# AMD FX 8150 Looks Core i7-980X and Core i7 2600K in the Eye: AMD Benchmarks



## btarunr (Sep 24, 2011)

The bets are off, it looks like Intel is in for a price-performance shock with AMD's Bulldozer, after all. In the press deck of AMD FX Processor series leaked by DonanimHaber ahead of its launch, AMD claims huge performance leads over Intel. To sum it up, AMD claims that its AMD FX 8150 processor is looking Intel's Core i7-980X in the eye in game tests, even edging past it in some DirectX 11 titles. 

It is performing on par with the Core i7-2600K in several popular CPU benchmarks such as WinRAR 4, X.264 pass 2, Handbrake, 7Zip, POV Ray 3.7, ABBYY OCR, wPrime 32M, and Bibble 5.0. AMD FX 8150 is claimed to be genuinely benefiting from the FMA4 instruction set that Sandy Bridge lacks, in the OCL Performance Mandelbrot test, the FX 8150 outperforms the i7-2600K by as much as 70%. Lastly, the pricing of the FX 8150 is confirmed to be around the $250 mark. Given this, and the fact that the Core i7-2600K is priced about $70 higher, Intel is in for a price-performance shock.



 

 

 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Sep 24, 2011)

But will it blend??


----------



## btarunr (Sep 24, 2011)

FreedomEclipse said:


> But will it blend??



Yes, it will blend, its Blender rendering performance should be comparable to Core i7-990X.


----------



## chrone (Sep 24, 2011)

it's about time! yay


----------



## LifeOnMars (Sep 24, 2011)

Oh My....good news  More benchmarks please!!


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Sep 24, 2011)

still be interested in how it overclocks though. stock performance is nice and all, but were not in the habbit of not tickering here


----------



## Frick (Sep 24, 2011)

If this is accurate.. Sweet times ahead.


----------



## Melvis (Sep 24, 2011)

Surprise!!!!


----------



## naoan (Sep 24, 2011)

finally! or is it?

btw, afaik there's no 990x and the slide says 980x.


----------



## Cybrnook (Sep 24, 2011)

Shabbadooo!!!!


----------



## JrRacinFan (Sep 24, 2011)

If they want to boast numbers, show actual screenshots. Just a few slides does not have me beleiving this.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Sep 24, 2011)

Read more carefully. Out of 8 multithreaded tests the higher clocked 8150 8 core wins in 2 against 2600k. And that's from AMD marketing. In gaming it is compared with 980X which is under 2600-2500 performance in 95% of the games out there, and it is just able to be on par.
Cinebench is a joke, performance is worse than phenom 2 x6. 2600k has a score of 6,8 on stock speed. So look behind the marketing smoke.


----------



## Frick (Sep 24, 2011)

Crap Daddy said:


> Read more carefully. Out of 8 multithreaded tests the higher clocked 8150 8 core wins in 2 against 2600k. And that's from AMD marketing. In gaming it is compared with 980X which is under 2600-2500 performance in 95% of the games out there, and it is just able to be on par.



Considering it was talks about how it would never be able to reach 2600k in anything it's still good news, if true.


----------



## DaJMasta (Sep 24, 2011)

Looks like performance is good - let's hope power efficiency is at least in the neighborhood too.


My question is why the hell does it show memory as 1/2 the price in the example build saying you save $800.  Wouldn't it be more expensive if anything since the memory controller supports higher frequencies officially?  Oh marketing...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 24, 2011)

Chart #1: FX-8150 has a natural clockspeed advantage and the 980X is an old architecture (Gulftown which is based on Bloomfield that is over two years old).  Would have been more fair to leave the 980X out of it but, they did it for a reason (cherry picking).

Chart #2: Why is everything normalized to 2500K?  I'll tell you why, it makes little differences look bigger.  Take with a leathal dose of salt.

Chart #3: Fantastic!  AMD processors work with instructions only their software uses.  Kind of pointless.

Chart #4: Comparing to the most expensive Intel platform (LGA1356) with the second most expensive CPU (980X) proves nothing that isn't already known (its expensive).  If they had a case to argue, they'd be comparing it to the price of a Core i7 2600 system...

