buy Intel. Probably.

Newegg.com - Intel Core i7-3930K Sandy Bridge-E 3.2GHz (3.8GHz Turbo) LGA 2011 130W Six-Core Desktop Processor BX80619i73930K


----------



## toothman (Jul 13, 2008)

Dev in need said:


> Thats just it though man, I wouldn't buy the 2500K from Intel I would do much better then that.. I'd buy that 3900K SandyBridge 6Core Intel cpu. But from what I can tell so far from this 8150. You really don't need a bad a$$ cpu to do normal task and gaming. The Intel CPU I want with a Mobo cost 800 dollars and I built my AMD rig for around 1000 dollars. I'm happy with what I have for now.. Once my AMD cpu is fried I'll buy Intel. Probably.
> 
> Newegg.com - Intel Core i7-3930K Sandy Bridge-E 3.2GHz (3.8GHz Turbo) LGA 2011 130W Six-Core Desktop Processor BX80619i73930K


Why compare these desktop solutions to the 3900k? That's like discussing the racing value of <$1000 used cars to a brand-new Mustang. Not even close to the same category.

Comparing the 2500k to the 8150 makes sense because the price range is so similar.


----------



## Thrall (Feb 19, 2011)

In all honesty I don't really care which CPU I got whether it is from Intel or AMD as long as it covers my need. I am not the person that needs like 50-60 fps or 100-150 fps in a game on the maximum settings and get mad if I don't get archive it. As long as I can play the games I want and get a decent fps (meaning I don't get any lag or bad image quality), not sure what that would be as I normally don't even look at how much fps I get in a game, then I am happy. 

And my current system with a AMD FX 6100 CPU with 8 GB RAM and a Sapphire Radeon HD 6870 covers my needs.


----------



## tanveerahmed2k (Jan 25, 2011)

If I had the money I would go for more cores right now APU is it


----------



## A1tecice (Jun 1, 2010)

Love this this has just turned into a bragging thread  haha.... Yeah i bought my I7 960 when i should of held on a little longer for sandybridge for more OC potential but i dont mind i get mine from 3.2 to 4ghz stable on liquid so im happy with that


----------



## Tyree (May 10, 2009)

A1tecice said:


> Love this this has just turned into a bragging thread


Threads of this nature rarely turn out to be informative or useful and always end up way off track.


----------



## A1tecice (Jun 1, 2010)

Just remember according to the Convention of "Online chatting" once somebody mentions Hitler. The conversation has to stop....

^
oops


----------



## PoWn3d_0704 (Aug 17, 2009)

I'm building a system for a guy, and according to any benchmark I can find, a quad core at 3.7 blows away the 8 core at 3.3.

Now, for single threads, I suppose that makes sense. So, what I believe I am going to do is get him the 6170? It's the 6 core at 3.8 GHz with a 4.1 GHz boost.

I'll then, of course, disable the boost and just put her at 4 GHz.
On top of that, 8GB of ram and a GTX 670. Total build with case and monitor comes to about 1300 bucks.


----------



## toothman (Jul 13, 2008)

PoWn3d_0704 said:


> I'm building a system for a guy, and according to any benchmark I can find, a quad core at 3.7 blows away the 8 core at 3.3.
> 
> Now, for single threads, I suppose that makes sense. So, what I believe I am going to do is get him the 6170? It's the 6 core at 3.8 GHz with a 4.1 GHz boost.
> 
> ...


He'll be better off with an FX-4170. Also, there's no reason to disable turbo then overclock to a value less than the turbo speed. It's already stable at turbo speeds, and the only reason turbo exists is because not everyone provides sufficient ventilation to leave it that high.


----------



## PoWn3d_0704 (Aug 17, 2009)

I thought the turbo value only applied to half the cores. As in not every core hits that value.


----------



## darcinator (Jul 9, 2011)

Powned is right. When the fx series turbos only 2 core hit that speed. Disable all the power saving features before you o'clock otherwise you will crash.


----------



## PoWn3d_0704 (Aug 17, 2009)

Right. Hence disabling the turbo and doing an across the board OC will yield more performance.

Also, I'm having a hard time picking a CPU for this build.

The 4000 clock higher, the 8000 don't seem to be worth the money. And the 6000 just seems to be useless?

Also, I'm seeing the old Phenom II x4 @ 3.7Ghz surpass the FX processors consistantly.
Even the 1100t at 3.3Ghz passes the 8000 FXs occasionally. 


