+- AlienBabelTech Forums (http://alienbabeltech.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Technology (http://alienbabeltech.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: General Hardware (http://alienbabeltech.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Has Hardware Canucks Been Bought By AMD? (/showthread.php?tid=1194)
Has Hardware Canucks Been Bought By AMD? - SteelCrysis - 03-30-2016
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/72286-amd-athlon-x4-880k-review-11.html
Just read it.
RE: Has Hardware Canucks Been Bought By AMD? - SickBeast - 03-30-2016
It doesn't look that bad to me. They gave it their "dam good value" award because the CPU is cheap and it provides decent enough performance considering what it costs. They even said that the i3 and i5 CPUs are faster and better.
A $95 CPU that's multiplier unlocked sounds pretty good to me and it hit 4.6ghz when they overclocked it. Overall it's not bad and I'll bet the overclocked gaming benchmarks would have been half decent.
RE: Has Hardware Canucks Been Bought By AMD? - SteelCrysis - 03-30-2016
Yeah, mixed in with stuff like "Conclusion; AMD Creates One of the Best".
RE: Has Hardware Canucks Been Bought By AMD? - RolloTheGreat - 03-30-2016
(03-30-2016, 03:57 AM)SickBeast Wrote: It doesn't look that bad to me. They gave it their "dam good value" award because the CPU is cheap and it provides decent enough performance considering what it costs. They even said that the i3 and i5 CPUs are faster and better.
A $95 CPU that's multiplier unlocked sounds pretty good to me and it hit 4.6ghz when they overclocked it. Overall it's not bad and I'll bet the overclocked gaming benchmarks would have been half decent.
They said AMD is a good choice for gaming, that pretty much says it.
I used to use their "FX9590 gets beat by 2500K" as my gold standard in AMD discussions.
RE: Has Hardware Canucks Been Bought By AMD? - ocre - 03-30-2016
(03-30-2016, 06:51 AM)gstanford Wrote: If you want a decent AMD CPU for gaming you will be sticking with the Phenom II line.
What?
Perhaps this was true 6 yrs ago...
Not today.
There is nothing decent about gaming on a phenom 2 today. The phenom 2 is not decent for modern titles.
RE: Has Hardware Canucks Been Bought By AMD? - RolloTheGreat - 03-30-2016
(03-30-2016, 10:23 PM)gstanford Wrote: Game titles still list Phenom II's in their specs, they don't list bulldozer CPU's...
And here we se the nature of GStan in a nutshell.
Some games say you need at least a Phenom II for a minimum, so he assumes higher performing current FXs aren't as good.
Watch this Ocre:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8316/amds-5-ghz-turbo-cpu-in-retail-the-fx9590-and-asrock-990fx-extreme9-review/8
There's a bunch of benchmarks where newer AMD cpus basically stomp a high end Phenom II.
Gstan will look at all those benchmarks, scratch his head like an ape, and declare Phenom IIs are unequivocally better for gaming (like he said) because they cost less and did about as well in one benchmark.
That is the nature of GStan. (and BFG10K)
RE: Has Hardware Canucks Been Bought By AMD? - RolloTheGreat - 04-01-2016
(03-31-2016, 06:18 AM)gstanford Wrote: I would never purchase a bulldozer based PC for any reason. I would (and have in the past) purchase one based on Phenom II.
Sony and M$ consoles would be far stronger and more capable if they had Phenom II based CPU cores in them rather than the garbage Jaguar cores in them (Jaguar is bulldozer downsized for tablet/mobile use).
There are more PC gamers in the world using Phenom II systems than there are Crapdozer systems. Phenom II was very successful in its time and Crapdozer didn't exactly encourage Phenom II owners to upgrade.
All of the above may be true, but they have nothing at all to do with what you said:
(03-30-2016, 06:51 AM)gstanford Wrote: If you want a decent AMD CPU for gaming you will be sticking with the Phenom II line.
I pretty easily showed this is false by posting a bunch of game benchmarks that showed the Phenom II a good deal behind newer AMD CPUs.
1. What you would purchase is irrelevant, has nothing to do with which CPUs are best for gaming.
2. What APUs are in consoles has nothing to do with which AMD CPUs are best for gaming.
3. How many people own Phenom IIs vs Beefdozers and their offspring is irrelevant.
4. What CPUs are listed on some games is irrelevant.
This is another great example of your alleged "I've shot you down in flames every single time." malarkey.
No one in their right mind is going to look at those benchmarks where the Phenom II gets beaten in every single game by newer AMD CPUs and say people should get the Phenom II.
