# AMD Unlocked FX Processors Announced



## btarunr (Oct 12, 2011)

AMD today unleashed the AMD FX family of CPUs, delivering a fully unlocked and customizable experience for desktop PC users. The AMD FX series of desktop CPUs includes the first-ever eight-core desktop processor, enabling extreme multi-display gaming, mega-tasking and HD content creation for PC and digital enthusiasts - all for less than $245 (suggested U.S. retail price). This marks the first retail availability of processors that use AMD's new multi-core architecture (codenamed "Bulldozer"), which is included in AMD's upcoming server CPU (codenamed "Interlagos") and the next-generation of AMD Accelerated Processing Units.

"AMD FX CPUs are back with a vengeance, as validated by the recent feat of setting a Guinness World Records title for 'Highest Frequency of a Computer Processor,'" said Chris Cloran, corporate vice president and general manager, Client Group at AMD. "While overclockers will certainly enjoy the frequencies the AMD FX processors can achieve, PC enthusiasts and HD media aficionados will appreciate the remarkable experience that AMD FX processors can provide as part of a balanced, affordable desktop system."



 

 

 




All AMD FX CPUs offer completely unlocked processor clock multipliers for easier overclocking, paving the way for PC enthusiasts to enjoy higher CPU speeds and related performance gains. Additionally, these processors use AMD Turbo Core Technology to dynamically optimize performance across CPU cores enabling maximum performance for intense workloads.










Starting today, the below AMD FX CPUs will be available from global retailers. Additional AMD FX CPUs and systems based on the AMD FX processors will be available for purchase following the initial launch.

FX-8150: Eight cores, 3.6 GHz CPU base (3.9 GHz Turbo Core, 4.2 GHz Max Turbo), $245 suggested retail price (U.S.)
FX-8120: Eight cores, 3.1 GHz CPU base (3.4 GHz Turbo Core, 4.0 GHz Max Turbo), $205 suggested retail price (U.S.)
FX-6100: Six cores, 3.3 GHz CPU base (3.6 GHz Turbo Core, 3.9 GHz Max Turbo), $165 suggested retail price (U.S.)
FX-4100: Four cores, 3.6 GHz CPU base (3.7 GHz Turbo Core, 3.8 GHz Max Turbo), $115 suggested retail price (U.S.)
Without spending a small fortune, users can combine an AMD FX CPU with an AMD 9-series chipset motherboard and AMD Radeon HD 6000 series graphics cards to create the AMD "Scorpius" platform for an astounding gaming and HD entertainment experience. As part of the "Scorpius" platform, AMD FX CPUs also support AMD CrossFireX technology, which allows the combination of multiple graphics cards in a PC for stunning visual experiences, and AMD Eyefinity technology support for super resolution on up to six monitors.1 With AMD CatalystControl Center / AMD VISION Engine Control Center, users can get regular updates to help improve system performance and stability, and to add new software enhancements.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## LDNL (Oct 12, 2011)

The epic returns as a complite fail.


----------



## btarunr (Oct 12, 2011)

In short, FX-8150 gives you:

90~95% the performance of Core i7-2600K
24% lower price
Roughly 22% greater performance per dollar
Overclocks like Chuck Norris
No fail.


----------



## reverze (Oct 12, 2011)

unless you beat the fastest cpu on the market in every single benchmarkmark while being half the price its considered fail these days.


----------



## b82rez (Oct 12, 2011)

Okay, cool! Now give me some benchmarks!


----------



## Covert_Death (Oct 12, 2011)

would the 8150 be worth upgrading from a PII x4 955 @4.1Ghz??? i mostly use for gaming (bc2, bf3, Arma 2 series) what kind of performance INCREASE would i see in GAMES from my current CPU? 

a stock PII x4 955 vs stock 8150 comparison would be fine if someone could provide this info. ( the 8150 should OC even more then 955 so im not worried about OCspeeds since it will be better, i just want stock to stock vs my current CPU)


----------



## btarunr (Oct 12, 2011)

reverze said:


> unless you beat the fastest cpu on the market in every single benchmarkmark while being half the price its considered fail these days.



The times are developing a frightening liking for fairy tales, then. 

If I'd get 90~95% Core i7-2600K out-of-box performance for $80 lesser, it overclocks like crazy, and performance scales fairly well with overclocking, I'd jump into it. AMD FX-8150 is ticking all these boxes.


----------



## LDNL (Oct 12, 2011)

btarunr said:


> The times are developing a frightening liking for fairy tales, then.
> 
> If I'd get 90~95% Core i7-2600K out-of-box performance for $80 lesser, it overclocks like crazy, and performance scales fairly well with overclocking, I'd jump into it. AMD FX-8150 is ticking all these boxes.



Yet still has way higher power consumption


----------



## reverze (Oct 12, 2011)

btarunr said:


> The times are developing a frightening liking for fairy tales, then. If I'd get 90~95% Core i7-2600K performance for $80 lesser, and it overclocks like crazy, I'd jump into it.



And thats what is so great about AMD, whatever CPU you buy its always a good deal.

CPUs are so fast that even a 2.5 year old phenom II 940 plays any game out there perfectly, all this performance unless time is money for the very few encoding for a living, is pure luxery.


----------



## Covert_Death (Oct 12, 2011)

LDNL said:


> Yet still has way higher power consumption



this is true but really only matters if that is something you are "concerned" about...

i live in an apartment where electricity is covered for me, so i don't care how much power it sucks up haha


----------



## btarunr (Oct 12, 2011)

LDNL said:


> Yet still has way higher power consumption



Power is one ground I can definitely concede.


----------



## Assimilator (Oct 12, 2011)

b82rez said:


> Okay, cool! Now give me some benchmarks!



http://hardocp.com/article/2011/10/11/amd_bulldozer_fx8150_desktop_performance_review

tl;dr SB is still faster than the "brand new" architecture that's taken AMD 4 years to develop and performs worse than the Phenom in some benchmarks.


----------



## Nihilus (Oct 12, 2011)

btarunr said:


> In short, FX-8150 gives you:
> 
> 90~95% the performance of Core i7-2600K
> 24% lower price
> ...


 

Reviews are out, and it isn't looking so hot unfortunately.  It usually struggles to match a 2500k which costs less.  In many cases the i930 beats it.  Big time fail :shadedshu


----------



## seronx (Oct 12, 2011)

W1zard was right I am sorry for doubting your infinite wisdom


----------



## PopcornMachine (Oct 12, 2011)

btarunr said:


> In short, FX-8150 gives you:
> 
> 90~95% the performance of Core i7-2600K
> 24% lower price
> ...



These figures are really not what I'm seeing in the many reviews that are out there.


----------



## caleb (Oct 12, 2011)

I really hope for a decent review/comparison by Wizzard after all the speculation/spam about these CPU's @TPU.


----------



## entropy13 (Oct 12, 2011)

btarunr said:


> In short, FX-8150 gives you:
> 
> 90~95% the performance of Core i7-2600K
> 24% lower price
> ...




100~105% the performance of Core i5-2500K
15% higher price
Roughly 15% lesser performance per dollar


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 12, 2011)

btarunr said:


> If I'd get 90~95% Core i7-2600K out-of-box performance for $80 lesser, it overclocks like crazy, and performance scales fairly well with overclocking, I'd jump into it. AMD FX-8150 is ticking all these boxes.



Seems to me that it ticked those boxes were goals, and not facts, based on a lot of the reviews out already at nearly every site...except here.

I guess I was right, and AMD marketing IS fail.:shadedshu

Do I really need to go buy a chip and do a review?  I want to beleive you, I really do.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Oct 12, 2011)

190$ - 200$ for the 8150 and that would be hard to sell. I'm sure we can expect soon heavy price drops.


----------



## entropy13 (Oct 12, 2011)

Crap Daddy said:


> 190$ - 200$ for the 8150 and that would be hard to sell. I'm sure we can expect soon heavy price drops.



Yeah and it's not even the starting price, right now it's actually ranging from $235-$270. Amazon, Newegg, etc. all have them out of stock though. Microcenter's not putting it out yet as well, there's "impending price updates" apparently.


----------



## LiveOrDie (Oct 12, 2011)

HAHA never seen a try hard video like that one all it was missing was some retard and the end saying how great is it, also if you buy with your credit card you get a free FX DVD for a limited time only


----------



## TheOnlyHero (Oct 12, 2011)

I will be very happy to change my Phenom II X2 with FX-4100: Four cores, 3.6 GHz CPU base (3.7 GHz Turbo Core, 3.8 GHz Max Turbo), $115 suggested retail price (U.S.)


----------



## dieterd (Oct 12, 2011)

w8 a second! 1100T is roughly the same preformance and costs about 60$ less! AMD you let me down - I will never see 2600k price drop if you do like this . and I would rather buy Phenom II if price/preformance would be my priority....


----------



## Frick (Oct 12, 2011)

btarunr said:


> In short, FX-8150 gives you:
> 
> 90~95% the performance of Core i7-2600K
> 24% lower price
> ...



When you throw a buttload of threaded workload at them, yes. When not so heavily threaded it falls behind Phenom II (in some cases).


----------



## naoan (Oct 12, 2011)

TheOnlyHero said:


> I will be very happy to change my Phenom II X2 with FX-4100: Four cores, 3.6 GHz CPU base (3.7 GHz Turbo Core, 3.8 GHz Max Turbo), $115 suggested retail price (U.S.)



No, you won't, it is slower clock per clock than Phenom II, http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8150fx_8120fx_6100_and_fx_4170,6.html


----------



## TheOnlyHero (Oct 12, 2011)

naoan said:


> No, you won't, it is slower clock per clock than Phenom II, http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8150fx_8120fx_6100_and_fx_4170,6.html



So if i unlock my Phenom II X2 550BE to Quad core it will have the same performance as the new amd FX Processors ? Shame on you amd ! I guess its better to buy a Phenom II X4 955 or 965


----------



## Fourstaff (Oct 12, 2011)

So AMD lost this not because they don't have a good chip, but because the software couldn't manage to take advantage of the special architecture. Redo this benches in a year time, I think its going to paint a different picture. As of now though, 2500K still gets "most value for money" in my books, and the budget gamer will still get recommended i3 2100/2120. Sorry AMD, as much as I like to believe, The only recommendation you get from me is the productivity section, and even then its the 1100T, not Bulldozer.


----------



## YautjaLord (Oct 12, 2011)

F*** YEAH!!!!!!!!!!! 

Need to read my eyes out, but that one is obvious; let's see what this f***er is all about/capable of/how's it blend/etc.... One more reason to start looking for some awesome web design job. 

LET THE DOZERING BEGIN!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## bear jesus (Oct 12, 2011)

I'm relatively meh towards bulldozer, it's good enough with heavy workloads but not really amazing and far from urging to upgrade but saying that sandy bridge did not urge me to upgrade so i had little expectation for bulldozer to be able to make me, time to wait to see what the price and performance of sandy bridge E is like.



cadaveca said:


> Seems to me that it ticked those boxes were goals, and not facts, based on a lot of the reviews out already at nearly every site...except here.
> 
> I guess I was right, and AMD marketing IS fail.:shadedshu
> 
> Do I really need to go buy a chip and do a review?  I want to believe you, I really do.



