# Review Consensus: AMD FX Processor 8150 Underwhelming



## btarunr (Oct 12, 2011)

It's been in the works for over three years now. That's right, the first we heard of "Bulldozer" as a processor architecture under development was shortly after the launch of "Barcelona" K10 architecture. Granted, it wasn't possible to load close to 2 billion transistors on the silicon fab technology AMD had at the time, but AMD had a clear window over the last year to at least paper-launch the AMD FX. Delays and bad marketing may have cost AMD dearly in shaping up the product for the market. 

After drawing a consensus from about 25 reviews (links in Today's Reviews on the front page), it emerges that: 
AMD FX-8150 is missing its performance expectations by a fair margin. Not to mention performance gains in its own presentation, these expectations were built up by how AMD was shaping the product to be a full-fledged enthusiast product with significant performance gains over the previous generation
AMD ill-marketed the FX-8150. Hype is a double-edged sword, and should not be used if you're not confident your offering will live up to at least most of the hype. AMD marketed at least the top-tier FX-8000 series eight-core processors as the second coming of Athlon64 FX. 



FX-8150 launch isn't backed up by launch of other AMD FX processors. This could go on to become a blunder. The presence of other FX series processors such as the FX-8120, six-core and four-core FX processors could have at least made the price performance charts look better, given that all FX processors are unlocked, buyers could see the value in buying them to overclock. TweakTown took a closer look into this. 
There are no significant clock-for-clock improvements over even AMD's own previous generation. The FX-8150 drags its feet behind the Phenom II X6 1100T in single-threaded math benchmarks such as Super/HyperPi, the picture isn't any better with Cinebench single-threaded, either. 
Multi-threaded data streaming applications such as data compression (WINRAR, 7-ZIP) reveal the FX-8150 to catch up with competition from even the Core i7-2600K. This trend keeps up with popular video encoding benchmarks such as Handbrake and x264 HD. 
Load power draw is bad, by today's standards. It's not like AMD is lagging behind in silicon fabrication technologies, or the engineering potential that turned around AMD Radeon power consumption figures over generations. 
Price could be a major saving grace. In the end, AMD FX 8150 has an acceptable price-performance figure. At just $25 over the Core i5-2500K, the FX-8150 offers a good performance lead.
Impressive overclocking potential. We weren't exactly in awe when AMD announced its Guinness Record-breaking overclocking feat, but reviewers across the board have noticed fairly good overclocking potential and performance scaling.
In all, AMD FX-8150 has almost become another example to cite at a marketing class, of how to effectively handle hype. It is sure to underwhelm some. If it's any compensation, Duke Nukem Forever is still the most underwhelming development this year for the gamer-overclocker community.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Frizz (Oct 12, 2011)

Well at least the price is right, although I did expect more from Bulldozer.. turns out it was just a toy truck to intel after all. :/


----------



## Kantastic (Oct 12, 2011)

random said:


> Well at least the price is right, although I did expect more from Bulldozer.. turns out it was just a toy truck to intel after all. :/



IMO the price is a little off. I'd be hard pressed to pay more than $200 for the 8150 model. If anything, the long-term overclocked power draw will bump the cost up a chunk.


----------



## Frizz (Oct 12, 2011)

Kantastic said:


> IMO the price is a little off. I'd be hard pressed to pay more than $200 for the 8150 model. If anything, the long-term overclocked power draw will bump the cost up a chunk.



Judging from the Guru3D reviews, at 4.6ghz the 8150FX barely beats the 2600k at stock in 3Dmark06 by 300ish points and at the same time consumes almost triple the power. 


8150FX - 586w consumption at 4.8ghz

2600k - 313w at 5ghz

......imo these are very bloody poor results, I have no idea how the market works but I just hope Intel won't decide to hike up their prices with their upcoming Ivy.


----------



## xenocide (Oct 12, 2011)

random said:


> ......imo these are very bloody poor results, I have no idea how the market works but I just hope Intel won't decide to hike up their prices.



Why on Earth would they?  They will sell 3x as many CPU's at the current price point as they would if they raised their price.  If anything, they could stand to lower the cost a tad bit and out value BD while outperforming it.  Let's not forget that SB has been out since February, so anyone who wanted this level of performance could have already had it for almost a year.


----------



## afw (Oct 12, 2011)

I was hoping that the performance might be equal to 2600k or better ... so that I can start my First AMD build ... now I'll just have to go ahead and buy the 2600k or wait and go for the 2700k ... 

Better luck next time AMD ...


----------



## entropy13 (Oct 12, 2011)




----------



## (FIH) The Don (Oct 12, 2011)

atleast it doesnt cost around 1000$ as the last gen FX, but meh, this is REALLY bad for business AMD, you just shot yourself in the foot.

yeah call me fanboi, i stick with my 2600K


----------



## xenocide (Oct 12, 2011)

(FIH) The Don said:


> atleast it doesnt cost around 1000$ as the last gen FX, but meh, this is REALLY bad for business AMD, you just shot yourself in the foot.
> 
> yeah call me fanboi, i stick with my 2600K



At least when they had $1000 CPU's they were top notch by a long shot.  These are middle of the pack and even priced questionably considering their current offerings...


----------



## Hustler (Oct 12, 2011)

Underwhelming....????

please, it's an utter turd.


----------



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

They might as well have called it Phenom III...


----------



## bbmarley (Oct 12, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> http://i47.tinypic.com/2vnhzra.gif



lol how long have you been saving that for


----------



## Bjorn_Of_Iceland (Oct 12, 2011)

Probly would fix it right on its revision..but man.. it suck indeed.


----------



## the54thvoid (Oct 12, 2011)

bbmarley said:


> lol how long have you been saving that for



It doesn't matter, it's funny.


----------



## entropy13 (Oct 12, 2011)

bbmarley said:


> lol how long have you been saving that for



I got it from another user who posted it in a thread in [H]ardocp's forum. What's your point?


----------



## mtosev (Oct 12, 2011)

AMD did it again but I was expecting that it will be slower than Intel's top of the line CPUs.


----------



## caleb (Oct 12, 2011)

Such summaries should be done at the end of product review done here on TPU. I don't see any value added by that kind of product summary. Specially before even a review here is done.


----------



## RejZoR (Oct 12, 2011)

AMD's main segment right now are low and mid end APU's. Maybe they can't beat Intel at highest end but then again they don't have any competition in those lower segments where users expect low price and high performance even for gaming. Which AMD APU's can deliver.

And even if the higher end CPU's aren't as fast, if the price is good, it doesn't really matter.


----------



## DigitalUK (Oct 12, 2011)

those benchmarks are really strange. 1 minute the bulldozer goes head to head with intel on really heavy workloads then on lighter stuff seems to fall over. also the intel cpu's seem to always be given the advantage eg higher memory speeds for i7 etc. it also used 1333 and 1600 memory , i thought bulldozer was surposed to use 1866.


----------



## the54thvoid (Oct 12, 2011)

DigitalUK said:


> those benchmarks are really strange. 1 minute the bulldozer goes head to head with intel on really heavy workloads



Good versus a 4 core in highly threaded tasks.  Sort of it's design focus



DigitalUK said:


> then on lighter stuff seems to fall over.



Has sub Phenom per core performance, so light tasks are worse.

Very Good performance charts here:

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


----------



## 1c3d0g (Oct 12, 2011)

caleb said:


> Such summaries should be done at the end of product review done here on TPU. I don't see any value added by that kind of product summary. Specially before even a review here is done.



:shadedshu I disagree.

What?!? Are you mad that TPU has published the facts? This "bulldozer" sucks, period! Poor performance, extremely power-hungry, not competitive price-wise, I mean, who the hell in their right mind would purchase such a piss-poor product?!? LMAO...


----------



## Pap1er (Oct 12, 2011)

*Omg*



entropy13 said:


> http://i47.tinypic.com/2vnhzra.gif


I almost started to cry after viewing this image...
This is exactly how would I express customers slap over AMD face xD xD xD


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Oct 12, 2011)

Bemusing how the Phenom II x6 can beat it in some tests, surely it should be better all round than PII as it's a new architecture so even if BD can't best SB it SHOULD be better than their last generation, no???


----------



## PaNiC (Oct 12, 2011)

the funny thing is amd would have got more proformace if they just did a 32nm die skrink on the thuban


----------



## Frick (Oct 12, 2011)

NdMk2o1o said:


> Bemusing how the Phenom II x6 can beat it in some tests, surely it should be better all round than PII as it's a new architecture so even if BD can't best SB it SHOULD be better than their last generation, no???



That is dissapointing aye, but on the other hand it's on par with 2500k and even 2600k in heavily threaded stuff. Some users will be happy.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Oct 12, 2011)

*second story curve stomp*

The true horror story is all those who went out and spent hard earned money on new boards because of marketing slides.  That's Worse than any intel overcharge on actual delivered performance:shadedshu.


----------



## naoan (Oct 12, 2011)

Yellow&Nerdy? said:


> They might as well have called it Phenom III...



They couldn't as it struggle to win over lower clocked Phenom II.


----------



## pantherx12 (Oct 12, 2011)

Hoping drivers do something lol

Dissapointing it I was expecting it to +20% performance per core vs phenom at-least.

Knew it wasn't going to be a single threaded monster due to the architechture but this is just odd.


----------



## entropy13 (Oct 12, 2011)

Frick said:


> That is dissapointing aye, but on the other hand it's on par with 2500k and even 2600k in heavily threaded stuff. Some users will be happy.



That IS what is disappointing. Why didn't AMD at least have it on par in ALL of the stuff?


----------



## NC37 (Oct 12, 2011)

Figured 2500-2600k. Hopefully this will spur AMD to make Piledriver as good on paper as they originally previewed, and not like the recent info they released. 

Either way, more interested in APU tech advancement. That is likely where AMD CPUs will start turning things around.


----------



## heky (Oct 12, 2011)

Lets face it, its a fail. But even now some people are trying to blame it on Windows 7, not using the processor right. I mean come on, they have been developing the processor for 3 years, and noone thought about this erlier. Dream on. Then why would AMD even release a crippled chip, without the proper win 7 tweak, if they know win 8 is not out before late next year. People just have to find someone else to blame when AMD doesnt deliver. Its sad really.


----------



## MilkyWay (Oct 12, 2011)




----------



## mtosev (Oct 12, 2011)

MilkyWay said:


> http://img.techpowerup.org/111012/128899889329873500.jpg


Don't be sad just buy an Intel next time


----------



## noname00 (Oct 12, 2011)

Frick said:


> That is dissapointing aye, but on the other hand it's on par with 2500k and even 2600k in heavily threaded stuff. Some users will be happy.



It may be on par with the 2600k in some tasks, but on the whole it compares with 2500k at best. Even if you are doing heavily threaded tasks, the higher power usage and the fact that on the whole is about 20% slower than the 2600k will make it a hard processor to sell. Maybe the 4100 at the $115 would be a good choice, since it competes with dual core SB.
I would like to know how the 8150 compares with the 990X in heavily threaded tasks. Oh well, I'm at work now and I have no time for "studying".


----------



## npp (Oct 12, 2011)

All those fake screenshots and "faster than 990X" claims really made me believe that something big was coming from the green camp. I think they really rushed it out a bit, but on the other hand releasing a Thuban-class CPU alongside Ivy Bridge would have made it downright obsolete from day one. Something really strange has happened with the CPU division at AMD, I feel sorry for that.


----------



## npp (Oct 12, 2011)

heky said:


> Lets face it, its a fail. But even now some people are trying to blame it on Windows 7, not using the processor right. I mean come on, they have been developing the processor for 3 years, and noone thought about this erlier. Dream on. Then why would AMD even release a crippled chip, without the proper win 7 tweak, if they know win 8 is not out before late next year. People just have to find someone else to blame when AMD doesnt deliver. Its sad really.



If someone remembers the Quad FX platform, it was supposed to work better with the then unreleased Windows Vista, which was supposed to handle NUMA better than XP. Both QFX and Vista faded into oblivion. The bottom line should be clear, don't rely on a OS to make your CPU shine. I thought AMD have learned that.


----------



## laszlo (Oct 12, 2011)

is not a failure till are buyers in the end only the profit matter;if they sell cheap will be bought and performance is not so bad after all,not everybody can fully load all cores and from speed point is fast enough


----------



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

Feel sorry for all the people, who bought a 990FX board because of the hype.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Oct 12, 2011)

btarunr said:


> In all, AMD FX-8150 has almost become another example to cite at a marketing class, of how to effectively handle hype. It is sure to underwhelm some. If it's any compensation, Duke Nukem Forever is still the most underwhelming development this year for the gamer-overclocker community.



Duke Nukem with Eight Cores! Hail to the King, baby! Forever...


----------



## btarunr (Oct 12, 2011)

heky said:


> Lets face it, its a fail. But even now some people are trying to blame it on Windows 7.



Lol. That Windows 7 "patch" speeds some some benches by a full 0.05%.


----------



## Dr. Zoidberg (Oct 12, 2011)

*Rip amd*






RIP AMD


----------



## dirtyferret (Oct 12, 2011)

Yellow&Nerdy? said:


> They might as well have called it Phenom III...



they may as well of called it a phenom II but clock for clock the phenom II is better in gaming.  this is the phenom I part II and I don't see some key people at AMD keeping their jobs over this fiasco.  The phenom II was launched in 2008 and in three years AMD has failed to produce a chip that is clock for clock faster?!


----------



## qubit (Oct 12, 2011)

Oh man, what a disappointment. W1zz was hinting at low performance a month or two ago on here, yeah he knew. 

We so badly need that leapfrogging competition from both companies. Now, Intel can sit back and enjoy keeping its prices high, while the shiny new AMD offering goes straight to the bargain bin and the overall performance bar for PCs doesn't rise much. What a fiasco, indeed.

No wonder those executives were recently pushed out of AMD.


----------



## LiveOrDie (Oct 12, 2011)

Don't know why this is a shock to people AMD is know for there cheap budget hardware after 15 year i never aspected a change .


----------



## Bjorn_Of_Iceland (Oct 12, 2011)

I still wont shell out $245 for it even if I was 'on the cheap'


----------



## qubit (Oct 12, 2011)

Just looked at prices and the 8120 comes in at around £165. It might be nice to build a system around that just to say I've got 8 cores and have them show up in Task Manager.  This is the kind of thing us enthusiasts get off on, isn't it? 

However, for the heavy duty stuff, I'll stick to Intel.


----------



## dj-electric (Oct 12, 2011)

i don't see why gamers need 8 cores, for half the price you get a FX4100 3.6Ghz quad core. The big difference between it and a I3 is that its OVERCLOCKABLE


----------



## techtard (Oct 12, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> http://i47.tinypic.com/2vnhzra.gif



LOL nicely done.

Looks like AMD pulled another Phenom I. Too bad, I was looking for some stiff competition to lower prices.
I thought AMD would at least hit last gen i7, and i-5 (1156) IPC. The fact that they get outperformed by their own last gen is terrible.

Seems like they are banking too hard on multithreaded performance, and single threaded took a big hit.
That was a mistake, considering how few multithreaded apps there are.
Most software is still fully last gen, being barely multithreaded, and 32-bit.

@heky 
I wouldn't be so quick to laugh at AMD, or blindly support Intel.
Some of us have been using computers for a long time, and we remember how bad Intel was when they had no competition. 
They gouged the shit out of you for the smallest upgrades possible.
If AMD doesn't get their shit together, then we'll be back to the dark ages of no innovation and wallet rape.


----------



## blibba (Oct 12, 2011)

Dj-ElectriC said:


> i don't see why gamers need 8 cores, for half the price you get a FX4100 3.6Ghz quad core. The big difference between it and a I3 is that its OVERCLOCKABLE



Trouble is, because so many resources are shared between cores, in a lot of applications it seems to behave and perform more like a quad already.


----------



## LiveOrDie (Oct 12, 2011)

Dj-ElectriC said:


> i don't see why gamers need 8 cores, for half the price you get a FX4100 3.6Ghz quad core. The big difference between it and a I3 is that its OVERCLOCKABLE



For some games more cores are better a lot of RTS games performance is a lot better woth more cores if the game engine support more than single core processing.


----------



## CDdude55 (Oct 12, 2011)

HardOCPs short review of the chip is quite dissapointing, i was excepting more from the 8 cores. I already have a 990FX board so, i'll either get one anyways or wait for the second gen Bulldozer and hope for the best for those chips. I don't do much to any heavy work, so it's not a huge loss for me.

But AMD needs to get their shit together, they say new designs, and then deliver underperforming results across the board every time. Intel may have the higher prices, but you sure has hell get your moneys worth in performance.

So right now it's:


----------



## ensabrenoir (Oct 12, 2011)

Dj-ElectriC said:


> i don't see why gamers need 8 cores, for half the price you get a FX4100 3.6Ghz quad core. The big difference between it and a I3 is that its OVERCLOCKABLE



Fx vs i3..... no that would be cruel on my part.


----------



## Disparia (Oct 12, 2011)

So it's finally out now? Sweet.


----------



## zsolt_93 (Oct 12, 2011)

One thing would save this. If the lower end ones are unlockable like the previous generations then AMD will still win as you could get an x8 for the price of an x4 or x6. They claimed it's impossible, but noone really tried it yet as no other products are currently available than the 8150 so it might happen in a few months if mobo manufacturers happen to find a way around.


----------



## DannibusX (Oct 12, 2011)

Ah.  The perfect excuse not to upgrade.  Thanks for the extra savings, AMD.

This is why I didn't buy into the hype.


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Oct 12, 2011)

There is still hope for AMD, just like in the K6-2 days... in the bargain bin 

Poor performance isnt fail. High prices for poor performance is fail. Cheap bargain bin prices is win. And the third world needs cheap processors 

ROFL


----------



## shb- (Oct 12, 2011)

I wish best to AMD, bet there is also a shiny side of this - i will be able to take nice warm fanboy (aka "bulldozer will crush SB, mybe even SB-E" guys) tear filled bath this evening.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 12, 2011)

caleb said:


> Such summaries should be done at the end of product review done here on TPU. I don't see any value added by that kind of product summary. Specially before even a review here is done.


Agreed. This is editorializing a bit. 

Where is TPU's review? Why editorialize when there are many other reviews to link to (which I sent our sites to BT via PM actually)...?




heky said:


> Lets face it, its a fail. But even now some people are trying to blame it on Windows 7, not using the processor right. I mean come on, they have been developing the processor for 3 years, and noone thought about this erlier. Dream on. Then why would AMD even release a crippled chip, without the proper win 7 tweak, if they know win 8 is not out before late next year. People just have to find someone else to blame when AMD doesnt deliver. Its sad really.


The Linux Kernel item we have been hearing about will not improve things over on the windows side. There are too many inherient differences with how the scheduler works between the two to translate it in to any better performance.

Maybe if AMD actually called it a quad w/HT instead of a (neutered) Octo core, people's expectations would have been tempered?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 12, 2011)

heky said:


> Lets face it, its a fail. But even now some people are trying to blame it on Windows 7, not using the processor right. I mean come on, they have been developing the processor for 3 years, and noone thought about this erlier. Dream on. Then why would AMD even release a crippled chip, without the proper win 7 tweak, if they know win 8 is not out before late next year. People just have to find someone else to blame when AMD doesnt deliver. Its sad really.



Just to let you know it runs a better in windows 8. But hey lets not facts get in the way of your gloating.


----------



## Gjohnst4 (Oct 12, 2011)

I was so close to buying the 990FX! So, who wants to sell me their PII 1100T? WHAT? NO ONE?!?


----------



## Crap Daddy (Oct 12, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Just to let you know it runs a better in windows 8. But hey lets not facts get in the way of your gloating.



When is win 8 out? Next year? Let's not kid ourselves. For now, it's over. Next year? We don't know.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Oct 12, 2011)

man, I just got out of bed and all im seeing are review sites just bashing the new AMD CPU. LOL.

Kinda reminds me of the phenom release event where AMD rep said "its PHENOMINAL!"

Ive read the bit-tech reviews and a FX-8150 clocked at 4.8Ghz hasnt got shit on a 2500k clocked at 5Ghz - its like 300mhz difference but the 2500k just pulls ahead.

Its like if BD was some cheap family car and its racing against a Intel v8 or v10 turbo charged 1000bhp musclecar... Neck and neck off the start line but once the muscle looses the turbo lag and the turbo kicks in. you couldnt spell 'gone in 60 seconds' fast enough. It would just be a small spec in the distance by the time you look up.


Utterly dissapointing. but I was kinda expecting this when they showed early cherry picked benches Vs an old Intel Gulftown. Everyone knows that SB is better then gulftown in everyway untill it comes to extremely heavy multi-tasking where the Gulftown's extra cores come into play.

They knew it was going to hurt. why else would they try so hard to keep such a tight lid on any information?

Over hype the CPU. and keep up with the story with a fake smile that they are 'winning'.

Benchmarks dont lie unfortunately.....(unless they are photoshopped)


Phenom I was bad, Phenom II was big improvement over phenom I but no where near Intels performance.

Now theyve had time to take everything back to the drawing board, start from square one and they come out with something that performs worse then Phenom II in single threaded tasks. and is generally less power efficient then Intel SBs and doesnt perform as well clock for clock.

there are no excuses out there that AMD can use to cover for what went utterly wrong other then the fact that their whole design team must of been smoking something all day, everyday while they were making this CPU because everyone aprently fails to see whats so great about it.

------

I think its time for AMD to get rid of the old design team and hire some fresh blood that will take the fight to intels doorstep and not cower behind cherry picked benchmarks vs OLDER PROCESSORS like a bitch.

I feel sorry for the people who built AM3 rigs and were waiting for BD to come.


----------



## Grings (Oct 12, 2011)

So is this AMD's netburst moment?


----------



## HalfAHertz (Oct 12, 2011)

I'm sorry to say this but Bulldozer is a waste of silicon. The die has 2 TWO! billion transistors. Compare that to the 0,9B of Ph x6. So theoretically let's say that AMD just stuck two x6's together on the same die and did some memory magic to be able to feed all the cores and released that instead. It'd still be in the same 2 billion transistor ballpark and would be a true multi-threaded behemoth.

Once again an amazingly good idea with an amazingly terrible implementation ...   AMD deserves a Goro facepalm.


----------



## noname00 (Oct 12, 2011)

Grings said:


> So is this AMD's netburst moment?



Unfortunately netburst v2 (if you count Phenom I as the first netburst moment).


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 12, 2011)

Crap Daddy said:


> When is win 8 out? Next year? Let's not kid ourselves. For now, it's over. Next year? We don't know.



Ya know the benches are about where I thought they would be. I didn't buy into the hype as some did here. Performance wise its on par given all circumstances.

What I am SHOCKED about is the power consumption. That to me is not acceptable. Its like the Fermi but a CPU. Complete BS.


----------



## HalfAHertz (Oct 12, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Ya know the benches are about where I thought they would be. I didn't buy into the hype as some did here. Performance wise its on par given all circumstances.
> 
> What I am SHOCKED about is the power consumption. That to me is not acceptable. Its like the Fermi but a CPU. Complete BS.



Exactly. I want to know what happened to the first Bulldozer cores we heard about which were supposed to be half the size of K10.5 and perform similarly. Somewhere in the design process someone decided to throw everything away and start from scratch methinks...
The current bulldozer cores are huge and perfrom like sh!t.



			
				Anandtech said:
			
		

> AMD believes that 80%+ of all normal server workloads are purely integer operations. AMD has come back to us with a clarification: the 5% figure was incorrect. AMD is now stating that the additional core in Bulldozer requires approximately an additional 50% die area. That's less than a complete doubling of die size for two cores, but still much more than something like Hyper Threading.



Taken from here


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 12, 2011)

> Just to let you know it runs a better in windows 8.


 Can you link that up please? I havent seen a H2H against the OS's...


----------



## Anarchy0110 (Oct 12, 2011)

Oh God No


----------



## Frick (Oct 12, 2011)

qubit said:


> However, for the heavy duty stuff, I'll stick to Intel.



Isn't the heavy duty (if heavily multithreaded) stuff when BD actually competes with SB?


