# AMD FX 8120 Listed on Ukrainian Store



## btarunr (Oct 7, 2011)

Less than a week ahead of its launch, a Ukrainian online store named Fixer started listing the AMD FX 8120 eight-core processor PIB (FD8120FRGUBOX). The store is listing the FX 8120 at 1791 UAH (US $223.5). According to the source, FX 8120 stocks arrived at Fixer's warehouse on the 5th of this month, and the product is listed since. The variant listed is the one with 95W TDP, there is a 125W TDP variant, too. It remains to be seen how the two variants spread across distribution channels. The FX 8120 is based on the Bulldozer micro-architecture, it features 8 cores, 16 MB total cache, and a nominal clock speed of 3.1 GHz (which can go up to 4 GHz with TurboCore). A worldwide launch of the AMD FX Processor family is expected on October 12.





*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## seronx (Oct 7, 2011)

95 Watt part is pos to be the 2012 version ugh!!


----------



## Lionheart (Oct 7, 2011)

OMG just gimme my Bulldozer O_O


----------



## IvTK (Oct 7, 2011)

*Benchmark & OC*
http://forum.overclockers.ua/viewtopic.php?uid=2&f=2&t=42451

This is FX-8120 CPU from another store. Incredible!


----------



## treehouse (Oct 7, 2011)

IvTK said:


> *Benchmark & OC*
> http://forum.overclockers.ua/viewtopic.php?uid=2&f=2&t=42451
> 
> This is FX-8120 CPU from another store. Incredible!



those numbers mean nothing to me, did it perform well?


----------



## caleb (Oct 7, 2011)

IvTK said:


> *Benchmark & OC*
> http://forum.overclockers.ua/viewtopic.php?uid=2&f=2&t=42451
> 
> This is FX-8120 CPU from another store. Incredible!



LOL they took his picture so the score looks more creditable


----------



## Doomedspeed (Oct 7, 2011)

caleb said:


> LOL they took his picture so the score looks more creditable
> http://forum.overclockers.ua/download/file.php?id=14020&t=1&sid=036a0269c6f91b1d17d209d01bb6f691




He looks like a trustworthy man! 

On that website; why does the CPU-Z name it an 8130P when he his holding and apperently using a 8120? 

Im not being stupid am i?


----------



## IvTK (Oct 7, 2011)

CPU-Z needs an update i guess!


----------



## Ghost (Oct 7, 2011)

treehouse said:


> those numbers mean nothing to me, did it perform well?



That SuperPi result is like of a Pentium II or something.

It can't  take 102 seconds for BD @ 4.8GHz to finish SuperPi 1M. Because i5 2500K @ 4.6GHz takes only 8 seconds to finish SuperPi 1M.

I'm confused. Am I missing something?


----------



## heky (Oct 7, 2011)

Exactly. This cant be true, becouse if it is, it is a big FAIL. I can do 8M runs faster than that.

Linx test only 35gflops, this is seriously weak, even for a Intel specific test. Also 1.5v for 4.6ghz overclock. Seriously, this better not be real.


----------



## IvTK (Oct 7, 2011)

I agree but this is ES and M/B BIOS wasn't updated. Look at 3rd page and further:
http://forum.overclockers.ua/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=42451&start=40
More screenshots
Also there is possibility that cache mem is brocken.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Oct 7, 2011)

First, I don't care how it performs with dead instruction sets. 

Second, This guy can't be the only enthusiast in the Ukraine that would have one on forums if this was already shipping.


----------



## heky (Oct 7, 2011)

Its not shipping to customers according to the article, it is shop stock, waiting till NDA lift. But hey, we will know very soon.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Oct 7, 2011)

True. I've waited this long, 5 more days for something official isn't going to kill me.


----------



## repman244 (Oct 7, 2011)

Ghost said:


> That SuperPi result is like of a Pentium II or something.
> 
> It can't  take 102 seconds for BD @ 4.8GHz to finish SuperPi 1M. Because i5 2500K @ 4.6GHz takes only 8 seconds to finish SuperPi 1M.
> 
> I'm confused. Am I missing something?



You missed the fact that superPi is based on ancient code (x87). Good read: http://www.overclock.net/benchmarking-software-discussion/569964-superpi-1m-32m-nope.html



> SuperPi is an antiquated benchmark that assesses core performance using an antiquated fpu x87 instruction set. It is a grossly inefficient computer program that uses floating point units to calculate pi and "evaluate" processor cache performance. It's not by any means a "real world" reflection of todays modern cpu's microarch capabilities. It's like running a horse(fpu x87 instructions) down today's paved interstate(the cpu hardware), when all the while a car(newer simd's) are available.