And mine is at 4.0Ghz... So do I have the best AMD processor out there with the OCed 1100t??


----------



## darcinator (Jul 9, 2011)

Depends all on what you use it for. You really can't go wrong with any of the CPUs you just mentioned.


----------



## PoWn3d_0704 (Aug 17, 2009)

Fair enough. I think the 6000 series at 3.8 will work just fine. 6 cores at 4GHz should do the trick.

And when I get that, I'll throw together some benchmarks for an x6 vs a 6000 at the same GHz.


----------



## darcinator (Jul 9, 2011)

I look forward to seeing it  post it to this forum?!


----------



## PoWn3d_0704 (Aug 17, 2009)

Of course. It'll be a ways out as the client is a struggling College student. But they will be here eventually, I promise!


----------



## toothman (Jul 13, 2008)

Phenom II will beat FX at the same Ghz, but FX should achieve higher clocks.


----------



## PoWn3d_0704 (Aug 17, 2009)

Good to know. It's been shown that the FX will top out around 4.4 Ghz on air.


EDIT: Sigh. Everything I say is a lie.

Either way, here is a Valve Particle simulation... And the x6 is king.


----------



## Dev in need (Mar 17, 2011)

PoWn3d_0704 said:


> Good to know. It's been shown that the FX will top out around 4.4 Ghz on air.
> 
> 
> EDIT: Sigh. Everything I say is a lie.
> ...


Whats a good benchmarking program to test my OC with?


----------



## PoWn3d_0704 (Aug 17, 2009)

If you're OCing your processor, you should find a benchmark and run that with your stock clocks, and then your OCed clocks. If you're just trying to find the stability of your OC, go download Prime95.

You need to be able to run it for 12 hours straight to call your processor stable.


----------



## tanveerahmed2k (Jan 25, 2011)

Dev in need said:


> Here's some Images.


LOL you have 8 core @ 4.0 ghz ?
I have only 2.7ghz...and got the same rating :rofl:


----------



## toothman (Jul 13, 2008)

The experience rating only displays your lowest score, which is always 5.9 if you're using a standard 7200RPM HDD.


----------



## darcinator (Jul 9, 2011)

Just for comparison my fx 6100 gets a 7.5 at 4.5 ghz. May try to go higher today as I have some free time


----------



## PoWn3d_0704 (Aug 17, 2009)

See, my Phenom II x6 rates at....


If my computer will POST.... (-_-)

There. It's a 7.7 according to WEI.

It's only at 3.8Ghz.


----------



## A1tecice (Jun 1, 2010)

My computer get 7.6 due to the speed of my SATA6 HDD.... when i just have my SSD in i get the full 7.9

/brag

I just ordered a new liquid cooling system to enable me to extend my loop to the CPU,GPU'S for more overclocking awesomeness... Hoping to get more than 4GHZ out of my I7 960 8 core :whistling:

:wink:


----------



## PoWn3d_0704 (Aug 17, 2009)

If you had an i5 we'd be talking 5Ghz.


----------



## Dev in need (Mar 17, 2011)

toothman said:


> The experience rating only displays your lowest score, which is always 5.9 if you're using a standard 7200RPM HDD.


Thank you. 

My cpu is rated 7.8.

Now how about that..


----------



## toothman (Jul 13, 2008)

Just gonna remind everyone that the WEI is probably the least useful benchmark there is :tongue:


----------



## A1tecice (Jun 1, 2010)

^ true that.... and yeah i noticed but my I7 is socket 1366 (pre sandybridge) so its harder for me


----------



## darcinator (Jul 9, 2011)

Damn Wei poopin on my system!


----------



## Dev in need (Mar 17, 2011)

tanveerahmed2k said:


> LOL you have 8 core @ 4.0 ghz ?
> I have only 2.7ghz...and got the same rating :rofl:


Yeah.. Meh. look what I have here.


----------



## Dev in need (Mar 17, 2011)

I also made this. I didn't record it very well, so you must view it full screen to read the text.

PerformanceTest AMD FX 8150 4.41GHz - YouTube


----------



## tanveerahmed2k (Jan 25, 2011)

Dev in need said:


> Yeah.. Meh. look what I have here.


I got 7.2 is that decent or bad ?


----------



## A1tecice (Jun 1, 2010)

Who decided to make it from 1.0 to 7.9? Where did they pluck that number from? There cloud servers <--har har


----------



## PoWn3d_0704 (Aug 17, 2009)

That's fine, I suppose. Anything over 7.0 does fine, I believe.