I find it shameful that AMD has not sent you a chip, how are you supposed to provide accurate reviews of the scorpius platform without the CPU?

Admittedly i would not like to suggest that you buy one but i think AM3+ boards should probably be tested with bulldozer now, have you been in contact with AMD attempting to get one?


----------



## thanatoscries (Oct 12, 2011)

So much for the PR, guess my road stays with the 2500k... considering I'm only looking to game...


----------



## Yellow&Nerdy? (Oct 12, 2011)

It's not a bad chip, but it got over-hyped before launch. It's pretty much the same situation as it was with first gen i7 and i5 processors and Phenom II processors, as it is now with BD and SB. It's not bad value wise, but as of now, performance still lacks some. It might be, that the current benchmark-software is not working so well with the architecture, but the i5 2500K is probably the best gaming CPU.


----------



## entropy13 (Oct 12, 2011)

Yellow&Nerdy? said:


> It's not a bad chip, but it got over-hyped before launch. It's pretty much the same situation as it was with first gen i7 and i5 processors and Phenom II processors, as it is now with BD and SB.



No, quite far from it. Bulldozer is more like Phenom I and Netburst (Williamette) rather than Nehalem.


----------



## the54thvoid (Oct 12, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> So AMD lost this not because they don't have a good chip, but because the software couldn't manage to take advantage of the special architecture. Redo this benches in a year time, I think its going to paint a different picture.



Yeah, I read a few reviews mentioning that.  The problem is the chip is out now and in a year their will be more new tech (what comes after IvyBridge, then there's Piledriver too).

It looks poor against it's own stable mate (1100T) in per core performance and although it shines in super multi core tasking, the real word _majority_ usage doesn't call for it.  Folk are also blabbing about it's a great OC'er but so is SB so it's not really a victory there.  Hell, my C0 stepping i7 920 runs at 3.66GHz (which equates to a 1 GHz overclock which is 137% stock.)


----------



## deleted (Oct 12, 2011)

> Won't say what review site I'm from. But bulldozer has had the to be the worst benching I've ever experienced in my life.
> 
> It performs like an 1100T, there is no question about it. Not kernel, no enhancement, other than having the latest CPU code, which all of these have.
> 
> ...



Reposted here from an anonymous source. It would certainly explain why some of the reviews seem mostly favorable towards Bulldozer, while at the same time some benches show the FX 8150 performing worse than the 1100T or even the 955 BE.


----------



## entropy13 (Oct 12, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> So AMD lost this not because they don't have a good chip, but because the software couldn't manage to take advantage of the special architecture. Redo this benches in a year time, I think its going to paint a different picture.



Did you say the same thing when Intel first came up with Hyper-Threading (as well as its more recent incarnation) and the software couldn't manage to take advantage of it?


----------



## twindragon6 (Oct 12, 2011)

*Awh, now I'm sad...*

It had so much potential. Stock it benches worse than a phenom II X6. Just get an I5 2600 or better and it's spanked. I guess I'll just rock my FX-57 for another year or wait to see what new parts Intel spits out...


----------



## MikeMurphy (Oct 12, 2011)

Yellow&Nerdy? said:


> It's not a bad chip, but it got over-hyped before launch.



Not a bad chip??

After reading countless reviews I would prefer to pick up an 1100T based on the very old K10.5 architecture.


----------



## YautjaLord (Oct 12, 2011)

Well, what can i say: reviews (as well as CPU) are a mixed bag; on few sites the 8150 dissing out 2600K & it's own predecessors, on another sites it actually beaten by them - either it _is_ a complete fail or something went wrong with few chips. Mostly checked how it performs in 3DMarks of all flavors & games (more specifically AvP3 & Crysis 2); not so meh but not ground breaker either. Where it does shine is in OC'ing potential: some sites mention 1.0GHz+ OCs. 

Also, what's with this Win 8 unlocks all Dozer instructions potential s***; is it real? The only way to find out is to have one for one self: i'll see how it runs once hit the store shelves here & bought. And yeah - i did read through the entire reviews database as promised few posts back, so now my eyes hurt abit.


----------



## Fx (Oct 12, 2011)

btarunr said:


> In short, FX-8150 gives you:
> 
> 90~95% the performance of Core i7-2600K
> 24% lower price
> ...



+1

perfect summary


----------



## Fx (Oct 12, 2011)

reverze said:


> And thats what is so great about AMD, whatever CPU you buy its always a good deal.
> 
> CPUs are so fast that even a 2.5 year old phenom II 940 plays any game out there perfectly, all this performance unless time is money for the very few encoding for a living, is pure luxery.



so true. I am sticking with my 955 until the 8170 is released and matures. until then I am doing just fine for gaming and encoding. like you said though- mostly tasks such as encoding will be the areas for improvement


----------



## Fx (Oct 12, 2011)

YautjaLord said:


> Also, what's with this Win 8 unlocks all Dozer instructions potential s***; is it real? The only way to find out is to have one for one self: i'll see how it runs once hit the store shelves here & bought. And yeah - i did read through the entire reviews database as promised few posts back, so now my eyes hurt abit.



that is interesting news which I hadnt came across. that would be awesome if it turns out mostly true


----------



## MikeMurphy (Oct 12, 2011)

I don't think its a Win7 scheduler problem.  AMD with its millions spent on this thing surely could have sent a team to Microsoft to work out a revised scheduler.

They didn't.  There is a reason for it.


----------



## Fourstaff (Oct 12, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> Did you say the same thing when Intel first came up with Hyper-Threading (as well as its more recent incarnation) and the software couldn't manage to take advantage of it?



I would have said the same thing, yes. Now we just need to sit back and let those code monkeys bang something which use Bulldozer to its fullest. This processor still feels very "server-ish".


----------



## YautjaLord (Oct 12, 2011)

Thinking of it,  i was actually prepared for some s*** like that but thought it'll be a bit better; nevermind, Crysis 2 @ full-blown DX11/1920x1200 runs just fine & so is AvP3; on few sites all CPUs (both AMD's & Intel's) go nose to nose in those specific benchies stock _&_ OC'd; 8150 is great OC'er with C5F on wc & regular air: 4.9GHz stable on air? Do the same trick with 965BE - see what you get when you'll OC it 1.3GHz above stock clock on air.  jk

The way i see it: give both app developers (atleast to Futuremark & game developers) to catch up with all possible updates & AMD to polish the otherwise great tech in a month possibly 2 & see what cooks out of it; buy the all Dozer/AM3+ equipment & test yourselves; and possibly it'll wind up not so average afterall. There must be something behind the tech & name that is more than just marketing gimmick; plus inclusion of SLI into AMD's MCP & it's overall implementation indicates something quite great nevertheless. I still find it a great reason to keep saving for this setup. Hope to see review over here & after that i'll check this out in my rig, if you'll want.


----------



## techtard (Oct 12, 2011)

I need to see some benches. It might be worth it if every chip overclocks well.
Going to spend the next while looking at all the reviews. 

Being that I am primarily a gamer, and most games these days are not optimized for multi-core, FX is probably not in my future.
If they can hit the sweet spot with an OC though, that might make things interesting.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Oct 12, 2011)

Anyway you look at it it's a disaster. The only strong point should have been the overclockability but... On air all reviewers barely reached stable 4.8 with a power consumption that needs to be sustained by a nucular plant. 

Haven't seen a comparison yet between say 2500K at 4.5 (easily attainable) and 8150 at 4.8. I'm pretty sure the 2500 is better in 90% of the benches with half the power draw and 20% less expensive. I think the worse part of this launch is that AMD is compromising its position as bang/buck CPU provider. The whole lineup of FX pricewise is a mess. 

I can't even think about the performance compared to the competition - and I would include here also the Thubans and such - of lower level Zambezis, the 6000 and 4000 series.


----------



## techtard (Oct 12, 2011)

Did any of the reviewers increase the HTT and NB when they overclocked? Or was it a vanilla cpu multiplier only overclock?
AMD performance is usually better when you overclock the other components too.


----------



## xenocide (Oct 12, 2011)

techtard said:


> Did any of the reviewers increase the HTT and NB when they overclocked? Or was it a vanilla cpu multiplier only overclock?
> AMD performance is usually better when you overclock the other components too.



I know for a fact Overclockers.com did.


----------



## blibba (Oct 12, 2011)

AMD would have been better off just releasing a 32nm Phenom II. I don't understand why they bothered at all.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 12, 2011)

bear jesus said:


> I find it shameful that AMD has not sent you a chip, how are you supposed to provide accurate reviews of the scorpius platform without the CPU?
> 
> Admittedly i would not like to suggest that you buy one but i think AM3+ boards should probably be tested with bulldozer now, have you been in contact with AMD attempting to get one?



No, I have not been in contact with the right people @ AMD, obviously. I did ask JF-AMD numerous times for chips, and was quite serious; I'm sure you've seen my posts, and I am pretty sure I asked him in PM too. He did not offer me a contact name.

That said, everything I use for reviews so far, other than the boards; memory, CPUs, PSU, HDD, and everything else, I bought with my own dollar.

I have asked board partners for a chip to review 9-series board with, however.

I'm going to ask AMD's marketing directly, again, for a CPU, but I totally expect to have to buy Bulldozer. It just sucks that no chips are available to me here in Canada yet.


Who knows, maybe TPU will have a review up in the future. I don't see much point though, as reviews are on nearly every other tech site but here already. It would be great to see a review done with Crossfire 6950's and Eyefinity though. I could do that, but I'm not likely to have much in the way of motivation when I got to buy a chip.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Oct 12, 2011)

the54thvoid said:


> The problem is the chip is out now and in a year their will be more new tech (what comes after IvyBridge, then there's Piledriver too).



Then what happens *if* the software side of things still isn't corrected by then?


----------



## bear jesus (Oct 12, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> No, I have not been in contact with the right people @ AMD, obviously. I did ask JF-AMD numerous times for chips, and was quite serious; I'm sure you've seen my posts, and I am pretty sure I asked him in PM too. He did not offer me a contact name.
> 
> That said, everything I use for reviews so far, other than the boards; memory, CPUs, PSU, HDD, and everything else, I bought with my own dollar.
> 
> ...



It sucks that you have had to buy so much yourself, i think bulldozer is a hard one to justify paying for yourself, i admit i would love to see how it deals with multi GPU setups (mainly as it is an area where AMD has been lacking in the past) and eyefinity performance would be nice to see along with having it to test future AM3+ boards but honestly i'm not sure i could say it would be worth it.

I think if you could get a hold of a review sample it would be nice if you had the time to try out crossfire performance as i think that could be something that would really stand out over the other reviews out there at the moment.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 12, 2011)

Meh, I could be a jerk, and say that AMD knows that TPU would have no review and purposefully did not ensure someone had a sample for launch reviews, and it's becuase they do not think you guys need one, so why provide marketing to someone you're not interested in selling chips to?