To AMD: Give the FX-8150 to someone that isn't you to benchmark.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Sep 24, 2011)

I don't say it's bad news but I would not consider it to be good either. Expectations were very high. It seems that FX is having a fierce competitor in Phenom 2 X6. Would be interesting to have a clock per clock comparison between these 2.


----------



## Frick (Sep 24, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Chart #2: Why is everything normalized to 2500K?  I'll tell you why, it makes little differences look bigger.  Take with a leathal dose of salt.



It also shows where 2600k is so I don't really know what you're talking about here.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 24, 2011)

They should have normalized it to the FX-8150 and/or given the actual numbers instead of percentages.


----------



## naoan (Sep 24, 2011)

Crap Daddy said:


> Cinebench is a joke, performance is worse than phenom 2 x6. 2600k has a score of 6,8 on stock speed. So look behind the marketing smoke.



I may be missing something here, but I don't see any cinebench score on this news...


----------



## mtosev (Sep 24, 2011)

internal amd tests aren't relevant.somebody else who isn't associated with the company should review the cpu


----------



## damric (Sep 24, 2011)




----------



## Frick (Sep 24, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> They should have normalized it to the FX-8150 and/or given the actual numbers instead of percentages.



The first thing wouldn't really matter as the results would still be the same, the second is obvious but that is probably above marketing slides. ^^


----------



## Crap Daddy (Sep 24, 2011)

naoan said:


> I may be missing something here, but I don't see any cinebench score on this news...



Look on the link posted to donanimhaber. There are more slides there.


----------



## btarunr (Sep 24, 2011)

Btw, price confirmation of $245 for the FX8150: 






I'm off for the evening. 

Argue to your heart's content, but please don't flame/get personal. Report comments you don't like.


----------



## Recus (Sep 24, 2011)

Paper benchmarks. I wonder why they didn't include SiSoft Sandra benchmarks?

http://www.legitreviews.com/news/11430/


----------



## Black Hades (Sep 24, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> [...]Chart #3: Fantastic!  AMD processors work with instructions only their software uses.  Kind of pointless. [...]



Intel will introduce hardware FMA3 in 2011 (or later).[link, japanese] These instructions may arrive with the 22 nm process, also slated for march 2012.

FMA4 will be supported in AMD processors from 2011.
AMD will support FMA3 in the future for compatibility reasons if Intel sticks to FMA3 only.[link]

_A member of the Intel forum asked:_
"I have heard that Sandy Bridge won't have FMA implementation." True?
_Answer from an Intel official representative:_
"Sandy Bridge will not have FMA, it's targeted for a future processor. I apologize if there is any confusion I (or Intel) caused. In our defense, we did discuss feature timing in the last two Intel developer forums [...]"


----------



## HTC (Sep 24, 2011)

LifeOnMars said:


> Oh My....good news  *More benchmarks please!!*



All the slides i found on this topic @ XS:


----------



## GSquadron (Sep 24, 2011)

Simply insane xD


----------



## AMDfur (Sep 24, 2011)

Ok, I know now what my next CPU will be. Thanks for sharing the info. Good luck Intel fans.


----------



## RejZoR (Sep 24, 2011)

Now just release the damn thing...


----------



## HTC (Sep 24, 2011)

All i want to know now is:

1 - How will it underclock

2 - When will it be available for purchase in my area


----------



## legends84 (Sep 24, 2011)

ok. I'll go for this.. early next year


----------



## ViperXTR (Sep 24, 2011)

Recus said:


> Paper benchmarks. I wonder why they didn't include SiSoft Sandra benchmarks?
> 
> http://www.legitreviews.com/news/11430/ http://i56.tinypic.com/2e1sp3m.gif


what processor are they exactly comparing? i see 4C/8T but only 6mb cache, isnt the 2600K 3.4Ghz and 8mb cache?


----------



## YautjaLord (Sep 24, 2011)

Finally, some paper numbers; hope it'll be the same when you TPU staff guys bench this monster.  Plus i wonder what mobo they used; i hope it was either Crosshair V Formula or Sabertooth 990FX.