----------



## LiveOrDie (Oct 12, 2011)

HalfAHertz said:


> Exactly. I want to know what happened to the first Bulldozer cores we heard about which were supposed to be half the size of K10.5 and perform similarly. Somewhere in the design process someone decided to throw everything away and start from scratch methinks...
> The current bulldozer cores are huge and perfrom like sh!t.



What happen was some fan boy for AMD created up some fake AMD performance charts.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 12, 2011)

HalfAHertz said:


> Exactly. I want to know what happened to the first Bulldozer cores we heard about which were supposed to be half the size of K10.5 and perform similarly. Somewhere in the design process someone decided to throw everything away and start from scratch methinks...
> The current bulldozer cores are huge and perfrom like sh!t.



Pretty much. Now I know this is just the stepping stone to a new route. Thats why I'm not surprised at the bench results. Win 8 will give this new architecture new light I feel. But the g-d damn power draw is insane. WTF was AMD thinking on that. Hell I have a 750w PSU and even if I WANTED to upgrade to a 8150 I couldn't safely. WOW.

I sure hope this is fixed for Pile driver.


----------



## Frick (Oct 12, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Pretty much. Now I know this is just the stepping stone to a new route. Thats why I'm not surprised at the bench results. Win 8 will give this new architecture new light I feel. But the g-d damn power draw is insane. WTF was AMD thinking on that. Hell I have a 750w PSU and even if I WANTED to upgrade to a 8150 I couldn't safely. WOW.



Stay at clock speeds and it'll be ok.


----------



## techtard (Oct 12, 2011)

So is anyone still going through with their 990FX+BD upgrades? And if so, can you run some game benches that are CPU limited, like WoW and SC2? I know WoW is a bad game by today's standards bench-wise, but it is a really CPU dependant game. Lot's of people still play it, so it wouldn't be a completely worthless benchmark.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 12, 2011)

Frick said:


> Stay at clock speeds and it'll be ok.



To close. No head room for a good GPU.


----------



## HalfAHertz (Oct 12, 2011)

The amazing win8 improvements... just enough t o put it on par with a Thuban


----------



## mtosev (Oct 12, 2011)

The only good thing that AMD ...err ATI knows how to make are their graphic cards. AMDs C50 and C30 are slower than Intel's Atom CPUs. fail again


----------



## techtard (Oct 12, 2011)

Isn't their power draw total system in those charts?


----------



## Frick (Oct 12, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> To close. No head room for a good GPU.


----------



## HalfAHertz (Oct 12, 2011)

mtosev said:


> The only good thing that AMD ...err ATI knows are their graphic cards. AMD C50 and C30 are slower than Intel's Atom CPU. fail again



No, not really. At the same clockspeed Brazos eats it for breakfast. The problem is that the GPU sucks too much power and the CPU has to be clocked down to help keep the TDP under control for the form factor.

Edit: Damn I'd have preferred to see 16 core Brazos than this lol.


----------



## techtard (Oct 12, 2011)

Frick said:


> http://www.nordichardware.se/images...U-Chipset/Bulldozer/fullimages/powermetro.png




I think some people saw those results and thought Platform only power draw. (CPU, RAM, Mobo+chipsets) They forgot that graphics were part of the package.


----------



## Dr. Zoidberg (Oct 12, 2011)

Hitler finds out about the AMD Bulldozer benchmarks 

http://youtu.be/SArxcnpXStE


----------



## mtosev (Oct 12, 2011)

Dr. Zoidberg said:


> Hitler finds out about the AMD Bulldozer benchmarks
> 
> http://youtu.be/SArxcnpXStE


Even Hitler is pissed off lol


----------



## mtosev (Oct 12, 2011)

HalfAHertz said:


> No, not really. At the same clockspeed Brazos eats it for breakfast. The problem is that the GPU sucks too much power and the CPU has to be clocked down to help keep the TDP under control for the form factor.
> 
> Edit: Damn I'd have preferred to see 16 core Brazos than this lol.


this looks really sad http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Processors-Benchmarklist.2436.0.html


----------



## Disparia (Oct 12, 2011)

techtard said:


> So is anyone still going through with their 990FX+BD upgrades? And if so, can you run some game benches that are CPU limited, like WoW and SC2? I know WoW is a bad game by today's standards bench-wise, but it is a really CPU dependant game. Lot's of people still play it, so it wouldn't be a completely worthless benchmark.



Probably. Have nearly a whole system in my cart and even after BD is in stock and its added in, the total won't even top $1K.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Oct 12, 2011)




----------



## mtosev (Oct 12, 2011)

brandonwh64 said:


>


http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2422885&postcount=82


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 12, 2011)

HalfAHertz said:


> The amazing win8 improvements... just enough t o put it on par with a Thuban
> http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/cpu/amd/Bulldozer/Review/win8.jpg


Yeah from Anandtech...



> 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, however given the short lead time on Bulldozer reviews we weren't able to do much experimenting with Windows 8 performance on the platform. There's also the fact that Windows 8 isn't expected out until the end of next year, at which point we'll likely see an upgraded successor to Bulldozer.


----------



## techtard (Oct 12, 2011)

So the consensus is to wait for Piledriver and Win8?
I put off upgrading for so long, I feel kind of weird right now. It's gotten easier to just wait. 
Maybe I'll just wait for SB-e and piledriver, run this dying rig right into the ground!


----------



## Frick (Oct 12, 2011)

techtard said:


> So the consensus is to wait for Piledriver and Win8?
> I put off upgrading for so long, I feel kind of weird right now. It's gotten easier to just wait.
> Maybe I'll just wait for SB-e and piledriver, run this dying rig right into the ground!



Depending on what you do it's a good option. I know I do not need anything extra right now.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 12, 2011)

EarthDog said:


> Yeah from Anandtech...



I don't understand this logic. This is "cutting edge" tech that software is proven not to be on par with yet people expected AMD to developer for the current gen software and old tech? 

Talking about that Anandtech comment.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 12, 2011)

I dont recall any other processor improving its clock for clock performance with a jump to a different OS? Does anyone?


----------



## Kantastic (Oct 12, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I don't understand this logic. This is "cutting edge" tech that software is proven not to be on par with yet people expected AMD to developer for the current gen software and old tech?
> 
> Talking about that Anandtech comment.



Cutting edge tech that's useless to me is, well, useless.


----------



## CDdude55 (Oct 12, 2011)

EarthDog said:


> I dont recall any other processor improving its clock for clock performance with a jump to a different OS? Does anyone?



It's sounds like BS excuse to be honest. They're saying Windows 7 isn't ''updated'' to handle the new architecture, yet it's been out since 2009, they had more then enough time. And yet by the time Windows 8 releases (2012) a new line of BD chips will be out anyways.

Ive decided im just going to upgrade my video card and since im already running a 990FX board, i'll just wait till Piledriver in hopes of better performance, but currently it doesn't look like my X6 1055T will be going anywhere soon.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 12, 2011)

EarthDog said:


> I dont recall any other processor improving its clock for clock performance with a jump to a different OS? Does anyone?



No but I do remember when Intel debuted hyper threading windows didn't know WTF to do and was later patched with great success. Now I'm not saying that will happen with BD. But its not far fetched ether.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 12, 2011)

Yeah, I just dont know. Im truly asking and not trying to start stuff. Im apprehensive of course, but... 

I know this is different with their architecture...but its waaaaaaaaaaaaay over my head right now for that making sense.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 12, 2011)

Over all I'm lost also lol


----------



## mtosev (Oct 12, 2011)

AMD just wants to pin the blame on someone else for their fail.nothing new in this world


----------



## ensabrenoir (Oct 12, 2011)

Kantastic said:


> Cutting edge tech that's useless to me is, well, useless.



+1
 So amd has acess to future software that beyound modern tech and  isn't available to anyone......I didn't know they hired Michael Bay to design cpus.  Totally possible


----------



## entropy13 (Oct 12, 2011)

I'll be basing this off Tech Report (since they have a scatter plot of perf/price)
http://techreport.com/articles.x/21813/19


FX-8150 at $245 is 355% ($0.69 per percentage point)
FX-8120 at $205 is 330% ($0.62 per percentage point)

Core i7 2600K at $317 is 425% ($0.74 per percentage point)
Core i5 2500K at $216 is 360% ($0.60 per percentage point)

Looking at them in terms of price per performance, they're not that bad. 

However, the 8150 can by no means match the 2600K In pure overall performance (425% v. 355% = 70% difference), and is actually behind by 5% to the 2500K while being a bit more expensive ($0.69 v. $0.6).

The 8120 is even worse, just add $11 and you get 30% more performance (at $0.37 per percentage point) with the 2500K.


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, $317:$245 means you save $72, but you end up using more power (12W more at idle, 65W more peak, 5.9W more task energy).


If the 8150 and 8120 is priced at $200 and $165 respectively, then it would be $0.56 per percentage point for the 8150 and $0.50 per percentage point for the 8120. This would offset, at least, the raw performance advantages of the 2600K and 2500K respectively.








Take note that those performance percentages are as "percentage points." Meaning, "behind by 5%" doesn't mean that it (8150) is 95% the performance of the 2500K (355/360 = 98.61%). And "30% more performance" is "30 percentage points more in terms of performance."


----------



## Imhoteps (Oct 12, 2011)

OH CRAP (just finished reading some urgent reviews).


----------



## faramir (Oct 12, 2011)

PaNiC said:


> the funny thing is amd would have got more proformace if they just did a 32nm die skrink on the thuban



Die-shrink, additional instructions and improved Turbo Core. These should all be doable in the same timeframe and there's absolutely no way such a product would be in any way inferior to 45 nm Thuban. 

It would run colder, use lower Vcore, at the very least match the performance at same frequency, Turbo much higher than the original and vastly improve performance in certain tasks (where new instructions can be utilized).


----------



## jpierce55 (Oct 12, 2011)

I was hoping it would ~ match 2600k. I am only slightly disappointed in performance. I think it is within the realistic range to be expected. The power consumption is what really disappoints me.

If somebody had a cpu that outperformed my cpu in day to day functions, used less power, and did not cost $300+.... that would convince me to upgrade.


----------



## AhokZYashA (Oct 12, 2011)

i think AMD is working together with the power company, 

so AMD can sell the processor as cheap as possible, while get their profit from the power company, 

because of that amazing load power consumption


----------



## Vincy Boy (Oct 12, 2011)

I really was hoping for something that would truly be competitive with intel's offerings. I am disappoint:shadedshu. The power consumption is what has really put me off though.  I have stopped using my i7 930 for a month because power bills have been sky rocketing (paying near US $100 is no fun in a third world country). I'll be selling my x58 parts and for sure getting a 2500k. 

Still I have hope that they can pull off something good with pile driver. Consumers need real competition, come on AMD!


----------



## option350z (Oct 12, 2011)

I'll still buy it along with the newer sandy bridge-e stuff. It's too bad that the performance wasn't up to the hype but at least I can still put a large heat sink on it unlike Intel's newest upcoming socket lmao.


----------



## BrooksyX (Oct 12, 2011)

Sad to see amd..

But so glad I went sandybridge!!!!!!


----------



## 15th Warlock (Oct 12, 2011)

Another fine example of hype backfiring, tech news sites are just as guilty as AMD of setting hopes so high by hyping a design that suffered more delays than any other modern processor in recent history. 

It was obvious that this architecture wouldn't deliver the performance it was being hyped for. 

Having said that, AMD is being smart by marketing the processor as a economic alternative, and this will mean more ppl will have access to multi core systems, we all know that the global economy isn't doing so well after all; it's just that as I said before, the "price-performance shock" used to hype the processor, won't be quite as dramatic as expected.


----------



## Imhoteps (Oct 12, 2011)

Well, developers have shifted their priorities for the number of cores. In this case it seems that the specific performance of individual core was reduced, but the resulting design has opened the way for a low-cost eight-or even more complex processors. This is - a very strong move for the server market, where the party is ruled by multi-threaded processors and large number of cores is seriously in demand. So, very likely, a new microarchitecture, AMD Bulldozer will significantly improve its market performance servers, perhaps even in near future (Piledrivers?). 
However, today we met with an FX, built on this microarchitecture, but aimed at the desktop. And let`s be honest - here is a mismatch between the hardware capabilities of the typical desktop Bulldozer and loads manifested itself in full measure.


----------



## araditus (Oct 12, 2011)

I have been waiting for these numbers for a lonnnnng time, but I must say I am serisouly tired of sythetic benchmarks, ever since teh nvidia furmark fiasco (yes you vantage programmed to favor green stuff) I just dont believe any benchmark other than ones that are time outputs like handbrake and h264, windows and photoshop loadtimes (for ssd ofcourse) stuff that is real world, why cant we just put a 2600k and a 8150 in their respective machines and give them the same real life task.....

and to be perfectly honest, other than the power users (although I am one) both of those processors are far to strong for 85% of us (or that we really need.... [the last line was my opinion not based on any fact])


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Oct 12, 2011)

The worst part is the power consumption. Bad performance could be overcome by price. That power draw is truly astronomical. An overclocked 8150 uses almost 200 watts more than a further overclocked 2600k. Unless all your energy is provided by some free renewable power source that makes the whole platform an invalid choice for any application. I'd wager it fails even in it's intended server market. Sure it has configurable TDP but what good is that if you have to scale performance down so far it can't even come close to the competition?


----------



## Bjorn_Of_Iceland (Oct 12, 2011)

Ima buy this and slap a GTX480 on it. Ultimate polar cap melting combo


----------



## KainXS (Oct 12, 2011)

heh, my friend told me it would destroy intels cpu's and bought a new board for the occasion and look what happened

still feel bad for em,

when the 2600K came out AMD should have known they were screwed comparing the 2 in internal testing but still they hyped everyone up, never trust the hype game guys.


----------



## stupido (Oct 12, 2011)

Bjorn_Of_Iceland said:


> Ima buy this and slap a GTX480 on it. Ultimate polar cap melting combo



with that combo you don't need central heating system...


----------



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

AMD just released a collective wet fart called the FX series.


----------



## Thefumigator (Oct 12, 2011)

I'm somewhat dissapointed. However, I still feel Valencia could be a good multitasking monster on the cheap.

Also, power draw in idle is better than people is talking about, its in load where trouble starts, I would try the 95w part. 

I agree that shrinking thuban could have been better, but IMHO thuban has hit the limit, and we may never see a thuban beating a 2600k or Ivy Bridge after the shrink or cache increase.

What I mean is that bulldozer seems to a better design with room for improvements on the run, I think someday next year this will pay off.

On a foot note, its not a dissaster considering it was made during a period of world economical trouble.


----------



## Polarman (Oct 12, 2011)

My biggest gripe apart of the sub performance and slightly higher load power draw is the disable core sheme.

Basically, the "fab" produces (or tries to produce) all the same chip. Like an army of star wars clone, all identical! But this is impossible...

Some yields are not perfect. The perfect ones are labeled 8150, the one that can't reach the desired frequencies are called 8120.

The ones with 2 (cough!) defective (cough!) cores are called 6100 and the half amputated parts that are left are named 4100.

I really doubt in my mind that they would purpously take a fully perfect 8150 and disable 4 of it's 8 cores just to make a quad core part.

I can not claim the above statement as fact. But it does sure looks like it.

I was expecting a wee bit better.


----------



## dirtyferret (Oct 12, 2011)

interesting review by bit-tech

_AMD FX-8150 – why so bad?
Apart from the idle power draw of the FX-8150 – which we’ll point once again is an excellent achievement by AMD considering that the FX-8150 is a high-performance desktop part and its rival Core i5-2500K and Core i7-2600K are both essentially power-efficient laptop processors that have been beefed up a little for desktop PCs – the results show AMD’s latest CPU to be awful at everyday, consumer applications.

It’s a lack of single-threaded performance that holds the FX-8150 back – its efforts in our single-threaded image editing test were dire compared to every other processor on test. Even worse, this supposedly 8-core CPU running at 3.6GHz was hardly much faster than a six-core Phenom II X6 1100T running at 3.3GHz in heavily multi-threaded applications that saturate all available execution cores. In Cinebench R11.5 and WPrime – applications where a 8-core CPU should dominate a 6-core (let alone a quad-core) – we saw a lack of performance.

The answer, we think, comes from Bulldozer’s history. We started this review with a brief history lesson for a reason: we really believe that Bulldozer was intended for servers and workstations, not desktop PC running consumer applications. The lack of grunt-per-core doesn’t matter too much in a server or workstation, as most professional applications are n-threaded and balance that load evenly to saturate every core available. Furthermore, it’s widely assumed that there will be an Opteron based on the Bulldozer design that incorporates eight modules, for 16 execution cores. Bulldozer, we believe, is built for massive parallelism._

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/10/12/amd-fx-8150-review/13

so AMD decided to cut cost and develop a server CPU and pass it off as a PC CPU...:shadedshu


----------



## alexsubri (Oct 12, 2011)

It amazes me how many Intel Fanboy's are glamoring themselves over AMD's performance. A good example is when nVidia's 4xx line up came along and ATI 6xxx series were pounding them. Heck, even some 5xxx were pounding them. Yet, the tide changed when the 5xx series came out! 

I personally think that the next line up from AMD (Piledriver) will refute my statement. However time will tell. As for me, I am disappointed with FX-8150. Where is the damn press release from AMD?!


----------



## dirtyferret (Oct 12, 2011)

alexsubri said:


> It amazes me how many Intel Fanboy's are glamoring themselves over AMD's performance.
> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Ox0Uwwd1f...Byc/aUTX1xqsTBc/s1600/Tissue-Box-Cry-Baby.jpg



I actually prefer AMD but this bulldozer crap is the last straw
The intel fan boys have every right to gloat, they choose the better processor.


----------



## alexsubri (Oct 12, 2011)

dirtyferret said:


> I actually prefer AMD but this bulldozer crap is the last straw
> The intel fan boys have every right to gloat, they choose the better processor.



Bulldozer just came out, it did meet short to peoples expectations, but cut it some slack. Here are the final details


AMD FX-8150	 Intel Core i5/i7 [Sandy Bridge]
 Native DDR3-1866 Support	 Native DDR3-1333 Support
 8 X86 Cores	 4 X86 Cores
 8MB L2 Cache	 1MB L2 Cache
 8MB L3 Cache	 8 MB L3 Cache
 3.6GHz Base Frequency	 3.4GHz Base Frequency
 4.2Ghz Base Frequency	 3.8Ghz Base Frequency
 +600MHz Turbo	 +400MHz Turbo
 Advanced ISA: SSE3, SSE4.1/4.2, AES, AVX  Plus FMA4, XOP	 Advanced ISA: SSE3, SSE4.1/4.2, AES, AVX
 AMD CrossFireX™ Technology Support: 2x16	 AMD CrossFireX™ Technology Support: 2x8
 AMD FX all unlocked1	 2 Unlocked K Parts (+$23) (P67 MB)


----------



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

alexsubri said:


> It amazes me how many Intel Fanboy's are glamoring themselves over AMD's performance. A good example is when nVidia's 4xx line up came along and ATI 6xxx series were pounding them. Heck, even some 5xxx were pounding them. Yet, the tide changed when the 5xx series came out!
> 
> I personally think that the next line up from AMD (Piledriver) will refute my statement. However time will tell. As for me, I am disappointed with FX-8150. Where is the damn press release from AMD?!
> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Ox0Uwwd1f...Byc/aUTX1xqsTBc/s1600/Tissue-Box-Cry-Baby.jpg



The problem is AMD people are always saying "well the next chip willl cream intel" but that "next time" never seems to come.


----------



## alexsubri (Oct 12, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> The problem is AMD people are always saying "well the next chip willl cream intel" but that "next time" never seems to come.



That's just crony marketing  , they need to higher a better marketing team


----------



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

alexsubri said:


> That's just crony marketing  , they need to higher a better marketing team



They need to make better chips to hell with marketing.


----------



## dirtyferret (Oct 12, 2011)

alexsubri said:


> Bulldozer just came out, it did meet short to peoples expectations, but cut it some slack. Here are the final details
> 
> 
> AMD FX-8150	 Intel Core i5/i7 [Sandy Bridge]
> ...



those are just spec stats, go read the bit-tech review I linked above.  the FX-8150 has a slower clock speed then phenom II (a CPU released in 2008).  a dual core i3-2100 can beat it in gaming.  AMD has released five families of quad core CPUs, phenom I (garbage) athlon II (mediocre) phenom II (solid) A-series (mediocre - in the CPU department) bulldozer (garbage).   

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=289
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=362


----------



## DigitalUK (Oct 12, 2011)

did anyone actually read the HardOCP reviews, yes the bulldozer lost out in single thread performance sythetic benchmarks (SuperPi) but it was never run at its native 1866 memory speed instead cripled with 1333 or 1600, every overclock the intel system was running at 4.8Ghz and the bulldozer given 4.6Ghz with the i7's also given extra on the memory as well as clock speed (and on encoding and heavy multi thread gaming the bulldozer either came out exactly the same or in some cases ahead of i7 and i5).
its release day today so prices are abit higher but still pretty good, if they drop the price £30-£40 which will deffo happen over the next month or so ,it looks very tempting indeed.
to me thats a hell of an achevement, apart from the single thread side of things.


----------



## kid41212003 (Oct 12, 2011)

I was expecting it to be faster than Phenom II 25% clock vs clock...


----------



## Whilhelm (Oct 12, 2011)

Did you read on Hardware Canucks where they tested 1333 and 1866 memory performance and it made no difference at all.


----------



## CDdude55 (Oct 12, 2011)

alexsubri said:


> It amazes me how many Intel Fanboy's are glamoring themselves over AMD's performance. A good example is when nVidia's 4xx line up came along and ATI 6xxx series were pounding them. Heck, even some 5xxx were pounding them. Yet, the tide changed when the 5xx series came out!
> 
> I personally think that the next line up from AMD (Piledriver) will refute my statement. However time will tell. As for me, I am disappointed with FX-8150. Where is the damn press release from AMD?!
> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Ox0Uwwd1f...Byc/aUTX1xqsTBc/s1600/Tissue-Box-Cry-Baby.jpg



The chips came out and sucked against the current line of Intel chips, facts are facts, it has nothing to do with fanboyism. It was the same way with the GTX 400 series, they ran hot as hell, consumed buckets of power and where only around 10% or so faster then the 5800 series and people criticized it.

Im still debating whether to go with an 8 core BD or not though.


----------



## KainXS (Oct 12, 2011)

I believe that about it being a server cpu, pushed to the desktop market, more money for less work, theres always going to be someone to buy the cpu just because its Intel or AMD, suckers if you ask me but hey.

are there any double precision benchmarks on it yet.


----------



## alexsubri (Oct 12, 2011)

DigitalUK said:


> did anyone actually read the HardOCP reviews, yes the bulldozer lost out in single thread performance sythetic benchmarks (SuperPi) but it was never run at its native 1866 memory speed instead cripled with 1333 or 1600, every overclock the intel system was running at 4.8Ghz and the bulldozer given 4.6Ghz with the i7's also given extra on the memory as well as clock speed (and on encoding and heavy multi thread gaming the bulldozer either came out exactly the same or in some cases ahead of i7 and i5).
> its release day today so prices are abit higher but still pretty good, if they drop the price £30-£40 which will deffo happen over the next month or so ,it looks very tempting indeed.
> to me thats a hell of an achevement, apart from the single thread side of things.



It's all about strategics right now. AMD is in a chess game with Intel right now. AMD had Intel in check (will lower prices causing Intel to lower their prices , as well. ). Intel's next move will be Piledriver vs i7 2700k ...


----------



## kid41212003 (Oct 12, 2011)

DigitalUK said:


> did anyone actually read the HardOCP reviews, yes the bulldozer lost out in single thread performance sythetic benchmarks (SuperPi) but it was never run at its native 1866 memory speed instead cripled with 1333 or 1600, every overclock the intel system was running at 4.8Ghz and the bulldozer given 4.6Ghz with the i7's also given extra on the memory as well as clock speed (and on encoding and heavy multi thread gaming the bulldozer either came out exactly the same or in some cases ahead of i7 and i5).
> its release day today so prices are abit higher but still pretty good, if they drop the price £30-£40 which will deffo happen over the next month or so ,it looks very tempting indeed.
> to me thats a hell of an achevement, apart from the single thread side of things.