----------



## treehouse (Oct 7, 2011)

does the fact that it says 'mod' in the super pi window title mean anything, might be a modded test hence the strange result na?


----------



## repman244 (Oct 7, 2011)

treehouse said:


> does the fact that it says 'mod' in the super pi window title mean anything, might be a modded test hence the strange result na?



If you are referring to the name of the program: http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/366/Super_PI_Mod_v1.5.html



> This is a modified version of Super Pi which shows milliseconds.



If not then don't bother with this post


----------



## blibba (Oct 7, 2011)

treehouse said:


> does the fact that it says 'mod' in the super pi window title mean anything, might be a modded test hence the strange result na?



No, it's just so that you get a result that isn't rounded to the nearest second.


----------



## Ghost (Oct 7, 2011)

repman244 said:


> You missed the fact that superPi is based on ancient code (x87). Good read: http://www.overclock.net/benchmarking-software-discussion/569964-superpi-1m-32m-nope.html



Nah, I knew that. It's something else. SuperPi doesn't reflect real CPU performance, yet still the difference between AMD and Intel CPUs should be much smaller. So this whole thing smells fake.

According to DonanimHaber, BD gets about 20 secs @ SuperPi 1M. And that is a lot more realistic result.

Anyway, here are some other benches. They seem to be a lot more legit, IMHO http://forum.coolaler.com/showthread.php?t=273986


----------



## DarkOCean (Oct 7, 2011)

heky said:


> Exactly. This cant be true, becouse if it is, it is a big FAIL. I can do 8M runs faster than that.
> 
> Linx test only 35gflops, this is seriously weak, even for a Intel specific test. Also 1.5v for 4.6ghz overclock. Seriously, this better not be real.



I see 4.8 with 1.52v and afaik later cpus from amd with improved yields oc better with much lower votage.


----------



## qubit (Oct 7, 2011)

It's funny how it's usually these out of the way places no one's heard of which list new pre-NDA lifted stuff first. And it's not even in English.


----------



## dickobrazzz (Oct 7, 2011)

if you want i can translate everything from that site 
all results we can see may be this evening or tomorrow morning
also some people think that man need to update bios because of some unreal results e.x. 32gflops in linX


----------



## qubit (Oct 7, 2011)

dickobrazzz said:


> if you want i can translate everything from that site
> all results we can see may be this evening or tomorrow morning
> also some people think that man need to update bios because of some unreal results e.x. 32gflops in linX



Yeah, translation would be great - I bet it'll get tongues wagging!


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Oct 7, 2011)

To everyone posting BS about BD. THERE IS NO FX-8130P. There is no FX processor with a "P" in its name. Any and everything you post about this processor that does not exist is BS.


----------



## dickobrazzz (Oct 7, 2011)

TheLaughingMan said:


> THERE IS NO FX-8130P


yes, but as you can see aida64 said that it is fx8120
cpu-z sometimes lying.. e.x. core voltage on all giga mb for SB


----------



## Inceptor (Oct 7, 2011)

That is an engineering sample.
The engineering samples that were supposedly benched earlier on were showing in cpu-z as 8130P and 8120 (ES).
Also take note of the TDP at 1.5xx Volts -- 200+ watts, ultra high wattage just like the engineering samples.  That doesn't mean that's what the wattage IS, just what it's showing. But that doesn't change the fact that it's being identified as an engineering sample


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Oct 7, 2011)

dickobrazzz said:


> yes, but as you can see aida64 said that it is fx8120
> cpu-z sometimes lying.. e.x. core voltage on all giga mb for SB



CPU-Z will sometimes post incorrect numbers, I will give you that. CPU-Z does not make up names for products. If it didn't know what it was, it would have listed it like AIDA64 did and it would have said something like "AMD Octacore CPU Socket AM3+." I don't think it would have just pulled a name out of nowhere.

Why would anyone test a Bulldozer processor with 1333 MHz RAM when you are not comparing it to anything else? Just this is what you get, so I will use RAM far below the processors specs cause that is realistic numbers. If that is the case, he should compare the performance to an i7 2500K running some 1066 MHz RAM.


----------



## repman244 (Oct 7, 2011)

TheLaughingMan said:


> CPU-Z does not make up names for products.