I did just receive a box at my door a few minutes ago...and while it's a product for review that could use Bulldozer, no chip was in the box, unfortunately. There are some condolence prizes though. 


Now I'm left doing a review with an 1100T.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Oct 12, 2011)

It might turn out better than with the FX...


----------



## bear jesus (Oct 12, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Meh, I could be a jark, and say that AMD knows that TPU would have no review and purposefully did not ensure someone had a sample for launch reviews, and it's becuase they do not think you guys need one, so why provide marketing to someone you're not interested in selling chips to?



Well there is a fair few AMD fan boys here but admittedly they have been rather quiet in the bulldozer threads. 

With bulldozers results being so negative i'm surprised so many other sites (some seemingly much smaller, or at least smaller forum community's) got press kit's, but going by AMD's past failures at marketing it hardly surprises me that they did not get a review sample out to one of the best review sites around.



cadaveca said:


> I did just receive a box at my door a few minutes ago...and while it's a product for review that could use Bulldozer, no chip was in the box, unfortunately. There are some condolence prizes though.
> 
> 
> Now I'm left doing a review with an 1100T.



See perfect example of AMD's marketing failure, you should be showing off bulldozer in the boards it was made for and also showing off what the boards can do with bulldozer but instead you are stuck with the past generation which they intend to kill off relatively soon, to me that seams like a wasted opportunity for AMD, i guess also for the board maker as as well.... damn some company needs to get you a bulldozer chip so you can show off their products in they way they should be.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 12, 2011)

bear jesus said:


> damn some company needs to get you a bulldozer chip so you can show off their products in they way they should be.




I have been asking, but these companies need to get AMD's approval to send out ES parts, and I don't think any board maker is gonna buy retail chips.


And if these companies do actually ask on my behalf, and I do not get one, I guess it's clear that I get no love from AMD.

That's not gonna stop me from doing reviews, though.

I'm kind of upset about the whole thing, merely becuase I really did have the time to do a review..but at the same time, with pretty much every other site hosting reviews, you guys get the info you need, just not from me personally.

As I've said before, if companies do not send me samples, there must be a problem with the product. This just adds weight to that.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 12, 2011)

btarunr said:


> In short, FX-8150 gives you:
> 
> 90~95% the performance of Core i7-2600K
> 24% lower price
> ...


Jesus... glass half full much? Sounds like your ear is not on the proverbial train tracks man...



> 90~95% the performance of Core i7-2600K


In multi threaded apps. Single core not close to that number.



> 24% lower price


Depends on where you shop. At Microcenter in the states, you can get a 2600k for $279 and a 2500k for $179. Currently at newegg you can get the 8150 for a gouging ripoff of $280, and the 2600k for $315. Seems a bit less than 24%...



> Roughly 22% greater performance per dollar


Based on what?



> Overclocks like Chuck Norris


Finally...something we would all agree with.



cadaveca said:


> I have been asking, but these companies need to get AMD's approval to send out ES parts, and I don't think any board maker is gonna buy retail chips.
> 
> 
> And if these companies do actually ask on my behalf, and I do not get one, I guess it's clear that I get no love from AMD.
> ...


This site needs to step up for you and throw its weight around. I am absolutely floored TPU doesnt have one...


----------



## bear jesus (Oct 12, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> I have been asking, but these companies need to get AMD's approval to send out ES parts, and I don't think any board maker is gonna buy retail chips.
> 
> 
> And if these companies do actually ask on my behalf, and I do not get one, I guess it's clear that I get no love from AMD.
> ...



Really i only scanned through some graphs on other sites when they started popping up as i was expecting that there would be a review here and i wanted to read it here so i'm a little upset with AMD for not giving me what i wanted 

But i thought with the number of AMD fan boys on here and the fact that many people seam to think TPU is bias in AMDs favor it would make sense marketing wise although then again they may not want you bursting the bubble of the fan boys here.

I would hope a company could get you a bulldozer sample, if not i'm willing to agree AMD is scared to let you have one as they know how bad bulldozer looks and they know you would tell it how it is. 

Either way i hope Intel has more marketing sense and you get a sandy bridge E chip.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Oct 12, 2011)

LDNL said:


> The epic returns as a complite fail.



A giant fircking MEH.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 12, 2011)

EarthDog said:


> This site needs to step up for you and throw its weight around. I am absolutely floored TPU doesnt have one...



This doesn't really have anything to do with TPU, IMHO. This is 100% between me and AMD, and I didn't really expect to get anything outta AMD while being so critical of them. Not everyone can handle my personality well.

At the same time though, every time leaked info came out, release dates etc, I knew when things were right, and when they were wrong. FX = overclocking, not performance, power consumption will be high, etc...I didn't need a chip in my hands to know what was up, and that people were going to be disappointed. 

Technically, the only thing I've learned from all these reviews is that I can still trust my gut.



All that said, I can spin this however I like. As I've said before, I'm the motherboard reviewer, so for me to actually expect a chip review kit isn't exactly realistic. I'm just mad and jealous beucase I haven't reviewed the board in the kit either, so I could have had two reviews out of the kit. Would have been a good opportunity for me. I'll just have to make shit happen myself.


----------



## btarunr (Oct 12, 2011)

Computer Hardware, CPUs / Processors, Processors ...


----------



## nt300 (Oct 12, 2011)

When is Microsoft and/or AMD going to release a patch to FIX this problem? Bulldozer is underperforming by as much as 15% right now...

*AMD also shared with us that Windows 7 isn't really all that optimized for Bulldozer.* Given AMD's unique multi-core module architecture, the OS scheduler needs to know when to place threads on a single module (with shared caches) vs. on separate modules with dedicated caches. Windows 7's scheduler isn't aware of Bulldozer's architecture and as a result sort of places threads wherever it sees fit, regardless of optimal placement. Windows 8 is expected to correct this, 
LINK:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/11


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 12, 2011)

btarunr said:


> Computer Hardware, CPUs / Processors, Processors ...



Got a link for a Canadian retailer, or was this launch US-only?


----------



## entropy13 (Oct 12, 2011)

btarunr said:


> Computer Hardware, CPUs / Processors, Processors ...



AMD FX-8150 Zambezi 3.6GHz 8MB L2 Cache 8MB L3 Cac...


----------



## bear jesus (Oct 12, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> All that said, I can spin this however I like. As I've said before, I'm the motherboard reviewer, so for me to actually expect a chip review kit isn't exactly realistic. I'm just mad and jealous beucase I haven't reviewed the board in the kit either, so I could have had two reviews out of the kit. Would have been a good opportunity for me. I'll just have to make shit happen myself.



I never even thought about the board in the press kit, that just makes me more unhappy with AMD as it's a board i would have liked to see you review.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Oct 12, 2011)

Covert_Death said:


> this is true but really only matters if that is something you are "concerned" about...
> 
> i live in an apartment where electricity is covered for me, so i don't care how much power it sucks up haha



@ 4.6 ghz an 8150 sucks in excess of 500 watts, @ 5ghz a 2600k barely breaks 300 watts, not to mention the 8150 seems to run slightly hotter.


----------



## catnipkiller (Oct 12, 2011)

Thank god and erocker for my 1100t. AMD you let me down this round.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Oct 12, 2011)

Too expensive. Wasn't the suggested price 245$? Which anyway you put it it's still to expensive. After the performance dissapointment follows the pricing fiasco.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Oct 12, 2011)

nt300 said:


> When is Microsoft and/or AMD going to release a patch to FIX this problem? Bulldozer is underperforming by as much as 15% right now...
> 
> *AMD also shared with us that Windows 7 isn't really all that optimized for Bulldozer.* Given AMD's unique multi-core module architecture, the OS scheduler needs to know when to place threads on a single module (with shared caches) vs. on separate modules with dedicated caches. Windows 7's scheduler isn't aware of Bulldozer's architecture and as a result sort of places threads wherever it sees fit, regardless of optimal placement. Windows 8 is expected to correct this,
> LINK:
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/11



The RC is supposed to drop around the end of this year or Feb of 2012 at the latest.


----------



## suraswami (Oct 12, 2011)

nt300 said:


> *AMD also shared with us that Windows 7 isn't really all that optimized for Bulldozer.* Given AMD's unique multi-core module architecture, the OS scheduler needs to know when to place threads on a single module (with shared caches) vs. on separate modules with dedicated caches. Windows 7's scheduler isn't aware of Bulldozer's architecture and as a result sort of places threads wherever it sees fit, regardless of optimal placement. Windows 8 is expected to correct this,
> LINK:
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/11



so that means the FX should match the SB on a single threaded app right?  I don't see that.  This means they just put blame on something else to cover their failure.

May be somebody can do a Windows 2K8 R2 or a Linux server OS review with the FX and SB for a side by side multi-core performance, Database performance, multiple VMs, video streaming etc etc.  I am sure server OS has better scheduler (even though 2K8 R2 and W7 has the same kernel and base).

Seems Like I will be better off spending money to upgrade my Video card to 2 x 6870 and keep my cheap $80 PII 555 unlocked to PII x4 @ 4 Ghz.  May be I will just add a 1100T too.

And oh I was waiting to build a new machine, I would rather build one with the FM1 socket CPU.


----------



## btarunr (Oct 12, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Got a link for a Canadian retailer, or was this launch US-only?



http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Produc...SpeTabStoreType=&AdvancedSearch=1&srchInDesc=


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 12, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> This doesn't really have anything to do with TPU, IMHO. This is 100% between me and AMD, and I didn't really expect to get anything outta AMD while being so critical of them. Not everyone can handle my personality well.
> 
> At the same time though, every time leaked info came out, release dates etc, I knew when things were right, and when they were wrong. FX = overclocking, not performance, power consumption will be high, etc...I didn't need a chip in my hands to know what was up, and that people were going to be disappointed.
> 
> ...


Oh sorry, I(we) go through our website for reviews... Im associated directly with the website as an editor and it gives me(our team) a lot more clout.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 12, 2011)

btarunr said:


> http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Produc...SpeTabStoreType=&AdvancedSearch=1&srchInDesc=



Newegg is NOT a Canadian retailer. Shipping and duty charges would bring that price up to about $350 for the 8150. I need one on this side of the border.







EarthDog said:


> Oh sorry, I(we) go through our website for reviews... Im associated directly with the website as an editor and it gives me(our team) a lot more clout.



I have no issues getting boards or other stuff. AMD marketing is fail, and that is all. They are letting personal feelings get in the way of doing their job properly. I go through the "proper channels", as you do, so really, i cannot say that this has anything to do with TPU. I asked for chips long ago.


----------



## btarunr (Oct 12, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Newegg is NOT a Canadian retailer. Shipping and duty charges would bring that price up to about $350 for the 8150.



I thought Newegg.ca is a Canadian franchisee of Newegg.com, and that the price (of product and shipping charges) you see is what you end up paying?


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 12, 2011)

btarunr said:


> I thought Newegg.ca is a Canadian franchisee of Newegg.com, and that the price (of product and shipping charges) you see is what you end up paying?