With 4 less cores -_-.


----------



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

cddude55 said:


> im still debating whether to go with an 8 core bd or not though.



don't do it!


----------



## DigitalUK (Oct 12, 2011)

i didnt get to read the Hardware Canucks review but didnt seem to change much but they did go from cas 7 1600 to cas 9 1866.
the 4 cores thing is a strange one with these , as this is 8 threads BD vs 8 threads i7 2600k.


----------



## mtosev (Oct 12, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> don't do it!


What he said. Get Ivy Bridge


----------



## CDdude55 (Oct 12, 2011)

mtosev said:


> What he said. Get Ivy Bridge



I already have a 990FX board, it's going to be hell trying to switch over to Intel again. I'd need a new mobo and CPU and i'd have to go through selling the 990FX board if i do.


----------



## dirtyferret (Oct 12, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> I already have a 990FX board, it's going to be hell trying to switch over to Intel again. I'd need a new mobo and CPU and i'd have to go through selling the 990FX board if i do.



i'm in the same boat.  there will be little demand for AM3+ mobos


----------



## naram-sin (Oct 12, 2011)

OMG, AMD, this sucks for me... was a fan-boy, now I'll be just a _blower_... 







EDIT: BTW, didn't AMD boast with their single threader performance a while a go?! Not HT but anyway double the processing power?! I dunno... I feel let down although still a fan-boy...


----------



## alexsubri (Oct 12, 2011)

mtosev said:


> What he said. Get Ivy Bridge




That FX-1850 is faster than that Dell CPU you got running


----------



## mtosev (Oct 12, 2011)

I have a dell cpu? didn't know that


----------



## catnipkiller (Oct 12, 2011)

WTB AM3+ MOBS
















fuck no glwt


----------



## mtosev (Oct 12, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> I already have a 990FX board, it's going to be hell trying to switch over to Intel again. I'd need a new mobo and CPU and i'd have to go through selling the 990FX board if i do.


sell it before it losses when more value. You will be able put an ivy bridge cpu on current LGA1155 chipsets/mobos


----------



## Thefumigator (Oct 12, 2011)

KainXS said:


> I believe that about it being a server cpu, pushed to the desktop market, more money for less work, theres always going to be someone to buy the cpu just because its Intel or AMD, suckers if you ask me but hey.
> 
> are there any double precision benchmarks on it yet.



No double precision benches but take a look at this, it doesn't look bad as server cpu:


----------



## KainXS (Oct 12, 2011)

mtosev said:


> I have a dell cpu? didn't know that



Dell makes cpu's 

anyway maybe you can trade somebody for a decent 1156 board CD?

yea it really dosen't look bad in that light, . . . . . . in that


----------



## CDdude55 (Oct 12, 2011)

mtosev said:


> sell it before it losses when more value. You will be able put an ivy bridge cpu on current LGA1155 chipsets/mobos



Ya ive been thinking about grabbing a 2500K possibly and moving over to Z68. Then again i might just upgrade my GPU to a GTX 570 or 6970 and stick my overcooked X6 1055T.

So many choices.


----------



## erocker (Oct 12, 2011)

I got a Bulldozer n' stuff... Just because...


----------



## mtosev (Oct 12, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> Ya ive been thinking about grabbing a 2500K possibly and moving over to Z68. Then again i might just upgrade my GPU to a GTX 570 or 6970 and stick my overcooked X6 1055T.
> 
> So many choices.


Or you can wait for AMD to release Bulldozer 2. maybe they get it right with B2


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 12, 2011)

erocker said:


> I got a Bulldozer n' stuff... Just because...



Balla's gotta ball!


----------



## brandonwh64 (Oct 12, 2011)

Can me consolidate bulldozer threads? there is like 4 going non-stop


----------



## Disparia (Oct 12, 2011)

brandonwh64 said:


> Can me consolidate bulldozer threads? there is like 4 going non-stop



No! That where BD's strength lies!


----------



## CDdude55 (Oct 12, 2011)

mtosev said:


> Or you can wait for AMD to release Bulldozer 2. maybe they get it right with B2



Ya that's another option, it would save me money to stick with the 990FX platform. I really wanted BD, but ahh, it's not seeming worth the money over my current 1055T.

Guess ill just move over to a GTX 570.


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 12, 2011)

alexsubri said:


> It's all about strategics right now. AMD is in a chess game with Intel right now. AMD had Intel in check (will lower prices causing Intel to lower their prices , as well. ). Intel's next move will be Piledriver vs i7 2700k ...



AMD cannot afford to be too strategic, they have struggled in market share terms for too long, profitability without superior (or at least significant) market share is showing a downward trend, this is not a fanboi comment, on the contrary, I might well replace my old system with a 4 core Bulldozer setup but whichever way you care to look at things, unless Bulldozer increases market share pretty significantly the trend will in the mid to long term continue (sadly) on a downward spiral, you only need to look at Q2 of 2011 market shares......

Desktop CPU - Intel 70.9%, AMD 28.9%
Mobile CPU - Intel 84.4%, AMD 15.2%
Server/workstation CPU - Intel 94.5%, AMD 5.5%

There was an article written by the leadership team at AMD in February 2005 saying that by 2015 AMD WILL hold at least 50% of the CPU marketing share, at the same time a Joint report by IBM and a US University stated that if AMD did not double their market share within 5 years (2010) they would go bust, they have not.

Let's hope that Bulldozer is a success, just because enthusiasts who make up about 5% of consumers think it's fail does not actually mean it will fail, it may well continue to increase AMD's market share, lets all hope it does because a world without AMD will be a much sadder (and more expensive) place.


----------



## theubersmurf (Oct 12, 2011)

Were people really expecting it to outperfrom intel parts? If they had architecture to outperform intel, it would have been in the previous generations parts. They've had several iterations of chip architecture in the time since Bulldozer was announced. If they had something it would be in the mix already, the idea of leaving it out when you could be competitive makes no sense.


----------



## DigitalUK (Oct 12, 2011)

CDdude just wait for the release price to drop and pick it up abit cheaper.


----------



## TheOne (Oct 12, 2011)

alexsubri said:


> A good example is when nVidia's 4xx line up came along and ATI 6xxx series were pounding them. Heck, even some 5xxx were pounding them. Yet, the tide changed when the 5xx series came out!



The GTX 400 series came out before the HD 6000 series, and the first 2 HD 6000's were the mainstream HD 6870 and 6850, they came out in October last year, and both are slower than the GTX 480 and 470.

The GTX 580 came out last November and replaced the GTX 480 as the fastest single GPU, and then the GTX 570 came out in early December before the HD 6970 and 6950 were released, the HD 6970 compete's with the GTX 570.

The GTX 560 Ti came out in January to replace the GTX 470.

The crown for fastest card is I believe still debated between the HD 6990 and the GTX 590.


----------



## dirtyferret (Oct 12, 2011)

mtosev said:


> Or you can wait for AMD to release Bulldozer 2. maybe they get it right with B2



if not B2, there is always B3


----------



## dirtyferret (Oct 12, 2011)

theubersmurf said:


> Were people really expecting it to outperfrom intel parts?


 i think people where hoping for something 20-25% clock for clock increase over phenom II.  instead you have cpus that are single thread slower then phenom II and get killed by SB.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Oct 12, 2011)

Jizzler said:


> No! That where BD's strength lies!



LOL NO bulldozer was the one trying to show off its REAL 8 cores remember NOT THREADS


----------



## techtard (Oct 12, 2011)

Well played, good sir!


----------



## blixx1981 (Oct 12, 2011)

Yellow&Nerdy? said:


> They might as well have called it Phenom III...



LOL that's an insult to Phenom. A theoretical Phenom III would have been better than Zambezi.


----------



## repman244 (Oct 12, 2011)

I just went through quite a few different reviews and I fail to see a reason why would someone pick the 8150 over a 2600K or even a 2500K and let alone the 2 or 3 module version.
Maybe if you run only heavy multithread all the time, but in reality it's pretty much mixed load all the time.
I really don't know what went wrong here, I mean the chip has 2B transistors huge cache and barely beats an X6 which has around 900M transistors and is built on 45nm.
The thing I noticed is that the cache latency is horrible but I don't know how much impact that has on the performance, but there must be some impact.
We can only hope that GF starts getting better yields, because right now they clearly have yield issues, since there aren't many different CPU models.

I did notice that it overclocks nicely but the power consumption goes through the roof, I can see a lot of blown VRM's on weaker boards...

I really feel sorry for everyone who bought a 990fx board and are now stuck with a PII because the "upgrade" is not worth it.

We can only hope that the process and yields get better so AMD can ramp up the clock speed/IPC further, I guess the waiting for Piledriver has begun, if it fails/gets delayed, AMD will be in a very bad situation...

Bulldozer might have given them a nice starting point for the future but for now it did not deliver.
These CPU's do not deserve to be called FX at all.

I wonder if they would be better off just shrinking the PII to 32nm and going straight for Piledriver to have more time to improve.
For now BD = Phenom I; PD = Phenom II; I just hope they improve the design to keep in touch with the competition, it's better for all of us.


----------



## qubit (Oct 12, 2011)

alexsubri said:


> It amazes me how many Intel Fanboy's are glamoring themselves over AMD's performance. A good example is when nVidia's 4xx line up came along and ATI 6xxx series were pounding them. Heck, even some 5xxx were pounding them. Yet, the tide changed when the 5xx series came out!
> 
> I personally think that the next line up from AMD (Piledriver) will refute my statement. However time will tell. As for me, I am disappointed with FX-8150. Where is the damn press release from AMD?!
> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Ox0Uwwd1f...Byc/aUTX1xqsTBc/s1600/Tissue-Box-Cry-Baby.jpg



Yup, agreed and great pic, btw. 

I've had Intel for years and I can tell you I'm not gloating. We need the competition to keep leapfrogging each other every generation, not one company dominating the other like this. This way, performance stagnates and prices stay high. 

Just look at the next SB platform: two major bugs and performance barely better than the current generation and all because AMD couldn't compete. Yeah, something to look forward to. 

I tell you, it must have been soul destroying for those engineers working on Bulldozer for the last year or two, knowing it was gonna come up second best after all that hard work. I don't envy them.


----------



## Disparia (Oct 12, 2011)

brandonwh64 said:


> LOL NO bulldozer was the one trying to show off its REAL 8 cores remember NOT THREADS





techtard said:


> Well played, good sir!



Points for cleverness 

However, threads executed is what AMD was showing off by "real" core design.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Oct 12, 2011)

What gets me is if amd knew it couldn't compete..... why tarnish ...no destroy the fx brand?  U don't see any ford Cobra windstars rolling around or any hemi powered town and country mini vans.  Even if pile driver is the real deal, the bad taste of bd will tarnish it.


----------



## Frick (Oct 12, 2011)

ensabrenoir said:


> What gets me is if amd knew it couldn't compete..... why tarnish ...no destroy the fx brand?  U don't see any ford Cobra windstars rolling around or any hemi powered town and country mini vans.  Even if pile driver is the real deal, the bad taste of bd will tarnish it.



I'm not sure people care about that name anymore. I know I dont.


----------



## erocker (Oct 12, 2011)

ensabrenoir said:


> U don't see any ford Cobra windstars rolling around or any hemi powered town and country mini vans.



Only in a more perfect world would these things exist.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Oct 12, 2011)

Frick said:


> I'm not sure people care about that name anymore. I know I dont.



After today fx dosent means squat


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 12, 2011)

erocker said:


> Only in a more perfect world would these things exist.



Reminds me of the SHO. So much win.


----------



## PolRoger (Oct 12, 2011)

Kantastic said:


> IMO the price is a little off. I'd be hard pressed to pay more than $200 for the 8150 model. If anything, the long-term overclocked power draw will bump the cost up a chunk.





entropy13 said:


> If the 8150 and 8120 is priced at $200 and $165 respectively, then it would be $0.56 per percentage point for the 8150 and $0.50 per percentage point for the 8120. This would offset, at least, the raw performance advantages of the 2600K and 2500K respectively.



I was really looking forward to trying out a new AMD build/combo because I haven't tested/run with them since s939 but not now.  

However if these new parts eventually drop down in price then maybe just maybe I'd might reconsider?? Still SB-E/2011 is coming and when/(if ) the performance gap increases yet again... I may just go that route.


----------



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

DigitalUK said:


> CDdude just wait for the release price to drop and pick it up abit cheaper.



DONT DO IT:shadedshu


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Oct 12, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> So much win



FO SHO

Don't have anything positive to say about Bulldozer but at least can contribute the above.


----------



## _JP_ (Oct 12, 2011)

After reading some reviews all I can say is this: Bulldozer needed more time to be refined and AMD's marketing team should be fired (from a cannon pointed at the sun). 
That's all really.
Although I am a little dissapointed with the 8150, I am very curious about the 4100 and how will it fare against the more expensive i3 and the cheaperst i5. Also the 6100 against the i5 2400. 
My biggest dissapointment, however, is that this is bad for us, ethusiasts and especially for fanboys (both sides). Why? It's a huge hit in AMD fanboi's egos and a hit in intel fanboi's wallets. 
I was expecting that, with bulldozer, a performance war would start again, with price battles and real innovation with each new model and platform. Seem slike I will have to wait some more time.
I don't think naming this processor line "Phenom III" is such a bad idea.
/My2cents


----------



## Fatal (Oct 12, 2011)

I think people expected too much when AMD put the FX name on it. I didn't expect it to smoke Intel chips they screwed up using FX to me.

Edit. Thanks btarunr for the low down on the reviews I don't have days to look over all the reviews that are out.


----------



## tilldeath (Oct 12, 2011)

looks like I may be waiting on 8170 or a price drop on the 8150's before a purchase.


----------



## dir_d (Oct 12, 2011)

I honestly believe the chips are broken. I really do think there is something wrong with them. In some reviews the 6 core was performing the same as the 8 core on applications that love cores. If not the chips then software apps need to be compiled to work correctly with bulldozer which is dumb.


----------



## _JP_ (Oct 12, 2011)

YautjaLord is fine reading the reviews and he is noticing that many of the reviews are either using ES chips, or B1/B2 chips. I still stand by my opinion, for now, but I'm going to wait for reviews using retail chips, to make up my mind about this.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 12, 2011)

_JP_ said:


> YautjaLord is fine reading the reviews and he is noticing that many of the reviews are either using ES chips, or B1/B2 chips. I still stand by my opinion, for now, but I'm going to wait for reviews using retail chips, to make my mind about this.



What? Whos using ES chips for review?


----------



## _JP_ (Oct 12, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> What? Whos using ES chips for review?


Is your avatar related in any way with the emotion you had when you wrote that?
Just wondering...
...for my safety...
Anyway, it's here, just scrool down a little until you see his post.


----------



## TRWOV (Oct 12, 2011)

Currently AMD needs to:
- Get the 6100 and 4100 out and review the heck of them. I think they will do fine against the SB Pentiums and i3s plus they can be overclocked.
- Lower prices on the 8100s, specially the 8150.
- Work with MS on the kernel patch to get it out as soon as possible. 

Not everything is lost but AMD has to react quickly and get the word out.


----------



## repman244 (Oct 12, 2011)

TRWOV said:


> Currently AMD needs to:
> - Get the 6100 and 4100 out and review the heck of them. I think they will do fine against the SB Pentiums and i3s plus they can be overclocked.
> - Lower prices on the 8100s, specially the 8150.
> - Work with MS on the kernel patch to get it out as soon as possible.
> ...



It's probably better if they don't review the 4100 models:






http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...amd-bulldozer-fx-8150-processor-review-3.html

I also don't believe any software "patch" could fix this, if it could It would already be used for reviews. Only way to get better performance is to wait for the process to mature and start squeezing out the clock speed.
And Piledriver could end up being delayed as well.


----------



## xenocide (Oct 12, 2011)

_JP_ said:


> Anyway, it's here, just scrool down a little until you see his post.



And if you checked the reviews you'd see that some of the reviews allegedly using ES are similar results as those that aren't.  AMD probably sent out a special batch to reviewers that shows up similar as ES' in CPU-Z.


----------



## _JP_ (Oct 12, 2011)

Or both processors (ES and non-ES) preform about the same.


----------



## xenocide (Oct 12, 2011)

_JP_ said:


> Or both processors (ES and non-ES) preform about the same.



Also a strong possibility.


----------



## LordJummy (Oct 12, 2011)

I am so disappointed, but I can't say I truly expected them to be much better than this. I did expect a bit more out of them, though.

However, I am remembering a particular guy on another forum who told me how BD was going to crush Intel's performance with SB.


----------



## HalfAHertz (Oct 12, 2011)

repman244 said:


> It's probably better if they don't review the 4100 models:
> 
> http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/mac/reviews/AMD/Bulldozer/AMD_FX-8150-18.jpg
> http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...amd-bulldozer-fx-8150-processor-review-3.html
> ...



Seems like 4100s should be able to compete with the dual and triple core AthlonII's quite nice. The only problem is that the 4100 has about 3 - 4 times more silicon, uses twice the power and costs twice as much       Even the first Phenom was faster than the A64's


----------



## dirtyferret (Oct 12, 2011)

TRWOV said:


> Currently AMD needs to:
> - Get the 6100 and 4100 out and review the heck of them. I think they will do fine against the SB Pentiums and i3s plus they can be overclocked.
> - Lower prices on the 8100s, specially the 8150.
> - Work with MS on the kernel patch to get it out as soon as possible.
> ...



techspot's review has the 4170 and it get's beat the 500mhz slower phenom II x4 980

http://www.techspot.com/review/452-amd-bulldozer-fx-cpus/page10.html


----------



## xenocide (Oct 12, 2011)

HalfAHertz said:


> Seems like 4100s should be able to compete with the dual and triple core AthlonII's quite nice. The only problem is that the 4100 has about 3 - 4 times more silicon, uses twice the power and costs twice as much



Yeaaaaaa... about that...


----------



## v12dock (Oct 12, 2011)

Clock speed up and power consumption down is a must with this chip


----------



## naram-sin (Oct 12, 2011)

Dammit, AMD...





Unless you've got a big fat furry, super fast, gonna-kill-the-turtle-now rabbit in your ginormous hat, I'll be forced to skip this bull-crap of yours during next couple of years....


----------



## HalfAHertz (Oct 12, 2011)

The only good news today for AMD is that they'll be in the next fastest super computer. The catch is that it won't be the fastest thanks to the 6200 opertons but the Nvidia Tesla GPUs that'll be accompanying them.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...400-processor-20-petaflop-successor-to-jaguar



> Consider what AMD is and what AMD isn't and where computing is headed and this chip is really beginning to make sense. While these benches seem frustrating to those of us on a desktop today I think a slightly deeper dive shows that there is a whole world of hope here...with these chips, not something later.
> 
> I dug into the deal with Cray and Oak Ridge, and Cray is selling ORNL massively powerful computers (think petaflops) using Bulldozer CPUs controlling Nvidia Tesla GPUs which perform the bulk of the processing. The GPUs do vastly more and faster FPU calculations and the CPU is vastly better at dishing out the grunt work and processing the results for use by humans or software or other hardware. This is the future of High Performance Computing, today, but on a government scale. OK, so what? I'm a client user.
> 
> ...


----------



## johnnyfiive (Oct 12, 2011)

dirtyferret said:


> interesting review by bit-tech
> 
> _AMD FX-8150 – why so bad?
> Apart from the idle power draw of the FX-8150 – which we’ll point once again is an excellent achievement by AMD considering that the FX-8150 is a high-performance desktop part and its rival Core i5-2500K and Core i7-2600K are both essentially power-efficient laptop processors that have been beefed up a little for desktop PCs – the results show AMD’s latest CPU to be awful at everyday, consumer applications.
> ...



I believe this to be 100% true. This was my claim/belief all along. It makes sense, no doubt.


----------



## CDdude55 (Oct 12, 2011)

Meanwhile at Intel:


----------



## D4S4 (Oct 12, 2011)

all of this looks like an epic fail on amd's behalf but the truly multithreaded performance seems up to par - from my point of view, amd went ahead of its time with this architecture, it's focused on multithreading performance and hence sucks @ anything running <= threads than modules. if this doesn't kill amd (very doubtful), they could be delivering some royal ass kicking in the future (when some 16 - 32 cores are considered mainstream). 

nevertheless, all of this kinda sucks for everyone not using heavily multithreaded software.

ps i didn't read any of the posts since i saw there were some 200 so if somebody stated this before me, this post is kinda redundant.

edit - well, not quite up to par, i didn't read the review carefully... anyhow, for a such radical architecture change it could have gone worse. that part that johnnyfive underlined there is what i was trying to say, amd just went a bit ahead of themselves with bulldozer.


----------



## techtard (Oct 12, 2011)

It isn't really Epic level fail. More like crushed under a mountain of hype. You can blame the fanbois for that.
I and other users have pointed out that desktop software is still too old school. We're being held back by Microsoft, and other vendors still using legacy code and not optimizing for multithreading.

I doubt a software patch will help much. Sounds like Microsoft would have to do some heavy duty hacking to get the scheduler sorted.

What with Windows 8 being on the horizon, they might just say to hell with FX performance on Windows 7.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Oct 12, 2011)

*MicroCenter Has listed*

For $279 FUCK YOU AMD

My AMD Fanboism is dead.


----------



## CDdude55 (Oct 12, 2011)

jmcslob said:


> For $279 FUCK YOU AMD
> 
> My AMD Fanboism is dead.



Launch prices are always much more then the actual price just wait a bit and they will go down.

And good to hear your fanboyism is dead.


----------



## GAR (Oct 12, 2011)

alexsubri said:


> It amazes me how many Intel Fanboy's are glamoring themselves over AMD's performance. A good example is when nVidia's 4xx line up came along and ATI 6xxx series were pounding them. Heck, even some 5xxx were pounding them. Yet, the tide changed when the 5xx series came out!
> 
> I personally think that the next line up from AMD (Piledriver) will refute my statement. However time will tell. As for me, I am disappointed with FX-8150. Where is the damn press release from AMD?!
> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Ox0Uwwd1f...Byc/aUTX1xqsTBc/s1600/Tissue-Box-Cry-Baby.jpg



LOL, wtf? the gtx 480 came out in March 2010, the 5870 came out in september of 2009, the gtx 480 was faster than the 5870, the gtx 570 came out about the same time, and again, the gtx 500 series is faster than the 6900, not by much, but it is.


----------



## mtosev (Oct 12, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> Meanwhile at Intel:
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/vNsgy.jpg


I do believe that ppl at Intel are laughting off their asses at AMD and its super duper cpu.


----------



## mtosev (Oct 12, 2011)

jmcslob said:


> For $279 FUCK YOU AMD
> 
> My AMD Fanboism is dead.


Here you go http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0354587 problem fixed


----------



## ShiBDiB (Oct 12, 2011)

techtard said:


> It isn't really Epic level fail. More like crushed under a mountain of hype. You can blame the fanbois for that.
> I and other users have pointed out that desktop software is still too old school. We're being held back by Microsoft, and other vendors still using legacy code and not optimizing for multithreading.
> 
> I doubt a software patch will help much. Sounds like Microsoft would have to do some heavy duty hacking to get the scheduler sorted.
> ...





jmcslob said:


> For $279 FUCK YOU AMD
> 
> My AMD Fanboism is dead.



If only techtard's will die.... 

How does it performing badly when compared to older chips on the same software make it the softwares fault.. AMD went all in with a 7-2 off suit and their paying for it with awful performance.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Oct 12, 2011)

If you change the multi and voltage on a 8120 to match a 8150 will it consume the same amount of power?


----------



## Super XP (Oct 12, 2011)

I do admire AMD for trying something new in terms of innovation, but shit who was sleeping on the job? Can this be the reason why they canned Dirk Meyer? I think somebody else asked this question.

So I have the ASUS Crosshair V Formula, bought it for real cheap, on sale. After seeing all the reviews, I plan on waiting until FX prices hit super low for it to be worth an upgrade from my system right now.

Is there any reviews where they JACK UP the NB clock speed super high? Can Bulldozer benefit from this, seeing how the CPU increase does nothing :shadedshu


----------



## v12dock (Oct 13, 2011)

New CEO kicking someone in the nuts?