----------



## catnipkiller (Sep 24, 2011)

Oh yes it will run crysis.


----------



## repman244 (Sep 24, 2011)

FX-4170 will be a best for gaming IMO, great price and great clock and same amount of L3 cache as the 8 core model.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Sep 24, 2011)

repman244 said:


> FX-4170 will be a best for gaming IMO, great price and great clock and same amount of L3 cache as the 8 core model.



Unlockable 8 core? Hmmmm


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Sep 24, 2011)

In bit-tech.net reviews of a 990x, they said a 2500k was a little faster when both processors were overclocked. but the 990x's saving grace was when it came to heavy multitasking


----------



## Recus (Sep 24, 2011)

ViperXTR said:


> what processor are they exactly comparing? i see 4C/8T but only 6mb cache, isnt the 2600K 3.4Ghz and 8mb cache?



Probably 2500k.


----------



## Shihab (Sep 24, 2011)

Nah, I'm still sceptic about this. tis hard for me to believe AMD will own intel with a single release. Nope thx, I think I'll wait for a third party benchmarks and reviews.

It would be nice if these benches were accurate though. Wouldn't mind intel pushing down the prices on their sandy bridge to sub $150


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 24, 2011)

Well judging those MARKETING slides I would say AMD hit the spot I figured. About equal with Sandy. Thats about all anyone can ask for honestly. I'm looking forward to the upgrade. Ill take it all with a grain of salt until I see a TPU bench.


----------



## MilkyWay (Sep 24, 2011)

8 cores vs 4 cores i would be surprised they couldn't match the i5 2500k, IMO its bollocks that it needs double the cores to just match it. Im more interested in those 6 core and 4 core bulldozer performance.

Still i call fud on everything until i see multiple random reviewers get their hands on them.


----------



## TRWOV (Sep 24, 2011)

Finally. Although I'll likely wait until the socket change before deciding to upgrade to IB or BD these results are promising and Trinity just got more interesting.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 24, 2011)

MilkyWay said:


> 8 cores vs 4 cores i would be surprised they couldn't match the i5 2500k, IMO its bollocks that it needs double the cores to just match it. Im more interested in those 6 core and 4 core bulldozer performance.
> 
> Still i call fud on everything until i see multiple random reviewers get their hands on them.



One thing ya gotta keep in mind with AMD is they are not real cores as AMD markets them. They are modular. So when you see this whole "8 core vs 4 core" debate its bulls@!t. An AMD 8 core vs a Intel 4 core is equal for all given circumstances.

Even if it was a true 8 core it shouldn't matter to you. All the consumer should care about it bang for the buck. I wouldn't care if it used 50 cores as long as its faster AND cheaper then the last generation.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Sep 24, 2011)

Shihabyooo said:


> Nah, I'm still sceptic about this. tis hard for me to believe AMD will own intel with a single release. Nope thx, I think I'll wait for a third party benchmarks and reviews.
> 
> It would be nice if these benches were accurate though. Wouldn't mind intel pushing down the prices on their sandy bridge to sub $150



Read again between the lines. This is AMD advertising and we don't know if it's true.
It's under sandy bridge in 6 out of eight multithreaded benches. Plus the cinebench which is awfull if true. Hence the price they're asking. In gaming the comparison are made against phenom II x6 1100 and 980x which is slower than sandy when we talk games. The only good thing is high OC potential - hence the OC record presented to the world -


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 24, 2011)

Crap Daddy said:


> Read again between the lines. This is AMD advertising and we don't know if it's true.
> It's under sandy bridge in 6 out of eight multithreaded benches. Plus the cinebench which is awfull if true. Hence the price they're asking. In gaming the comparison are made against phenom II x6 1100 and 980x which is slower than sandy when we talk games. The only good thing is high OC potential - hence the OC record presented to the world -



I count 4 not 6 and its cheaper. So like I said on par with Sandy. Not above. Exactly where AMD should be.