Instead of thanking me for pointing out your error, you spin this web of total bullshit and try to pass it off as valid advice.
RE: Has Hardware Canucks Been Bought By AMD? - SickBeast - 04-01-2016
Greg is correct in stating that the Phenom II was the last real CPU AMD made. The CPU in this thread is nothing more than a glorified dual core. 4 Bulldozer/Steamroller/Excavator cores are not real cores. Each core does not have its own FPU. So at best you could consider this CPU a triple core and even that is a stretch.
I am quite surprised to see it do as well as it does in games. For $90 I would much rather have a Pentium G3258, personally. That way you have a decent upgrade path as well. CPUs like this are not good for serious gaming though and they are only going to get way worse over time.
RE: Has Hardware Canucks Been Bought By AMD? - RolloTheGreat - 04-01-2016
(04-01-2016, 06:07 AM)SickBeast Wrote: Greg is correct in stating that the Phenom II was the last real CPU AMD made. The CPU in this thread is nothing more than a glorified dual core. 4 Bulldozer/Steamroller/Excavator cores are not real cores. Each core does not have its own FPU. So at best you could consider this CPU a triple core and even that is a stretch.
I am quite surprised to see it do as well as it does in games. For $90 I would much rather have a Pentium G3258, personally. That way you have a decent upgrade path as well. CPUs like this are not good for serious gaming though and they are only going to get way worse over time.
Greg is
stating that Phenom II was the last real CPU AMD made, the fact that they went a different direction with shared resources between cores is irrelevant.What's relevant is their current CPUs are faster than Phenom IIs. The cheesy chip Hardware Canucks reviewed is besides the point.
RE: Has Hardware Canucks Been Bought By AMD? - SickBeast - 04-01-2016
(04-01-2016, 06:33 AM)RolloTheGreat Wrote:(04-01-2016, 06:07 AM)SickBeast Wrote: Greg is correct in stating that the Phenom II was the last real CPU AMD made. The CPU in this thread is nothing more than a glorified dual core. 4 Bulldozer/Steamroller/Excavator cores are not real cores. Each core does not have its own FPU. So at best you could consider this CPU a triple core and even that is a stretch.
I am quite surprised to see it do as well as it does in games. For $90 I would much rather have a Pentium G3258, personally. That way you have a decent upgrade path as well. CPUs like this are not good for serious gaming though and they are only going to get way worse over time.
Greg is
What's relevant is their current CPUs are faster than Phenom IIs. The cheesy chip Hardware Canucks reviewed is besides the point.
Are they not ahead by a node shrink now? I would be very interested to see what a 4th generation Phenom II could do on the current node. It would smoke the CPU in the OP. AMD has put lipstick on a pig several times now with Piledriver, Steamroller, and Excavator. If they would have refined a proper architecture like Phenom II they would have came out way ahead. That would require their lead engineers, their CEO, and their marketing department to come out and admit that they all failed with Bulldozer. In other words, that was never going to happen.
RE: Has Hardware Canucks Been Bought By AMD? - RolloTheGreat - 04-01-2016
(04-01-2016, 07:07 AM)SickBeast Wrote:(04-01-2016, 06:33 AM)RolloTheGreat Wrote:(04-01-2016, 06:07 AM)SickBeast Wrote: Greg is correct in stating that the Phenom II was the last real CPU AMD made. The CPU in this thread is nothing more than a glorified dual core. 4 Bulldozer/Steamroller/Excavator cores are not real cores. Each core does not have its own FPU. So at best you could consider this CPU a triple core and even that is a stretch.
I am quite surprised to see it do as well as it does in games. For $90 I would much rather have a Pentium G3258, personally. That way you have a decent upgrade path as well. CPUs like this are not good for serious gaming though and they are only going to get way worse over time.
Greg is
What's relevant is their current CPUs are faster than Phenom IIs. The cheesy chip Hardware Canucks reviewed is besides the point.
Are they not ahead by a node shrink now? I would be very interested to see what a 4th generation Phenom II could do on the current node. It would smoke the CPU in the OP. AMD has put lipstick on a pig several times now with Piledriver, Steamroller, and Excavator. If they would have refined a proper architecture like Phenom II they would have came out way ahead. That would require their lead engineers, their CEO, and their marketing department to come out and admit that they all failed with Bulldozer. In other words, that was never going to happen.
I've put it out on forums many times that AMD would have been better off with a die shrunk, higher clocked Phenom II.
That doesn't change the fact that what GStan said is just wrong, and he goes around saying he wins every single argument.
