$$Lionking$$
In the zone
I like the sabretooth series a lot.... i will buy 1 someday...!!!
Build quality wise Sabertooth is very good, it is comparable with the ASUS ROG boards. But it is costlier too...14.2K in most of the sites. Don't make what I've suggested as a baseline version...I just wanna know your opinion about the inclusion of Bulldozer in PC Buying guide list.
At a sub 10K price point 990FX-GD65 is really attractive. Obviously for higher end rigs, Triple GPU setup like mine, lots of overclocking, 990FXA-GD80, 990FXA-UD5 or 990FXA-Sabertooth will be our choice.
Now just share the opinion about the inclusion of BD....I don't like voting option.
Share your opinions with your points.
I think BD may be included as an alternative option on specific cases.
Skud - Bad alternative.. 2500K is a good alternative to 2600k!!
I just dont understand how is AMD going backwards in performance rather than forward??
and what the heck were their engineers doing for the past 6 years??
You know the benchmarks... 1100T is faster than a higher clocked 6100... to beat that CPU they had to clock 6200 to 3.8GHz..
About 4100/6100 - I dont understand why they exist? 965 beats the 4100.. 1100T beats the 6100. Only 81x0 SKU's perform and that too only in environments where 8 threads can be used - workloads unlikely for any average and even some high end users!!...
I feel K10 is decidedly better than BD... better IPC vs BD and almost as good in mult-ithreaded environments...!!
Out of topic - u going for 2xCFX or 3xCFX?
^I don't think bulldozer deserves a mention anywhere...!
its IPC is beyond crap.. and there are only very limited cases like - virtualization / database / multimedia. Although nobody buys a computer to run only 1 type of software!! people do other things too and those things are not threaded for using 8 cores!!!!
If your'e spending 14k on a processor you might as well spend 1k-2k more and get a 2600/2600k!!
@Skud - Triple GPU setups are extremely rare dude!
Deserves a mention if you are buying for running virtual machines and you need AMD-Vi aka IOMMU aka PCI Passthrough.^I don't think bulldozer deserves a mention anywhere...!
As we have expected, disabling one core per module leads to higher overall performance than in case two of the four modules are completely disabled, although in both cases the number of active cores is formally the same. And I have to stress that the performance difference is more than noticeable and may reach 25% in some cases. This is what you could gain if the microarchitectural resources shared between the cores within one processor module will be allocated fully to one single core. Unfortunately, they never implemented this approach that is why quad-core (and six-core AMD FX processors have the same exact internal organization as their elder brothers, i.e. contain pairs of cores.