Actually it sometimes does "make them up". My CPU was named 1095T in CPU-Z when it came out.

But I agree that all these leaks can't be trusted prior to launch.


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 7, 2011)

repman244 said:


> Actually it sometimes does "make them up". My CPU was named 1095T in CPU-Z when it came out.
> 
> But I agree that all these leaks can't be trusted prior to launch.



That is different. The 1095T actually exists. The FX-8130*P* is made up.


----------



## heky (Oct 7, 2011)

Who told you the the FX-8130P is made up? I would really like to know. Becouse if you look up the specs, it says it is a OEM/tray microprocessor. It isnt made up, it was a sample.


----------



## happita (Oct 7, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> That is different. The 1095T actually exists. The FX-8130*P* is made up.



If it's not listed on Newegg, then it's not real


----------



## Thefumigator (Oct 7, 2011)

That superpi mod is from xtreme systems web site
I tried it out, and it took 38 seconds on my Phenom 9550, 
Or 1 minute 17 seconds using power saving profile (when this profile is active the 9550 runs at 1Ghz)

Considering that BD can underclock to less than 1Ghz in powersaver profile, this could prove the low score, if that profile was used during the test.


----------



## mtosev (Oct 7, 2011)

On a slovenian webstore http://www.commit.si/sl/virtuemart/...odnoje-am3/1071-amd-bulldozer-x8-fx-8150.html


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 7, 2011)

In Ukrainian store Bulldozer weak!


----------



## techtard (Oct 7, 2011)

Asking price : 53 perogies.


----------



## WarraWarra (Oct 7, 2011)

Hopefully AMD would release all versions of the FX / BD at the same time or at least the usable ones.

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-FX-Series FX-8130P.html
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-FX-Series FX-8170.html

I presume most people would like to get their hands on the FX-8170 or at least the FX-8150


----------



## TheGuruStud (Oct 7, 2011)

Before we go down the cinebench path...

http://www.chiphell.com/thread-274825-1-1.html

Nah, cinebench isn't crooked at all.

And if you need reference why intel only optimized code is crooked (if not criminal) 
http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Oct 8, 2011)

Not news.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Oct 8, 2011)

WarraWarra said:


> Hopefully AMD would release all versions of the FX / BD at the same time or at least the usable ones.
> 
> http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-FX-Series FX-8130P.html
> http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-FX-Series FX-8170.html
> ...



I guarantee the FX-8150 is included in the initial release. As the flagship (until it is replaced by the FX-8170 next year), it has to lead the way. As for everything else I would expect another 8-core and one or two of the 6-core chips to be released at launch. The 4-cores are going to be budget minded so I think those will be 3 to 4 weeks after the initial launch as they always do. Gotta get all the money you can from early adopters.


----------



## fullinfusion (Oct 8, 2011)

Wow! what news lol! 

Any body have this CHV figured out yet?

Im @ 4.5GHz on the Crosshair V Mobo....

1090T X6 Proc.


----------



## lashton (Oct 8, 2011)

I work for a PC wholer in NZ, we have them in stock but cannot sell (or test them) before the release date


----------



## Sir B. Fannybottom (Oct 8, 2011)

happita said:


> If it's not listed on Newegg, then it's not real



Is Scarlett Johansson on newegg? No, but shes real.


----------



## HossHuge (Oct 8, 2011)

caleb said:


> LOL they took his picture so the score looks more creditable
> http://forum.overclockers.ua/download/file.php?id=14020&t=1&sid=036a0269c6f91b1d17d209d01bb6f691



looks like that guy has has too many perogies.


----------



## IvTK (Oct 9, 2011)

AMD FX-8150 preview @Lab501

Bulldozer seems very weak


----------



## heky (Oct 9, 2011)

If this is true, BD is just a big fail. Revolutionary architecture my ass. It has higher clocks, bigger cache and still lags behind Intel. Not to mention SB is almost a year old now. Weak.


----------



## techtard (Oct 9, 2011)

If is the key word here. Wait for official release and benches. This guy could have an engineering sample or something.


----------



## heky (Oct 9, 2011)

These guys are supposed to be legit. They won the MSI OC challenge a couple of weeks ago.


----------



## AndreiD (Oct 9, 2011)

Lab501 is as legit as they get. I'm really disappointed to see these results, I would have wanted AMD to be more competitive.