----------



## tilldeath (Oct 13, 2011)

Am I missing something here? Don't you think a million dollar company and the only competing company for intel would have ran some tests and seen the performance? I think so too! So either AMD is F***ing retarted or they had a plan. I'm going with the second since as someone already stated earlier the benchmarks are not from retail samples. I also will reiterate my point. These benchmarks are useless without the final BIOS and program updates for the final release of the cpu. Even Windows has an update comming out for it. So before I dig my self too deep of a hole I ask again. Am I missing something here?


----------



## CDdude55 (Oct 13, 2011)

Super XP said:


> I do admire AMD for trying something new in terms of innovation, but shit who was sleeping on the job? Can this be the reason why they canned Dirk Meyer? I think somebody else asked this question.
> 
> So I have the ASUS Crosshair V Formula, bought it for real cheap, on sale. After seeing all the reviews, I plan on waiting until FX prices hit super low for it to be worth an upgrade from my system right now.
> 
> Is there any reviews where they JACK UP the NB clock speed super high? Can Bulldozer benefit from this, seeing how the CPU increase does nothing :shadedshu



Bought a Gigabyte 990FX-UD3 board in anticipation of Bulldozer, im staying with the platfrom but im going to wait for either the second generation or Bulldozer or i'll wait and see if they release some more first gen Bulldozer chips that actually perform decently(I'm hearing the FX 8170).

Until then im just gonna grab a GTX 570 and keep my X6 1055T.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 13, 2011)

Here is a great QUOTE off AnandTech...
*. It's no longer a question of whether AMD will return to the days of the Athlon 64, it simply must. Otherwise you can kiss choice goodbye.*

O.K. I heard AMD is having a problem with the Scheduler and/or the Crossbar via Bulldozer, it needs more time to tweak the design. How much time I don't know. Can we get confirmation about this new info?


----------



## pantherx12 (Oct 13, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> Bought a Gigabyte 990FX-UD3 board in anticipation of Bulldozer,



Snap! 

Such a waste of money  £120 for a board that for now does nothing more than my £35 Asrock board.

(Having said that, I have been able to enable turbo boost with my core already at 3.64 so I can 3.9 for single threaded apps and the like)

Turbo core crashed the other board ( only 4+1 phase so couldn't hack it)


----------



## ShiBDiB (Oct 13, 2011)

I'm still happy with my 775 board and q9550... does everything I need it to do


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Oct 13, 2011)

Da fuck is this http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.739582


----------



## CDdude55 (Oct 13, 2011)

pantherx12 said:


> Snap!
> 
> Such a waste of money  £120 for a board that for now does nothing more than my £35 Asrock board.



Not true

It was cheap (only $150), Bulldozer ready/AM3+, 990FX chipset, Supports both SLI and Crossfire X which your board doesn't do, your board only has a single PCI-e slot that provides full bandwidth, and the other is only x4. Ive got SATA III you've got SATA II only, ive got multiple USB 3.0 ports and USB 2.0 ports, you have only have 4 full USB 2.0 ports and the list goes on. 

And the best part is that it doesn't look like your board lol:







Not to be rude, just saying their different in many aspects.


----------



## LordJummy (Oct 13, 2011)

tilldeath said:


> Am I missing something here? Don't you think a million dollar company and the only competing company for intel would have ran some tests and seen the performance? I think so too! So either AMD is F***ing retarted or they had a plan. I'm going with the second since as someone already stated earlier the benchmarks are not from retail samples. I also will reiterate my point. These benchmarks are useless without the final BIOS and program updates for the final release of the cpu. Even Windows has an update comming out for it. So before I dig my self too deep of a hole I ask again. Am I missing something here?



Do you really think AMD would provide samples to those sites for benchmarks if they were any worse than the retail models. Why would they do that? Why would they want the initial reviews to look so bad? They HAD to have known the performance levels. I am pretty sure it indicates exactly the same performance the retail over the counter chips will have.

I wouldn't cling on to the notion that the ES are total shit and the retail chips will magically be way more powerful. AMD would have held off on sending chips if that were the case I would think. Especially with all the hype surrounding this.



ShiBDiB said:


> I'm still happy with my 775 board and q9550... does everything I need it to do



Irrelevant to topic?


----------



## ShiBDiB (Oct 13, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> Da fuck is this http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.739582



Its the "Here buy a board for a good socket and we'll include this $220 paperweight."


----------



## pantherx12 (Oct 13, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> Not true
> 
> It was cheap (only $150), Bulldozer ready/AM3+, 990FX chipset, Supports both SLI and Crossfire X which your board doesn't do, your board only has a single PCI-e slot that provides full bandwidth, and the other is only x4. Ive got SATA III you've got SATA II only, ive got multiple USB 3.0 ports and USB 2.0 ports, you have only have 4 full USB 2.0 ports and the list goes on.
> 
> ...



That's why I said for now dude 

I have NOTHING that takes advantage of the new features 

My computer is a little bit prettier but aside from that it's the same speed as before etc.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Oct 13, 2011)

*u found it*



LAN_deRf_HA said:


> Da f**** is this http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.739582




The secret of how they matched the 980x and how to unlock bd full potential


----------



## CDdude55 (Oct 13, 2011)

pantherx12 said:


> That's why I said for now dude
> 
> I have NOTHING that takes advantage of the new features
> 
> My computer is a little bit prettier but aside from that it's the same speed as before etc.



Ahh, that's true. Skipped over the ''for now'' part lol.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 13, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> Da fuck is this http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.739582


You guys haven't heard? Intel released a socket bracket attachment so you can plug in a Bulldozer into an Intel mobo and call it a day.


> *Newegg.com cannot guarantee the compatibility of Combo items.*



No really, Hardocp did a Clock for Clock gaming benchmark(s) and it seems Bulldozer looked like it was on par with Intel CPU's but only in high res gaming. Didn't show the Phenom II's performance though. 
LINK:
http://hardocp.com/article/2011/10/11/amd_bulldozer_fx8150_gameplay_performance_review/1


----------



## Super XP (Oct 13, 2011)

*Benchmarkreviews*
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=831&Itemid=63&limit=1&limitstart=16



> As I showed in the single-core section, the performance of a Bulldozer core is not significantly better than the performance of the older AMD Thuban core, and both are far behind a Sandy Bridge core, so AMD's banking on keeping all eight cores filled to get the best performance. And indeed the FX-8150 can return excellent performance in these cases, although the performance improvement is less than what you might expect given the extra cores. *And if software vendors upgrade their products to use the new instructions AMD has integrated into Bulldozer, its performance will improve more.*
> 
> AMD claims the Windows 7 *thread scheduler doesn't make the best use of Bulldozer's architecture, and says that we can expect a 10-15% performance improvement when Windows 8 ships.* Also, Bulldozer is just the first in a line of new processors: in the coming years we'll see Piledriver (2012), Steamroller (2013) and Excavator (2014), each of which AMD says will bring improvements in performance-per-watt and instructions-per-clock.


----------



## techtard (Oct 13, 2011)

ShiBDiB said:


> If only techtard's will die....
> 
> How does it performing badly when compared to older chips on the same software make it the softwares fault.. AMD went all in with a 7-2 off suit and their paying for it with awful performance.



I have openly stated that I am probably going Intel next build.
I am not an AMD fanboy, I am just pointing out some facts. 
This product did suffer from a killer overdose of Hype. The fanbois were responsible for that.

And, it's not as bad as everyone thinks when you take a step back and look at the big picture. Sure, it's dissapointing that they didn't perform better. Even LOL-worthy in a morbid way how they actually lost IPC compared to their older product.

This CPU was built for heavilly multithreaded apps. Windows 7 and most consumer software and games are not optimized for heavy multithreading. Right now multi-core support is still in its infancy for consumers. That's not being an apologist or fanboy defending their sacred cow. That's a fact.

We likely won't see any improvements until they ditch XP, 32-bit, Xbox360 compatability and all other legacy garbage.

If you weren't so emotionally attached to one companies product, you would see that many of the users here have been pretty objective.


----------



## TRWOV (Oct 13, 2011)

Well, I'll just skip AM3+ and wait for FM2. I survived many years on my C2D E4600 + X1950PRO rig, I think I can wait until next year with my current i3 build.

Hopefully the Bulldozer architecture will be more mature and supported in software by then.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Oct 13, 2011)

Super XP said:


> You guys haven't heard? Intel released a socket bracket attachment so you can plug in a Bulldozer into an Intel mobo and call it a day.
> 
> 
> No really, Hardocp did a Clock for Clock gaming benchmark(s) and it seems Bulldozer looked like it was on par with Intel CPU's but only in high res gaming. Didn't show the Phenom II's performance though.
> ...



I seen that earlier and thought hmmm Wow I can get a I2500k for $179 F&ck AMD at $279
and I now consider myself a reformed ex AMD FANBOI....not saying I wont buy their products cause I will.....but I'll never wait for em again.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 13, 2011)

Interesting....


> We can hope that Windows 8 and upgraded applications and utilities that use the new FX instructions will make it more competitive, and I'd expect these things right about the time Ivy Bridge become available.
> 
> *Pros:*
> + First consumer eight-core processor
> ...


http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.p...k=view&id=831&Itemid=63&limit=1&limitstart=17


----------



## ViperXTR (Oct 13, 2011)

TRWOV said:


> Well, I'll just skip AM3+ and wait for FM2. I survived many years on my C2D E4600 + X1950PRO rig, I think I can wait until next year with my current i3 build.
> 
> Hopefully the Bulldozer architecture will be more mature and supported in software by then.



Wee, a fellow i3 2100 user 

*meanwhile, searches for some AMD Athlon64 FX vs Pentium 4 Extreme Edition tests >_>


----------



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

CDdude55 said:


> Meanwhile at Intel:
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/vNsgy.jpg



So much yummy fail thanks AMD you made my day.


----------



## A Cheese Danish (Oct 13, 2011)

It appears I will go with an AM3 setup instead of Bulldozer. What a shame


----------



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

I think at this point AMD is just glad they are phasing them out at the end of 2012.


----------



## buggalugs (Oct 13, 2011)

AMD seems satisfied to be second best. BUlldozer CPUs will drop in price in the next couple of months, making them more attractive to some people.


----------



## dieterd (Oct 13, 2011)

damit you AMD, no Sandy price drop hopes for me now! and surely I can expect Sandy-E pricing like ing bad old, competition less, days! 
this (Buldozzer) does not even deserve such a name like "Phenom III", because it (FX-8150) can not even beat 1100T and it costs lot more, I think AMD should EOL Bulldozer by the end of this year, rather than Phenom II!


----------



## Altered (Oct 13, 2011)

I don't think it is horribly bad. However the power consumption is not what I would have thought. And to me the real kicker is the price I see on the egg. It is somewhat close to the 2500K performance but priced possibly as though Win8 and its hopeful 10-15% gains are already showing. Sort of like having automobiles before gasoline was being refined.  If possible AMD IMO should put the price equal to the 2500K. If Win8 gives it a gain worth mentioning and more software and games are optimized for heavy multi threading it should sell for quite a bit longer even as newer chips arrive. At least as long as the consumer isn't power conscious. 

I really wanted to go back AMD but glad I didnt keep waiting as it appears. Hopefully next version will be more refined. It does appear they may be on to something if they have some good insight to what the developers and so forth are doing the trend may go in their favor. 

One question though. Has anyone seen a bench with Bad Company 2 runs? I know BC2 uses multiple cores so it should perform well but would be interested in how it stacked up vs the 2500K.


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Oct 13, 2011)

Lesson: don't upgrade to a new board when you don't even know the performance of that new processor you're waiting for.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Oct 13, 2011)

pr0n Inspector said:


> Lesson: don't upgrade to a new board when you don't even know the performance of that new processor you're waiting for.



But I don't regret the board at all. It's the best board for a Phenom II there is. Vishera still has a chance at being decent too, so I still have an upgrade path with it.


----------



## ViperXTR (Oct 13, 2011)

just looking at AMD's page:
http://www.amd.com/US/PRODUCTS/DESKTOP/PROCESSORS/AMDFX/Pages/amdfx.aspx



> Enjoy stable, smooth performance with impressive energy efficiency thanks to a 32nm die.


???



> Be Epic. Be Brutal. Get AMD FX in Your System.


>8D


----------



## seronx (Oct 13, 2011)

I would love to get 8 Sempron Cores in my system but for $280 no thanks


----------



## laszlo (Oct 13, 2011)

maybe were better for amd to improve the 6 core line instead of launching a 8 core desktop cpu

we have many examples of console game ports to pc , bad ports and seems the analogy can be applied in this case from server to desktop;they should focus on quad or six cores and improved them step by step to get closer to intel perf. now they'll loose a lot of money if people due the reviews won't buy.

a home user don't really need 8 cores is like hawing a race car in garage and just running the engine daily inside but never go on track


----------



## mtosev (Oct 13, 2011)

seronx said:


> I would love to get 8 Sempron Cores in my system but for $280 no thanks


For the same price you get an i7 2600K


----------



## LifeOnMars (Oct 13, 2011)

Oh dear, oh dear....looks like I'm going Intel for the big build at the start of the year. It's a shame, healthy competition always sparks great pricing.


----------



## PaulieG (Oct 13, 2011)

Ugh. I keep waiting for a reason to go back to AMD. Looks like now is not the time. Power. Consumption. Fail.  They had way to long to design this chip to put out a subpar product. I really hope they get their act together. If they don't, we all lose, AMD and Intel fanboys alike.


----------



## KainXS (Oct 13, 2011)

We can only pray that intel dosen't pull its old game and try to ram up their cpu's prices if piledriver is fail too.


----------



## xenocide (Oct 13, 2011)

Super XP said:


> http://hardocp.com/article/2011/10/11/amd_bulldozer_fx8150_gameplay_performance_review/1



Take a look at this page;
http://hardocp.com/article/2011/10/11/amd_bulldozer_fx8150_gameplay_performance_review/5

If you can't spot the problem, god save you.  I refuse to believe ~30% OC causes an 8% decrease in Average FPS.  Clearly something is funky with their testing.



KainXS said:


> We can only pray that intel dosen't pull its old game and try to ram up their cpu's prices if piledriver is fail too.



When have they ever done that?  Intel always starts their CPU's out at higher price points because they offer better performance.  Sandy Bridge at this point was still a wiser upgrade choice than BD is\was.


----------



## sunweb (Oct 13, 2011)

Ok, i only want processor for rendering, using Blender with internal, Cycles and LuxRender on Linux. 

Where are linux tests anyway ? And some real renders, not that c-bench(why even bother with it, it lies so much).

Where i live i7 2600k is 305$ without cooler(though maybe i'll buy without oc feature). Is it worth to pay about 100$(proc+mb) more for i7 ?

The reason i want some real tests(no benchmarks) on both linux and windows is the real difference most of times is pretty big:


----------



## techtard (Oct 13, 2011)

Most of these enthusiast sites are Windows only. 
You may need to wait for Phoronix or someone else to put the FX chip through its paces in a Linux environment. Looks like they didn't get a review sample, though.

But they did link back to this thread for their members to see what Bulldozer is like on Windows.


----------



## sunweb (Oct 13, 2011)

Ok, thanks. Will stick with Phoronix.


----------



## W1zzard (Oct 13, 2011)

tilldeath said:


> Am I missing something here? Don't you think a million dollar company and the only competing company for intel would have ran some tests and seen the performance? I think so too! So either AMD is F***ing retarted or they had a plan.



amd's plan is to release what they released now. this will make intel engineers fall asleep, cash in on their stock options or go for early retirement. once intel is at its weakest, amd will unleash the real bulldozer cores (via software update) and catch intel with a netburst-athlon64 left-right combo. intel stock price drops to negative values so amd can buy intel and gets money for saving humanity.

now the secret is out and amd secret service will come and kill me for revealing their plan for world domination


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Oct 13, 2011)

If only this were true.


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 13, 2011)

Hardware Heaven shows Bulldozer in a positive light. They give it 9/10 overall.

*In particular it shows Bulldozer beating the i7 2600k in games. How can this be?*

Deus EX
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/revie...i7-2600k-review-deus-ex-human-revolution.html

F1 2011
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/revie...rocessor-vs-core-i7-2600k-review-f1-2011.html

Shogun Total War 2 
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/revie...-core-i7-2600k-review-total-war-shogun-2.html


----------



## nINJAkECIL (Oct 13, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> amd's plan is to release what they released now. this will make intel engineers fall asleep, cash in on their stock options or go for early retirement. once intel is at its weakest, amd will unleash the real bulldozer cores (via software update) and catch intel with a netburst-athlon64 left-right combo. intel stock price drops to negative values so amd can buy intel and gets money for saving humanity.
> 
> now the secret is out and amd secret service will come and kill me for revealing their plan for world domination


I don't even wanna imagined when AMD dominate the world of cpu.

Seriously, I can tolerate the performance of BD compared to SB. I already sense that AMD can't deliver, judging from the over-hype marketing. But, that power consumption is what I can't tolerate.

Oh, I see now why the *RED* color on AMD FX cpus are for.

They should also change the color of their logo, from green to red.


----------



## btarunr (Oct 13, 2011)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> If only this were true.



If it were, I'd be helping w1z setup his hideout/cottage in the Himalayas.


----------



## W1zzard (Oct 13, 2011)

btarunr said:


> If it were, I'd be helping w1z setup his hideout/cottage in the Himalayas.



but mr. witness protection ... i want sun, beach and bikinis


----------



## Crap Daddy (Oct 13, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> amd's plan is to release what they released now. this will make intel engineers fall asleep, cash in on their stock options or go for early retirement. once intel is at its weakest, amd will unleash the real bulldozer cores (via software update) and catch intel with a netburst-athlon64 left-right combo. intel stock price drops to negative values so amd can buy intel and gets money for saving humanity.
> 
> now the secret is out and amd secret service will come and kill me for revealing their plan for world domination



As we speak right now half of the Intel engineers that are not sent in a paid vacation to Hawaii, so the ones that still have to be at work but are bored to death, have found a new occupation while pretending to work on Ivy Bridge. From their fat wages and bonuses they managed to put some money aside and bought some FX 8150 (that's why there's no availability) and while at work they compete in overclocking these new beasts.


----------



## TRWOV (Oct 13, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> Hardware Heaven shows Bulldozer in a positive light. They give it 9/10 overall.
> 
> *In particular it shows Bulldozer beating the i7 2600k in games. How can this be?*
> 
> ...




The FX-8150 is faster in some and slower in others. That is to be expected given the number of threads. What people didn't expect was that even the older Phenom II manages to beat it in lot of benchmarks.

If the 8150 had beaten the old Phenom II X6 consistently and traded blows with the 2500K/2600K I'm sure that people would be pleased, but its erratic performance prevents people from making a full recommendation. Whenever you'd want to get an FX will depend on what you want to do with it.

Not to mention the power consumption but with so much cache I think it was unavoidable.


----------



## qubit (Oct 13, 2011)

Crap Daddy said:


> As we speak right now half of the Intel engineers that are not sent in a paid vacation to Hawaii, so the ones that still have to be at work but are bored to death, have found a new occupation while pretending to work on Ivy Bridge. From their fat wages and bonuses they managed to put some money aside and bought some FX 8150 (that's why there's no availability) and while at work they compete in overclocking these new beasts.



Ah, so deeply, deeply cynical. Brilliant. 

Yeah, I'm pretty pissed off too that BD isn't what it should be. Giving the product such a hard-nut codename makes it all the more embarrassing, too.


----------



## suraswami (Oct 13, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> but mr. witness protection ... i want sun, beach and bikinis



we can setup a virtual one for you powered by FX processors, it will be so slow and unreal you will already giveup, retire and join the Monks/Saints over there.


----------



## 3volvedcombat (Oct 13, 2011)

Just reading: 
http://www.amd.com/US/PRODUCTS/DESKTOP/PROCESSORS/AMDFX/Pages/amdfx.aspx

The features and benefit's are the first thing I see that shows something shady. 

Overclock for a big boost......
Get an extra burst of raw speed...... Turbo Core.....
Push your performance with tuning controls.....
Enjoy stable, smoother performance......  (No shit it should be stable and smooth.)

If they practically recommend you to do this, that's the first sign they new what they were doing and they new the performance was going to be Shitty. 


Be Epic. Be Brutal. ........
Some kid watching T.V. Ninja Titan's could have thought up that one.
*face palm*

And if it really uses 500+ watts at 4.6Ghz, they can get right the fuck out of here. I don't want to say it like that, but COME on.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Oct 13, 2011)

suraswami said:


> we can setup a virtual one for you powered by FX processors, it will be so slow and unreal you will already giveup, retire and join the Monks/Saints over there.



Or he can cross the border into Pakistan and set up a huge base with 100 computers for LAN games and 400 sheep on treadmills to provide electicity and air conditioning 5miles away from a goverment building or army camp and no one would ever know he was there.

Not even the Pakistani goverment


----------



## btarunr (Oct 13, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> but mr. witness protection ... i want sun, beach and bikinis



Knowing you, beach destinations are the first places they'll swoop.


----------



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

Dent1 said:


> Hardware Heaven shows Bulldozer in a positive light. They give it 9/10 overall.
> 
> *In particular it shows Bulldozer beating the i7 2600k in games. How can this be?*
> 
> ...



wow 3 whole games.  .. .


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 13, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> wow 3 whole games.  .. .



I couldn't think of 3 better games...


I gotta say, in the console market, over the past MANY YEARS, developer's have been able to incrementally increase performance by code optimization.

It's pretty obvious by the encoding benchmarks that there's really alot of math power in Bulldozer. You could potentially say it's just under-utilized. It's not like it's really all that bad. It's just a little too ahead of it's time is all. Can I guarantee developer's will take advantage of that math power? Nope.


And those three games are ones that kind of show that very well. And that's why I say that a lot of the reviews seem biased, because not one seems to look to highlight where Bulldozer is a success, and most seem focused on disappointment.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 13, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> And that's why I say that a lot of the reviews seem biased, because not one seems to look to highlight where Bulldozer is a success, and most seem focused on disappointment.



Much like my parents.


----------



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

cadaveca said:


> I couldn't think of 3 better games...
> 
> 
> I gotta say, in the console market, over the past MANY YEARS, developer's have been able to incrementally increase performance by code optimization.
> ...



So the reviews are biased because they aren't looking for the 1 or 2 "positive things", versus the hundreds of disappointing things AMD did with this chip. 


SORRY BUT NO! :shadedshu




A real performance chip would have beaten intel in more tests not 3 games . ..  hence it's fail!


----------



## 3volvedcombat (Oct 13, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> I couldn't think of 3 better games...
> 
> 
> I gotta say, in the console market, over the past MANY YEARS, developer's have been able to incrementally increase performance by code optimization.
> ...



The thing is though, they hyped it way to much already, its already getting announced. They def see every single review on the net, yet most of them are negative. 

There AMD, and that is no joke, they should have known about the performance numbers, THERE is no way the could not have known!!!! They tested, they marketed way to extremely and even had some overclocking Guinness record, and by then they new there performance numbers. There is no way this came out of the blue, its impossible with that infrastructure. Impossible. 

There is not an excuse that matter's when it come's to the overall number's everybody is seeing. Not optimized is so much bullshit its beyond untrue, they practically guarantied an ENTHUSIAST PRODUCT, they even market it with a HD 6990!!!!!  

No ethical way I can see for this seriously being a mistake, or some weird ass optimization problem, AMD knew all along, and they might keep it that way anyways.
There is no excuse for it to be under optimized, AMD knew simple as that. It's there main market and has been sense the 1970's. 

So what make's anybody think that its just under optimized yet, they have been pumping out processor's on every window's platforms for a while. There is just no excuse....


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 13, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> wow 3 whole games.  .. .



Yeah three of the most heavily multi-threaded games on the market. BD has a shine you guys fail to grasp.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 13, 2011)

3volvedcombat said:


> The thing is though, they hyped it way to much already, its already getting announced. They def see every single review on the net, yet most of them are negative.
> 
> There AMD, and that is no joke, they should have known about the performance numbers, THERE is no way the could not have known!!!! They tested, they marketed way to extremely and even had some overclocking Guinness record, and by then they new there performance numbers. There is no way this came out of the blue, its impossible with that infrastructure. Impossible.
> 
> ...





