My new rig - AMD FX8150 Bulldozer :D

[cichlidfan]

I don't understand the overnighter.. wont work you mean??

 

It is a going to be a very large download. You are updating about 15 patches and most of them were not small. It might take many hours.

[Erforce]

I'm still afraid of WaterCooling because i lived many deaths of PowerMac G5 quad (2x2 PPC970fx) due to a liquid leak, letting CPU going at 95°c without noticing.

Of course it took some years to happen.

 

But i can understand your motivations. i have 4 months to decide wether buy a Top-heat sink (for taller rams) or a watercooled one. I still don't like thoses pipes ;)

 

PS : My Xeons bought in Aug 2006 can run anything at high/ultra BUT Blackshark. i still beat most i3 @ 2.4Ghz. Since Intel Core 2, any "desktop" chip should run well in 2012. The 2000-2005 era was another history though. (M-M-X Powa ! ;) )

[WildBillKelsoe]

It is a going to be a very large download. You are updating about 15 patches and most of them were not small. It might take many hours.

 

Thanks man, I'm flying the A-10C now, made it to campaign 5-3-0. I'm doing some project in the works now, but can't disclose any further..

[EtherealN]

I'm still afraid of WaterCooling because i lived many deaths of PowerMac G5 quad (2x2 PPC970fx) due to a liquid leak, letting CPU going at 95°c without noticing.

Of course it took some years to happen.

 

Modern CPUs will throttle themselves when they reach dangerous temperatures, and you can configure warnings such that if the CPU ever goes above whatever arbitrary limit you specigfy (like 70C to have some margins) it'll sound off a major alarm to you.

 

The fact that youre talking about a computer not only sold in this millennium, but what is ostensibly an upmarket model and make that charges rediculous prices is... well... rediculous. I have to go back almost to my Amiga to get a computer I've owned that wouldn't prevent this kind of damage. :P Even my old PII would allow me to specify temperature limits (though in this case this would have to be done in BIOS). At least I think it was the PII, it's so long ago. Was the first machine I overclocked anyway. And I know 100% that AMD supported it at least from somewhere around the 2001 Athlons.

 

PS : My Xeons bought in Aug 2006 can run anything at high/ultra BUT Blackshark. i still beat most i3 @ 2.4Ghz. Since Intel Core 2, any "desktop" chip should run well in 2012. The 2000-2005 era was another history though. (M-M-X Powa ! ;) )

 

Somehow I seriously doubt this statement to be factual. Xeon, purchased August 2006 - is that a Woodcrest (that is, Core architecture - note NOT Core 2) or one of the Pentium M's or Netbursts?

 

That said, if you're talking about "anything" being mainstream samples of console ports... Then I'm not sure if this is meant to be impressive. :P They're designed to run on hardware that was crappy in 2005... :P

[Erforce]

Guys i know i'm a little [OFF TOPIC], but... it's for EtherealN :)

 

Well, of course thoses G5 frozes in such situation. The fact is that was not my CPUs, and i'm sure you know some guys around you which doesn't have a clue on how computers works. (apart power on/off and maybe Ctrl-alt-del for Win95)

By the time i came, the processors took damages.

Don't tell me when you have that in you machine, everything would run nice and quiet forever ;)

 

source (FR)

 

As for Xeons. It is E5150@2.66Ghz. 1333Mhz FSB overclockable to 1600Mhz.

I dig a little around, and Woodcrest is based on Core2 ;) 1 month before the official Core2 Desktop launch. (Source FR) (Intel.com doesn't say it clearly, but Wiki and other sites claim the same thing)

As for games, you're right, consoles games are crappy :)

some examples though : Metro2033, SC2, Eve Online.

I didn't said it run them at 100FPS. but 30-60 FPS is more common.

 

[/OFF TOPIC]

 

I'm sorry guys, didn't meant to f*** this thread up.

Fly safe ! (yes we fly here too ;) )

[EtherealN]

As for Xeons. It is E5150@2.66Ghz. 1333Mhz FSB overclockable to 1600Mhz.

 

So slightly faster than the E6400. Do check out the i3's. :)

 

Anyway, yes, we are diverting. Should be noted that the FX processors does fairly well in Metro, apparently.