RE: Has Hardware Canucks Been Bought By AMD? - RolloTheGreat - 04-01-2016
What is interesting about this thread:
The guy who "shoots me down in flames every time" (GStan) posts laughably inaccurate information. (that the Phenom II is the AMD CPU to buy for gaming rather than the CPU in the review)
I post a link to a bunch of benchmarks that show multiple AMD CPUs are better than Phenom IIs for gaming, winning every benchmark.
Instead of posting "You are right Rollo" or "Look at these benchmarks that support my opinion" GStan posts some random irrelevant information and actually advises people to buy the slower CPUs and says that is what he would do.
Sick Beast, when faced with a bunch of benchmarks from a reputable site that say GStan is wrong, tries to spin it to make it look like GStan is right. Even though he knows GStan is wrong.
So one of two things is true:
GStan and Sick Beast are just trolling me here.
Or
GStan and Sick Beast would rather believe inaccurate information from someone else, than accurate information from me.
Can either position be called "good" or "healthy"?
GStan then departs the thread, calling me a "troll", when of the three of us I'm the only one who has posted relevant, factual information that could benefit a CPU buyer.
RE: Has Hardware Canucks Been Bought By AMD? - ocre - 04-05-2016
(03-31-2016, 06:18 AM)gstanford Wrote: I would never purchase a bulldozer based PC for any reason. I would (and have in the past) purchase one based on Phenom II.
Sony and M$ consoles would be far stronger and more capable if they had Phenom II based CPU cores in them rather than the garbage Jaguar cores in them (Jaguar is bulldozer downsized for tablet/mobile use).
There are more PC gamers in the world using Phenom II systems than there are Crapdozer systems. Phenom II was very successful in its time and Crapdozer didn't exactly encourage Phenom II owners to upgrade.
Well...
You might have bought a phenom 2 and i have bought and owned several phenom 2 cpus. But that was ages ago. You would be a fool to buy a modern AMD cpu for a high end gaming pc today, but you would be even more of a fool to throw away money on a phenom 2 to play today's games.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the Phenom 2 was never any good. I jumped all over the PH2 when they first came out. Bought at least 4 just for me and built about a dozen PCs with phenom 2s in them (for friends and family not counting the builds that were sold at the pc
shop). The phenom 2 was a decent cpu...just not today
RE: Has Hardware Canucks Been Bought By AMD? - RolloTheGreat - 04-06-2016
(04-05-2016, 02:19 PM)ocre Wrote:(03-31-2016, 06:18 AM)gstanford Wrote: I would never purchase a bulldozer based PC for any reason. I would (and have in the past) purchase one based on Phenom II.
Sony and M$ consoles would be far stronger and more capable if they had Phenom II based CPU cores in them rather than the garbage Jaguar cores in them (Jaguar is bulldozer downsized for tablet/mobile use).
There are more PC gamers in the world using Phenom II systems than there are Crapdozer systems. Phenom II was very successful in its time and Crapdozer didn't exactly encourage Phenom II owners to upgrade.
Well...
You might have bought a phenom 2 and i have bought and owned several phenom 2 cpus. But that was ages ago. You would be a fool to buy a modern AMD cpu for a high end gaming pc today, but you would be even more of a fool to throw away money on a phenom 2 to play today's games.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the Phenom 2 was never any good. I jumped all over the PH2 when they first came out. Bought at least 4 just for me and built about a dozen PCs with phenom 2s in them (for friends and family not counting the builds that were sold at the pc
shop). The phenom 2 was a decent cpu...just not today
I had at least three Phenom IIs as well, but they're just a valid purchase these days.
RE: Has Hardware Canucks Been Bought By AMD? - ocre - 04-06-2016
They are just NOT a valid purchase these days
RE: Has Hardware Canucks Been Bought By AMD? - RolloTheGreat - 04-06-2016
(04-06-2016, 04:31 PM)ocre Wrote: They are just NOT a valid purchase these days
"Gstan" = "WaltChan"??
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2469122
WaltChan is switching from Bulldozers to Phenom IIs building computers for people.
GStan pimps buying Phenom IIs here, and is permabanned on AT.
Maybe the PCs GStan was selling Grandmas and Grandpas were bursting into flames during his generous 26 day warranty period, and he had to replace one too many. Now he pimps Phenom IIs which are only known to make the sides of the case glow, but not catch fire.
RE: Has Hardware Canucks Been Bought By AMD? - BoFox - 04-10-2016
(03-30-2016, 11:22 PM)RolloTheGreat Wrote:(03-30-2016, 10:23 PM)gstanford Wrote: Game titles still list Phenom II's in their specs, they don't list bulldozer CPU's...
And here we se the nature of GStan in a nutshell.