Also, I just realized that Windows 8 now goes to 9.9!

But 7200rpm HDD, still score a 5.9.


----------



## darcinator (Jul 9, 2011)

That means they are expecting some great hardware to come out


----------



## Dev in need (Mar 17, 2011)

darcinator said:


> That means they are expecting some great hardware to come out


I hear "better" Intel stuff will hit the market end of this year. I would like to see some insane hardware.. Mostly cheaper SSD's thought  I can't buy a 1,000 dollar Intel SSD.. Off newegg.com - it would be one thing for a top of line video card to be a grand but not a hard drive.. I'll pass on SSD's. I mainly want faster blu-ray read \write speeds and a killer cpu with a insane gpu.. And I might be happy with a 4 TB HDD.


----------



## A1tecice (Jun 1, 2010)

4 TB..... how much info do you need to store on a personal computer!


----------



## PoWn3d_0704 (Aug 17, 2009)

Well, I have just shy of 2 TB in my PC, and a 1TB media HDD/Video player.... And a 3 TB backup drive, not to mention the TB plugged directly into my router....

Not to meantion the TB in my brothers machine, the 500 gigs in my second PC, and the 500 (guessing here) in my dads PC.

So what... 9 TB at least? Just in my house?


----------



## darcinator (Jul 9, 2011)

Wow that's crazy man i have like 3 tb in my house counting 3 computers all phones and everything!!


----------



## PoWn3d_0704 (Aug 17, 2009)

Jeez, that's not counting phones.... I have 58 GB in my android, 32 GB in each on my parents iPhones, 64 GB in each of my parents iPads, 32 GB in both mine and my brothers iTouchs, and I don't even know what else.

If I were to total up every GB of storage I have in this house.... Well, it'd take a month, but it would also be a large number.


----------



## darcinator (Jul 9, 2011)

Want to race me in a defrag


----------



## PoWn3d_0704 (Aug 17, 2009)

Yes I do. Because I've got every one of these disks at 0 percent


----------



## PoWn3d_0704 (Aug 17, 2009)

Well, all the spinning disks, anyways.


----------



## Rich-M (May 2, 2007)

darcinator said:


> Want to race me in a defrag


Don;t have to SSD's don't require defragging!


----------



## Rich-M (May 2, 2007)

Dev in need said:


> I hear "better" Intel stuff will hit the market end of this year. I would like to see some insane hardware.. Mostly cheaper SSD's thought  I can't buy a 1,000 dollar Intel SSD.. Off newegg.com - it would be one thing for a top of line video card to be a grand but not a hard drive.. I'll pass on SSD's. I mainly want faster blu-ray read \write speeds and a killer cpu with a insane gpu.. And I might be happy with a 4 TB HDD.


Use an SSD for OS and programs and use sata drives for storage of files and data. There is no reason to keep files and data on an SSD, it won't do anything any faster.


----------



## toothman (Jul 13, 2008)

4tb on a single HDD... man that's crazy

I felt like my 2tb green drive was big!


----------



## darcinator (Jul 9, 2011)

Haha amd CPU to hard drives. Man this thread is beast


----------



## PoWn3d_0704 (Aug 17, 2009)

Excellent. Next on the list? Chevy Trucks. Or Aliens.

Honestly, I'm game for either.
Mostly cause I'm in one right now. A Chevy, not an alien. For clarification.


----------



## Dev in need (Mar 17, 2011)

PoWn3d_0704 said:


> Excellent. Next on the list? Chevy Trucks. Or Aliens.
> 
> Honestly, I'm game for either.
> Mostly cause I'm in one right now. A Chevy, not an alien. For clarification.


Same here, more into demons.


----------



## darcinator (Jul 9, 2011)

If you guys live in the USA what do you think of Obama care


----------



## Wrench97 (May 10, 2008)

darcinator said:


> If you guys live in the USA what do you think of Obama care


Those answers can be found in the political forum here> http://www.techsupportforum.com/forums/f173/

Lets keep this thread on hardware please.


----------



## toothman (Jul 13, 2008)

Wrench97 said:


> Those answers can be found in the political forum here> http://www.techsupportforum.com/forums/f173/
> 
> Lets keep this thread on hardware please.


I don't have permission to access that page, but I used to. Are only moderators allowed in now? I can't imagine I was targeted and banned from it. I only make a few posts and never flamed.


----------



## Wrench97 (May 10, 2008)

toothman said:


> I don't have permission to access that page, but I used to. Are only moderators allowed in now? I can't imagine I was targeted and banned from it. I only make a few posts and never flamed.