----------



## techtard (Oct 9, 2011)

Maybe these guys are getting a little bonus to provide some smoke and mirrors before launch.


----------



## Steevo (Oct 9, 2011)

This thread is a perfect example of teh fact that anyone, no matter how silly can be on the internets.

How many of you posting benchmarks that you claim to be absolute in this thread would stake $5 on them?


----------



## heky (Oct 9, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> Dont be silly of course its not legit.  Even an Athlon II X4 620 @ stock performs 1MB SuperiPi in under 30 seconds.
> 
> So if anyone thinks a 8 core high-end Bulldozer is 3x SLOWER than an Athlon II X4 is smoking something or is mentally challenged.



I wonder how you will justify your comments when reality hits in a couple of days.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 9, 2011)

The Bulldozer will be out in 3 days. Once it gets released and officially reviewed, then only then people can salivate over it, that is when we will get the truth about it's true performance and AMD's 50% performance claim over original PII's. 

Can't wait to see this thing in real action..


----------



## techtard (Oct 9, 2011)

Super XP said:


> The Bulldozer will be out in 3 days. Once it gets released and officially reviewed, then only then people can salivate over it, that is when we will get the truth about it's true performance and AMD's 50% performance claim over original PII's.
> 
> Can't wait to see this thing in real action..



Well, 50% more cores, 50% more performance in select multi-threaded apps.
You can't just believe everything the marketing department tells you.
But, as you've stated: 3 more days.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 9, 2011)

I agree, but we are talking about a completely new CPU Architecture. 
Even the AMD FX 4170 Quad-Core at 4.2 GHz "SHOULD" be 50% faster than a Phenom II x4 at 4.2 GHz....according to AMD and it's slides, then again the Marketing Department has a history of pumping stuff into the clouds


----------



## IvTK (Oct 9, 2011)

*AMD FX-8120 unboxed*


----------



## seronx (Oct 10, 2011)




----------



## AndreiD (Oct 10, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> Dont be silly of course its not legit.  Even an Athlon II X4 620 @ stock performs 1MB SuperiPi in under 30 seconds.
> 
> So if anyone thinks a 8 core high-end Bulldozer is 3x SLOWER than an Athlon II X4 is smoking something or is mentally challenged.



The Lab501 guys have won a lot of Overclocking contests ( http://vr-zone.com/articles/romania-wins-msi-master-overclocking-arena-2011/13703-2.html# ) and over the years I have not seen but very good articles from them.        
Maybe they got some gimped ES sample, but still, it's a rather disappointing performer, I would have expected more.              
I guess we'll see the full picture after the release.


----------



## faramir (Oct 10, 2011)

Super XP said:


> I agree, but we are talking about a completely new CPU Architecture.
> Even the AMD FX 4170 Quad-Core at 4.2 GHz "SHOULD" be 50% faster than a Phenom II x4 at 4.2 GHz....according to AMD and it's slides, then again the Marketing Department has a history of pumping stuff into the clouds



According to AMD IPC should be roughly on par with Phenom II. Raise the clock, get better performance. Increase the number of cores, get better (multithreaded) performance.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 10, 2011)

faramir said:


> According to AMD IPC should be roughly on par with Phenom II. Raise the clock, get better performance. Increase the number of cores, get better (multithreaded) performance.


Absolutely no way IMHO. We are talking about alot more L2 and L3 cache not to mention a brand new design's structure built from the ground up. There is no way Phenom II w/ Equal Cores & Equal Clocks can be equal to AMD's FX line.
The only cores that can compaired in a fair manner is the AMD FX 4100 & FX 6100 vs. PII's do to the core count.

Now you got me curious about all of this, now I am really looking forward to Bulldozer's Launch and Real World Benchmarks.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 10, 2011)

*Performance Comparison - Bulldozer vs. Phenom II Clock for Clock + Same Core Count*

*AMD Phenom II x6 1100T @ 3.30 GHz*
- L2 = 3MB - L3 = 6MB - AM3 - TDP = 125W - 45nm SOI - 1066 MHz Memory
*Versus:*
*AMD FX 6100 @ 3.30 GHz*
- L2 = 6MB - L3 = 8MB - AM3+ - TDP = 95W - 32nm SOI + HKMG - 1866/2133 MHz Memory

*AMD Phenom II x4 980T @ 3.70 GHz* 
- L2 = 2MB - L3 = 6MB -AM3 - TDP = 125W - 45nm SOI - 1066MHz Memory
*Versus:*
*AMD FX 4100 @ 3.6 GHz* 
- L2 = 4MB - L3 = 8MB -AM3+ - TDP = 95W - 32nm SOI + HKMG - 1866/2133 MHz Memory

Can AMD's new upcoming FX line's superior Design take out CLOCK 4 CLOCK Phenom II's aged design? I think it can Big Time if not, then AMD is in trouble....