I cannot excuse some of the marketing. I've been complaining about it for a long time now. There are a lot of good ideas there, they are all just poorly executed.

There's a reason companies do not comment about unreleased products, and yes, AMD very much broke that this time. But, officially, they did an effective job of marketing from the business perspective, because literally every aspect of Bulldozer is something I personally expected. The power consumption, clocking, and performance, are all exactly where expected.

The marketing to the enthusiast failed. The Guinness thing should not have been mentioned except at launch. The FX moniker should have been explained, yet, if look back through Bulldozer posts..I knew what FX meant, but many many others didn't.

I do not understand, why, when adding two cores, and 6 cores weren't used to begin with, that peopel thought that magically there would be more performance. When the cores are used effectively, the 8150 does pull ahead considerably.

The fact these chips use such a high voltage while in max turbo mode, yet live on, no problem, is pretty incredible. The fact they can push 300++ watts through that small of a process is quite amazing, and is part of the reason that things like 8 GHz clocks are possible.

To be completely honest, I don't really see Bulldozer as a failure at all, and frankly, anyone claiming it is, really, is still buying into the hype, because literally everyone is buying into these reviews, and the negative outlook. *Clearly there are issues when they are using ES samples for reviews. Why are there so few retail samples?*


Nobody gets it. And I'm not about to explain things when it's so bloody obvious.

Oh well, not my problem.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 13, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> I cannot excuse some of the marketing. I've been complaining about it for a long time now. There are a lot of good ideas there, they are all just poorly executed.
> 
> There's a reason companies do not comment about unreleased products, and yes, AMD very much broke that this time. But, officially, they did an effective job of marketing from the business perspective, because literally every aspect of Bulldozer is something I personally expected. The power consumption, clocking, and performance, are all exactly where expected.
> 
> ...


----------



## RevengE (Oct 13, 2011)

I knew it was going to be a fail. I was just waiting for the offical announcement.


----------



## CDdude55 (Oct 13, 2011)

Going to wait a while to grab an AM3+ chip to put my 990FX board to work i guess, till then i got this to play with :






Free next delivery ftw!


----------



## qu4k3r (Oct 13, 2011)

I'd like to see more reviews it with all FX cpus included (not 8150 only).
Where is the TPU review of AMD FX Cpu?
Is w1zz still cooking it?
I'm hungry, lol.-


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 13, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> Going to wait a while to grab an AM3+ chip to put my 990FX board to work i guess, till then i got this to play with :
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/111013/Capture666678.png
> 
> Free next delivery ftw!



Nicely done sir.


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 13, 2011)

Arguably Bulldozer is the better overall CPU. Granted single threaded performance is poor and makes it perhaps a sceptical choice without a price drop. However in multithreaded applications the Bulldozer often pulls ahead of the i7 Bloomfield and i5 2500K and keeps up with the i7 2600K with ease. 

I guess AMD are guilty of releasing the CPU too early. Perhaps if they waited a year or two, say early 2013 to mid 2014 software developers would have moved along with the times to multithreaded coding and results would sway towards AMD's new architecture. 

In a away I sort of blame software developers too for holding back current hardware by dragging their feet with multithreaded coding.

Edit:




			
				by cadaveca said:
			
		

> Clearly there are issues when they are using ES samples for reviews. Why are there so few retail samples


Was Engineering samples really used on the reviews. Isnt that unfair and bias?


----------



## LordJummy (Oct 13, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> Going to wait a while to grab an AM3+ chip to put my 990FX board to work i guess, till then i got this to play with :
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/111013/Capture666678.png
> 
> Free next delivery ftw!



Performance increase over 470 is not that huge. However, it's a great card. Enjoy it.


If I had an AM3+ board, I would probably buy the 8150 just to test it myself. Have fun though!


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 13, 2011)

LordJummy said:


> Performance increase over 470 is not that huge. However, it's a great card. Enjoy it.
> 
> 
> If I had an AM3+ board, I would probably buy the 8150 just to test it myself. Have fun though!



BF3 will prove that statement wrong. That extra VRAM makes a difference in DX11.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 13, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> Was Engineering samples really used on the reviews. Isnt that unfair and bias?



I would not say unfair and bias, but...



Are you really gonna beleive a company that makes millions of chips couldn't find 50 single retail samples to hand out to reviewers when they said ES chips and retail are different?

And that is all.

Official reviews are equpped with a Crosshair 5 motherboards, a retail chip in the tin, a belt buckle, and a watercooler. If there are not pictures of all of these things, then the review should be ignored.

If the watercooler is NOT used, then the review is invalid, IMHO. If the review uses an ES chip, it is INVALID. I could add several more criteria here, but those two are enough.


----------



## CDdude55 (Oct 13, 2011)

LordJummy said:


> Performance increase over 470 is not that huge. However, it's a great card. Enjoy it.
> 
> 
> If I had an AM3+ board, I would probably buy the 8150 just to test it myself. Have fun though!



It fights with the GTX 570s performance plus as mentioned the extra VRAM was a plus. Granted im running at 1080p, but it's never bad to have more of everything, you never know when you'll start running into games that will eat it all up.

I was thinking about getting a 8 core BD chip but it just wasn't worth the cost considering my overclocked X6 1055T pretty much in the same arena as it for now.

I'm also expecting the 6970's power consumption and heat output will be better then my current 470, Fermi runs hot as everybody has come to expect.


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 13, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Are you really gonna beleive a company that makes millions of chips couldn't find 50 single retail samples to hand out to reviewers when they said ES chips and retail are different?



How can we be sure ES were used in reviews. I read through most of the literature from Tomhshardware, Techspot, Hardware Heaven etc and none of the journalists mention only having Engineering samples available.

Granted some of the literal was extremely long, maybe my eyes missed the parts where they mentioned having ES only.


----------



## LordJummy (Oct 13, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> It fights with the GTX 570s performance plus as mentioned the extra VRAM was a plus. Granted im running at 1080p, but it's never bad to have more of everything, you never know when you'll start running into games that will eat it all up.
> 
> I was thinking about getting a 8 core BD chip but it just wasn't worth the cost considering my overclocked X6 1055T pretty much in the same arena as it for now.
> 
> I'm also expecting the 6970's power consumption and heat output will be better then my current 470, Fermi runs hot as everybody has come to expect.



Yeah, I used to run a GTX 470 last year for a month or two. It was a good card. The only reason I started buying 6950's was boredom really. I started reading about the unlocking and wanted eyefinity, etc so I went for it.

The 470 was a great card though. The heat and power was exaggerated a bit by some people, although it is a bit on the warm side. The 6950/6970 reference gets warm too on occasion, and is equally loud. It will outperform the 470 for sure though.

The 6970 is a great card. I'm running two myself, in eyefinity config with a 4th monitor for reading documents when I need it. Best setup evar.



TheMailMan78 said:


> BF3 will prove that statement wrong. That extra VRAM makes a difference in DX11.



You, once again misunderstand where I'm coming from. I've owned a gtx 470, and I run two 6970's now. I think I know very well the difference between the two.

I wasn't speaking of VRAM differences. Of course the extra RAM will make a difference in future titles that use over 1GB. "Duh".

(Typical mail man knee jerk reaction)


----------



## W1zzard (Oct 13, 2011)

qu4k3r said:


> Where is the TPU review of AMD FX Cpu?



according to amd they were supposed to have sent a cpu yesterday, no tracking number for the package yet. dont expect a tpu review soon


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 13, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> How can we be sure ES were used in reviews. I read through most of the literature from Tomhshardware, Techspot, Hardware Heaven etc and none of the journalists mention only having Engineering samples available.
> 
> Granted some of the literal was extremely long, maybe my eyes missed the parts where they mentioned having ES only.



Look at CPU-Z screenshots for "8130P" as the CPU name. Pretty easy.


If there is no CPU-Z, look for them using the provided watercooler, and for them using the ASUS Crosshair V motherboard. NO Crosshair 5 is an immediate disqualification, in my books, unless they somehow confirm that they have a retail chip.


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 13, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Look at CPU-Z screenshots for "8130P" as the CPU name. Pretty easy.
> 
> 
> If there is no CPU-Z, look for them using the provided watercooler, and for them using the ASUS Crosshair V motherboard. NO Crosshair 5 is an immediate disqualification, in my books, unless they somehow confirm that they have a retail chip.






W1zzard said:


> according to amd they were supposed to have sent a cpu yesterday, no tracking number for the package yet. dont expect a tpu review soon



Could it be AMD messed up with the FedEX and none of the reviewers got retail CPUs.

Instead the reviewers used their own initiative and used an engineering sample.


----------



## xenocide (Oct 13, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> Hardware Heaven shows Bulldozer in a positive light. They give it 9/10 overall.
> 
> *In particular it shows Bulldozer beating the i7 2600k in games. How can this be?*



That is the only review I have seen where Bulldozer clearly beats the 2600k or even the 2500k, I remain skeptical.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 13, 2011)

LordJummy said:


> Yeah, I used to run a GTX 470 last year for a month or two. It was a good card. The only reason I started buying 6950's was boredom really. I started reading about the unlocking and wanted eyefinity, etc so I went for it.
> 
> The 470 was a great card though. The heat and power was exaggerated a bit by some people, although it is a bit on the warm side. The 6950/6970 reference gets warm too on occasion, and is equally loud. It will outperform the 470 for sure though.
> 
> ...



Well if you wouldn't type in vague phrases like "Performance increase over 470 is not that huge." when talking about a 6970 then it wouldn't have been a "misunderstanding". Make yourself clear or prepare to be "misunderstood".

(Typical LordJummy knee jerk reaction)


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Oct 13, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> according to amd they were supposed to have sent a cpu yesterday, no tracking number for the package yet. dont expect a tpu review soon



£10 says it doesnt turn up.... It sounding more and more like AMD have something to hide.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 13, 2011)

FreedomEclipse said:


> £10 says it doesnt turn up.... It sounding more and more like AMD have something to hide.



Or they are having manufacturing issues.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 13, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> Could it be AMD messed up with the FedEX and none of the reviewers got retail CPUs.
> 
> Instead the reviewers used their own initiative and used an engineering sample.



Very possible. But then we are talking about rushed reviews because they were waiting for retail chips.


----------



## nt300 (Oct 13, 2011)

*Bulldozer Possible Issues? Let me Explain...*

Done some digging on Bulldozer and its possible issues related to today's software and Windows 7.

1)	Memory Bandwidth is somehow getting hampered.
2)	Cache Thrashing Issue
3)	Scheduling Issue
4)	4 Cores = 2 Threads per Core vs. 8 Cores = 1 Thread per Core – Somehow the OS is getting this mixed up (Windows Update should resolve this issue so it can be utilized properly)
5)	Possible a performance Bios update is needed for Socket AM3+ motherboards. Current Bios used for reviews should be null/void.
6)	They should conduct a SLI/Crossfire Benchmark with Bulldozer and see what happens.
7) AMD what happend to Quad-Channel? Surely Bulldozer is not being feed enough food IMO.

Just my take in doing some research on the internet about Bulldozer. I still commend AMD for the innovation put into Bulldozer, and I too believe this thing is ahead of its time. Software developers need to quick mucking around and help utilize Bulldozer to the fullest just as they constantly do for Intel CPUs.


W1zzard said:


> according to amd they were supposed to have sent a cpu yesterday, no tracking number for the package yet. dont expect a tpu review soon


W1zzard, as soon as you get that Bulldozer, please by all means Molest the bloody chip and give a wide range of scenarios if you can, in regards to 8GB of DDR3-1866 vs. 16GB of DDR3-1866 etc. I believe Bulldozer will do better with more DDR3 memory along with running a CrossfireX and/or SLI setup. Anyhow you know your stuff,


----------



## erocker (Oct 13, 2011)

nt300 said:


> Done some digging on Bulldozer and its possible issues related to today's software and Windows 7.
> 
> 1)	Memory Bandwidth is somehow getting hampered.
> 2)	Cache Thrashing Issue
> ...



1. Unfortunatley, I believe this is a design issue.

2. Possible fix with #4

3. # 4, but doubtful. May have to wait until Windows 8

4. I hope so.

5. Doubt it.

6. It's been done. Reviews are out there and it's not very impressive.

7. It's not there, it is what it is.


----------



## xenocide (Oct 13, 2011)

nt300 said:


> 3)	Scheduling Issue


This is a valid complaint.  In synthetic benchmarks it wasn't really a noticeable difference when they used Win8.


nt300 said:


> 4)	4 Cores = 2 Threads per Core vs. 8 Cores = 1 Thread per Core – Somehow the OS is getting this mixed up (Windows Update should resolve this issue so it can be utilized properly)


That's basically what BD is.  They advertise it as an 8-Core, but it's 4 physical cores with 8 integer units and a buttload of cache.  So they are pulling an Intel and marketing it as an Octa-Core.


nt300 said:


> 6)	They should conduct a SLI/Crossfire Benchmark with Bulldozer and see what happens.


It's been done, the 2500k\2600k pull ahead when the CPU is the determining factor.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Crap Daddy (Oct 13, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> I cannot excuse some of the marketing. I've been complaining about it for a long time now. There are a lot of good ideas there, they are all just poorly executed.
> 
> There's a reason companies do not comment about unreleased products, and yes, AMD very much broke that this time. But, officially, they did an effective job of marketing from the business perspective, because literally every aspect of Bulldozer is something I personally expected. The power consumption, clocking, and performance, are all exactly where expected.
> 
> ...



Well you might not see it as a failure, it's your perspective and original opinion. Maybe failure is to hard, maybe let's say it's an underachiver for 90% of the reviewers who were sent whatever chips AMD wanted them to get. 

Apart from the performance that you say you expected to be like this, do you think the desktop CPU market needs these products? Do you think AMD made the right choice to put out a processor that performs on average 10% better than their previous lineup on multithreaded and on par or worse on single threeaded? 

Do you think AMD has any chance to sell a chip that costs 60$ more than the i5-2500K while on average at stock clocks it performs better in 2-3 benches out of 10? Do you think anybody outside the small enthusiast community will wait for software optimizations in order to increase the potential performance of the Bulldozer? 

Do you think that a guy who has an X6 should upgrade to the FX? Do you think that a guy who has a SB should switch to FX? Can you please tell me who will buy this chip?


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 13, 2011)

Crap Daddy said:


> Apart from the performance that you say you expected to be like this, do you think the desktop CPU market needs these products? Do you think AMD made the right choice to put out a processor that performs on average 10% better than their previous lineup on multithreaded and on par or worse on single threeaded?



Yes, actually, I do. Maximum performance is un-important to 90% of the market. It just needs to work, and decently, as most users don't even know how to measure FPS. Enthusiasts are a very small part of the market, after all.



> Do you think AMD has any chance to sell a chip that costs 60$ more than the i5-2500K while on average at stock clocks it performs better in 2-3 benches out of 10?



Yes. I stated this long before launch, and still stand by that.



> Do you think anybody outside the small enthusiast community will wait for software optimizations in order to increase the potential performance of the Bulldozer?



I think people outside the enthusiast community aren't even going to care. Not everyone needs a "hotrod" PC. Most people will make a "derp" face when you ask them what a motherboard is.



> Do you think that a guy who has an X6 should upgrade to the FX? Do you think that a guy who has a SB should switch to FX? Can you please tell me who will buy this chip?



X6 to FX...sure. Will you see much improvements as such a user? Probably not, but at the high-end of products, considering multi-GPU, and potentially multi-monitor configs, the BD chips are a much better option than X6 chips.

SB to FX? Nah, unless you want to play with something new. Many will do this; erocker already has...

Who will buy the chip? Many people will. We have a situation where either AMD was incapable of making enough chips, clearly, if they cannot provide every review website with a retail sample, or there's something else afoot. Whether the problem is yeilds, or that all the chips are already sold to OEMs..doesn't matter. Considering that almost every retailer that did have chips yesterday is now sold out, I don't see why you would even question AMD's ability to sell.

The fact of the matter is, if you ignored every other site, and listened to just what I've been saying the past few months, none of this would have been any surprise.


90% of chips on the market are overkill for most people's real needs. None really needs to overclock. It's not like BD is incapable of running games or other apps because it's too slow...it's just not quite as fast as Intel, and is priced accordingly. Daily usage there would probably not be a lot of discernable difference in usage, for things like web browsing and such. I don't understand how it's disappointing, at all.


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 13, 2011)

Crap Daddy said:


> Can you please tell me who will buy this chip?



1.) people whom have AM2+ board and dont want to change boards
2.) people whom have a AM3 board and dont want to change boards
3.) people whom are casual gamers whom do a fair bit of multithreaded work as well e.g. encoding.
4.) people whom do multithreaded encoding all day as a job/hobby
5.) people whom want their PC to last for as long as possible and will sacrafice performance today if it means having a well performing PC in 4-5 years when multithread applications and OS catch up.


I could go on, but 5 points is enough.


----------



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

W1zzard said:


> according to amd they were supposed to have sent a cpu yesterday, no tracking number for the package yet. dont expect a tpu review soon



They are too emberesed to send one.


----------



## TRWOV (Oct 13, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> 1.) people whom have AM2+ board and dont want to change boards
> 2.) people whom have a AM3 board and dont want to change boards
> 3.) people whom are casual gamers whom do a fair bit of multithreaded work as well e.g. encoding.
> 4.) people whom do multithreaded encoding all day as a job/hobby
> ...



1 and 2 don't apply. You need an AM3+ board.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 13, 2011)

TRWOV said:


> 1 and 2 don't apply. You need an AM3+ board.



Actually, they do, becuase most people will buy a complete system, not do "upgrades". Upgrading is nearly 100% an enthusiast thing, and mostly for enthusiasts with little cash. Most users will buy a complete system because they do not have time to do an upgrade, nor the required know-how. Those users won't be changing boards...they'll buy the whole thing new.


You cannot apply how you personally use your PC to anything here. Enthusiasts are the minority, and any thoughts you have as an enthusiast aren't really AMD's concern. When enthusiasts make up most of the market, then AMD will cater to them.


----------



## qubit (Oct 13, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Actualyl, they do, becuase most people will buy a complete system, not do "upgrades". Upgrading is nearly 100% an enthusiast thing, and mostly for enthusiasts with little cash. Most users will buy a complete system beucase they do not ahve time to do upgrade, nor know how.
> 
> 
> You cannot apply how you personally use your PC to anything here. Enthusiasts are the minority, and any thoughts you have as an enthusiast aren't really AMD's concern. *When enthusiasts make up most of the market, then AMD will cater to them.*



Indeed, that unfortunately, is the bottom line in any area of business. If you're not in the mainstream segment, you don't affect that companies bottom line much and they just don't care about you.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 13, 2011)

I don't see that as an issue, although many might. But usually my own personal needs do not reflect in my opinions when it comes to technology. I'd like AMD to listen to me, but I'm not gonna ever think they will.


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 13, 2011)

TRWOV said:


> 1 and 2 don't apply. You need an AM3+ board.



I was under the impression Bulldozer was backward compatible with atleast AM3, with the bios update, and unofficially backward compatible with most AM3 boards without the flash.  I guess I am wrong  lol

/scarcasm


----------



## Crap Daddy (Oct 13, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Actually, they do, becuase most people will buy a complete system, not do "upgrades". Upgrading is nearly 100% an enthusiast thing, and mostly for enthusiasts with little cash. Most users will buy a complete system because they do not have time to do an upgrade, nor the required know-how. Those users won't be changing boards...they'll buy the whole thing new.



Ok, so they buy a new machine. Why will they decide over an FX build? I just can't get out of my mind the price AMD is asking for the 8150 when the performance is in the 2500K area.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 13, 2011)

Crap Daddy said:


> Ok, so they buy a new machine. Why will they decide over an FX build? I just can't get out of my mind the price AMD is asking for the 8150 when the performance is in the 2500K area.



Like I said, you are an enthusiast, just by having an account here, so your view is not important.

Like i know that might sound like me just bieng a jerk, but the fact of the matter is that it is 100% true. CPU cost has no bearing when buying a full system. Final system cost does. If a 2500K system is even $50 more than an 8150 system is, guess which one is going to sell more often than not?


If you are an enthusiast, AMD expects you to overclock, at which point, cost and stock performance is not important, because your costs are much more than the chip anyway, with extra cooling and such figured in. retail cost of the chip according to AMD is $245, and retailers are currently gouging prices hard, by $45 in some instances. That $245 includes markup for the retailer to make money, while OEMs that build systems pay far less because they buy in far larger quantities, and do nto have such large markups. At this point, retail pricing is very much a moot point.


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 13, 2011)

Crap Daddy said:


> Ok, so they buy a new machine. Why will they decide over an FX build? I just can't get out of my mind the price AMD is asking for the 8150 when the performance is in the 2500K area.



You are talking about buying individual components as an enthusiasts still. The pricing is different for an buying entire rig.

Non enthusiasts, wanting (semi) gamings rigs will go PCWorld or to a local computer shop physically. The shop manager knows that Intel branding fetches for a premium so the entire computer based around the 2500K will be priced higher than an entire computer based around the FX 8150.  Customers in PCWorld will happily pay more for an Intel computer than an AMD computer because of brand recognition alone. 

I would go as far as saying that a customer would pay more for a lowend Intel I3 than a AMD FX8150. Simpily because they dont know whom AMD is. Shops know this and will mark Intel's prices up.

Slight techy non enthusiasts might say "well I dont know whom AMD is, but 8 cores will last me longer and gain application support as it matures, so I dont need to spend another $1,200 on a new computer anytime soon" - and they would be smart to think that.


----------



## devguy (Oct 13, 2011)

Any reviews out there showing FX performance under Eyefinity resolution gaming?  The few people I remember talking up the FX line before launch said it is a monster performer at uber high resolutions.  Granted it may just be GPU bottleneck, but with an Eyefinity setup, I don't give a damn if the 2600k handily beats an FX 8150 at 1080p and under.  If it performs well up there and is better than my Thuban, I'll consider it.  Otherwise, I'll stay where I am.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 13, 2011)

Crap Daddy said:


> Ok, so they buy a new machine. Why will they decide over an FX build? I just can't get out of my mind the price AMD is asking for the 8150 when the performance is in the 2500K area.


An example here would be a 2500K based system costing say $800 but with 2TB and 4GB of DDR3-1866 ram where as the 8150 setup can cost $600 but with say 1TB and 4GB of DDR3-1600 Ram.

When it comes down to a complete system, companies will piece them together in a way to save money but still try and get a maximum asking price.

We in the know how in the other hand know what to buy and how to build. We know how to upgrade and we know how to make a 2 to 3 year old system last as long as possible via smart upgrades and OC'ing.....


----------



## Crap Daddy (Oct 13, 2011)

OK you are starting to convince me about the utility of the FX but AMD has to retire quickly the Phenom II since its existence at a much better price and for daily use and one GPU setup gaming still good compared to Bulldozer.




devguy said:


> Any reviews out there showing FX performance under Eyefinity resolution gaming?  The few people I remember talking up the FX line before launch said it is a monster performer at uber high resolutions.  Granted it may just be GPU bottleneck, but with an Eyefinity setup, I don't give a damn if the 2600k handily beats an FX 8150 at 1080p and under.  If it performs well up there and is better than my Thuban, I'll consider it.  Otherwise, I'll stay where I am.



Here it is, two 6970:

http://www.tweakpc.de/hardware/tests/cpu/amd_fx-8150_bulldozer/benchmarks_gaming.php

Sorry but the X6 seems better in many games benched here


----------



## devguy (Oct 13, 2011)

Crap Daddy said:


> Here it is, two 6970:
> 
> http://www.tweakpc.de/hardware/tests/cpu/amd_fx-8150_bulldozer/benchmarks_gaming.php
> 
> Sorry but the X6 seems better in many games benched here



Thanks for the link.  The x6 seems better?  The differences across all cpus (except the Nehalem CPU seems screwy) seem extremely minimal in all games but Far Cry2, a game I don't care for.  I'm sticking with my Thuban.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Oct 13, 2011)

OK, I was looking at different resolutions. You're right. But anyway nothing spectacular on behalf of the FX.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 13, 2011)

Crap Daddy said:


> OK you are starting to convince me about the utility of the FX but AMD has to retire quickly the Phenom II since its existence at a much better price and for daily use and one GPU setup gaming still good compared to Bulldozer.