Can you see the Political Scene in the Relaxation Room on the bottom of the main page?


----------



## toothman (Jul 13, 2008)

Nope. I actually noticed this a month or so ago.


----------



## PoWn3d_0704 (Aug 17, 2009)

Neither can I.... I would love to be able to though.


----------



## Wrench97 (May 10, 2008)

toothman said:


> Nope. I actually noticed this a month or so ago.


Did you get the Pm I sent you?



PoWn3d_0704 said:


> Neither can I.... I would love to be able to though.


You have to opt in see here> http://www.techsupportforum.com/forums/f68/political-scene-forum-change-637291.html


----------



## toothman (Jul 13, 2008)

Yea I saw it. I haven't opted in yet, mostly because politics have just been depressing and as far from exciting as possible. Obama... versus Romney... and because of the ruling, I can't even be apathetic. Thank god my real life is interesting enough to zone out for now.


----------



## darcinator (Jul 9, 2011)

Okay here is a hardware question. Why doesnt one make a pc with So much ram that it just uses ram for everything. Hdd and stuff? I know cost wise it's inefficient but could that work


----------



## PoWn3d_0704 (Aug 17, 2009)

Nah, because the programs would have to be coded to install on the RAM or whatever.


----------



## gcavan (Aug 13, 2009)

It could be done but you could not use RAM. You would need to use some type of EEPROM or flash memory which does not lose its data when power is removed.


----------



## Pepzz (Feb 18, 2012)

I just want to say that I love this thread


----------



## voon (Jul 4, 2012)

While benchmarks already are a bit silly, since they hardly reflect daily base usage, using the internal windows performance rating to compare systems on an artificial hardware level is probably the worst you can do, as it tries to simulate somewhat what a daily user will do .... even a 512 core CPU won't get a much higher value.

As for AMD: The next thing is Vishera, based on Piledriver, which is a small improvement over Bulldozer, which was more aimed at server use and has proven to be somewhat of an unideal design for desktops. I don't expect much from it. it will still be an ok choice, given that AMDs are usually cheap compared to the intels. But it's not going to beat an i7. AMDs current cpus pretty much use up the reasonable TDP heat dissipation possibilities, while intel has lots of room there. Should AMD even manage to get soemthing done on i7 level, intel can just raise their current CPUs a bit. Even if Intels core design ist exactly new, it's still better at most tasks than AMDs. Also: A lot of software would have to be specifically compiled for the bulldozers to be able to really use heir architecture ... at the moment, they're also hindered by that. but I don't se that happening for most apps/games out there. Also, AMDs proud of having an 8 core. Which is as we know completely useless if the software can't use them. Atm, most games/apps can't make use of even 4 cores, so 8 cores can actually mean you're going slower, because you add management overhead in the CPU, without gaining anything from the extra CPUs.


----------



## tanveerahmed2k (Jan 25, 2011)

Isn't their a single thing on AMD's road map that can beat that i7!?!!


----------



## toothman (Jul 13, 2008)

tanveerahmed2k said:


> Isn't their a single thing on AMD's road map that can beat that i7!?!!


Not that they've announced, and not for i5s either. They've announced their focus will be on improving the fusion platform and bringing it to mobile devices. Which is awesome, just not for us builders.

As for using RAM as a drive, I've been wondering recently if anyone will start partitioning off part of an SSD and using it for RAM. Interesting thought, maybe some compact designs will be trying that out in the near future.


----------



## A1tecice (Jun 1, 2010)

Fusion, You mean as in Nuclear fusion? :O Damn we need to hurry up and perfect that. Luckly the UK have just announced there funding fusion research . 

I cant think of anything better than having our very own sun on earth! .

Little fact: There is the same Net loss of pure energy in a $1 bill than a hydrogen bomb,If the sun is loosing 4 Million tonnes of mass per second imagine the power its putting out!. And considering 1 in 4 water molecules is Deuterium on planet earth we have 'unlimited' energy in the seas for us if we figure it out.

0oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo








ps- No a Nuclear bomb and hydrogen bombs aren't he same thing!


----------



## darcinator (Jul 9, 2011)

That is crazy


----------



## A1tecice (Jun 1, 2010)

^

My lost childhood watching discovery channel has filled my head with useless facts haha.