Sure, BTA, at checkout, that's what I pay. Then, shipping up here is crazy expensive, and all stuff from newegg ships from state-side, so when it crosses the border, i get charged taxes. I do not pay these taxes, in the end, but I must pay them when packages arrive and then submit to the gov to get my money back, becuase these shipping companies are doing it wrong, so they can charge handling fees, which I will NOT get back.

It will also take about three weeks to get here, because they only offer select shipping companies, who have set policies that prevent that situation from being as you think. I wish it WAS how you say, but alas, it's not.

Expidited shipping costs $32.99, and still takes 5-7 business days. Newegg does not charge me tax, but I would be assessed taxes at the border, 100%, becuase it's Purolator. Only USPS will not charge me duty charges or taxes, and they are not an option for shipping at Newegg to Canada.


----------



## bear jesus (Oct 12, 2011)

$270 over at tiger direct.ca but "ships within 7 to *21* days"


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Oct 12, 2011)

bear jesus said:


> $270 over at tiger direct.ca but "ships within 7 to *21* days"



Seems like an AMD rep has already left the 1st review on there also



> Buckle up, this one will leave you out of your shoes. If you haven't tried the new 8-Core yet, then you're light years away from the mother ship. This little baby is so fast, I think it knows what I'm doing before I do. It's insane speed like you've always dreamed of.


----------



## johnnyfiive (Oct 12, 2011)

Over the passed 2-3 years, every AMD release feels like they forgot about desktop performance and focused solely on server performance. All of these quad-eight core releases seem fantastic for servers but mediocre for desktops. Am I the only one seeing this?

Note to consumer: If you want a solid gaming rig, Intel is your answer. If you want to run VM's out the whazzo, or anything else that requires more cores, go AMD.


----------



## btarunr (Oct 12, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Sure, BTA, at checkout, that's what I pay. Then, shipping up here is crazy expensive, and all stuff from newegg ships from stateside, and when it crosses the border, i get charged taxes. I do not pay these taxes, in the end, but I must pay them when packages arrive and then submit to the gov to get my money back.
> 
> It will also take about three weeks to get here, becuase they only offer select shipping companies, who have set policies that prevent that situation from being as you think. I wish it WAS how you say, but alas, it's not.



That's informative. I thought Newegg.ca, like the Chinese Newegg, was a franchisee, complete with its own warehouses and suppliers in local territory.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Oct 12, 2011)

NdMk2o1o said:


> Seems like an AMD rep has already left the 1st review on there also



A premptive strike against the chips poor performance ?


----------



## bear jesus (Oct 12, 2011)

NdMk2o1o said:


> Seems like an AMD rep has already left the 1st review on there also



I just read that on there, either AMD rep, AMD fan boy, troll or someone from tiger direct in the hopes that they can trick someone in to buying one


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 12, 2011)

btarunr said:


> That's informative. I thought Newegg.ca, like the Chinese Newegg, was a franchisee, complete with its own warehouses and suppliers in local territory.



I WISH!!!


Newegg has some fantastic sales from time to time, but I am not able to take advantage of any of them, personally. I buy everything local, and my local store is about 8000sq. ft, with plenty of stock of almost everything you need(except for watercooling stuff).

The guys there are pretty cool too...not all of them, but they got some good staff, so I really like going there. My other local option that holds good stock I used to work at, and they are fantastic as well, but alas...

...neither has chips to sell me.

ANd...I have a 990FX board review to do. With my 1100T.


----------



## johnnyfiive (Oct 12, 2011)

I feel bad for people who waited for Bulldozer. I almost built up a Bulldozer rig, but i didn't want to wait and possibly be let down. I'm sorry to say it, but I'm really glad I went with Intel again. Man...  I'm upset at these results.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Oct 12, 2011)

johnnyfiive said:


> I feel bad for people who waited for Bulldozer. I almost built up a Bulldozer rig, but i didn't want to wait and possibly be let down. I'm sorry to say it, but I'm really glad I went with Intel again. Man...  I'm upset at these results.



I'm disappointed as well as I was hoping it would cause intel to drop their prices.:shadedshu


----------



## Crap Daddy (Oct 12, 2011)

Speaking of reviews on newegg here's a heavy one from Bobby on i5-2500K:

Bobby
7/14/2011 2:44:07 PM
Tech Level: 
Ownership: 
Verified Owner
Does not properly fit
Pros: None, does not work at all

Cons: Does not fit at all

Other Thoughts: I got tired of my slow pentium 4 so I bought this to replace it. Well this piece will not fit in the slot at all. What a piece of garbage.

Intel Core i5-2500K Sandy Bridge 3.3GHz (3.7GHz Tu...


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 12, 2011)

Thats why newegg reviews are absolutely useless. What an idiot.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Oct 12, 2011)

Crap Daddy said:


> Speaking of reviews on newegg here's a heavy one from Bobby on i5-2500K:
> 
> Bobby
> 7/14/2011 2:44:07 PM
> ...



Brilliant!


----------



## YautjaLord (Oct 12, 2011)

Made a discovery: why the legendary FX-8150 isn't working in these reviews like advertised? In Guru3D, HardwareCanucks (if i'm correct) & others when looking @ overclocking section in all those reviews notice single thing that f***s it all up major time: the sample used & in case of some other site the FX-8150 is listed as either FX-8130P or as 8120P plus ES version used throughout all reviews i currently revisited; could be the version of CPU-Z used, or simply it is the case that ES sample used; what do you think?

I'll keep looking for everything ES-related in CPU-Z OC'ing sections of all reviews, but as far as i'm concerned even now the articles suffer from this; if i'll find some site that uses & OCs the rev. B2 8150 i'll let you know. They still use the f***in B1/ES version; B2 might not change the performance that much, but atleast it won't be that f***ed up either.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 12, 2011)

Don't get your hopes up, YautjaLord.


----------



## bucketface (Oct 12, 2011)

I'm going to put the stratospheric power consumption down to some bad leakage because of GF's problems with the 32nm process and the massive 16MB cache. BD isn't so much of a fail as a massive mehh... 
Hopefully over the next few months they iron out some of the kinks, lower the leakage and get the clocks up. If the ref clock is more or less 4Ghz and the power consumption has gone down to a more reasonable level I might even consider it for a build, until then not a chance. 
Definitely going to have to go with the 2500k for a mates build, i only regret having asked him to wait so long for BD.


----------



## Steevo (Oct 12, 2011)

I waited for these, and my board won't support it, neither will my RAM so I guess when I change it will be for a Intel setup again. 


To late, to slow, to expensive. 


I do find the Windows 8 facts interesting, but AMD should have known this nad developed a driver for Windows 7 to handle the interface, and possibly even add some OpenCL to switch some of the load off the CPu onto the GPU with those extra unused cores.

THAT would have been a huge homerun for them, surely two or four cores could handle it, or handle thread reassignment?


----------



## PopcornMachine (Oct 12, 2011)

Win 7 is not optimized for Bulldozer?

Lamest excuse I ever heard.

I had great hopes for Bulldozer, but that statement screams bad design, bad management, bad planning, bad everything.

Build a chip that runs well on the OS everyone is using.  Give me a break.


----------



## 15th Warlock (Oct 12, 2011)

PopcornMachine said:


> Win 7 is not optimized for Bulldozer?
> 
> Lamest excuse I ever heard.
> 
> ...



As I mentioned before, it's like AMD hired John Carmack to do some damage control by handling their PR


----------



## de.das.dude (Oct 12, 2011)

get me the freaking TPU review of the bulldozer. i wont believe anyhting else.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 12, 2011)

de.das.dude said:


> get me the freaking TPU review of the bulldozer. i wont believe anyhting else.



There isn't going to be one. AMD's Marketing Team is as fail as I have said they are, and they wanted to show you that I am right. You guys didn't listen, so no review for you. That is all.


----------



## techtard (Oct 12, 2011)

Let's start a riot! Let's burn this motherfucker down!

AMD has no marketing budget. They spent all their $$$ on R&D. 
Or meth.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 12, 2011)

techtard said:


> Let's start a riot! Let's burn this motherfucker down!
> 
> AMD has no marketing budget. They spent all their $$$ on R&D.
> Or meth.



No, they took the chip TPU should have got for the Guinness event, that they also failed on, by announcing it early.

Results say R&D is NOT where the money was spent.


I mean really...just one more chip...but they couldn't. 


Now, don't take me too seriously, unless you want to, but you can go ask chew* how many chips he's got.


----------



## techtard (Oct 12, 2011)

Just e-stalk JF-AMD. Ask him gently if he can pull some strings and get one of less misanthropic PC enthusiast communities a review sample.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Oct 12, 2011)

techtard said:


> Just e-stalk JF-AMD. Ask him gently if he can pull some strings and get one of less misanthropic PC enthusiast communities a review sample.



I doubt that will happen to someone randomly but you never know


----------



## Frick (Oct 12, 2011)

techtard said:


> Just e-stalk JF-AMD. Ask him gently if he can pull some strings and get one of less misanthropic PC enthusiast communities a review sample.



He's on the server side, so I'm not sure about that.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 12, 2011)

techtard said:


> Just e-stalk JF-AMD. Ask him gently if he can pull some strings and get one of less misanthropic PC enthusiast communities a review sample.




Did it..got the resposne he's in server, not desktop.



brandonwh64 said:


> I doubt that will happen to someone randomly but you never know




I am NOT random, dammit!

I just noticed the thread title says "Announced", but not "Released".


----------



## techtard (Oct 12, 2011)

Well, at least you tried. 
You'd figure that a company that is as large as AMD could afford to send out one more review sample.


----------



## YautjaLord (Oct 12, 2011)

2cadaveca:

It is sad for those that expected way too much from this CPU (almost including me, but i took 3 grains of salt with every AMD Dozer news later ), but you know what? I still gonna buy Sabertooth 990FX & other stuff i said i'll buy; besides, just like with anything new there's some chance that it'll either work like charm or f*** up badly; on bit more than few occasions it looses to _*it's own predecessor*_ , but it also either on par or outperforms (even if by small margin) 2600K. In short - don't expect too much & you won't be dissappointed, Doom3 being otherwise great game thought us that methinks. lol

P.S. Here's what i promised regarding the samples used in all these reviews posted on your front page:

Guru3D: CPU-Z v.1.58 FX-8150 listed as FX-8130P|[ES] TDP: _*223W?*_
HardwareCanucks: same shit
LegitReviews: CPU-Z v.1.58.7 FX-8150|rev. B2 TDP: 124W
MadShrimps: same as LegitReviews
NeoSeeker: same as Guru3D & HardwareCanucks
Overclock3D: same as 1 above
OverclockersClub: the trend continues, ES, AMD Processor as CPU's name, CPU-Z version 1.57.2
Overclocker.com: this gets tiresome, but atleast CPU-Z is version 1.58|same as Guru & Canucks FX-8130P is name
PureOverclock: it's trend following day with ES revision & CPU-Z 1.58
Rage3D: same as above it, but atleast Crysis 2 runs @ FullHD|DX11 & actually puts it almost on par with 2600K, both 8150|2600 OC'd & pitted gainst each other
TechwareLabs: ES
TweakTown: ES again
Vortez: surprisingly rev. OR-B2 TDP 124

The reviews that i didn't mentioned either had no CPU-Z screenie or didn't worked (VR-Zone). Just my 2 cents/pennies/etc.....