----------



## faramir (Oct 10, 2011)

Super XP said:


> Absolutely no way IMHO. ...
> 
> Now you got me curious about all of this, now I am really looking forward to Bulldozer's Launch and Real World Benchmarks.



Check out [back then acting] AMD CEO's statement regarding performance of Interlagos (16 core Bulldozer) versus Magny-Cours (12 core Phenom II): the former is supposedly up to 35% faster than the latter. Not much of a surprise, considering that it has 33% more cores.

The initial prediction was that performance would be up to 50% higher which would imply IPC improvements, but they reduced that few months ago, right around the time when first rumors regarding Bulldozer underperforming started to fly around ...


----------



## alexsubri (Oct 10, 2011)

well, i'll still stick to with what they [AMD] are claiming...Again , this is all unofficial 3rd party poppy cocked nonsense. If Bulldozer turns out to be an epic fail, I will switch back to Intel. What ashame


----------



## Super XP (Oct 10, 2011)

If this is the case then Bulldozer should make for a great gaming CPU, just like the Phenom II. Everything shall unfold once it gets released, obviously AMD is keeping something away from the media and the reviewers. I already have my ASUS Crosshair V Formula (ROG) mobo and it's waiting for a Bulldozer.

That said, how about Bulldozers 3rd gen called Steemroller. Love the names.

Hammer - The birth of FX...
Bulldozer
Piledriver
SteemRoller


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 11, 2011)

Super XP said:


> That said, how about Bulldozers 3rd gen called Steemroller. Love the names.
> 
> Hammer - The birth of FX...
> Bulldozer
> ...





Um, you mean Clawhammer?  Different generation of core design...

I beleive it goes:

Bulldozer to clear the land
Piledriver to set the foundation
Steamroller to pave the road to complete success.


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 11, 2011)

heky said:


> I wonder how you will justify your comments when reality hits in a couple of days.



Its not a matter of justification its common sense that the Athlon II X4 is NOT 3x faster than the Bulldozer.

You'd have to be retarded and 100% mentally challenged to think a 3 year old mainstream Athlon II X4 is 3x faster than AMD's flagship highend 8 core Bulldozer.


----------



## qubit (Oct 11, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> Its not a matter of justification its common sense that the Athlon II X4 is NOT 3x faster than the Bulldozer.
> 
> You'd have to be retarded and 100% mentally challenged to think a 3 year old mainstream Athlon II X4 is 3x faster than AMD's flagship highend 8 core Bulldozer.



Duh! Of course +1.


----------



## heky (Oct 11, 2011)

Actually the FX-8150 chip is a little slower in SuperPI 1M than the Phenom II x6 1100T. It takes around 20s. But hey, what do i know, right?


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 11, 2011)

heky said:


> Actually the FX-8150 chip is a little slower in SuperPI 1M than the Phenom II x6 1100T. It takes around 20s. But hey, what do i know, right?



Which proves my point.

The Phenom II X6 is AMDs current flagship product and takes about 20seconds to compute Super PI, 1MB.

The "leaked" benchmarks are saying the Bulldozer takes 1min 42 seconds. Why would AMD's new flagship processor perform 5x slower than their current flagship processor.

No reputable company will release a product 5x slower than the previous generation at high end, which leads anyone to determine the "leaked" benchmark is fake.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 11, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> Which proves my point.
> 
> The Phenom II X6 is AMDs current flagship product and takes about 20seconds to compute Super PI, 1MB.
> 
> ...



Or much like when Intel debuted hyper-threading Windows didn't know what to do and didn't take advantage of it. Could be the same thing with BD. It handles instructions differently.


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 11, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Or much like when Intel debuted hyper-threading Windows didn't know what to do and didn't take advantage of it. Could be the same thing with BD. It handles instructions differently.



If this was the case, in very worse case senerio where the 8 core Bulldozer would perform similarly to 4 core Bulldozer due to non applicaiton support, it still begs the question, why would a $70 Athlon II X4 perform *3.4x* faster than a $240 4 core bulldozer?  