You are right, 100%. And this will happen shortly, I'm sure.



Crap Daddy said:


> But anyway nothing spectacular on behalf of the FX.



I agree. But then agian, I never expected it to be "spectacular". Only other sites and such and other users did, so this is all no big deal, IMHO, becuase AMD *NEVER* claimed it was the next coming of christ, like so many others would have had you beleive.

Stop buying into the hype that says it's bad...it's not...they just had unrealistic expectations, and really ,that reflects more on them and their know-how, rather than anything AMD did.


----------



## TRWOV (Oct 13, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Actually, they do, becuase most people will buy a complete system, not do "upgrades". Upgrading is nearly 100% an enthusiast thing, and mostly for enthusiasts with little cash. Most users will buy a complete system because they do not have time to do an upgrade, nor the required know-how. Those users won't be changing boards...they'll buy the whole thing new.



The statement was that people with AM2+ and AM3 boards that wanted to upgrade and not change boards could buy a Bulldozer processor. 






Dent1 said:


> I was under the impression Bulldozer was backward compatible with atleast AM3, with the bios update, and unofficially backward compatible with most AM3 boards without the flash.  I guess I am wrong  lol
> 
> /scarcasm



For AM3 boards your board has to have 8-series chipset (890FX, 890GX, 880G and 870), plus the board must keep up with the power requirements. And last but not least, you'll need a bios update which depends on whenever your manufacturer will release it or not. 

With 9-series boards already out I don't think that many of them will release a bios update for 8-series boards. You could rely on bios hacking thought, since the 890FX and 990FX are pretty much the same chipset.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 13, 2011)

TRWOV said:


> The statement was that people with AM2  and AM3 boards that wanted to upgrade and not change boards could buy a Bulldozer processor.



*Ok, but you realize AMD officially said that they would NOT support this, right?*


You're listening to other sites again, who are, in a large way, reporting inaccurate info. I'm sorry for the confusion, but I have asked reviewers that I know that have chips, and not one is able to get Bulldozer working in anything but 9-series boards, and even then, there is a BIOS update specfic to Bulldozer, in such a way that there is even a warning in the CPU box that you should update the BIOS. And that BIOS update applies to 9-series boards...

I do NOT expect any user with AM3 to actually get Bulldozer working properly. An AM3+ socket and 9-series chipset are required.


All retail listings of the CPUs should contain this disclaimer:



> Note: AMD FX Processors require an AMD 9-Series motherboard with socket AM3+; these processors are not backward compatible with previous generation motherboards.



See here:

http://www.ncix.ca/products/?sku=64404


----------



## Crap Daddy (Oct 13, 2011)

Well, I personally didn't have high expectations but was sucked into this hype which was somehow similar to the build-up for the 6000 series GPUs... with the same outcome for those who thought that the Radeons will drive out of business the green monster after the succes of the 5000 series. 

And you know what, for me personally, deep down I wanted the FX to turn out like this. I just put a lot of money for me into a new Intel build in March which is doing exactly what I was expecting from it and little bit more. It would have been pretty sad that after only six months something better at lower price should have hit the market. I'm going to sleep. Thanks.


----------



## TRWOV (Oct 13, 2011)

What are you talking about? Let's recap:

Crap Daddy posted:
Can you please tell me who will buy this chip?

Dent1 replied:
1.) people whom have AM2+ board and dont want to change boards
2.) people whom have a AM3 board and dont want to change boards
[...]


I replied:
1 and 2 don't apply. You need an AM3+ board.


Then you replied to me:
Actually, they do, becuase most people will buy a complete system, not do "upgrades". Upgrading is nearly 100% an enthusiast thing, and mostly for enthusiasts with little cash. Most users will buy a complete system because they do not have time to do an upgrade, nor the required know-how. Those users won't be changing boards...they'll buy the whole thing new.

To which I said:
The statement was that people with AM2+ and AM3 boards that wanted to upgrade and not change boards could buy a Bulldozer processor. 


Then:


cadaveca said:


> *Ok, but you realize AMD officially said that they would NOT support this, right?*
> 
> 
> You're listening to other sites again, who are, in a large way, reporting inaccurate info. I'm sorry for the confusion, but I have asked reviewers that I know that have chips, and not one is able to get Bulldozer working in anything but 9-series boards, and even then, there is a BIOS update specfic to Bulldozer, in such a way that there is even a warning in the CPU box that you should update the BIOS. And that BIOS update applies to 9-series boards...
> ...





Which is entirely the point I was making.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 13, 2011)

Yeah, I understand. And in leiu of those users being able to upgrade(which they may never be able to do), they must buy a full system.


I just skipped over the part where that wasn't possible...because those users, in many instances, will still buy AMD. AMD "fanboys" are some of the most loyal of all, that I have seen. And the users that bought into AM2/AM3 are very much, in most instances, fanboys, because back then, Intel was the performance leader too, and it didn't stop them from buying into the platforms they currently have, although there were faster options.


----------



## devguy (Oct 13, 2011)

Something interesting I thought you guys might like from an overclocking guide at XS.  FX seems to prefer HTT overclocking to multiplier overclocking in a bunch of the benches there (1st and 3rd columns the most relevant). That's kinda neat, and has always been my preferred way to overclock. Multiplier overclocking is boring to me.


----------



## CDdude55 (Oct 13, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> You're listening to other sites again, who are, in a large way, reporting inaccurate info.



Not really, even Softpedia reported AM3+ only compatibility(and non-official AM3 support). It was all over the place.


----------



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

Dent1 said:


> I was under the impression Bulldozer was backward compatible with atleast AM3, with the bios update, and unofficially backward compatible with most AM3 boards without the flash.  I guess I am wrong  lol
> 
> /scarcasm



As long as it has an AM3+ socket, it works, some AM3 boards have them the vast majority do not.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 13, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> Not really, even Softpedia reported AM3+ only compatibility. It was all over the place.



Yes, but there were claims and such way back that all you needed was teh black socket, before the 9-series boards came out. Many OEMs even said that their 8-series boards would work with Bulldozer, but this was months and months ago, and today, they do not work.


Like, I get what you're saying, but people beleive that this upgrade path is possible, because it was reported as possible, albeit wrongly reported, at this point.


----------



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

cadaveca said:


> Stop buying into the hype that says it's bad...it's not...they just had unrealistic expectations, and really ,that reflects more on them and their know-how, rather than anything AMD did.



Wrong AMD hyped the hell out of it even making claims of beating a 980x, yet it doesn't come even close to that. AMD promised everything and delivered on nothing.:shadedshu


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 13, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> Wrong AMD hyped the hell out of it even making claims of beating a 980x, yet it doesn't come even close to that. AMD promised everything and delivered on nothing.:shadedshu



I said months ago, and now, that if you do not find it on the AMD website, then it is not true. I don't care what was reported, in private to reviewers, nor do I care that reviewers decided to leak the info. Maybe next time listen to me, instead of the hype.


Again, I will say this was intentional, and exposes the bias. These reviewers that leaked that wanted you to see those slides, so that their conclusion that BD sucked seemed to have merit. No slides or anything that claimed such were supposed to be released to the public.

it's not my fault you listened to the hype and rumour. Every time info like this came out, you can find my posts in the threads questioning it.

AMD hyped NOTHING...except that 8150 was the "World's Fastest CPU", and again, I have repeatedly complained about such things. Please go and check the sources.


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 13, 2011)

It's a shame I can't find it now. But a couple of weeks back I saw on Ebuyer.com an AM2 nforce 630a chipset with AM3+ ready firmware support. Went on the manfucturers website and it was true. The board was only £30 because of its age, 6 years old?



[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> Wrong AMD hyped the hell out of it even making claims of beating a 980x, yet it doesn't come even close to that. AMD promised everything and delivered on nothing.:shadedshu



To be fair, up until the marketing slide show. AMD was very quiet. You guys were actually saying yourself how Bulldozers launch is silent. The only noise AMD made was the OC'ing record.

When the slides came the community made noise about the performance not AMD.



[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> claims of beating a 980x, yet it doesn't come even close to that. AMD promised everything and delivered on nothing.:shadedshu



It was close to the 980X in mutithreaded benchmarks. Didn't you read the reviews or did you skip straight to gaming?


----------



## CDdude55 (Oct 13, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Yes, but there were claims and such way back that all you needed was teh black socket, before the 9-series boards came out. Many OEMs even said that their 8-series boards would work with Bulldozer, but this was months and months ago, and today, they do not work.
> 
> 
> Like, I get what you're saying, but people beleive that this upgrade path is possible, because it was reported as possible, albeit wrongly reported, at this point.



That is true, though i remember there were some pics of 800/700 series boards with the black AM3+ sockets that were reported a few months ago:

http://www.techpowerup.com/143395/GIGABYTE-First-to-Market-with-AM3+-Black-Socket-Motherboards.html

I haven't seen that board hit retail though, it's rev 3.1.

But there is this board which is based on the 890FX chipset and have an AM3+ socket: ASRock 890FX DELUXE5 AM3+ AMD 890FX SATA 6Gb/s USB...

Doesn't that indicate that it's possible for the older 800/700 chips to support BD if they'd just switch sockets?


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 13, 2011)

According to AMD, no, that does NOT mean it will support Bulldozer. There are various reasons why.


----------



## CDdude55 (Oct 13, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> According to AMD, no, that does NOT mean it will support Bulldozer. There are various reasons why.



I wonder why, they even share the same silicon.

If it doesn't work then that board shouldn't even exist with that socket.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 13, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> I wonder why, they even share the same silicon.
> 
> If it doesn't work then that board shouldn't even exist with that socket.



I do not have the answer to that question. All i know is that many stores have that claim in thier listings for the chips that state you need an AM3+ board with a 9-series chipset, and that JF-AMD said the same.

As I understand it, it's more about a P-State that the 8-series and earlier boards do not support, due to VRM design, so the actual silicon on the board is not important. This is also why a BIOS update is required for Bulldozer, and these BIOSes will not work well with Thuban, because of the different P-States.


----------



## Horrux (Oct 13, 2011)

Wow. I just don't know what to say. AMD dropped the ball big time. If I were to "upgrade" my Phenom II X6 1100t to the current top-end FX model, I would lose in performance in quite a few applications.

I think I echo a lot of AMD fans' sentiment with what I have been saying over the past few months: "If bulldozer provides competitive performance (relative to the i7 2600) or at least price-competitive performance compared to the 2500, I'll stay with AMD. Otherwise, I will be seriously tempted to switch over to Intel".

Anyone else?


----------



## TRWOV (Oct 13, 2011)

I don't know. Given its price point, the 8120 might be a good buy. Take that sucker home and OC the hell of it.

And if the rumored thread dispatcher patch increases the performance as much as AMD says, the 8120 looks even sweeter. I don't know if the cache trashing could be corrected with a patch too.

I was planning to upgrade in March so I can wait and see how things unfold.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Oct 14, 2011)

TRWOV said:


> I don't know. Given its price point, the 8120 might be a good buy. Take that sucker home and OC the hell of it.



The problem with that theory is the crazy power draw at load.


----------



## alexsubri (Oct 14, 2011)

I'm still waiting for the FX 8170 review


----------



## LordJummy (Oct 14, 2011)

alexsubri said:


> I'm still waiting for the FX 8170 review



There is no 8170 at this time I thought?



Side question: Has anyone here actually ordered a retail 8150/8120 for their rig?

I'm finding it hard not to order a mobo/8150 to play with it myself, despite all of the mixed reviews. It looks like it would still be a fun chip to play with...


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Oct 14, 2011)

LordJummy said:


> There is no 8170 at this time I thought?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I ordered an 8150 it should be here by the weekend, it should make a decent chip for my file server, but that seems all the chip will be good for.


----------



## erocker (Oct 14, 2011)

LordJummy said:


> I'm finding it hard not to order a mobo/8150 to play with it myself, despite all of the mixed reviews. It looks like it would still be a fun chip to play with...



Oh, it is fun!  I'm doing some messing around right now. I have a few sets of RAM I want to play around with as well. Right now, I'm using Elpida Hypers.

Check it: http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=153443&page=3


----------



## LordJummy (Oct 14, 2011)

erocker said:


> Oh, it is fun!  I'm doing some messing around right now. I have a few sets of RAM I want to play around with as well. Right now, I'm using Elpida Hypers.
> 
> Check it: http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=153443&page=3



oooh sweet bro. I'm thinking I might grab an 8120 just for testing and overclocking the shit out of it. I will have to rig it in my custom water setup and have some fun....

Your screenies are really tempting me, and I only need a motherboard and the chip. I don't expect it to replace my 970, but I want a new toy that is different than what I've got you know?


----------



## alexsubri (Oct 14, 2011)

erocker said:


> Oh, it is fun!  I'm doing some messing around right now. I have a few sets of RAM I want to play around with as well. Right now, I'm using Elpida Hypers.
> 
> Check it: http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=153443&page=3



Have you done any benchmarks? If so, are they the same or different from the review websites?


----------



## Super XP (Oct 14, 2011)

alexsubri said:


> Have you done any benchmarks? If so, are they the same or different from the review websites?


You have a ASUS Sabertooth 990 FX. Have you noticed the latest bios update for your mobo? It says it's an AMD CPU Firmware Update. Have you updated this? Is it updating your CPU's firmware or your mobo's bios??


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Oct 14, 2011)

I don't think firmware will "fix" the problem.


----------



## alexsubri (Oct 14, 2011)

Super XP said:


> You have a ASUS Sabertooth 990 FX. Have you noticed the latest bios update for your mobo? It says it's an AMD CPU Firmware Update. Have you updated this? Is it updating your CPU's firmware or your mobo's bios??



The newest one is Version  0705 which was released towards the end of Sept. I haven't uploaded my BIOS yet, I should , I plan on doing it soon. I just got this motherboard less than a week ago. So, I am still tweaking, recovering what I lost from my old HD's (Had to do a reformat, not related to the motherboard)


----------



## Super XP (Oct 14, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> I don't think firmware will "fix" the problem.


I was just wondering why it said "AMD CPU Firmware Update" for a motherboard bios update. I would think if AMD was to release a firmware update you would find it on the AMD website NO?

Also, I agree a AMD FX CPU firmware update won't repair something that is not broken. I now truly believe Bulldozer is very complex, and it will take time to make it work the way it was meant to. That said, AMD should have worked harder to ensure the OS along with software take fully take advantage of the new CPU design.


----------



## LordJummy (Oct 14, 2011)

I do have to say I have never seen so many fan boys crawl out of the woodwork (at least not for some time) on some of the other forums. I'm surprised the TPU discussions have been fairly civil. 

Should I buy the 8120 now or should I wait until a revision is made? Is there a hardware revision planned for the near future or just software/firmware? I'm trying to decide whether or not to go for it now.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Oct 14, 2011)

Super XP said:


> I was just wondering why it said "AMD CPU Firmware Update" for a motherboard bios update. I would think if AMD was to release a firmware update you would find it on the AMD website NO?
> 
> Also, I agree a AMD FX CPU firmware update won't repair something that is not broken. I now truly believe Bulldozer is very complex, and it will take time to make it work the way it was meant to. That said, AMD should have worked harder to ensure the OS along with software take fully take advantage of the new CPU design.



I don't buy the BS about it's the OS's fault, even if it is how dumb is AMD for not designing for a current OS, rather than one that there isn't even an RC for.


----------



## TRWOV (Oct 14, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> I don't think firmware will "fix" the problem.





LordJummy said:


> I do have to say I have never seen so many fan boys crawl out of the woodwork (at least not for some time) on some of the other forums. I'm surprised the TPU discussions have been fairly civil.
> 
> Should I buy the 8120 now or should I wait until a revision is made? Is there a hardware revision planned for the near future or just software/firmware? I'm trying to decide whether or not to go for it now.



With the fact that Piledriver is being released so soon (Q1 2012, isn't it?) I believe that AMD knew about the design problems (branch prediction, pipeline flushing, cache trashing, decode unit not wide enough) but instead counted on frequencies to make up until PD could be released. Anandtech's review also shows that cache latency is worse than Phenom II. Both of these problems can be blamed on Global Foundries. Cache latency can be increased and clockspeeds lowered to give higher yields.

I think that AMD saw the problems that needed reworking but decided that clockspeed would be enough for the time being but then a few months later they find that yields were too poor and had no choice but to launch as is.


----------



## Horrux (Oct 14, 2011)

TRWOV said:


> With the fact that Piledriver is being released so soon (Q1 2012, isn't it?) I believe that AMD knew about the design problems (branch prediction, pipeline flushing, cache trashing, decode unit not wide enough) but instead counted on frequencies to make up until PD could be released. Anandtech's review also shows that cache latency is worse than Phenom II. Both of these problems can be blamed on Global Foundries. Cache latency can be increased and clockspeeds lowered to give higher yields.
> 
> I think that AMD saw the problems that needed reworking but decided that clockspeed would be enough for the time being but then a few months later they find that yields were too poor and had no choice but to launch as is.



That makes sense and provides a glimmer of hope for those of us who would like to remain users of AMD chips but also require competitive performance...


----------



## Prima.Vera (Oct 14, 2011)

LOL. Even my old Core 2 Quad 9650 beats the crp out of Dozer. 
Epic Fail.:shadedshu


----------



## LordJummy (Oct 14, 2011)

Prima.Vera said:


> LOL. Even my old Core 2 Quad 9650 beats the crp out of Dozer.
> Epic Fail.:shadedshu



mmm not really. now you're just getting into wishful thinking territory.

the 8150 as it turns out actually can perform quite well under the right circumstances. it is far better than your c2q overall.


----------



## claylomax (Oct 14, 2011)

"Perhaps in the future this will pay big dividends, but at this moment in time the bulldozer is looking more like 8 shovels"  http://www.vortez.net/articles_pages/amd_fx_8150_bulldozer_cpu_review,14.html


----------



## LordJummy (Oct 14, 2011)

I'm starting to see some benefits in BD now. I think I'm going to go ahead and get an 8150. I just can't resist playing with it at this point. Even if it doesn't outperform my i7 970 it will still be a great time to bench and test 


Update:



cadaveca said:


> My first impression wasn't too positive, but you know, after I read every review, I think those that reviewed the chips had expectations set way too high. Tom's even posted an editorial about that exact subject, and consequently, blamed AMD's marketing for those false expectations.
> 
> That made me look into the sources for all the hype, and really, most of it was websites looking for hits, and not anything that AMD gave out for the public to see.
> 
> ...




Totally agree. My first impression was guided by tons of over hyped negative reviews and people yelling the sky is falling. After my own research through all the BS I've come to the conclusion that the 8 core chip is actually really nice for some of my personal uses. It looks like they will be addressing some of the issues very soon, so I'm going to grab one and let them work out the bugs.

The 8150 will be an excellent chip for my secondary machine to replace my i7 950 setup I think. I also want to do what I can to support Intel's competition at this point, and inevitably post my own little reviews once I've fully tested it. I think we need to give these chips more time to really brew and get to their optimum potential. ( I never thought I would be saying that, but I really believe it. ) There is also nothing more fun than playing with a completely new architecture. Definitely looking forward to it


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 14, 2011)

My first impression wasn't too positive, but you know, after I read every review, I think those that reviewed the chips had expectations set way too high. Tom's even posted an editorial about that exact subject, and consequently, blamed AMD's marketing for those false expectations.

That made me look into the sources for all the hype, and really, most of it was websites looking for hits, and not anything that AMD gave out for the public to see.

So I personally don't blame AMD here...I blame all those websites that hyped BD, for falsely raising people's expectations.

AMD's not 100% free and clear of this mess though. I said nearly 6 months ago that this greatly reminded me of the Phenom I and 2900XT hype, and I going to stick to my personal opinion that all the hype was directly a result of Intel fanboys setting AMD up to fail, even though it really seems AMD didn't do much to deal with the issues as they came up.


----------



## nt300 (Oct 14, 2011)

Pros
+ Innovative architecture design
+ Very overclockable
+ Power efficient using Cool 'n' Quiet
+ Improved Turbo modes

Cons
- Weak single thread performance
- Often outperformed by Phenom II
- Only fast in ideal scenarios

If the Single Threaded Performance got resolved somehow, we wouldn't be having this discussion about Bulldozer. This CPU was designed for massive Multi-Threading and will destroy anything in the market place with the proper multi-threading software testing.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Oct 14, 2011)

nt300 said:


> If the Single Threaded Performance got resolved somehow, we wouldn't be having this discussion about Bulldozer. This CPU was designed for massive Multi-Threading and will destroy anything in the market place with the proper multi-threading software testing.



At its price point.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Oct 14, 2011)

nt300 said:


> Pros
> + Innovative architecture design
> + Very overclockable
> + Power efficient using Cool 'n' Quiet
> ...




Wow.... sorta like bringing a speed boat to the drag strip and shouting from the sidelines.  If we were in,water id pawn u all!


----------



## erocker (Oct 14, 2011)

ensabrenoir said:


> Wow.... sorta like bringing a speed boat to the drag strip and shouting from the sidelines.  If we were in,water id pawn u all!



Better yet, bringing a Bulldozer to the drag strip and shouting "If this drag strip was dirt...."


----------



## LordJummy (Oct 14, 2011)

erocker said:


> Better yet, bringing a Bulldozer to the drag strip and shouting "If this drag strip was dirt...."



Better yet, bringing a hula hoop to a jump rope competition. amirite?


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 14, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> *I have asked reviewers that I know that have chips, and not one is able to get Bulldozer working in anything but 9-series boards
> *


*


cadaveca said:



			and even then, there is a BIOS update specfic to Bulldozer, in such a way that there is even a warning in the CPU box that you should update the BIOS. And that BIOS update applies to 9-series boards...
		
Click to expand...




cadaveca said:



			I do NOT expect any user with AM3 to actually get Bulldozer working properly. An AM3+ socket and 9-series chipset are required.
		
Click to expand...


I guess you are wrong. lol 

http://www.techpowerup.com/153573/ASRock-Announces-Wide-Ranged-Support-for-AMD-FX-Processors.html

ASRock have prioritized AM3+ motherboard implementation and is the first to produce the most sophisticated AM3+ CPU-capable motherboards. The entire range of AM3+ mobo includes AMD's 9-Series, 8-Series, 7-Series and Nvidia's GeForce 7025 chipset series. Importantly, ASRock have a complete motherboard products line (from high-end, performance to budget-level) supporting AM3+ Bulldozer processors. Users are able to enjoy the exciting AM3+ performance with the latest BIOS update. ASRock is confident to say that they are the only motherboard maker that can offer so many AM3+ mobo choices based on difference chipsets. And this is what other mobo makers cannot do.


PS. isnt the 7025 chipset like 6 years old. Anyone with a crappy AM2/AM2+ board should be able to drop in a AMD FX without breaking the bank.*


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 14, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> I guess you are wrong. lol







Today, yes. Yesterday, no.

Alot of boards are working, but not all. And I do not mean AsRock boards, I mean all boards in general.

Hopefully by the time these FX chips are back in stock in retail, all boards will work.


----------



## Covert_Death (Oct 14, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> I don't buy the BS about it's the OS's fault, even if it is how dumb is AMD for not designing for a current OS, rather than one that there isn't even an RC for.



because you design for the futuer... this is a stepping block for future CPU's from AMD


----------



## Covert_Death (Oct 14, 2011)

can someone please answer this one question....

i have a PII x4 955 clocked at 4.1Ghz (temps from 36c-60c)

if i upgrade to an 8150 and OC it as well (say 4.6-4.8Ghz) will i see noticeable improvement in current games (BF3, BC2, ArmA II, ArmA III) and such?

thanks... i really like the CPU for the potential it has but just want to make sure if i get it that it will ACTUALLY be an UPGRADE

thanks all


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 14, 2011)

Covert_Death, which resolution do you play at?

BFBC2 and BF3 are multithreaded. Reviews show the FX series perform better in the BF3 beta than even the I7 2600k, so I doubt you'd need to overclock it to see the benefit. 

