http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1838/1/
Printable View
Interesting but AMD still has some work to do if they are going to compete with Bulldozer. The per core performance was disappointing to say the least. Until software routinely uses 8 or 16 cores AMD has a problem. The average user is more interested in iTunes performance than Eyefinity performance. And single or low threaded performance is not there.
I think the results speak for themselves personally.
And the only thing I use my PC for is gaming.
I'm not so sure about the results. We know scientifically that the Intel 2700k is much faster in games than the 8150. There is no denying it. I'm wondering why people chose the proven slower system over the other.
This kind of "Pepsi Challenge" test is very good for things that are subjective like taste, but FPS is FPS is FPS and Intel wins looking at benches. We don't need random people from the streetz to let us know that.
BTW the first test was LOL. I mean really, a HD 3000 vs AMD's APU? That is pretty obvious. What person would even consider on-die GPUs when making a gaming rig?
That's the point. They just got random people off the street not gamers so I am not sure how that affected the results. Most of those people are probably used to playing Angry Birds on their cell phones or games on their Xbox. How many have actually sat in front of a decent gaming machine before they voted? I'm not saying that invalidates the results just something to consider when you come to a conclusion.
That's just it though. People off the streetz aren't in the market and results like this can mess up an ignorant gamer's buying decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by drdoom
This test may have just proven that people off the streetz prefer to game on the right side of the table instead of the left side for all we know.
I'm saying doing these types of tests in an area where scientific results are the golden standard is only going to throw people off. A test drive in a car? Sure, that makes sense. That is a mechanical device, the spec sheet isn't enough. However, FPS is FPS is FPS, all you need is a benchmark to let you know what's faster, not joe blow's mad gamer skillz.
A simple fan speed setting may have skewed the results because of noise. That is why I don't care for these comparisons. If it was done by an unbiased private party with meticulous attention to every detail, then that would be more interesting.
The other thing I found funny was the 2700k. Really? The 2500k beats the 8150 handedly in gaming, but they wanted to jack that price up so they could say that the Intel CPU costs over 100 dollars more even if the people voted down AMD's offering.
I mean seriously, look at Skyrim performance even with the 8150 hotfixes applied:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ce,3119-4.html
How could you recommend that cpu to a gamer?
This test may have just proven that people off the streetz prefer to game on the right side of the table instead of the left side for all we know.
Both of the computers the same specs except for the CPU. I think it mostly shows they are both fast, the 7970 is a great gaming card and the subjective real world performance is hard to differentiate. I am just wondering why the AMD machine won by almost 2:1. Maybe just not a big enough statistical sample?
lol yeah right "people off the street" go to gaming platform launches all the time... :rolleyes:
Great point to debate me on *rolls eyes*Quote:
Originally Posted by Wurm
That's what I find wierd. What did these people actually prefer? Obviously the intel system was faster.Quote:
Originally Posted by drdoom
I was pretty surprised they found more than 100 people who care about whether or not a single game works better on System A than on System B.
That's what I was thinking, if you are able to actually measure performance with proven benchmarks, why try to measure based on human perception?Quote:
Originally Posted by Timman_24
Maybe they're just trying to prove that the average person doesn't give a hoot as long as it's smooth game play. In its current state I would not touch Bulldozer anything, due to my rendering and gaming needs. In some tests the 8150 is slightly better then my 2600k but in everything else it falls short.Quote:
Originally Posted by PriMaTe
Sorry AMD but you are currently dead to me :p.
I am a little annoyed with AMD. We need them bringing good CPU's to market to keep Intel honest. I have no idea why they would develop a new architecture that seems to be slower than their previous generation. Perhaps they decided to sacrifice short term to hold out for multicore performance. Not sure how long it will take before we all are taking advantage of 32 cores but it isn't happening anytime soon. I'm not in the market for a new build so I don't care that much for the time being. I think AMD would have been better served shrinking Thuban to 28nm, adding some cache, pushing the clock speed up and selling those in the low end.
It just proves what we already know, CPU is not that important for gaming.
unless you're playing bf3 multiplayer, you need a quad for 64 man server. I had a c2d and had to upgrade to a 2500kQuote:
Originally Posted by Learux
I agree and I like that, Thought for sure that I had to upgrade my 955, think that it will hang in there quite a bit longer.
Buying a 7970 or green team GPU and I should be good to go.