Are we honestly saying a $70 Athlon II X4 is core for core faster than a 4 core Bulldozer (4cores being unutilised). Of course not. Which puts into perspective that the benchmark isnt genuine or isnt telling a complete story.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 11, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> If this was the case, in very worse case senerio where the 8 core Bulldozer would perform similarly to 4 core Bulldozer due to non applicaiton support, it still begs the question, why would a $70 Athlon II X4 perform *3.4x* faster than a $240 4 core bulldozer?
> 
> Are we honestly saying a $70 Athlon II X4 is core for core faster than a 4 core Bulldozer (4cores being unutilised). Of course not. Which puts into perspective that the benchmark isnt genuine or isnt telling a complete story.



Thats not true. If BD is getting the same set of instructions over and over again it wouldn't really matter how much faster it is. It would be slow as a snail. Its a whole new architecture. There are gonna be some issues with the software.


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 11, 2011)

It won't happen. AMD know that enthusiasts want SuperPi benchmarks, and are aware that enthusiasts will ridicule them based on SuperPi alone. For that reason they wont let a flagship Bulldozer FX leave their warehouse performing slower than a Athlon 64 3500+ @2.2GHz from 7 years ago.

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1758&page=3


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Oct 11, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> It won't happen. AMD know that enthusiasts want SuperPi benchmarks, and are aware that enthusiasts will ridicule them based on SuperPi alone. For that reason they wont let a flagship Bulldozer FX leave their warehouse performing slower than a Athlon 64 3500+ @2.2GHz from 7 years ago.
> 
> http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1758&page=3



I personally don't give a rats ass about SuperPi. I wan't gaming benchmarks. That's the only thing relevant to me.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 11, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> It won't happen. AMD know that enthusiasts want SuperPi benchmarks, and are aware that enthusiasts will ridicule them based on SuperPi alone. For that reason they wont let a flagship Bulldozer FX leave their warehouse performing slower than a Athlon 64 3500+ @2.2GHz from 7 years ago.
> 
> http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1758&page=3



The only benchmarks most people care about are gaming and encoding. SuperPi is so 09' Like I said, this could be a major software issue with Windows and not BD performance.



Damn_Smooth said:


> I personally don't give a rats ass about SuperPi. I wan't gaming benchmarks. That's the only thing relevant to me.



Agreed.


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 11, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> The only benchmarks most people care about are gaming and encoding. SuperPi is so 09'



SuperPI still holds a lot of weight in the community. Look at this thread, people talking about Bulldozers disappointing performance based on fake SuperPI results, yet they claim they don't care about PI.



Damn_Smooth said:


> I personally don't give a rats ass about SuperPi. I wan't gaming benchmarks. That's the only thing relevant to me.



Agreed.

BTW isn't Bulldozer out tomorrow. Overclockers.co.uk are preparing to list them 
...looks like they've taken it down again!


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Oct 11, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> SuperPI still holds a lot of weight in the community. Look at this thread, people talking about Bulldozers disappointing performance based on fake SuperPI results, yet they claim they don't care about PI.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'll give you that a lot of people make a big fuss over SuperPi, but if Bulldozer takes a fair share of the gaming benchmarks, I'm putting anyone that complains about SuperPi on the ignore list.


----------



## Frick (Oct 11, 2011)

What about the people who run SuperPi for a living godblessthem? Selfish bastards.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 11, 2011)

Super Pi is single threaded. I honestly haven't seen it relevant in some time.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 11, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Super Pi is single threaded. I honestly haven't seen it relevant in some time.



Relevant for what? It's useful if used in the proper context; to measure gains from stock when overclocking, and stress-testing memory.

The numbers given are useless, really, as the code it runs will not be run often, but at the same time, the load placed on the memory subsystem can be used both to test it's efficiency, and it's stability.


I hear people all the time bitching about SuperPi...and clearly there's a great mis-understanding on what SuperPi is actually used for. In regards to efficiency, there is a "performance product", or calculation that can be made, based onteh result time, that can show if your system is running ideally or not. Not many other than extreme clockers from yesteryear will remember how people have been outted from posting fake clocks thanks to the "perforamcne product".

So I guess it can also be used to validate clocks, in a weird way.