 

(Image source is: http://techreport.com/review/21813/amd-fx-8150-bulldozer-processor/10 )

[leafer]

Wildbill, what temp are you getting with that H60?

[Erforce]

Oh My God EthernalN, you don't want to be wrong, don't ya !? :D:D:D

can't blame you.

 

But !

 

Comparing My Mighty Xeons to this ugly E6400 is a bit offensive ! :P

 

And how the hell did they get those results !?

12fps min in 1280x800 or even 1600x1050 at MEDIUM ? really ??? come on they ran their tests with a Radeon X2600 or what ?:megalol:

 

the only thing i didn't enabled on metro was the DX11 features that my GPU couldn't support.

and it was in 1920x1200 !

I should mention that i say a game is unplayable (thus i don't play it) below 20fps. this was the BS2 case for this.

 

Well, I admit they're a little bit old nowadays. But they're not close to retirement

 

Can't remember why i am talking about my Xeons in an AMD thread. Sorry again ! :music_whistling:

[EtherealN]

Nothing magic about Xeons. Same silicon, binned for long-term reliability. Pretty much. Counting "performance", you pay extra for a Xeon compared to a "consumer"labeled chip, and what you get for the money is longer warranties and less risk of meltage.

 

And how they got those numbers? Through making everything else on the test systems as similar as possible (same GPU/RAM etc where possible), causing the CPU to be the only uncontrolled factor.

 

You know - how to figure out reality as opposed to impression. :)

 

As for the mentioned C2D: same silicon, but at slightly lower clocks etcetera. Stop caring about marketing labels. ;)

[Erforce]

[trying not to argue more]

Arrrghhhh... youuuuu arrrreee... riiiiigg...

[/trying]

 

Please, please please, next time, remember Xeon E5 is a dual socket lover. and overclocked to 3.3Ghz

so, take into part for Q8500 or Q9400 whatever not E 64$*=#@. :D

And as a gift i link you this video, with a card a slighty better than mine. I remember that at this stage. no lags.

 

Apart that, if i weren't marketing label aware in 2006, i would have bought a nasty MacBookPro Core 2 Duo with X1600XT @2100€, or worse, an iMac.

In 2008 i would have throw them away like most players with E6400 should have done already.

 

So, same silicon, but not the same technology. (I have the Mighty (and nasty) FB-Dimm Quad channel, 17W per module, 8 slots, huge latency 100ns and 80°C nominal temperature, which kept me warm during winters ! )

Add to that a Top-Of-The-Line cooling air system, with giant heat-sinks... and you can't have wrong buying this.

... And it does not require liquid cooling circuitry ;););)

 

haha, ok I think we're done here. So i guess it's a draw. You won, I won. Remember i'm an editor and i teach youngling how to use Avid and FinalCut.

Anyway, that was fun, I will miss it.

 

Look how well i'm performing with this awesome underlined text in an attempt to be back on topic ? :megalol:

Edited November 11, 2012 by Erforce

[EtherealN]

Please, please please, next time, remember Xeon E5 is a dual socket lover. and overclocked to 3.3Ghz

so, take into part for Q8500 or Q9400 whatever not E 64$*=#@. :D

 

Doesn't help you in many games. ;)

Games are in general very seldom able to effectively use extra cores - even in cases where multithreading is implemented it doesn't really end up boosting you much. Depends greatly on which game we're talking about though, obviously, but in the linked example you can see how little it helps to double up on cores in Metro 2033 through checking out Phenom II x2 565 vs Phenom II x4 840. A sad state of affairs since things would change so much if games were able to effectively use the extra resources that are now available. (Though sometimes the help comes from unexpected directions - for example Unreal Engine 3 was given multithred implementation a good while after going to market - in order to better support porting games to PS3.)

 

For workstation tasks things are a lot different, specifically because workstation workloads are usually a lot easier to parallellize. In games the only practical route is often to separate major subsections of a game system and run them separately - like DCS with it's separate sound thread - but this unfortunately tends to end up with you having a couple threads spread out on near-idle cores while there is one thread that has a huge job to do, bottlenecking the system. Things obviously also depend a lot on what kind of execution resources are available, which is where the Bulldozers are a bit weird since they're "8-core" but with only 4 FPUs. Very strange design decision IMO - at least for something that you intend to market towards gaming as opposed to application servers and such.