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 12, 2011)

techtard said:


> Well, at least you tried.
> You'd figure that a company that is as large as AMD could afford to send out one more review sample.



I actually believe they could not. In the post above, you can see that most reviews are using ES smples, even, and not retail, and near every retailer has sold out now of what little stock they had. This was not a "global launch" with wide retail availability.

Personally, I detest ES parts, and would much rather do my reviews with retail parts so that the stuff I am using, you guys can get the same results with, with no questions left as to whether the "ES factor" is involved.

It does piss me off though, that many sites with reviews have far less traffic than we do here @ TPU. It does, however, serve the purpose of highlighting how none of the reviews posted here contain any bias for favortism because whatever marketing department requested it.

And most of these launch reviews are HIGHLY biased, with most using the exact same benchmarks, and not benchmarks that are all that common, either.

I due time, I'll be posting in the Bulldozer OC thread, along with erocker, at least, with Crossfire and Eyefinity results with Bulldozer, with retail chips. Although the stock perforamcne isn't "all that", I love to tweak BIOSes, and this is yet another platform that offers some new tweaking.


I will not say, however, that theere is lots of headroom, or that the FX moniker is appropriate. 4.2 GHz is stock turbo, and most sites are posting reviews with 4.6 GHz, a mere 400 MHz over stock. Fortunately there are some big gains to be had by the extra clocks, but I want to take a look for myself, and see what's what, and what I can do with these chips.

I took the non-standard position for OC'ing 1155 chips, compared to other sites, so I am looking forward to finding the things that have been missed, for sure.


----------



## erocker (Oct 12, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> I actually believe they could not. In the post above, you can see that most reviews are using ES smples, even, and not retail, and near every retailer has sold out now of what little stock they had. This was not a "global launch" with wide retail availability.
> 
> Personally, I detest ES parts, and would much rather do my reviews with retail parts so that the stuff I am using, you guys can get the same results with, with no questions left as to whether the "ES factor" is involved.
> 
> ...



Become the official CPU reviewer here. Problem solved.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Oct 12, 2011)

+1 to that

theres still many a question unanswered im not over awed but i dont think AMDs new baby is as bad as it appears as none of the tests in any of the reviews afaik use all or any of the processors new features , none oc the memory and few run past 1600 i mean whats that about if your going to oc a system oc it ya lazy tard or do they not bother to oc there own mem at home

ive been told i oc like a tard and thats fair enough but i deffinately try to push Every bit in my pc


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 12, 2011)

erocker said:


> Become the official CPU reviewer here. Problem solved.








Done. But that doesn't help with Bulldozer.





Or you could. 


I was gonna take a long vacation from reviews because of my upcoming surgery, but too many people have asked me to keep going, so I made plans to deal with my downtime, and onward and upward it is.

I don't even have a staff tag or anything like that; maybe it's time to get one.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Oct 12, 2011)

PopcornMachine said:


> Win 7 is not optimized for Bulldozer?
> 
> Lamest excuse I ever heard.
> 
> ...



Agreed, just a lame attempt to shift blame onto M$ for why their chip didn't meet their hype.


----------



## PopcornMachine (Oct 12, 2011)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> +1 to that
> 
> theres still many a question unanswered im not over awed but i dont think AMDs new baby is as bad as it appears as none of the tests in any of the reviews afaik use all or any of the processors new features , none oc the memory and few run past 1600 i mean whats that about if your going to oc a system oc it ya lazy tard or do they not bother to oc there own mem at home
> 
> ive been told i oc like a tard and thats fair enough but i deffinately try to push Every bit in my pc



Memory scaling tested here.  Makes little to no difference.

http://vr-zone.com/articles/amd-fx-...vestigation--feeding-the-bulldozer/13704.html

Let's go down the list.

Bad memory controller.
Worse per core performance than previous generation Thuban.
Out of control power usage when overclocked.

Am I missing anything?

They'd been better off not releasing this at all.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 12, 2011)

Offical announcement(including link to Canadian retailer that says "no such product"!)










> Oh wait, we already did.



Great marketing!!

The Canadian link:









> We already did.



Actually, no, you didn't!  Good job, AMD!!!


----------



## dumo (Oct 12, 2011)

I still have hope for this cpu We never know until we tested (non ES) retail box cpu ourselves

The first retail batch of FX8150 for US went to Newegg in limited quantity....wonder why


----------



## techtard (Oct 12, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Offical announcement(including link to Canadian retailer that says "no such product"!)
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=43930&stc=1&d=1318446053
> 
> ...




That's more of an Ncix fail. They always have little screwups somewhere in their pages.

If you have an account there, you can point that out to their staff and get some Ncix points.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 12, 2011)

techtard said:


> That's more of an Ncix fail. They always have little screwups somewhere in their pages.
> 
> If you have an account there, you can point that out to their staff and get some Ncix points.



Cool info! Thanks!


Now the link works....



but*....TWO HUNDRED AND NINETY DOLLARS!!!!!*

and OOS.


----------



## techtard (Oct 12, 2011)

That's a double whammy! Out of stock and way over the suggested price.
Just wait a week and then use Ncix pricematch.


----------



## Nick89 (Oct 13, 2011)

Its like Pentium 4 all over again.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 13, 2011)

Nick89 said:


> Its like Pentium 4 all over again.


Agreed. In the meantime AMD needs to do some massive damage control, tweak the shit out of Bulldozer and get a re-fresh out the door ASAP. 

Nobody wants to see AMD go belly up, or we are all screwed....


----------



## Grings (Oct 13, 2011)

> FX-4100: Four cores, 3.6 GHz CPU base (3.7 GHz Turbo Core, 3.8 GHz Max Turbo), $115 suggested retail price (U.S.)



This is what got my attention, lookit dat price!

I wonder if these overclock any better than the 8 core models...


----------



## xenocide (Oct 13, 2011)

Super XP said:


> Agreed. In the meantime AMD needs to do some massive damage control, tweak the shit out of Bulldozer and get a re-fresh out the door ASAP.
> 
> Nobody wants to see AMD go belly up, or we are all screwed....



Unlikely considering they don't even have a decent number of these CPU's available.  They just don't have the manufacturing capacity to get anything out the door in a reasonable amount of time...


----------



## YautjaLord (Oct 13, 2011)

On TweakTown they still use ES, but that's not exactly what captured me in the review; it's the last CPU review of today on your front page & one that particularly of interest for me or any other that games on AMD: FX-8150 gaming perf. Again, they used ES, but they pitted it gainst 2600K & OC'd both; 2600K was @ 5.2GHz, 8150 - 4.76GHz; for ES it was 1-3fps behind 2600K in all scenarios; also they used both CPUs OC'd in AA/AF image quality tests. The way i saw it for ES (i don't even know ES equals what - B0? B1?) it was bit more than just decent. 

Bottom line: i don't find any flaws in this CPU when comes down to gaming, even with fact it's ES; can you proove me wrong? I'll continue looking for other reviews on your front page, but as far as i'm concerned - the only flaw i see is that both reviewers & AMD rushed & started to give (in case of AMD) & bench (in case of reviewers) the f***ing ES samples. That's the only major flaw the way i see it. Hope when the time comes & there are both rev. B2 & C0 versions of 8150 you'll bench both. FX-8150 @ 4.76GHz almost on par with 5.2GHz 2600K & it's ES (8150)? I don't find it that much f***ed up, afterall.


----------



## xenocide (Oct 13, 2011)

The "flaw" is that it's an 8-Core CPU with about 2 Billion Transistors that costs ~$250 that performs on par or worse than a 4-Core CPU with about 1 Billion Transistors and costs ~$215.  The "flaw" is that per-core performance is worse than their previous--now 2-3 year old--architecture.

You also keep saying all these sites are using Engineering Samples, which I don't think is true considering almost all of them have picture the retail packaging that their benchmarking samples came in.  Are you implying that AMD would seriously take broken Engineering Samples, package them in retail boxes, and tell people to test them for the sake of getting others to buy them?  Do you realize exactly how fucking retarded that sounds lol?


----------



## techtard (Oct 13, 2011)

This is just pure speculation, but does the whole FX on AM3+ have anything to do with the performance issues these chips are having? 
Would it have been better to have broken compatibility and released on FM2?
Could be they shot themselves in the foot.


----------



## YautjaLord (Oct 13, 2011)

2xenocide:



I only care for one thing: review of the rev. B2/C0 FX-8150, that's what i'd like to see. Besides, i'm only guessing, but as far as i'm concerned i think it's the case actually: some AMD department is _that_ retarded.  Just guessing; don't tell me i hurt your feelings with this now, or did i? lol jk 

P.S. Dozer quantites are that small, the way i saw it when i checked yesterday on few etailers/retailer sites: 2 or 3 at most; in Newegg it's 1 FX-8150, 1 FX-8120 & 2 or 3 FX-4100, same was with other e/retailer sites names of which i already forgot; the samples used in reviews i think were not bought but rather were given by AMD methinks; besides, it's launch not final release. Just saying.


----------



## 3volvedcombat (Oct 13, 2011)

btarunr said:


> In short, FX-8150 gives you:
> 
> 90~95% the performance of Core i7-2600K
> 24% lower price
> ...



Im not even going to read any other opinion's.

Cause this is fact.

Great job AMD. !!!!

Thanks for clarifying btarunr!!!!! +1



For all of you thinking its fail? you go right ahead, i accept everybody's opinion 
But who ever though AMD was going to not compete was stupid, for that AMD is keeping to there trend's and always will. 
(always will is more like a maybe you never know.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 13, 2011)

xenocide said:


> You also keep saying all these sites are using Engineering Samples, which I don't think is true considering almost all of them have picture the retail packaging that their benchmarking samples came in. Are you implying that AMD would seriously take broken Engineering Samples, package them in retail boxes, and tell people to test them for the sake of getting others to buy them? Do you realize exactly how fucking retarded that sounds lol?



Yes, it's retarded. But guess what?


*THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED*. Go to the reviews, check CPU-Z screens...you'll see many, if not most sites with "8130P", which is the 8150 ES chip.

Then look at the TPU front page, and realize that AMD did not send TPU a sample for review.

AMD's current marketing staff *IS* retarded. There is no denying it. I wish it wasn't so, but it is what it is. Most sites received the packaging tin and watercooler in seperate shipments, even.

I had OEMS asking AMD for a chip for me, even...and in the end, I'll probably have to buy my own. As soon as chips are available in retail locally, I'm going to get one, because clearly AMD isn't exactly working well on the marketing side.



techtard said:


> This is just pure speculation, but does the whole FX on AM3  have anything to do with the performance issues these chips are having?



I asked JF-AMD directly, if a new socket would be required to take full advantage of Bulldozer. 

His response:

YES.