It shouldn't be used to compare say, Intel to AMD, but comparing clocks from stock to an overclock, can be useful. The fact it's running x87 code is not important..that's CPU-side, and Spi is a MEMORY-focused benchmark, thanks to it's single-threaded nature.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Oct 11, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Super Pi is single threaded. I honestly haven't seen it relevant in some time.



its also based on an ancient instruction set so you are indeed right it is completely irrelevant these days there are much better benchmarks that give a better indication of real world performance.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 11, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Relevant for what? It's useful if used in the proper context; to measure gains from stock when overclocking, and stress-testing memory.
> 
> The numbers given are useless, really, as the code it runs will not be run often, but at the same time, the load placed on the memory subsystem can be used both to test it's efficiency, and it's stability.
> 
> ...



I can see that. I was talking more of using it for a comparison base ie. "AMD vs Intel" more then anything. I would thank you but......I'm 1337.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Oct 11, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Relevant for what? It's useful if used in the proper context; to measure gains from stock when overclocking, and stress-testing memory.
> 
> The numbers given are useless, really, as the code it runs will not be run often, but at the same time, the load placed on the memory subsystem can be used both to test it's efficiency, and it's stability.
> 
> ...



You are very much correct in that it serves a purpose there. The problem is that most people are using the scores to compare Intel with AMD.

D'oh, ninja'd


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 11, 2011)

NdMk2o1o said:


> its also based on an ancient instruction set so you are indeed right it is completely irrelevant these days there are much better benchmarks that give a better indication of real world performance.



If it was completely irrelevant, than every extreme overclcoker and reviewer wouldn't be running it, but they do. There is a method behind the madness, and it's natural for those that do not understand to hesitate or fear the things they don't understand.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 11, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> If it was completely irrelevant, than every extreme overclcoker and reviewer wouldn't be running it, but they do. There is a method behind the madness, and it's natural for those that do not understand to hesitate or fear the things they don't understand.



Thats why I don't like clowns and midgets.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Oct 11, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> If it was completely irrelevant, than every extreme overclcoker and reviewer wouldn't be running it, but they do. There is a method behind the madness, and it's natural for those that do not understand to hesitate or fear the things they don't understand.



It's irrelevant in the context of my sentance and as MM said to compare Intel/AMD, so I agree with what you said, why you need to repeat it I am not so sure...


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 11, 2011)

NdMk2o1o said:


> why you need to repeat it I am not so sure...



It seems that people ignore that not everyone has the same needs, and I think it's a bit arrogant to call an app completely useles, when it isn't. I mean, sure, you may have no use for it, but that doesn't make it unimportant.

It's a tool "professionals" use to judge system performance, like how AIDA64's bandwidth test is used, but with a bit of error checking thrown in.

And while you feel it may not be useful to compare AMD and Intel, it's useful to show architectural differences that may or may not have an impact on performance. It shouldn't be used to say that if Intel completes Pi in half the time, it's twice as fast, but, it does highlight how contoroller differences can affect memory performance, but have little impact on daily usage.

Stop saying it's useless, and I'll stop explaining why you're wrong. I'm not saying at a personal level, you are wrong, but looking at the bigger picture, it's far from useless, and the comment about what code it runs highlights your lack of understanding the app as it's used by those "professionals".


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 11, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> It seems that people ignore that not everyone has the same needs, and I think it's a bit arrogant to call an app completely useles, when it isn't. I mean, sure, you may have no use for it, but that doesn't make it unimportant.
> 
> It's a tool "professionals" use to judge system performance, like how AIDA64's bandwidth test is used, but with a bit of error checking thrown in.
> 
> ...


I'm rather useless......but I doubt you'll argue I'm wrong.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 11, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I'm rather useless......but I doubt you'll argue I'm wrong.








Anyway, none of this has much bearing on the launch and availability of BD chips. I guess this(as in the OP) kinda shows they are at least shipping...


My god, I hope they hit local tomorrow.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 11, 2011)

heky said:


> Actually the FX-8150 chip is a little slower in SuperPI 1M than the Phenom II x6 1100T. It takes around 20s. But hey, what do i know, right?


And how on earth do you know this? Oh, I forgot, you have one sitting on your desk. 
Previews don't count, official reviews do....


----------



## heky (Oct 12, 2011)

Sure, we will just have to wait and see who was right. I will have no problem admitting i was wrong, will you?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 12, 2011)

heky said:


> Sure, we will just have to wait and see who was right. I will have no problem admitting i was wrong, will you?



And will you admit you are wrong again when the patch windows?


----------



## faramir (Oct 12, 2011)

Anandtech has a full review out.



Super XP said:


> Absolutely no way IMHO.