As for the ArmA series I'm not sure if its multithreaded, so somebody else will have to comment on that.

If you are actually doing work, then yes its an upgrade. For gaming, it depends on your choice of games - but for singlethreaded applications/games, definitely not.


----------



## Covert_Death (Oct 14, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> Covert_Death, which resolution do you play at?
> 
> BFBC2 and BF3 are multithreaded. Reviews show the FX series perform better in the BF3 beta than even the I7 2600k, so I doubt you'd need to overclock it to see the benefit.
> 
> As for the ArmA series I'm not sure if its multithreaded, so somebody else will have to comment on that.



thanks, sorry i guess i should have included more info...

i run at 1920x1080 60Hz with two GTX460's in SLI OC'd quiet a bit...

i also do a LOT of CAD rendering (mechanical engineering major) and im pretty sure i would see quiet a large benefit in this area as well...


----------



## Horrux (Oct 14, 2011)

Covert_Death said:


> thanks, sorry i guess i should have included more info...
> 
> i run at 1920x1080 60Hz with two GTX460's in SLI OC'd quiet a bit...
> 
> i also do a LOT of CAD rendering (mechanical engineering major) and im pretty sure i would see quiet a large benefit in this area as well...



Yeah, CAD is usually heavily threaded, so it looks good for you, I think.


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 14, 2011)

Covert_Death said:


> i also do a LOT of CAD rendering (mechanical engineering major) and im pretty sure i would see quiet a large benefit in this area as well...



Single threaded 3D rendering performance is poor, but multithreaded 3D rendering in Cinebench the FX @ 4.6GHz seems on par with the 2500K @ 4.8GHz.
Not sure if POV Ray is multi threaded, but FX 8120 @ 4.6GHz seems on par with the i5/i7 series @ 4.8GHz.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/10/11/amd_bulldozer_fx8150_desktop_performance_review/8


----------



## Covert_Death (Oct 14, 2011)

hmmm, looks very tastey... now to decide if i buy one now or wait for stepping revision or see if piledriver is AM3+....... decisions decisions


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Oct 14, 2011)

the futures starting to look rosey then since single threadeds on the decline and multithreaded processings on the up, i might go with an upgrade this xmass after all, i think a lot has been made of early benches on un optimised software and hardware and that new soft and games as they arrive that do use more then 1 - 4 cores things will start leaning AMD's way


----------



## Goodman (Oct 14, 2011)

Covert_Death said:


> hmmm, looks very tastey... now to decide if i buy one now or wait for stepping revision or see if piledriver is AM3+....... decisions decisions



Save your money & keep it as it is or buy an PIIx6 & don't ever look back


----------



## ensabrenoir (Oct 14, 2011)

Covert_Death said:


> because you design for the futuer... this is a stepping block for future CPU's from AMD



True yet you must also stay usable in the present or there won't be a future for you. We may all drive electric cars in the future.  Hower there is not PRESENTly a  large enough support infastructure for ford to only make electric cars .  So the hybrid (gas & electric) exist until that future point.


----------



## Covert_Death (Oct 14, 2011)

And the fact that hybrids are more fuel efficient then electric  Electrics are still natural gas and oil vehicles in the long run, the engine is just no longer in the car but at a power plant.... hydrogen is the future as its only biproduct is water 

Anyway, I'm not buying another pII when I already have one,, I wannt great multithread use since that's all I do basically ... I THINK bd is the answer for me, again unless pd comes quickly and is am3+


----------



## LordJummy (Oct 14, 2011)

The future = magnets. Everyone knows this.


----------



## Covert_Death (Oct 14, 2011)

Once we can unravel a magnetic field yes haha


----------



## MadClown (Oct 14, 2011)

well guess im not building a new pc just yet


----------



## HalfAHertz (Oct 15, 2011)

Just do AMD a favor and don't buy Bulldozer CPUs. Let them fry for a bit and shave some fat ...


----------



## Prima.Vera (Oct 15, 2011)

LordJummy said:


> mmm not really. now you're just getting into wishful thinking territory.
> 
> the 8150 as it turns out actually can perform quite well under the right circumstances. it is far better than your c2q overall.



Not in the games it isn't. Don't take my word. Just check the charts from some pages before...


----------



## Horrux (Oct 15, 2011)

HalfAHertz said:


> Just do AMD a favor and don't buy Bulldozer CPUs. Let them fry for a bit and shave some fat ...



I thought they fried and shed the fat in the Phenom I days, and then some more lately? I'm thinking AMD looks thin and frail right now... They don't need to get on a diet, believe me.

Just go look at their financials...


----------



## Jack Doph (Oct 15, 2011)

I'm pretty sure this thread has outlived its longevity...


----------



## Super XP (Oct 15, 2011)

Covert_Death said:


> And the fact that hybrids are more fuel efficient then electric  Electrics are still natural gas and oil vehicles in the long run, the engine is just no longer in the car but at a power plant.... hydrogen is the future as its only biproduct is water
> 
> Anyway, I'm not buying another pII when I already have one,, I wannt great multithread use since that's all I do basically ... I THINK bd is the answer for me, again unless pd comes quickly and is am3+


I believe it's been already established that Piledriver is indead going to sit on Socket AM3+. The future Piledriver II based on a 10 core design is said to be on Socket FM2 in around Q1 2013. But in reality, AMD can change there minds if they wanted.


MadClown said:


> well guess im not building a new pc just yet


You got what I have a Phenom II x4 940 with a max OC of 3.60 GHz. Can't go over this number no matter what I do. I am due for an upgrade, but will hold off alittle longer for  now.


Horrux said:


> I thought they fried and shed the fat in the Phenom I days, and then some more lately? I'm thinking AMD looks thin and frail right now... They don't need to get on a diet, believe me.
> 
> Just go look at their financials...


I believe Barcelona and it's launch was worst than Bulldozer. But AMD quickly resolved most of it's issues with Phenom II. Hopefully they can do the same with Bulldozer, such as a AMD FXII or something. But they would need a much wider performance gap between say original Bulldozer vs Bulldozer II. The PI and PII gap was good, just not as good, but not great. PII had the ability to clock higher.


----------



## techtard (Oct 15, 2011)

They should ditch AM3+ for piledriver, and move on to the next socket. Break compatibility, and hopefully INNOVATE.

Sometimes you have to break some eggs to make an omlette.
I personally think that all this backwards compatibility limited their options. They had to design  a brand new architecture, but force it to work with some old and tired components.

Look at all the tinkering the motherboard makers are having to do to try to get this chip to run properly.


----------



## DigitalUK (Oct 15, 2011)

you always break all the eggs when making an omlette?


----------



## techtard (Oct 15, 2011)

LOL. Never been called out on that saying before. +1 for you.


----------



## Wile E (Oct 15, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Like I said, you are an enthusiast, just by having an account here, so your view is not important.
> 
> Like i know that might sound like me just bieng a jerk, but the fact of the matter is that it is 100% true. CPU cost has no bearing when buying a full system. Final system cost does. If a 2500K system is even $50 more than an 8150 system is, guess which one is going to sell more often than not?
> 
> ...


Since when does the number of units they sell, and how, make any difference on the performance level of a chip? The reviews are about the performance. The way they are sold is irrelevant in that context.

Defending the performance of a product based on where the majority of it's sales are based, does not make it a well performing product.

BD = underperforming, period.



Dent1 said:


> I guess you are wrong. lol
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/153573/ASRock-Announces-Wide-Ranged-Support-for-AMD-FX-Processors.html
> 
> ...


Wrong. BD does not support DDR2. SO unless those boards sprouted DDR3 slots, AM2/AM2+ is out, period. Those _*chipsets*_ can be made compatible if built on the AM3/AM3+ socket, not on current AM2/AM2+ boards.



techtard said:


> They should ditch AM3+ for piledriver, and move on to the next socket. Break compatibility, and hopefully INNOVATE.
> 
> Sometimes you have to break some eggs to make an omlette.
> I personally think that all this backwards compatibility limited their options. They had to design  a brand new architecture, but force it to work with some old and tired components.
> ...



I have to agree. I really think it's time for them to move to a newer platform.





DigitalUK said:


> you always break all the eggs when making an omlette?



Not if you buy carton eggs.


----------



## Steevo (Oct 15, 2011)

I'm buying a 1100T for my system today so I get the good chips before they are gone. 


I will send my 940 to my parents and get their X2 back for a cheapo build for a friend.


Edit....I ordered it. $189.00 with free shipping....


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 15, 2011)

Wile E said:


> BD = underperforming, period.



It's not like the offered performance prevents BD from completing any tasks, nor does it lack compatibility to run software, nor does it break anything. If it doesn't meet YOUR expectations, that's fine. Not everyone needs to have the fastest chip possible.

When 90% of the chips sold aren't intended for users like you, you bet it's a viable excuse. You're just disappointed because AMD didn't have the capability of meeting the needs of both markets, but the market where the real numbers of chips sell do not have the same expectations that enthusiast do. Catering to those with the big bucks ensures they can have the funds to further reiterate on the product, as they have done countless times in the past.

Don't forget, the Athlon/Phenom core design stuck around for like 8 years. BD will most likely last just as long as well.

I mean really now, if AMD really had enthusiasts in mind, would enthusiasts be presented with a very limited supply of chips? I wouldn't be surprised to see AMD barely release any to retail as PileDriver is expected very soon. Where are teh BD chips AMD has been making, after all? Who got shipped chips first as a customer? Definitely not the retail space!!


----------



## Steevo (Oct 15, 2011)

Most of BD went to server chips. Plus AMD is making craploads more APU units than BD.


----------



## Wile E (Oct 16, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> It's not like the offered performance prevents BD from completing any tasks, nor does it lack compatibility to run software, nor does it break anything. If it doesn't meet YOUR expectations, that's fine. Not everyone needs to have the fastest chip possible.
> 
> When 90% of the chips sold aren't intended for users like you, you bet it's a viable excuse. You're just disappointed because AMD didn't have the capability of meeting the needs of both markets, but the market where the real numbers of chips sell do not have the same expectations that enthusiast do. Catering to those with the big bucks ensures they can have the funds to further reiterate on the product, as they have done countless times in the past.
> 
> ...



None of that changes the fact that it doesn't even outperform the previous generation in some tests. It's a poor performer, and it got the reviews it deserved. No amount of "intended market" spin you throw on it changes that.


----------



## Covert_Death (Oct 16, 2011)

Wile E said:


> None of that changes the fact that it doesn't even outperform the previous generation in some tests. It's a poor performer, and it got the reviews it deserved. No amount of "intended market" spin you throw on it changes that.



your words "in some tests"

sooooo based on what your saying, if it excels in test that you would use on a daily basis then it is good for you. most of the test where PII did better was single threaded... and if you don't care for single threaded performance then why would you not buy it based on tests that don't pertain to your usage ?


----------



## Wile E (Oct 16, 2011)

Covert_Death said:


> your words "in some tests"
> 
> sooooo based on what your saying, if it excels in test that you would use on a daily basis then it is good for you. most of the test where PII did better was single threaded... and if you don't care for single threaded performance then why would you not buy it based on tests that don't pertain to your usage ?



Because it still consumes more power and costs more to do it compared to Thuban. 

It's just especially underwhelming when compared to the Intel offerings.


----------



## entropy13 (Oct 16, 2011)

Covert_Death said:


> your words "in some tests"
> 
> sooooo based on what your saying, if it excels in test that you would use on a daily basis then it is good for you. most of the test where PII did better was single threaded... and if you don't care for single threaded performance then why would you not buy it based on tests that don't pertain to your usage ?



If you don't care for single threaded performance, it only means one thing.

You are using "software of the future" that is yet to be released, much less coded and compiled.


----------



## Covert_Death (Oct 16, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> If you don't care for single threaded performance, it only means one thing.
> 
> You are using "software of the future" that is yet to be released, much less coded and compiled.



i would say 95% of the software i run is multi-threaded, and i'm certainly not from the future and the software is most certainly already released... 

the two or three video games i play are all multi-threaded games, and i heavily use my machine for CAD rendering...

the only single threaded software i can think of iTunes.... and i really don't see BD coming to a crawl with iTunes haha

guys these CPU's may not be for you but they are still very good at what they are designed to do... multithreaded software apps, and there is plenty of software out there supporting multi core setups... if there weren't we would still be in the single-dual core era, but we aren't


----------



## entropy13 (Oct 16, 2011)

Covert_Death said:


> i would say 95% of the software i run is multi-threaded, and i'm certainly not from the future and the software is most certainly already released...
> 
> the two or three video games i play are all multi-threaded games, and i heavily use my machine for CAD rendering...
> 
> ...




A game that uses at least two threads is already "multi-threaded", you know. The FX-8150 only really shines when all 8 threads were being used...much like how the i7 2600K, with its 8 threads, only really outperforms significantly the i5 2500K which has 4 threads.



But I actually agree that BD is not much a fail "as is", but if you have read my previous posts, you would have seen that:
#1 - because of the price, it has an awful price/performance ratio
#2 - because of the power consumption AND worse performance, it uses up more power to finish a certain task AND takes longer as well
#3 - it only becomes a "good buy" *IF* you already have a compatible board and you have specific usage that would fully use its "advantages"; if power consumption is NOT an issue, it's a "good buy." In other words, there's a lot of if's to satisfy just for it to become a "good buy"


----------



## Super XP (Oct 16, 2011)

techtard said:


> They should ditch AM3+ for piledriver, and move on to the next socket. Break compatibility, and hopefully INNOVATE.
> 
> Sometimes you have to break some eggs to make an omlette.
> I personally think that all this backwards compatibility limited their options. They had to design  a brand new architecture, but force it to work with some old and tired components.
> ...


Well that's the thing, they won't move to Socket FM2 yet, because they cannot. They need to FIX Bulldozer's issues first, then move the technology to a new platform. In my estimation, and according to recent rumours, they plan on prolonging Socket AM3+ with an new breed of 4-6-8 Piledriver cores for the remainder of 2012, then hopefully by then they would have ironed out performance issues which we've seen as of late and move everything over to Socket FM2. 

Socket AM3+ is not tired, the original Bulldozer was already meant to work on it, it is only the 10-Core Piledriver that was suppose to switch to the FM2.

This IMO is a good idea, keeping Socket AM3+ alive and kicking for much longer than planned, then release Socket FM2.

Though mark my words, if Bulldozer was indead as fast as rumours suggested, 10-Core Piledriver would have gotten released in Q1 2012 under Socket FM2 Guaranteed


----------



## Semi-Lobster (Oct 16, 2011)

Did the release of Bulldozer lower the prices of the Phenom II series? I was going to get one but hell, might as well just use that money to get an upgrade for my existing AM3 setup to a Phenom II X6 1100T or X4 980 from my X3 720?


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 16, 2011)

Wile E said:


> Because it still consumes more power and costs more to do it compared to Thuban.
> 
> It's just especially underwhelming when compared to the Intel offerings.



I gotta agree with this, for sure. I just simply never expected anything else. It's not underwhelming when you didn't expect anything else.

I mean, I could go back through the BD threads and find my posts expecting basically everything BD has been revealed to be. Although the "internet marketing" may have portrayed a different picture, the stuff that AMD had on their website seems to pretty accurately reflect the CPU that was released.

But it's not THAT underwhelming compared to the Intel chips...for nearly a year we've had the 1100T vs the 2600K, and AMD still managed to sell many chips, when the 1100T could never really approach the 2600K. Now, in multithreading, the 8150 excels over the 2600K, but because most apps aren't multithreaded, few benefits can be noticed, overall.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 16, 2011)

Some retailers jacked up the price of the Phenom II X6 1100T  You can find the AMD FX 8120 for cheaper.


----------



## Horrux (Oct 16, 2011)

Super XP said:


> Some retailers jacked up the price of the Phenom II X6 1100T  You can find the AMD FX 8120 for cheaper.



Makes perfect sense.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Oct 16, 2011)

Super XP said:


> Some retailers jacked up the price of the Phenom II X6 1100T  You can find the AMD FX 8120 for cheaper.



probably to take advantage to those people who were holding off upgrading and waiting for BD.

BD gets some extremely bad press and all the fan boys who were holding out decide to go with the next best option available....X6 1100T.

any retailer that jacks up prices of older chips to take advantage of the situations like these  deserves to be shutdown.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Oct 16, 2011)

Even after launch....we still don't know bull dozer.


----------



## Altered (Oct 16, 2011)

FreedomEclipse said:


> any retailer that jacks up prices of older chips to take advantage of the situations like these  deserves to be shutdown.



Ill go even further on that. Any business that jacks up prices to take advantage of situations is pretty low in my book. But on the other hand a business in not there to be your friend, no matter what they advertise, they are there to make as much $ as they can. It happens every day look at gas prices or plywood in hurricane situations etc etc etc.


----------



## nt300 (Oct 17, 2011)

Covert_Death said:


> i would say 95% of the software i run is multi-threaded, and i'm certainly not from the future and the software is most certainly already released...
> 
> the two or three video games i play are all multi-threaded games, and i heavily use my machine for CAD rendering...
> 
> ...


Agree, and hoping Piledriver performs better in single threaded apps.


----------



## techtard (Oct 17, 2011)

FreedomEclipse said:


> probably to take advantage to those people who were holding off upgrading and waiting for BD.
> 
> BD gets some extremely bad press and all the fan boys who were holding out decide to go with the next best option available....X6 1100T.
> 
> any retailer that jacks up prices of older chips to take advantage of the situations like these  deserves to be shutdown.



Supply and demand. Basic market principle.


----------



## LordJummy (Oct 17, 2011)

techtard said:


> Supply and demand. Basic market principle.



Are Phenom II's suddenly low in supply? Aren't they still producing them?

I don't think it's as simple as supply vs. demand in this case. Has AMD made any kind of announcements to halt P2 x6 production? I thought that was just a rumor.


----------



## erocker (Oct 17, 2011)

ensabrenoir said:


> Even after launch....we still don't know bull dozer.



Sure we do and it's quite simple. The chip is aptly named. It's big and powerful like a Bulldozer, just not very fast.


----------



## Covert_Death (Oct 17, 2011)

Doesn't have to be lower supply, I bet they are in greater demand then they were a month ago. Nobody was buying them a month ago because everyone was waiting for bd, now everyone is buying them and demand has drastically gone up from a month ago.

I am being dramatic but this is what's happening and why prices have risen


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 17, 2011)

erocker said:


> Sure we do and it's quite simple. The chip is aptly named. It's big and powerful like a Bulldozer, just not very fast.








You'd think people would get it by now...


----------



## LordJummy (Oct 17, 2011)

Covert_Death said:


> Doesn't have to be lower supply, I bet they are in greater demand then they were a month ago. Nobody was buying them a month ago because everyone was waiting for bd, now everyone is buying them and demand has drastically gone up from a month ago.
> 
> I am being dramatic but this is what's happening and why prices have risen



How do you know that Phenom II X6 sales have gone up? I mean how do you know, personally?

Do you have the AMD sales figures?

Also, people who have BD compatible motherboards and are buying phenom II chips are making poor decisions, IMHO.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 17, 2011)

*AMD FX 8150 Underwhelming? I think NOT*

Here is a QUOTE from another site. 
Something is going on with the Motherboards and the Bulldozer CPU. 
This quote seem to make a load of sense. Also no reason to buy a PII when Bulldozer is out.  


> If the chip flops in 2 board brands, and beats Intel in 2 others, then yes, it is the boards that flop the chip.
> *Hardocp*
> http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/10/11/amd_bulldozer_fx8150_gameplay_performance_review/2
> *HardwareHeaven*
> ...


----------



## Ahhzz (Oct 17, 2011)

erocker said:


> Sure we do and it's quite simple. The chip is aptly named. It's big and powerful like a Bulldozer, just not very fast.



Oh that's just WRONG hahahahah   so when you gonna get us a solid FX review, 'Rocker?


----------



## Super XP (Oct 17, 2011)

*AMD FX 8150 Underwhelming? I think NOT*

Funny


----------



## CDdude55 (Oct 17, 2011)

Super XP said:


> Here is a QUOTE from another site.
> Something is going on with the Motherboards and the Bulldozer CPU.
> This quote seem to make a load of sense. Also no reason to buy a PII when Bulldozer is out.



I really don't see what you're saying, those benchmarks are just again proving that if you have a 6 core Phenom II chip you might as well stick with it. 

The BF3 benchmark was the only game that really showed BD in a good light considering it's multithreaded, it also only showed that the peak framerate was better but the average framerate was still only about 3.8% better then Sandy Bridge.

Again, i think it's just people trying to make up excuses again to justify the chips existence/performance.


----------



## erocker (Oct 17, 2011)

Ahhzz said:


> Oh that's just WRONG hahahahah   so when you gonna get us a solid FX review, 'Rocker?



I'm not. I'll just post stuff in the AMD FX clubhouse. I think I have got my issues worked out now I had to do some tweaks in Win 7 to resolve some things but all looks good now. I'm also going to be trying out Windows 8 shortly. 




Super XP said:


> Funny



I suppose I can chuckle a bit that it is ineed underwhelming. It consumes an awful lot of power, sure multicore performance can be good but the cores that make up the multicores are slow. Things can be spun anyway you want, this chip is underwhelming. That being said, it's a blast to overclock and test out other than some of the issues that Windows was giving me with this thing. Multiple installs, even used different versions of Windows 7 and there were always issues in the Event Log. Get the chip and play with it, until then you're kinda just blowing smoke. This chip = underwhelming. I don't see any kind of magical bios or O/S updates that is going to raise this CPU past the status of "underwhelming" either. But.. whatever. This CPU is servicable, it works and you can do things with it for a decent price. I've said my piece here.


----------



## LordJummy (Oct 17, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> I really don't see what you're saying, those benchmarks are just again proving that if you have a 6 core Phenom II chip you might as well stick with it.
> 
> The BF3 benchmark was the only game that really showed BD in a good light considering it's multithreaded, it also only showed that the peak framerate was better but the average framerate was still only about 3.8% better then Sandy Bridge.
> 
> Again, i think it's just people trying to make up excuses again to justify the chips existence/performance.



Your opinion is a bit extremist. There are quite a few benchmarks and games that put it in a favorable light. I think you've made your thoughts on it clear throughout the threads. 

I think that a lot of benchmarks and game results simply showed that a lot of games and benchmarks are old and poorly made. The CPU is doing exactly what it was designed for, and I believe it will continue to improve over the next several months and following years.

The chip has strengths and weaknesses. It's not a total failure. It is actually a really neat CPU. It just has a ton of negative hype all around it, and if people aren't intelligent enough to cut through the crap and see the chip for what it is then that's their problem.

I have one on back order myself. I didn't read too many reviews because I want to try it for myself.


----------



## CDdude55 (Oct 17, 2011)

LordJummy said:


> Your opinion is a bit extremist. There are quite a few benchmarks and games that put it in a favorable light. I think you've made your thoughts on it clear throughout the threads.
> 
> I think that a lot of benchmarks and game results simply showed that a lot of games and benchmarks are old and poorly made. The CPU is doing exactly what it was designed for, and I believe it will continue to improve over the next several months and following years.
> 
> ...



I have seen a few benchmarks and games where Bulldozer does pull ahead, but not enough to make a difference for me to switch CPUs and that's really my only grief, but overall it's not completely terrible. It has been shown over and over again that these chips aren't very good in single threaded applications and that it doesn't get better until the workload gets spread across the cores. You could argue that BD will get better as software starts getting designed with multiple cores/threads in mind, but im still not sure if BD is strong enough to matter by then.

AMD took a brave risk with the new design, i just think it was executed poorly.

With that said as ive said in the past, i too am planning to go Bulldozer at some point, either with the second iteration or if the current line gets better in the future. I'm already running a 990FX board, so im ready when AMD is ready to do better then their current gen Phenom II chips.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 17, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> I really don't see what you're saying, those benchmarks are just again proving that if you have a 6 core Phenom II chip you might as well stick with it.
> 
> The BF3 benchmark was the only game that really showed BD in a good light considering it's multithreaded, it also only showed that the peak framerate was better but the average framerate was still only about 3.8% better then Sandy Bridge.
> 
> Again, i think it's just people trying to make up excuses again to justify the chips existence/performance.