In the end, it doesn't matter. Everyone bitched about backwards compatibility, and now ya got it, and the chip does not meet expectations.

You can't always have your cake and eat it too, I'm afraid.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Oct 13, 2011)

@techtard
I don't think it would have mattered. Methinks, its just a weak IMC rehash like the PHII lineup. It was very close to my expectations tbh.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 13, 2011)

Man the box art BLOWS AWAY anything Intels done lately. These new CPU boxes are cutting edge. Sorry Intel fanboys. You've lost this round.


----------



## purecain (Oct 13, 2011)

at last!!!!! someone that REALLY knows his cpu box's..... (looks at TheMailMan's post) 

just buy it for the box people...!!!!!   buy it for the box....

but in all seriousness, i'm badly in need of an upgrade... 

i'm still using core2quad@4ghz... i didnt feel that core i7 offered enough extra performance to upgrade... (and yes i realise we are in the realms of diminishing gains)

so i've been hoping that bulldozer would offer i7 performance and then some at a reasonable price... seems i'm hoping for a miracle at this point... 

Unless the ES chips sent to reviewers are not representitive of retail chips performance... but would AMD really be that stupid... i doubt it...

so what to do now... i think i may still buy bulldozer for the tech hit... but i've built a few SB setups for customers and friends and i know i'm going to feel massive dissapointment if the speed of the BDcpu is noticably slower... DAMN!!!!


----------



## 3volvedcombat (Oct 13, 2011)

I will agree with this(from reading thread), AMD marketing is not accomplishing anything right now. 

*There Marketing team has managed to continue to tease us with "announcements" and weird dialog, that frankly I could have thought of after I woke up from a wet dream. 

*There marketing has managed to cause almost more damage literally then what they were originally trying to do  

*Seeing the PR review's on T.direct ect ect.... Is way to obvious, and that's negative points to me. 

*The more I examine the wide range of opinion's and review's, and the current situation with low stock is shady and that is obvious also. 

*My opinion has changed from my previous post, frankly because the marketing team has managed to jumbo up the internet with flame, conflicting against what they marketed ect.. 

*So ill leave my prev post up there to show I am stupid 

*If I were you guy's, I would stay away from bulldozer and generally move to the more stable and confident company that is Intel, providing the bang right now. (there !@%@ greedy though)

*Getting teased to much by marketing has drove my ass away.

(walks away, *chewz bubblegum*)


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 13, 2011)

3volvedcombat said:


> I will agree with this(from reading thread), AMD marketing is not accomplishing anything right now.
> 
> *There Marketing team has managed to continue to tease us with "announcements" and weird dialog, that frankly I could have thought of after I woke up from a wet dream.
> 
> ...



Phft. You obviously don't know epic box art when you see it.


----------



## YautjaLord (Oct 13, 2011)

Man, i wish i would have enough money to get both FX-8150 & 2600K setups (best of both worlds) to pit gainst each other, i actually wish i would have cash in 1st place; that way i could _personally_ see where each of these @, performance-wise. Also when i say FX-8150 vs 2600K in case of 8150 i mean rev. B2 or even better C0 FX-8150; with CPU-Z 1.58.7 or if by the time it actually hits store shelves 1.59 & higher. By the end of this month i hope that atleast rev. B2 be available & tech sites (TPU included ) benchmark the f*** out of it. 

The only other thing i don't remember if there was or wasn't & wanna see it, is - review of FX-8150 (prefferably rev. B2, i know i sound repetitive) in multi-GPU (CFX & SLI) config; i'll search for it again, i bet there were 1 or 2 reviews like that from your reviews db on your front page. That, or i'm loosin' it. 

P.S. And yes - the box (actually it's can the way i saw it on all the reviews i read) & it's art looks f***in' ACE!!!!!!! Hope it'll be even better with rev. B2/C0 printed on it's upper side (though not too big) & with actual rev. B2/C0 CPU in it.


----------



## 3volvedcombat (Oct 13, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Phft. You obviously don't know epic box art when you see it.



I do have to say, that they nailed the box art, it actually fits the trends of today pretty well  I'm series  

You could say, AMD focused on marketing more then performance with this release.


EDIT*** Actually I thank Mailman for noticing the positive of this and not bring so much negativity to mind, really bad for the mind


----------



## techtard (Oct 13, 2011)

JrRacinFan said:


> @techtard
> I don't think it would have mattered. Methinks, its just a weak IMC rehash like the PHII lineup. It was very close to my expectations tbh.



That was just an idle thought. I read that other thread where a supposed ex-AMD engineer detailed all the problems AMD had leading up to that launch. If what he said was truthful, AMD has an executive board full of retards for going in the direction they did.


----------



## Steevo (Oct 13, 2011)

I had the cash and when i saw the writing on the wall with the fast release of "Piledriver" facts from AMD, and the other benchmarks, the silence of AMD on performance other than how it would be better somehow in performance per dollar....


I spent a grand on hard drives and a RAID card. It was a much better investment, AMD/ATI just isn't getting it, they need to pay some people to write the software that makes their shit go. Now I think I will just buy a X6 Thuban and live with it for another few months as I wait for the new Intel chips so I can do a full upgrade.


----------



## 3volvedcombat (Oct 13, 2011)

Steevo said:


> I had the cash and when i saw the writing on the wall with the fast release of "Piledriver" facts from AMD, and the other benchmarks, the silence of AMD on performance other than how it would be better somehow in performance per dollar....
> 
> 
> I spent a grand on hard drives and a RAID card. It was a much better investment, AMD/ATI just isn't getting it, they need to pay some people to write the software that makes their shit go. Now I think I will just buy a X6 Thuban and live with it for another few months as I wait for the new Intel chips so I can do a full upgrade.



ATi is now AMD, Pure marketing take over.

You can tell that AMD is really trying to put there name out there in marketing now then real performance numbers.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Oct 13, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> cool info! Thanks!
> 
> 
> Now the link works....
> ...



dont do it!


----------



## YautjaLord (Oct 13, 2011)

Promissed or not, here it comes: of all the reviews that were posted yesterday & today, i found only 1 review that had multi-GPU setup & that one came from PureOverclock that was yesterday - they had ES 8150 with 2xHD6870; not that i wanna rant, just for fun.  

Course there were reviews (couple i think) with 6990 in test system but it's more of one card with 2 CFX'd GPUs, if that's correct. With that said, i'm now hungry for FX-8150 rev. B2/C0 review with either 2xHD6970 or 2xGTX 570/580 in the rig.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 13, 2011)

Not sure if your question about ES was answered but ES stands for *E*nginering *S*ample. If they were using Engineering Samples, then the reviews are flawed IMO.


----------



## Horrux (Oct 13, 2011)

Wow, BD is totally fail. I am disapppointed AMD, I'll have to move over to Intel now. I really didn't want to, but what kind of choice do I have? I find my Phenom II X6 1100t to be on the slow side, yet you don't offer anything faster with the new stuff. Ah well. Good thing for the company they have APUs and GPUs, otherwise things would look dire indeed.


----------



## YautjaLord (Oct 14, 2011)

Super XP said:


> Not sure if your question about ES was answered but ES stands for *E*nginering *S*ample. If they were using Engineering Samples, then the reviews are flawed IMO.



Dude, if you talking to me yes - i know what ES stands for; B0 is *E*ngineering *S*ample.  Most reviews on TPU's front page used ES samples, so yeah - it's flawed than.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Oct 14, 2011)

Wow I have been away for too long. Epic fail? No, not hardly. Epic fail on blaming code for poor performance? Yes indeed. Coming from this AMD fanboi and proud supporter, you bet your ass when I get cash I am getting the ASUS sabertooth 990FX board and one of these so called "octo" core procs. Did I expect it to blow away Intel? Not really but I did expect it to trade blows with them. I have yet to really read a review minus feedback left on newegg.com tigerdirect, amazon, etc. I am interested in how these ass hats got a chip so fast when they were released like yesterday. I will buy but hopefully by the time I do, it will be with, what I am hoping based on all fanboi and pissed off talk here, "fixed" chips. I was hoping to see a CPU review here as I truly believe there is no bias on them and they tell it like it is. Ah well, here is to waiting.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 14, 2011)

YautjaLord said:


> Dude, if you talking to me yes - i know what ES stands for; B0 is *E*ngineering *S*ample.  Most reviews on TPU's front page used ES samples, so yeah - it's flawed than.


Yes Dude  I was talking to you. I didn't know B0 meant ES  Anyhow hopefully W1zzard gets a retail B2 or something for his testing 


WarEagleAU said:


> Wow I have been away for too long. Epic fail? No, not hardly. Epic fail on blaming code for poor performance? Yes indeed. Coming from this AMD fanboi and proud supporter, you bet your ass when I get cash I am getting the ASUS sabertooth 990FX board and one of these so called "octo" core procs. Did I expect it to blow away Intel? Not really but I did expect it to trade blows with them. I have yet to really read a review minus feedback left on newegg.com tigerdirect, amazon, etc. I am interested in how these ass hats got a chip so fast when they were released like yesterday. I will buy but hopefully by the time I do, it will be with, what I am hoping based on all fanboi and pissed off talk here, "fixed" chips. I was hoping to see a CPU review here as I truly believe there is no bias on them and they tell it like it is. Ah well, here is to waiting.


Great point. Let's keep AMD Alive. Dam code, hope they get it resolved soon.


----------



## YautjaLord (Oct 14, 2011)

Saw the Guru3D review the FX-8xxx/6xxx/4xxx CPUs (it was FX-8150/8120/6100/4100 performance review), jumped immedietally to test setup & after that skipped right to Crysis 2 & synthetic (3DMark11) performance: surprisingly being ES both FX-8150 & 8120 stock clock i beleive being almost on par with 2600K in chart with exception of 980X performance - that one gave 72fps in Crysis 2 @ 1920x1080|DX11, ~20fps higher then 8150, 8120 & 2600K, though i could be wrong. Where the F*** are rev. B2/C0 parts if the quad-, hex- & octo-cored parts already being tested? Also my rant bout why there are no multi-GPU'd FX-8xxx reviews still intact.


----------



## Fx (Oct 14, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Man the box art BLOWS AWAY anything Intels done lately. These new CPU boxes are cutting edge. Sorry Intel fanboys. You've lost this round.



lmao


----------



## nt300 (Oct 14, 2011)

YautjaLord said:


> Saw the Guru3D review the FX-8xxx/6xxx/4xxx CPUs (it was FX-8150/8120/6100/4100 performance review), jumped immedietally to test setup & after that skipped right to Crysis 2 & synthetic (3DMark11) performance: surprisingly being ES both FX-8150 & 8120 stock clock i beleive being almost on par with 2600K in chart with exception of 980X performance - that one gave 72fps in Crysis 2 @ 1920x1080|DX11, ~20fps higher then 8150, 8120 & 2600K, though i could be wrong. Where the F*** are rev. B2/C0 parts if the quad-, hex- & octo-cored parts already being tested? Also my rant bout why there are no multi-GPU'd FX-8xxx reviews still intact.