----------



## nINJAkECIL (Sep 24, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> One thing ya gotta keep in mind with AMD is they are not real cores as AMD markets them. They are modular. So when you see this whole "8 core vs 4 core" debate its bulls@!t. An AMD 8 core vs a Intel 4 core is equal for all given circumstances.
> 
> Even if it was a true 8 core it shouldn't matter to you. All the consumer should care about it bang for the buck. I wouldn't care if it used 50 cores as long as its faster AND cheaper then the last generation.



Couldn't agree more than that.
Although I've used Intel cpus for the past 5 years, I'm ready to jump ship if AMD FX 8150 is on par with 2600K.


----------



## TRWOV (Sep 24, 2011)

Recus said:


> Probably 2500k.



2500K is 4C/4T



The 4170 looks interesting: 4 core with 125w TDP? Am I smelling an unlockable FX?


----------



## xenocide (Sep 24, 2011)

I always take performance numbers directly from a marketing department with a quarry full of salt.


----------



## TRWOV (Sep 24, 2011)

Of course, they are cherry picked benchs, maybe at settings that benefit AMD the most but still even if it ends being between Gulftown and Sandy Bridge plus the overclocking potential and the cheaper price, FX is an enticing platform, no doubt, and far from the catastrophic failure that a lot of people though it would be.

Is this keeps up for PD and IB I might buy my first AMD CPU. I'm somewhat tired of having to buy an entire new platform to upgrade.


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 24, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Chart #1: FX-8150 has a natural clockspeed advantage and the 980X is an old architecture (Gulftown which is based on Bloomfield that is over two years old). Would have been more fair to leave the 980X out of it but, they did it for a reason (cherry picking).
> 
> Chart #2: Why is everything normalized to 2500K? I'll tell you why, it makes little differences look bigger. Take with a leathal dose of salt.
> 
> ...



Pretty much everything I was going to say.  The only reason they picked the 980X for the price compare is because it is an Extreme edition and it is $1000.  Compare it to a 2600K build and I bet the numbers are pretty damn close.

And all the talk in the OP about Intel being in for a "Price-performance shock" is hardly accurate.  They possitioned the 2700K in a way that allows them to adjust prices on the 2600K as they wish specifically in preperation for this.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 24, 2011)

Its as fast as a 2500/2600k Way to catch up!!!


----------



## Lionheart (Sep 24, 2011)

Well I know what I will be getting in 3 weeks, fuck yeah I can't wait to sell off my x58 platform + SSD and GTX 580, wooo 

Stop arguing you fagboys


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 24, 2011)

That wasnt hate. Im proud of AMD for doing that! 

Let me ditch the LOL up there! Done.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Sep 24, 2011)

I'm inclined to wait for real reviews with some real benchmarks. On another note, are these 4 cores going to be the same as the "8" core but without the essentially hyperthreading? Making them like the 2500k? Or are their 4 cores going to be really dual cores?


----------



## Jegergrim (Sep 24, 2011)

The fact that AMD succeeded to reach this performance, with this price looks promising for 2012, not lacking a whole year behind intel in tech, I'm anxious to see their piledriver vs ivy bridge, we might finally have good price wars again


----------



## MikeMurphy (Sep 24, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> I'm inclined to wait for real reviews with some real benchmarks. On another note, are these 4 cores going to be the same as the "8" core but without the essentially hyperthreading? Making them like the 2500k? Or are their 4 cores going to be really dual cores?



I agree.  No sense in jumping to conclusions so early.

They market them as 4 module / 8 core.  This is traditionally known as 4 'cores' running 8 threads.

Hopefully the performance scales almost linearly from single-thread to multi-threaded workloads.  The tech makes quite a bit of good sense, just like Intel hyper-threading.


----------



## a_ump (Sep 24, 2011)

This is great, though this simply brings AMD up to par. Maybe with the next family of chips from BD design they'll push past intel. Though my thinking is Intel has things in their possession that is held back incase AMD ever do break ahead of them. I mean with their income and how they've been baby-stepping performance the last 4 years(allowing AMD to catch up), i'd expect some monster to be waiting in the intel dungeon.


----------



## Inceptor (Sep 24, 2011)

So, roughly on par with SB, exactly where AMD needed to be with the 8 core.
AND at a currently cheaper pricepoint than SB, exactly where they needed to be to continue their price/performance buyer aesthetic.
Looks like the right moves have been made.