You were saying ? 

It appears that BD is actually slightly inferior to Phenom II in IPC rather than just on par (with the exception of new instructions, such as AES-NI, which obviously weren't present in Phenom II). 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

I wonder if seronx and DamnSt00pid will muster the testicular capacity to apologize for being such pricks when we pointed out the obvious to them.


----------



## heky (Oct 12, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> And will you admit you are wrong again when the patch windows?



Sure, no problem. If it delivers, it delivers. But for now, it doesnt. Period. After all the wait. SB is out for almost a year now. And win 8 wont be until late next year.

@Dent1
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...md-bulldozer-fx-8150-processor-review-20.html

Who is mentally challenged now? Sorry but your posts look kind of challenged now. Still think the new AMD flagship is that great?


----------



## Super XP (Oct 12, 2011)

faramir said:


> Anandtech has a full review out.
> 
> You were saying ?
> 
> ...


Give me a sec will you, I just swallowed my nuts 

Can this be the reason why AMD got rid of Dirk Meyer? If Bulldozer needs a Windows 7 patch for it to perform much better, then why didn't AMD push for this patch to get completed B4 Bulldozer's launch? Anyhow I am lost with words.....


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Oct 12, 2011)

Super XP said:


> Give me a sec will you, I just swallowed my nuts
> 
> Can this be the reason why AMD got rid of Dirk Meyer? If Bulldozer needs a Windows 7 patch for it to perform much better, then why didn't AMD push for this patch to get completed B4 Bulldozer's launch? Anyhow I am lost with words.....



I see the post that you quoted was removed, but I'll reply to it anyway.

First off, your spelling is horrendous, there is no t,p,i or d in smooth.

I am man enough to admit when I'm wrong and I was wrong this time. 

As for an apology, I don't think so. I'm not going to apologize when this could have turned out the other way. Nobody knew for sure and I just continuously had to point that out to you.

Good day.


----------



## faramir (Oct 12, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> First off, your spelling is horrendous, there is no t,p,i or d in smooth.



My apologies for that, a tad immature of me perhaps. 



> I am man enough to admit when I'm wrong and I was wrong this time.



Oh ?



> As for an apology, I don't think so. I'm not going to apologize when this could have turned out the other way. Nobody knew for sure and I just continuously had to point that out to you.



You made some pretty bold statements back then, claiming that I'm making things up [when I quoted AMD's CEO's statement given to public and recorded online], daring me to come up with any statements of the kind [that Bulldozer's IPC would be along the lines of that of Phenom II] which, in your words, would take forever [it took me 30 seconds]. 

It *couldn't* have turned out any other way for a very simple reason: I was merely quoting another man's statement. Had he been wrong in his estimate (which sounds extremely unlikely, given his position ...), it would have been his mistake in estimate to make, not mine. And as it turns out he was right (surprise, surprise).

Now *if* you indeed are man enough I'm sure you're going to manage to cough up something better than this sorry attempt at back-paddling.



> Good day.



That, or good riddance


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Oct 12, 2011)

faramir said:


> My apologies for that, a tad immature of me perhaps.



No more immature than this one.



> You made some pretty bold statements back then, claiming that I'm making things up [when I quoted AMD's CEO's statement given to public and recorded online], daring me to come up with any statements of the kind [that Bulldozer's IPC would be along the lines of that of Phenom II] which, in your words, would take forever [it took me 30 seconds].
> 
> It *couldn't* have turned out any other way for a very simple reason: I was merely quoting another man's statement. Had he been wrong in his estimate (which sounds extremely unlikely, given his position ...), it would have been his mistake in estimate to make, not mine. And as it turns out he was right (surprise, surprise).



And I provided you with a link of JF-AMD disputing it, how was I supposed to know he was wrong.




> Now *if* you indeed are man enough I'm sure you're going to manage to cough up something better than this sorry attempt at back-paddling.



You have clearly proven that you have no ability to comprehend what you read. Nowhere in my post was I backpedaling (Proper spelling, I don't have a boat. ) about anything. I admitted I was wrong, and that's as far as it goes.



> That, or good riddance



Take your pick, they both work for me.


----------



## erocker (Oct 12, 2011)

faramir said:


> My apologies for that, a tad immature of me perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Damn_Smooth said:


> No more immature than this one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Guys. Nobody cares. Seriously. Take it to PM's.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 13, 2011)

Wow, where did Knight Rider GO?


----------