Good point, there was a 3 x HD 6970 Crossfire review and it seems Bulldozer did quite well. The SB was Overclocked 430MHz more than Bulldozer and yet Bulldozer stood it's ground just losing on a few game benchies. Now where is that link?


----------



## Horrux (Oct 14, 2011)

nt300 said:


> Good point, there was a 3 x HD 6970 Crossfire review and it seems Bulldozer did quite well. The SB was Overclocked 430MHz more than Bulldozer and yet Bulldozer stood it's ground just losing on a few game benchies. Now where is that link?



That's somewhat irrelevant, given that driving 3 x HD 6970 is going to introduce a bandwidth limitation.

It's another way to achieve the same effect as gaming on a single HD 6970 and 5760 x 1080 eyefinity resolution. It puts the load on another part than the CPU, and suddenly BD looks competitive with SB.

I the 3xHD case, it's bandwidth to feed the PCI-E bus, in the eyefinity case it's the GPU throughput, but they are both simple tricks to fool the general public.


----------



## dumo (Oct 14, 2011)

This FA1 that most of the reviewer got







FA retail chip from Newegg






Both batches will show ES with CPUZ 1.58


----------



## xenocide (Oct 14, 2011)

dumo said:


> *Both batches will show ES with CPUZ 1.58*



Mystery debunked.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 14, 2011)

dumo said:


> Both batches will show ES with CPUZ 1.58



But they will show up as diff ES chips. Non-ES does not show as 8130P.


CPU-Z 1.58.7 has fixed the problem, all reviewers should have used it.



xenocide said:


> Mystery debunked.




Um, what mystery?


----------



## xenocide (Oct 14, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Um, what mystery?



I remained skeptical that AMD would ship ES to reviewers.  It appears they did not, the only outlier is the reviews where it showed up as an 8130p.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 14, 2011)

xenocide said:


> the only outlier is the reviews where it showed up as an 8130p.



Yes, and there are actually quite a few that do show 8130P. I made a point of pointing out 8130P as ES just because of that.

The others that showed ES, but not 8130P, simply didn't use up-to-date software, and you can judge that how you will...I knew what the story was, and I'm not the one @ TPU to do CPU reviews, so I do expect reviewers to use the proper software, if I know what software to use...I have no real reason to know what version of CPU-Z properly supports Bulldozer, now do I?

And those that used ES chips..well, of course, they did it for the traffic.


----------



## zithe (Oct 14, 2011)

reverze said:


> unless you beat the fastest cpu on the market in every single benchmarkmark while being half the price its considered fail these days.



To think that an underdog company with less money, less resources, etc. will trump a technology giant like intel is just asking for someone to assume you're not all well.

I really don't get the big disappointment here. It's not a surprise at all.


----------



## YautjaLord (Oct 14, 2011)

nt300 said:


> Good point, there was a 3 x HD 6970 Crossfire review and it seems Bulldozer did quite well. The SB was Overclocked 430MHz more than Bulldozer and yet Bulldozer stood it's ground just losing on a few game benchies. Now where is that link?



Actually 2xHD 6870 CFX & FX-8150 (don't remember which mobo, might be Crosshair V Formula), think it was PureOverclock on TPU's front page reviews on Wednesday; the 1st f***load of reviews that popped up on the day Dozer launched (Wednesday ). 

P.S. When i say i'm hungry for FX-8150 review with multi-GPU setup i mean that i am not satisfied with the only review like that in PureOverclock; i want more & prefferrably with rev. B2/C0 FX-8150/8120 in such setup. 

2cadaveca:

Yeah, i thought bout that too (that some show up as ES cause the CPU-Z wasn't updated to 1.58.7), but the way i remember the reviews, most of them had FX-8150 listed in CPU-Z as FX-8130P; might be wrong, though.


----------



## damric (Oct 14, 2011)

Can't wait to see some BD reviews on the older 800 series boards, and to see if 4100 and 6100 chips can unlock disabled modules.


----------



## entropy13 (Oct 15, 2011)

zithe said:


> To think that an underdog company with less money, less resources, etc. will trump a technology giant like intel is just asking for someone to assume you're retarded.
> 
> I really don't get the big disappointment here. It's not a surprise at all.



Even where it COULD have "won", price per performance, it failed miserably. Using Tech Report's scatter plot (for the performance points) and Newegg.com's prices, it's 425 percentage points for the i7 2600k ($315) and 355 percentage points for the FX-8150 ($280). The i5 2500k ($220) has 360 percentage points while it's 330 percentage points for the FX-8120 ($220).

So their price/perf:
i7 2600k - $0.7412 per percentage point
i5 2500k - $0.6111 per percentage point
FX-8150 - $0.7887 per percentage point
FX-8120 - $0.6667 per percentage point

So 2600k v. 8150, AMD loses. Even with 2500k v. 8150. 2500k v. 8120, same story. It's only the 2600k v. 8120 wherein AMD "wins" in terms of price/perf. But then again it's 425 percentage points in performance v. 330. 


(Using Tech Report's figures)
And there is still the power consumption to talk about. Core i7 2600K and i5 2500K both idles at 64W. Peak power consumption is 144W and 132W respectively. The FX-8150 has an idle power consumption at 76W and peaks at 209W. There is also a "task energy" graph for them; 8.5W and 9.9W respectively for the two Intel CPUs while it's 14.4W for the FX-8150. Comparing the 2600K with the 8150, $315:$280 means you saved just $35, AND you end up using more power (12W more at idle, 65W more peak, 5.9W more task energy).


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Oct 15, 2011)

I still use a q6600 with my 5750 and can pretty much play anything out there with no issues. 
On another note, my next upgrade or secondary computer is a amd six core with gtx 550.

just saying.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 15, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> Even where it COULD have "won", price per performance, it failed miserably. Using Tech Report's scatter plot (for the performance points) and Newegg.com's prices, it's 425 percentage points for the i7 2600k ($315) and 355 percentage points for the FX-8150 ($280). The i5 2500k ($220) has 360 percentage points while it's 330 percentage points for the FX-8120 ($220).
> 
> So their price/perf:
> i7 2600k - $0.7412 per percentage point
> ...


If you already have an Socket AM3 and AM3+ mobo, Bulldozer is the better buy.


----------



## entropy13 (Oct 15, 2011)

Super XP said:


> If you already have an Socket AM3 and AM3+ mobo, Bulldozer is the better buy.



There are a lot of "if's" to satisfy for Bulldozer to be "the better buy."

If you have the mobo already, it's a better buy.

If you don't pay for electricity, it's a better buy.

If you are already using software from the future, it's a better buy.

etc.


----------



## techtard (Oct 15, 2011)

If Someone at Intel touched you in your no-no spot, it's a better buy. 

Honestly, only benchers and hardcore overclockers should be plunking down their hard earned cash in an FX chip.
I get that some of you have a burning passion for AMD and a serious hate-on for Intel, but buying out of brand loyalty is pretty dumb if you can get an Intel rig that will demolish your AMD for around the same price, or less.

Sell your mobo and get Intel. Or stick with a Thuban or Deneb. Bulldozer should be avoided until it starts to perform better. If it can.


----------



## naoan (Oct 15, 2011)

I think Thuban is a better buy than FX if you already have AM3+ board, otherwise Sandy all the way.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 16, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> There are a lot of "if's" to satisfy for Bulldozer to be "the better buy."
> 
> If you have the mobo already, it's a better buy.
> 
> ...


You're kidding me right? Your electricity lol, for a few extra watts. Anyhow to each his own. I still admire AMD for putting out innovation. And as soon as they iron out any issues it should perform better.

In the meantime, check out this review, this guy does a great job in how he does them. Everything is fresh, formated and Windows Installed with it's full line of updates etc....
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1285/pg5/amd-fx-8150-black-edition-8-core-processor-vs-core-i7-2600k-review-test-system-and-methodology.html


----------



## YautjaLord (Oct 16, 2011)

Yup, saw this review, was good but few more gaming benchies wouldn't hurt; was ace nevertheless. 

The only thing i didn't found was CPU-Z screen dump; best way to know which version & which CPU was used; plus, being represented by AMD as gaming CPU i missed AvP3 & Crysis 2 DX11, but otherwise was great review nevertheless (not that other reviews wasn't great too). 

Hope rev. B2/C0 will be benched too & besides the way i see it i'll have all components in my system (Sabertooth 990FX, AX1200W, 2x4GB DDR3 1600MHz RAM) & wait for rev. C0 FX-8150; but not before the rev. C0 review here.


----------



## GSquadron (Oct 16, 2011)

Don't really get it, why some reviews are putting intel and some amd?


----------



## Horrux (Oct 16, 2011)

Super XP said:


> If you already have an Socket AM3 and AM3+ mobo, Bulldozer is the better buy.



The problem with that, is if you have an X6 1100t on that same AM3+ mobo, Bulldozer is a sidegrade at best. So it's a no-buy. Can you imagine it, every rabid AMD fan ALREADY HAS the fastest chip in the previous generation.

That is, IMO, very ouch.


----------



## jamesy (Oct 17, 2011)

AMD today unleashed the AMD FX family of CPUs, delivering a fully unlocked and customizable experience for desktop PC users. The AMD FX series of desktop CPUs includes the first-ever eight-core desktop processor, enabling extreme multi-display gaming, mega-tasking and HD content creation for PC and digital enthusiasts – all for less than $245 (suggested U.S. retail price). This marks the first retail availability of processors that use AMD’s new multi-core architecture (codenamed “Bulldozer”), which is included in AMD’s upcoming server CPU (codenamed “Interlagos”) and the next-generation of AMD Accelerated Processing Units.

This WHOLE thing should be in quotes. Wasn't this just copy/pasted in from their press conference?


----------



## jamesy (Oct 17, 2011)

Super XP said:


> You're kidding me right? Your electricity lol, for a few extra watts. Anyhow to each his own. I still admire AMD for putting out innovation. And as soon as they iron out any issues it should perform better.
> 
> In the meantime, check out this review, this guy does a great job in how he does them. Everything is fresh, formated and Windows Installed with it's full line of updates etc....
> http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1285/pg5/amd-fx-8150-black-edition-8-core-processor-vs-core-i7-2600k-review-test-system-and-methodology.html



I'm pretty sure he was referring to heat...not the actual electricity.


----------



## entropy13 (Oct 17, 2011)

jamesy said:


> I'm pretty sure he was referring to heat...not the actual electricity.



No, it's the actual energy consumption.

http://techreport.com/articles.x/21813/16










Horrux said:


> The problem with that, is if you have an X6 1100t on that same AM3+ mobo, Bulldozer is a sidegrade at best. So it's a no-buy. Can you imagine it, every rabid AMD fan ALREADY HAS the fastest chip in the previous generation.
> 
> That is, IMO, very ouch.



Yeah, as you can see from the graph, the X6 1100T with a 990FX board uses slightly less energy over rendering the same scene. And is just slightly behind it in terms of "performance" on it.