Some games say you need at least a Phenom II for a minimum, so he assumes higher performing current FXs aren't as good.
Watch this Ocre:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8316/amds-5-ghz-turbo-cpu-in-retail-the-fx9590-and-asrock-990fx-extreme9-review/8
There's a bunch of benchmarks where newer AMD cpus basically stomp a high end Phenom II.
Gstan will look at all those benchmarks, scratch his head like an ape, and declare Phenom IIs are unequivocally better for gaming (like he said) because they cost less and did about as well in one benchmark.
That is the nature of GStan. (and BFG10K)
Gstan, I wouldn't call Rollo a troll because he did post a valid link to some valid benchmarks, but then Gstan, you could've as easily found a review showing PII beating Faildozer CPUs in games. You can do it, man. Show him you got some anti-bull balls!
RE: Has Hardware Canucks Been Bought By AMD? - RolloTheGreat - 04-10-2016
(04-10-2016, 12:01 PM)BoFox Wrote:(03-30-2016, 11:22 PM)RolloTheGreat Wrote:(03-30-2016, 10:23 PM)gstanford Wrote: Game titles still list Phenom II's in their specs, they don't list bulldozer CPU's...
And here we se the nature of GStan in a nutshell.
Some games say you need at least a Phenom II for a minimum, so he assumes higher performing current FXs aren't as good.
Watch this Ocre:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8316/amds-5-ghz-turbo-cpu-in-retail-the-fx9590-and-asrock-990fx-extreme9-review/8
There's a bunch of benchmarks where newer AMD cpus basically stomp a high end Phenom II.
Gstan will look at all those benchmarks, scratch his head like an ape, and declare Phenom IIs are unequivocally better for gaming (like he said) because they cost less and did about as well in one benchmark.
That is the nature of GStan. (and BFG10K)
Gstan, I wouldn't call Rollo a troll because he did post a valid link to some valid benchmarks, but then Gstan, you could've as easily found a review showing PII beating Faildozer CPUs in games. You can do it, man. Show him you got some anti-bull balls!
That wouldn't help GStan's position though.
We all know the Bulldozer traded benchmarks with the Phenom II five years ago.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/8
However; Dr Who didn't stop time in 2011 and AMD have revised the BeefDozer a couple times and the current BeefDozers beat the Phenom IIs and the gen 1 Beefdozers.
GStan said Phenom II is the "gaming chip to buy" and the one he personally would buy. That position is indefensible, GStan just needs to admit he's wrong and move on.
RE: Has Hardware Canucks Been Bought By AMD? - BoFox - 04-10-2016
Well, the 6-core PII was clocked at only 3.3GHz by default. IIRC, overclocking it gave greater relative gains per MHz than overclocking bulldozer/piledriver CPUs. The 4-core PII's could be overclocked a bit higher than the 6-core ones while remaining stable under 100% usage, and made great sense as most games still don't use more than 4 threads anyway. But then again, other things like lower stock DDR3 clock standards used for benchmarks, PCIe 2.0 instead of 3.0, etc.. all detracted as well. The latest Piledriver benchmark probably used DDR3-1866 as stock default (Anandtech states 1866MHz, but does not state anything for PII in that most recent review)...
Most importantly, it was the paltry 3.3GHz stock clock for the PII, with no turbo... there could've been massive gain at 4+GHz, while an overclocked Piledriver at 5GHz showed abysmal proportional gains over a piledriver running at 4GHz.
RE: Has Hardware Canucks Been Bought By AMD? - RolloTheGreat - 04-10-2016
(04-10-2016, 10:57 PM)BoFox Wrote: Well, the 6-core PII was clocked at only 3.3GHz by default. IIRC, overclocking it gave greater relative gains per MHz than overclocking bulldozer/piledriver CPUs. The 4-core PII's could be overclocked a bit higher than the 6-core ones while remaining stable under 100% usage, and made great sense as most games still don't use more than 4 threads anyway. But then again, other things like lower stock DDR3 clock standards used for benchmarks, PCIe 2.0 instead of 3.0, etc.. all detracted as well. The latest Piledriver benchmark probably used DDR3-1866 as stock default (Anandtech states 1866MHz, but does not state anything for PII in that most recent review)...
Most importantly, it was the paltry 3.3GHz stock clock for the PII, with no turbo... there could've been massive gain at 4+GHz, while an overclocked Piledriver at 5GHz showed abysmal proportional gains over a piledriver running at 4GHz.
That's all well and good, but YMMV with all overclocking, not all people overclock, and benchmarks are mainly stock to stock.
Doesn't change the fact Phenom II is not the AMD CPU choice for gaming these days.