I know Bulldozer is very imature at the moment, my point in that post was websites are starting to re-test Bulldozer and it's performing better than first thought. Is there an issue with the ASUS Crosshair V Formula? Don't know, but what I do know is every single review site got the same package from AMD which included that motherboard, the motherboard I also have pending my Bulldozer purchase.

I suppose in about 2 to 3 weeks we will see more reviews go up with newer updated bioses and different system config's.

Anyhow in regards to those review links, check out the benchmarks, Bulldozer was right up the 2600's alley.


----------



## entropy13 (Oct 18, 2011)

Super XP said:


> Here is a QUOTE from another site.
> Something is going on with the Motherboards and the Bulldozer CPU.
> This quote seem to make a load of sense. Also no reason to buy a PII when Bulldozer is out.



Following your reasoning then, since there's a slight increase in performance of using an ASUS Maximus IV Extreme-Z over the Z68A-GD65 (which was the Sandy Bridge motherboard in the [H] review) they should also retest everything, but with a different board for the AMD and Intel CPUs?


----------



## CDdude55 (Oct 18, 2011)

Super XP said:


> I know Bulldozer is very imature at the moment, my point in that post was websites are starting to re-test Bulldozer and it's performing better than first thought. Is there an issue with the ASUS Crosshair V Formula? Don't know, but what I do know is every single review site got the same package from AMD which included that motherboard, the motherboard I also have pending my Bulldozer purchase.
> 
> I suppose in about 2 to 3 weeks we will see more reviews go up with newer updated bioses and different system config's.
> 
> Anyhow in regards to those review links, check out the benchmarks, Bulldozer was right up the 2600's alley.




I think you're trying to find excuses for the chip since you seem like a heavy AMD fan (just basing it off your past posts), you can't cope with the idea that they won't be as good as Intel's current line of chips so you try to find anything to push the illusion that it's still a good buy against the competition.

Again, saw all those benchmarks, the only thing that is wrong is the CPU their using, the boards are fine. Naturally a different motherboards/BIOS will perform differently, but it still doesn't do anything of significance for the chip, you'd STILL be better off with an old Phenom II or if you really want performance, go Intel.

My system is all AMD, so no bias here, i see the reviews and it's crap. Will it improve?, maybe in the future, but it will take a while, it won't be an overnight BIOS update or motherboard replacement, thats a bunch of bullshit.....


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Oct 18, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> I think you're trying to find excuses for the chip since you seem like a heavy AMD fan (just basing it off your past posts), you can't cope with the idea that they won't be as good as Intel's current line of chips so you try to find anything to push the illusion that it's still a good buy against the competition.
> 
> Again, saw all those benchmarks, the only thing that is wrong is the CPU their using, the boards are fine. Naturally a different motherboards/BIOS will perform differently, but it still doesn't do anything of significance for the chip, you'd STILL be better off with an old Phenom II or if you really want performance, go Intel.
> 
> My system is all AMD, so no bias here, i see the reviews and it's crap. Will it improve?, maybe in the future, but it will take a while, it won't be an overnight BIOS update or motherboard replacement, thats a bunch of bullshit.....



I think with lower prices and a power consumption fix, we could have a contender. I can't see that happening any time before the 8170 though. If even then.


----------



## Goodman (Oct 18, 2011)

FreedomEclipse said:


> any retailer that jacks up prices of older chips to take advantage of the situations like these  deserves to be shutdown.



Twice... just to be sure 

The computer store around here price of the PIIx6 is just under the FX8120 but it cost more then the FX6100 (except for the 1055T) , why am i not surprise?


----------



## CDdude55 (Oct 18, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> I think with lower prices and a power consumption fix, we could have a contender. I can't see that happening any time before the 8170 though. If even then.



I agree.

Anyways keep in mind, i wrote that post that brash mostly cause i'm tired, got home late, so im mad, and then i go on my favorite tech site to find more crap about how there's ''untapped potential'' in Bulldozer. More bullshit about how ''if you make this small tweak, it will change the entire performance of the chip.'' when back in reality it performs like shit and will be shit until they actually focus on the chips themselves, stop blaming the motherboards, stop blaming Windows 7.

Damn i need to sleep, still a bit angry. Be back in the mourning!!


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Oct 18, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> I agree.
> 
> Anyways keep in mind, i wrote that post that brash mostly cause i'm tired, got home late, so im mad, and then i go on my favorite tech site to find more crap about how there's ''untapped potential'' in Bulldozer. More bullshit about how ''if you make this small tweak, it will change the entire performance of the chip.'' when back in reality it performs like shit and will be shit until they actually focus on the chips themselves, stop blaming the motherboards, stop blaming Windows 7.
> 
> Damn i need to sleep, still a bit angry. Be back in the mourning!!



I definitely see where you're coming from man. I expected more from BD too. I still think they have the potential to make something good with the architecture but I would have preferred another delay over what they released.

Have a good night.


----------



## Goodman (Oct 18, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> More bullshit about how ''if you make this small tweak, it will change the entire performance of the chip.'' when back in reality it performs like shit and will be shit until they actually focus on the chips themselves, stop blaming the motherboards, stop blaming Windows 7.
> 
> Damn i need to sleep, still a bit angry. Be back in the mourning!!



No! man you're not sleepy you're well awake , that is what i think also...


----------



## wolf (Oct 18, 2011)

these CPU's should have never been called FX, that name is now forever tainted by this release. the could have done all the dev work and named the chip's just a month or two before release, I have a feeling if it had been done that way they wouldn't be FX CPUs.


----------



## Goodman (Oct 18, 2011)

I found a funny AMD Bulldozer video (not really a Bulldozer still funny )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQWWbr6qKM0&feature=related


----------



## Super XP (Oct 18, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> Following your reasoning then, since there's a slight increase in performance of using an ASUS Maximus IV Extreme-Z over the Z68A-GD65 (which was the Sandy Bridge motherboard in the [H] review) they should also retest everything, but with a different board for the AMD and Intel CPUs?


No why should they, Sandy Bridge is not Brand New Built from the ground up. Bulldozer is. The company to blame for the inconsistenty in performance and incompatability via mobo's and such is AMD period. My issue is people are not giving them credit for putting out innovation and trying something new. 

We all now know the history about why Bulldozer was not as good as we thought. Upper Management made stupid decisions and now AMD is paying for them, hopefully in the short term until Piledriver comes out. 

Bulldozer is far from being a wash though, they may not outperform as much as we would have liked, it's still a great CPU. And it still holds it's ground in gaming along with many other apps, it just needs to be priced about $50 less right now.

As for most of the reviews on October 12, 2011, most if not all need to re-Benchmark Bulldozer with proper updates from scratch.


----------



## AsRock (Oct 18, 2011)

Dr. Zoidberg said:


> http://i.imgur.com/aLPRd.png
> 
> RIP AMD



You better hope that don't happen..


----------



## CDdude55 (Oct 18, 2011)

Super XP said:


> No why should they, Sandy Bridge is not Brand New Built from the ground up. Bulldozer is. The company to blame for the inconsistenty in performance and incompatability via mobo's and such is AMD period. My issue is people are not giving them credit for putting out innovation and trying something new.
> 
> We all now know the history about why Bulldozer was not as good as we thought. Upper Management made stupid decisions and now AMD is paying for them, hopefully in the short term until Piledriver comes out.
> 
> ...



I still disagree, i believe they will need to revise the actual chip design to make a difference in performance, updating the BIOS and swapping out the motherboards isn't the solution for the problem, because the chip is the problem. I commend them on trying a new design, i'm so glad they did cause K10 was ancient.

I'm personally waiting till Piledriver, but if they revise the current generation BD chips, that'd be great too. 

I don't see a point in having all reviewers re-benchmark Bulldozer.


----------



## HalfAHertz (Oct 18, 2011)

Well the best you could hope for is a CPU driver like for the old Athlon x2's and a new stepping. If each of those gave you 3-5% perf. then at least BD would be in the same ballpark as the PhII x6...


----------



## CDdude55 (Oct 18, 2011)

HalfAHertz said:


> Well the best you could hope for is a CPU driver like for the old Athlon x2's and a new stepping. If each of those gave you 3-5% perf. then at least BD would be in the same ballpark as the PhII x6...



True that would help, still wouldn't be a enough to warrant an upgrade from a Phenom II just yet though.

If they can manage to make BD better then their current Phenom II chips at least in multi-threaded applications, only then would that warrant an upgrade for me. If they can keep the price down too along side that, i'd be a winner.

The TDP is also fairly high with BD, i'd also be great if they can lower the power consumption and heat output.

I would of bought one a few days ago at launch if they had done such things.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 18, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> updating the BIOS and swapping out the motherboards isn't the solution for the problem, because the chip is the problem.



Erocker put it best...it IS a bulldozer....massive amounts of power possible, but very slow. 

Put ia big pile of work in front of it, it will push right on through, but small pile isn't going to move any faster than big one.


It almost seems to me like perhaps AMD hoped for something like 5 GHz stock clocks, but fabrication issues prevented that goal from being reached.

To me this makes sense considering that the rumour is that a recent firing @ AMD was due to AMD not securing other foundries i ncase a situation like this happened...plain and simple, AMD didn't have a backup plan.


That said, I'm not going to expect as much as you are from revisions. I expect a die shrink will up clocks, and only at that point will AMD have a good chip, as SKT1155 products won't be the top performer for Intel, SKT2011 will.

So, Intel needs to be SKT1155 only, for the desktop space. Recent news says that Intel is lowering the TDP of 1155 with ivybridge, which could possibly mean that the clocks will not go up much more on 1155, for fear of outshadowing SKT2011.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 19, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> I still disagree, i believe they will need to revise the actual chip design to make a difference in performance, updating the BIOS and swapping out the motherboards isn't the solution for the problem, because the chip is the problem. I commend them on trying a new design, i'm so glad they did cause K10 was ancient.
> 
> I'm personally waiting till Piledriver, but if they revise the current generation BD chips, that'd be great too.
> 
> I don't see a point in having all reviewers re-benchmark Bulldozer.


Well yes I can see them taking Bulldozer's Design and manipulating it with massive tweaking for Piledriver.


----------



## Covert_Death (Oct 19, 2011)

all i gotta say is i really wanna see piledriver more focused on desktop enthusiasts and released Q1 of next year for AM3+

i get that BD was more server focused and thats totally fine but they need to give us desktop enthusiasts something to upgrade too and i really hope it is a much better upgrade when PD comes rolling in to town


----------



## ensabrenoir (Oct 19, 2011)

*5....4...3,,,,2...1*

let the over hyping of pile driver begin!  What harm could it do? 
yep.... intels going down... hard!!!!( going down a road made of cold hard cash cause when you make a Ferrari u can charge  Ferrari prices)


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 19, 2011)

ensabrenoir said:


> let the over hyping of pile driver begin!  What harm could it do?
> yep.... intels going down... hard!!!!( going down a road made of cold hard cash cause when you make a Ferrari u can charge  Ferrari prices)



Problem is this is not a ferrari


----------



## Covert_Death (Oct 19, 2011)

lol im not saying PD is gonna smoke intel... honestly i don't care, but i have an AM3+ board and would like to actually upgrade to something "competitive" if PD offers that on AM3+ then i will get it, if BD gets revised and looks better then i'll upgrade to that, i really don't care how it preforms to intel but how it performs with what i currently have


----------



## Neuromancer (Oct 19, 2011)

Well AMD wont be going anywhere, they still have a strong GPU division. 

As for CPUs, they wont be going anywhere either, in both VLPU and Server segments they have a strong enough base.

Having said that, I hope that they take the criticism, both from review sites, readers, owners and past employee testimony to redouble their efforts and make the next architecture more worthy.  In the mean time they can try and improve on the design issues of the current gen.

The design of BD could be a success if for low threaded say up to for, it actually did use the 256bit FP, and saw a marked increase in performance as a result.

Perhaps it is up to using the right applications to take advantage of the design, as well as fixing the threading issues, I do not know enough. For now at least, until more useful information is out about it, I am holding off and sticking with my Thuban.

What would be interesting is if they released a good 4 core version not based on 2 modules but on 4 modules with 4 of the integer units designed out. (Or is that Llano? I will know soon enough anyway, FM1 board is here and CPU should be soon  )


----------



## Super XP (Oct 19, 2011)

Posted by seronx





> *New things in Piledriver that may be in some or all Piledriver CPUs:*
> Input/Output Memory Management Unit Version 2
> Fused Multiply-Add 3
> Converged Bit Manipulation Instructions
> ...


----------



## Athlonite (Oct 19, 2011)

Why's everyone comparing the power consumption of a 4core to an neutered 8core that's like comparing apples to bananas ofcourse it's going to use more power it's got more actual cores DUH 

evan if it does perform worse watt for watt (that's just bad design)


----------



## Horrux (Oct 19, 2011)

Athlonite said:


> Why's everyone comparing the power consumption of a 4core to an neutered 8core that's like comparing apples to bananas ofcourse it's going to use more power it's got more actual cores DUH
> 
> evan if it does perform worse watt for watt (that's just bad design)



And it also has more than double the total transistors, at a larger process node.


----------



## nt300 (Oct 19, 2011)

> Bulldozer has great power controlling restraints and runs cool. It is when you start Overclocking the processor and upping its core voltage is where you find it sucking back power. The same can be said for SandyBridge and other similarly priced CPU's. We are talking about a very large 2 Billion Transistor CPU with 8-Cores. Run it stock and you got yourself a power saving processor. If you plan on overclocking this processor, then there shouldn't be complaints about power usage.
> 
> Sure AMD could have done a lot better overall with this Bulldozer Micro-Architecture, but unfortunately they've catered the design for the full server/workstation market. *According to recent news via the blogosphere, AMD plans on a complete molestation (Overhaul) of the Bulldozer design for the forthcoming Piledriver Core. This in turn should be enough to keep them quite competitive overall and reclassify Bulldozer II (Piledriver) for the high performance desktop segment. *


Here is the link,
http://www.amazon.com/review/RV7ZTITV8B968/ref=cm_cr_rev_detup_redir?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=FxJHU1JA6RGBGI&cdPage=1&asin=B005UBNKZG&newContentNum=7&store=electronics&cdThread=Tx11VIXKGCH4PMP&newContentID=MxWIFRARWE6PHD#Mx26OZ7SIVR3DOZ


----------



## Covert_Death (Oct 19, 2011)

nt300 said:


> Here is the link,
> http://www.amazon.com/review/RV7ZTITV8B968/ref=cm_cr_rev_detup_redir?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=FxJHU1JA6RGBGI&cdPage=1&asin=B005UBNKZG&newContentNum=7&store=electronics&cdThread=Tx11VIXKGCH4PMP&newContentID=MxWIFRARWE6PHD#Mx26OZ7SIVR3DOZ



this is what i'm hoping for

they obviously focused on servers for BD (which is fine) so i hope they shift gears and focus on Enthusiast desktop for PD!


----------



## LordJummy (Oct 19, 2011)

If you were waiting all that time for BD, and now you are going to keep waiting again for PD you are basically the definition of insanity.

This thread should definitely be closed down. I just keep watching the exact same comments back and forth, and it's giving me deja vu to be honest.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Oct 19, 2011)

LordJummy said:


> If you were waiting all that time for BD, and now you are going to keep waiting again for PD you are basically the definition of insanity.
> 
> This thread should definitely be closed down. I just keep watching the exact same comments back and forth, and it's giving me deja vu to be honest.



You do realize that you have complete freedom not to click on the thread right?  With Piledriver and IB launching around the same time, I have no problem stretching out my Phenom II until then.


----------



## naoan (Oct 19, 2011)

LordJummy said:


> If you were waiting all that time for BD, and now you are going to keep waiting again for PD you are basically the definition of insanity.
> 
> This thread should definitely be closed down. I just keep watching the exact same comments back and forth, and it's giving me deja vu to be honest.



Every Bulldozer thread give me that 

Well, once there's one with link to bigfoot sighting, that was pretty fresh actually


----------



## Covert_Death (Oct 19, 2011)

same here... i have an 990FX board so i will get the best chip that will fit it, and PD is pretty close, what i won't do is buy another MOBO anytime soon, but im not going to buy BD then a few months later want PD... that is insanity


----------



## LordJummy (Oct 19, 2011)

Covert_Death said:


> same here... i have an 990FX board so i will get the best chip that will fit it, and PD is pretty close, what i won't do is buy another MOBO anytime soon, but im not going to buy BD then a few months later want PD... that is insanity



You are just further proving what I said. You wait for BD which fails (in so many ways), you continue to wait for the next release from the same company expecting different results. What makes you think the next release is going to be all good when their last several releases were mediocre at best? Interesting...

Do you ever want to stop waiting and start doing?


----------



## BrooksyX (Oct 19, 2011)

LordJummy said:


> You are just further proving what I said. You wait for BD which fails (in so many ways), you continue to wait for the next release from the same company expecting different results. What makes you think the next release is going to be all good when their last several releases were mediocre at best? Interesting...
> 
> Do you ever want to stop waiting and start doing?



Agreed playing the waiting game is just an endless cycle. Either get a current bulldozer or sell your stuff and jump to sandybridge.


----------



## erocker (Oct 19, 2011)

BrooksyX said:


> Agreed playing the waiting game is just an endless cycle. Either get a current bulldozer or sell your stuff and jump to sandybridge.



..or buy a 1090t. Dirt cheap 6 core and it will do what you need.


----------



## CDdude55 (Oct 19, 2011)

erocker said:


> ..or buy a 1090t. Dirt cheap 6 core and it will do what you need.



Already have a 1055T, and already have a 990FX board so i'm waiting for PD or current gen BD revisions. 

I don't have money to spend on both a BD and SB platform like you do.


----------



## erocker (Oct 19, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> Already have a 1055T, and already have a 990FX board so i'm waiting for PD or current gen BD revisions.
> 
> I don't have money to spend on both a BD and SB platform like you do.



Okay... a 1055T is fine


----------



## CDdude55 (Oct 19, 2011)

erocker said:


> Okay... a 1055T is fine



lol, just throwing it out there that i pretty much have to stick with the platform i picked, so i'm still in hopes BD will get better.


----------



## erocker (Oct 19, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> lol, just throwing it out there that i pretty much have to stick with the platform i picked, so i'm still in hopes BD will get better.



I don't think I was talking to you. Maybe I was. Bah, I don't care. This thread is stale anyways man.


----------



## Covert_Death (Oct 19, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> lol, just throwing it out there that i pretty much have to stick with the platform i picked, so i'm still in hopes BD will get better.



this^

this is why i don't mind waiting for PD, im not playing the waiting game, im just waiting for the best option for my MoBo... i upgraded to a 990FX because i needed a new MoBo but couldn't really afford another CPU at the same time so i had to get something that would work with my PII, now that things are settling down for me a bit i would like to eventually upgrade my CPU but i don't want to have to replace my MOBO to do that since i just got this one, BD seemed like the right choice before it released but its just not enough to push me to do it at this time, so maybe when PD is released in a few months it will be, or a revision of BD...

either way i want to use my AM3+ board so whatever chip entices me the most i will get


----------



## LordJummy (Oct 19, 2011)

Covert_Death said:


> this^
> 
> this is why i don't mind waiting for PD, im not playing the waiting game, im just waiting for the best option for my MoBo... i upgraded to a 990FX because i needed a new MoBo but couldn't really afford another CPU at the same time so i had to get something that would work with my PII, now that things are settling down for me a bit i would like to eventually upgrade my CPU but i don't want to have to replace my MOBO to do that since i just got this one, BD seemed like the right choice before it released but its just not enough to push me to do it at this time, so maybe when PD is released in a few months it will be, or a revision of BD...
> 
> either way i want to use my AM3+ board so whatever chip entices me the most i will get



Either way, what do these thinking out loud posts have anything to do with "Review Consensus: AMD FX Processor 8150 underwhelming" ?


----------



## Covert_Death (Oct 19, 2011)

LordJummy said:


> Either way, what do these thinking out loud posts have anything to do with "Review Consensus: AMD FX Processor 8150 underwhelming" ?



lol absolutely nothing.

unless you consider the fact that since reviews were underwhelming it gives motivation to possibly wait for PD if waiting for a AM3+ chip haha


----------



## Super XP (Oct 19, 2011)

> AMD plans on a complete molestation (Overhaul) of the Bulldozer design for the forthcoming Piledriver Core. This in turn should be enough to keep them quite competitive overall and reclassify Bulldozer II (Piledriver) for the high performance desktop segment.


It would be nice to get some confirmation about this overhaul. Are they talking about the Socket AM3+ 8-Core Piledriver or the 10-Core Piledriver for Socket FM2 that is said to get released sometime in 2013?


----------



## btarunr (Oct 19, 2011)

Super XP said:


> It would be nice to get some confirmation about this overhaul. Are they talking about the Socket AM3+ 8-Core Piledriver or the 10-Core Piledriver for Socket FM2 that is said to get released sometime in 2013?



AMD in its own presentation told us to expect just about 10% performance improvement overall between Bulldozer and Piledriver.


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Oct 19, 2011)

... and that 10% gain was *speculative* and shown as a performance/watt improvement. Therefore, raw performance might be less than 10%, ie, could be as low as 0%


----------



## nt300 (Oct 19, 2011)

btarunr said:


> AMD in its own presentation told us to expect just about 10% performance improvement overall between Bulldozer and Piledriver.


You mean 10% increase not including Bulldozer's fixes that it needs. If they mean 10% after BD's fixes then they call this Piledriver, then Houston, we have a problem.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 19, 2011)

nt300 said:


> You mean 10% increase not including Bulldozer's fixes that it needs. If they mean 10% after BD's fixes then they call this Piledriver, then Houston, we have a problem.


I bloody hope not, it better be Bulldozer fixes, make it run the way it was meant to run, then only then squeeze out ANOTHER 10% gto 15% and call that Piledriver. If not then I am afraid of Intel once again  AMD


----------



## Robotguts (Oct 26, 2011)

*BulDozers Now on sale @ PCCG FOR $259.00*

As of Today....26/10/11

 *BulDozer*         PCCG has now on for sale 1st Batch,

 AMD FX-8120 8-Core Processor	 $259.00
 AMD FX-6100 6-Core Processor      $215.00


:cry:http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=18658


----------



## Athlonite (Oct 26, 2011)

8 out of 11 etailers here are saying out of stock 

AMD FX-Series FX-8150 3.6GHz Socket AM3+ Box	$394.44

AMD FX-Series FX-8120 3.1GHz Socket AM3+ Box	$328.43

AMD FX-Series FX-6100 3.3GHz Socket AM3+ Box	$277.14

AMD FX-Series FX-4100 3.6GHz Socket AM3+ Box $195.00


----------



## Neuromancer (Oct 26, 2011)

Robotguts said:


> As of Today....26/10/11
> 
> *BulDozer*         PCCG has now on for sale 1st Batch,
> 
> ...



Fixed that for you.

Next time no point in giant sizing the font or changing the color (lol changing hte color of hyperlinks tee hee) All you succeeded in doing was making a large font broken looking hyperlink.

Though I gotta admit why was the end colon of your emoticon orange instead of red???


----------



## Neuromancer (Oct 26, 2011)

Super XP said:


> I bloody hope not, it better be Bulldozer fixes, make it run the way it was meant to run, then only then squeeze out ANOTHER 10% gto 15% and call that Piledriver. If not then I am afraid of Intel once again  AMD



No need to be afraid. 

Intel is usually the performance king.  those people that cry "AMD better produce or are dead in 2 years" have been saying the same thing for 30 years. Ignore the morons.


With the reintroduction of RISC based processing and the improvements in GPGPU usage, it will be interesting to see how computers evolve over the next decade TBH.

Will we be running 80 core processors in 10 years? I think so, of course they will be risc based ARM driven units that require a .5W of power at load per core. And another 50-80W for interface. No to little cache as RAM will again be circumstantially pushed to new levels and looser timings. DDR6 running at 8,000 mhz effective (1,000 mhz actual) at 10-10-10 and latencies still in the 40-50ns range in octachannel unit running on a 256bit bus.. (cuz it will be intel powering it and we know they love bus limiting their stuff)

*sigh


----------