So if you have a 990FX board and an 1100T, buying the FX-8150 would mean getting a more expensive processor with a slight performance advantage but use up more energy. Do rendering multiple times a day and of course that "slight" doesn't become slight anymore.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 17, 2011)

Bulldozer's Architecture has a lot of potential, despite it being quite immature. 
Theoretically it could have amazing performance and hopefully we can see it with the upcoming Piledriver.

I am done with the Back & Forth Bulldozer Talks. I will be posting in the Bulldozer's OC'ing thread once I get my copy.


----------



## YautjaLord (Oct 17, 2011)

^That's the spirit. 

Well, 85% of it, close but quite not at 90%; gonna wait for either rev. C0 or the _actual_ Piledriver; just like Dozer is also designated for AM3+. Hope that rev. B2/C0 will be before end of this year; i still willing to buy Sabertooth 990FX & DDR3 1600MHz RAM to back up the CPU.


----------



## jamesy (Oct 18, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> No, it's the actual energy consumption.



Energy consumption= heat.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 18, 2011)

Super XP said:


> In the meantime, check out this review, this guy does a great job in how he does them. Everything is fresh, formated and Windows Installed with it's full line of updates etc....
> http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1285/pg5/amd-fx-8150-black-edition-8-core-processor-vs-core-i7-2600k-review-test-system-and-methodology.html


What reviewer doesnt do that???


----------



## Super XP (Oct 18, 2011)

EarthDog said:


> What reviewer doesnt do that???



What about these sites? Do they follow the proper Benchmarking rules? Check it out and let me know. 

- Anandtech.com
- Hothardware.com
- Xbitlabs.com
- Hardwarecanucks.com
- Kitguru.net
- Legitreviews.com
- Hexus.net
- Neoseeker.com
- Pcekspert.com


----------



## YautjaLord (Oct 23, 2011)

If only there was _one_ review that did following: 1) had the latest revision CPU; 2) installed latest BIOS, app versions & drivers; 3) used more than one GPU, had DDR3 1600MHz & higher RAM & SSDs stead of HDDs; that would be the best way to do a review of this CPU. Stead, the way i remember, there were reviews that partially used some out of all stuff i mentioned above but with ES CPU, or B2 CPU with low-end components & not all apps were up-to-date; might be wrong but that was the way i remember. Nevermind, once rev. C0 comes out it should sort out how all quad-, hex- & octo-cored parts perform; bet not night & day difference but somehow better than how they perform now, definitelly better than rev. B0 (ES). 

One thing is obvious, nevertheless: purchase - say in my case - Sabertooth 990FX, Patriot Viper Extreme rev. II 2x4GB DDR3 1600MHz, Corsair AX1200W & stay for now (& til rev. C0 FX-8150 comes out) with 965BE @ 4.0GHz (or even 40-60MHz higher) - that one still ace in 3DMark Vantage/11 & AvP3/Crysis 1 & 2 (in case of Crysis 2 965BE @ 4.0GHz+ is ace in DX11 as well). Stead of buying CPU buy better PSU & OC GPU(s) stead, that'll net you additional 2, probably 3 more fps to already great framerate (on hardware like i mentioned above & with OC'd 965BE Crysis 2 DX11 scores 50+ fps in 1920x1200 DX11), though in my case it's 2xGTX 460s.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 24, 2011)

jamesy said:


> Energy consumption= heat.


For those cold winter gaming nights. Sounds good to me 

Seriously though, it would be nice to see Bulldozer Benchmarked with 16GB DDR3-1866, SSD 120GB x 4 in RAID 10 or 0, HD 6970 Crossfire & NVIDIA's high end GPU for SLI. I mean, yes AMD needs to fix/tweak the hell out of Bulldozer and try hard to convert this Server/Workstation CPU into a Desktop CPU. But the above should be considered when Benching.


----------



## erocker (Oct 24, 2011)

Super XP said:


> For those cold winter gaming nights. Sounds good to me
> 
> Seriously though, it would be nice to see Bulldozer Benchmarked with 16GB DDR3-1866, SSD 120GB x 4 in RAID 10 or 0, HD 6970 Crossfire & NVIDIA's high end GPU for SLI. I mean, yes AMD needs to fix/tweak the hell out of Bulldozer and try hard to convert this Server/Workstation CPU into a Desktop CPU. But the above should be considered when Benching.



You really need to just get one. No amount of anything is going to make this chip any good. Believe me, people who have this chip (myself included) know what it is. Reading your posts, you have no idea. Please, get one.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Oct 24, 2011)

erocker said:


> You really need to just get one. No amount of anything is going to make this chip any good. Believe me, people who have this chip (myself included) know what it is. Reading your posts, you have no idea. Please, get one.



I have to ask:
Is it really that bad?
How do you personally think it compares to Thuban? 
and where do you have that list of AM3+ board power phases at? can't find it anywhere...


----------



## erocker (Oct 24, 2011)

jmcslob said:


> I have to ask:
> Is it really that bad?
> How do you personally think it compares to Thuban?
> and where do you have that list of AM3+ board power phases at? can't find it anywhere...



Yes. Power consumption is dreadful. The one thing it has going for it is overclockability.. But you're going to need some great cooling and a big PSU. 

It's slower than Thuban. I'm sorry but when a chip is released to replace a current lineup, it should be better in every way. This is a sidegrade at best and the fail cherry on top of the fail sundae known as Bulldozer. The reviews don't lie. I don't lie. People who think this chip is something good are in denial. Go buy a good CPU and forget about it.

Right here: http://www.overclock.net/amd-motherboards/946407-amd-motherboard-vrm-information-list.html


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Oct 24, 2011)

Thank you in more ways than I can say E.


----------



## Horrux (Oct 24, 2011)

erocker said:


> Yes. Power consumption is dreadful. The one thing it has going for it is overclockability.. But you're going to need some great cooling and a big PSU.
> 
> It's slower than Thuban. I'm sorry but when a chip is released to replace a current lineup, it should be better in every way. This is a sidegrade at best and the fail cherry on top of the fail sundae known as Bulldozer. The reviews don't lie. I don't lie. People who think this chip is something good are in denial. Go buy a good CPU and forget about it.
> 
> Right here: http://www.overclock.net/amd-motherboards/946407-amd-motherboard-vrm-information-list.html



I want to disagree. I really do. However, I can't help but think if they had tweaked thuban some more, the results would have been increased IPC (compared to Thuban), AND 8 cores. AND less transistors (compared to BD), meaning better yields AND lower manufacturing costs than BD. And most likely higher clock speeds (than current Thubans) given the process shrink.

AMD what have you done? Please have PileDriver show up with 20% higher IPC, or 33% better performance, or I'm losing faith in you.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 24, 2011)

Thuban is OLD and it would have been a bad idea in releasing yet another upgrade from it. That said, obviously upper Management in AMD really screwed something up with Bulldozer, it's as though they had the Server/Workstation design team design the bloody CPU. 
Could this be why they fired Dirk Meyer? Is he responsible for not creating a Desktop Version + a Server/Workstation Version?

Anyhow, hopefully with the B3 stepping along with its tweaks, performance will increase and power will go down so the industry can appreciate AMD's innovation.


----------



## erocker (Oct 24, 2011)

Super XP said:


> Anyhow, hopefully with the B3 stepping along with its tweaks, performance will increase and power will go down so the end user/OEM's can find AMD's innovation acceptable, relevant or useful.



Fixed it. AMD really shouldn't of bothered.


----------



## nt300 (Oct 25, 2011)

erocker said:


> Fixed it. AMD really shouldn't of bothered.


How about release Bulldozer CPUs for low to mid range and PII's in the high end just until they iron out the Dozer's issues


----------



## brandonwh64 (Oct 25, 2011)

I have seen some reports of bulldozer chips working in white socketed boards. Anybody have results of their own?


----------



## blibba (Oct 25, 2011)

Horrux said:


> I want to disagree. I really do. However, I can't help but think if they had tweaked thuban some more, the results would have been increased IPC (compared to Thuban), AND 8 cores. AND less transistors (compared to BD), meaning better yields AND lower manufacturing costs than BD. And most likely higher clock speeds (than current Thubans) given the process shrink.
> 
> AMD what have you done? Please have PileDriver show up with 20% higher IPC, or 33% better performance, or I'm losing faith in you.



Agreed. Is there anything to suggest that this is even a great workstation chip? It often struggles to outpace an Intel 4C/8T chip even in highly threaded workloads.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Nov 25, 2011)

So I just bought an FX 6100 for $108 to replace my Phenom 965.

Good or Bad? 

Just tell me like it is, I'm ready for it.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Nov 25, 2011)

AphexDreamer said:


> So I just bought an FX 6100 for $108 to replace my Phenom 965.
> 
> Good or Bad?
> 
> Just tell me like it is, I'm ready for it.



Not sure? Seriously though, the worst it could be is about equal.


----------



## Dbiggs9 (Nov 25, 2011)

I was going to upgrade my 965BE to a FX but they seem to be about equal.


----------



## Horrux (Nov 25, 2011)

Dbiggs9 said:


> I was going to upgrade my 965BE to a FX but they seem to be about equal.



Yeah, that's what AMD offered us faithful AMD users with the FX series: no upgrade path on the AMD platform. :shadedshu


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Nov 25, 2011)

Horrux said:


> Yeah, that's what AMD offered us faithful AMD users with the FX series: no upgrade path on the AMD platform. :shadedshu



Look at the bright side, we got better boards out of the deal.


----------



## Horrux (Nov 25, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Look at the bright side, we got better boards out of the deal.



Yeah I got a better board, but it still can't run SLI correctly, so I am now forced to go Intel, which is what I wanted to avoid, pretty much at all costs. Bunch of crooks and slave drivers. But I have SLI GTX 570s for 3D... I want my SLI.


----------



## Inceptor (Nov 25, 2011)

AphexDreamer said:


> So I just bought an FX 6100 for $108 to replace my Phenom 965.
> 
> Good or Bad?
> 
> Just tell me like it is, I'm ready for it.



Depends on what you're going to do with it.
If you're doing a lot gaming, you're better off with the 965.
If you're just in it for the overclocking, you'll probably enjoy the 6100.
Performance should be aprox. equal, overall, 1 to 4 threads if you slightly overclock the 6100.  But the 6100 will require an overclock to 4.3+ to equal the 965 @4.0 Ghz single threaded.  And if you do that, power consumption will drastically increase.
It's kind of a side-grade, but you get the better memory controller.  If the $108 isn't a big issue, go for it, otherwise, it's a waste of money for you.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Nov 25, 2011)

Horrux said:


> Yeah I got a better board, but it still can't run SLI correctly, so I am now forced to go Intel, which is what I wanted to avoid, pretty much at all costs. Bunch of crooks and slave drivers. But I have SLI GTX 570s for 3D... I want my SLI.



I know how you feel about that. It does suck to leave AMD behind, but if they aren't going to make an attempt, I can't continue to support them. Rumors are saying that PD has less of a gain over BD than IB has over SB and that's just going to put them farther behind. It's bullshit, but nobody can reasonably be expected to wait for them to get their shit together forever.


----------