----------



## toothman (Jul 13, 2008)

even the modern nuclear power technology can do so much more for us than it's being allowed to. modern methods are designed so that the possibility of a churnobyl-style meltdown is about as likely as your car's engine overheating and it somehow melting your trunk off. they're even more reliable than oil plants, but the voter base in the US is so dumb that they're successfully distracted from the idea.


----------



## A1tecice (Jun 1, 2010)

the only thing i dont like about nuclear power is the Half life of the used fuel rods..... i just dont think "burry it for 2million years and forget about it" is the right thing to do. Fusion has almost no waste and can produce so much more power


----------



## toothman (Jul 13, 2008)

I can't wait for it to start existing, myself :tongue:

As for burying the rods, we're in no danger of running out of room anytime soon. They can even be ejected into space, where if they fall back to the atmosphere their radiation still won't make it to us.


----------



## A1tecice (Jun 1, 2010)

I know i agree but do you really want to be shoving rods into the ground polluting everything around it?.... on the upside we may gain a godzilla! ....... 

Ejecting them into space is a tad expensive and i have a funny feeling the radiation may make it to the earth .

Did i not hear about america putting old Nuclear reactors down that Mariana Trench place? Very clever 

Mariana Trench - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## toothman (Jul 13, 2008)

A1tecice said:


> I know i agree but do you really want to be shoving rods into the ground polluting everything around it?.... on the upside we may gain a godzilla! .......


that's the first thought to go through everyone's head, but the dumping location is carefully prepared to seal in radiation. And put under a freaking mountain :grin:


----------



## voon (Jul 4, 2012)

A1tecice said:


> Did i not hear about america putting old Nuclear reactors down that Mariana Trench place? Very clever
> 
> Mariana Trench - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Can't say I ever hear that. It'd be a bit daft .... "what I can't see isn't there" strategy ... that's only marginally less stupid than the

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal - Hitchhikers


----------



## PoWn3d_0704 (Aug 17, 2009)

I do believe that we ought to just... you know.... recycle them? The US is taking a one and done approach to the rods.


----------



## toothman (Jul 13, 2008)

PoWn3d_0704 said:


> I do believe that we ought to just... you know.... recycle them? The US is taking a one and done approach to the rods.


That would be cool. If you make a business about it (assuming another nuclear power plant actually gets built someday >.> ), you could actually charge them to give you their old rods, so long as you charge less than it would cost to shove them in a giant lead box under a mountain.

I have no idea if there's any practical use for the things, though.


----------



## darcinator (Jul 9, 2011)

You could always just eat them... Turn green and become shrek


----------



## A1tecice (Jun 1, 2010)

How would you plan to go about "recycling" spent fuel rods... impossible to do? plus i would hate to be the delivery driver..... would have to end up having about a good 10foot con led + concrete to secure them.


----------



## gcavan (Aug 13, 2009)

Actually quite easy to "recycle" spent fuel rods. A refining facility is needed to extract the plutonium. And talking about the rest will get you on the FBI watch list.


----------



## A1tecice (Jun 1, 2010)

Hmm i swear it was Uranium-235 and plutonium-239 they used in the Rods?...... But anyway lets not get into this, Dont want to get into trouble  and my mistake they have a half life of 704 Million years!


----------



## PoWn3d_0704 (Aug 17, 2009)

Definitely possible to recycle the rods. Countries overseas refine used fuel rods, but the US never has.


----------



## toothman (Jul 13, 2008)

Probably because it's just cheaper to shove them under a mountain. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a dozen unnecessary laws keeping them from finding a better choice, and then the same environmentalists who put those laws in place now speak out against the current methods of disposal :tongue:


----------



## A1tecice (Jun 1, 2010)

^ 
So true... so anyway we seem to have come off topic quite abit here ... any processor news! haha


----------



## darcinator (Jul 9, 2011)

I just wish we could be 5 years ahead in tech haha. I want to see where amd is going to take their new architecture.


----------



## A1tecice (Jun 1, 2010)

^
Hmmm should be interesting to see Intel's Reaction, It would be nice to see some other major competitor other than Intel, AMD. But somehow I don't think that's going to happen.

OHHH WAIT!... darc, fancy hopping in my time machine? we can go take a peak. But remember don't take any or it may mess up reality!. That includes licking futuristic thermal paste! haha :wink:


----------



## darcinator (Jul 9, 2011)

Haha you know exactly what I want to do. I just read all the info I can on new chips and frankly iv read everything! I search weekly for news on piledriver and I did the same for ivy bridge. Although I thinking going to stay amd as I feel the extra cost of intel doesn't outweigh amd's "bad" performance.


----------