As for the comparison to the 980X, forget about it, it's just marketing-flashiness ... doesn't matter what field you're in, what industry you're talking about, or what company you're talking about, there's always dumb stuff like that in press packages.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Sep 24, 2011)

Recus said:


> Paper benchmarks. I wonder why they didn't include SiSoft Sandra benchmarks?
> 
> http://www.legitreviews.com/news/11430/ http://i56.tinypic.com/2e1sp3m.gif



For one, all benchies out they are fake (especially sandra) and two, that has to be one of the worst pieces of software ever written.

Also, don't believe that intel plays fair and actually achieves good performance by a good design. They cheat extensively.
http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49


----------



## cdawall (Sep 24, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Chart #2: Why is everything normalized to 2500K? I'll tell you why, it makes little differences look bigger. Take with a leathal dose of salt.



Price point I am sure AMD will probably drop prices in a week or two to hit the $220 price of the 2500K. 



MilkyWay said:


> 8 cores vs 4 cores i would be surprised they couldn't match the i5 2500k, IMO its bollocks that it needs double the cores to just match it. Im more interested in those 6 core and 4 core bulldozer performance.
> 
> Still i call fud on everything until i see multiple random reviewers get their hands on them.



4C/8T these dozer chips are not real 8 core chips.



Recus said:


> Paper benchmarks. I wonder why they didn't include SiSoft Sandra benchmarks?
> 
> http://www.legitreviews.com/news/11430/ http://i56.tinypic.com/2e1sp3m.gif



because sisoft sandra is a big steaming pile of shit. not to mention that has less proof than the AMD slides thats just a damn graph someone made without mentioning which chips they used what memory they used what motherboard they used.


----------



## Rookienoob (Sep 24, 2011)

Now... I wonder how many of the FX-8100's that will run at FX-8120 speeds @ 125W TDP...
It's a 11% speed bump, so at 30% TDP increase isn't totally unrealistic, right?

Considering even 8120's are going to run at 95W eventually, I guess it's not at all impossible.


----------



## DannibusX (Sep 24, 2011)

I was gonna buy a Bulldozer chip regardless, just to support AMD.  I'm glad initial information shows good performance and I can't wait to see TPU's performance reviews.


----------



## BrooksyX (Sep 24, 2011)

Glad to see some real numbers and things a looking good. Don't regret going the 2500k route but if I was upgrading today I would definitely consider Bulldozer!!! Go AMD. Let the price war begin.


----------



## RoutedScripter (Sep 24, 2011)

but, will it run crysis ?


----------



## Inceptor (Sep 24, 2011)

a_ump said:


> This is great, though this simply brings AMD up to par. Maybe with the next family of chips from BD design they'll push past intel. Though my thinking is Intel has things in their possession that is held back incase AMD ever do break ahead of them. I mean with their income and how they've been baby-stepping performance the last 4 years(allowing AMD to catch up), i'd expect some monster to be waiting in the intel dungeon.



AMD won't take the CPU crown away from Intel, unless Intel runs into a wall with their CPU architecture, which is not likely to happen again.

Intel hold back quite often... hyperthreading was introduced with their single core Pentium 4s, but not used again until first gen i3/i5/i7.  They held it in reserve, in case AMD caught up in performace... it was like the hidden not-so-secret nitro system under the hood ready to kick in if there was ever any threat.

Hyperthreading was reintroduced, producing a very large performance boost.

Marketing.

Intel has the money and resources to 'hold things in reserve'.  Tech that we're seeing now, from them, could probably have been produced 2 to 3 years ago.


----------



## semantics (Sep 24, 2011)

mmmmm marketing slides, where they slow jerk to their own performance numbers, Still wonder how it will oc(on air and with all the cores on =p), looks like in the multi threaded department they hit the numbers they wanted ie around sb.


----------



## Steevo (Sep 24, 2011)

If this is true I will need a new motherboard, RAM, and chip. Will a AM2 bracket fit the newer boards?


Wonder if they have hardened their IMC so it will handle 16GB of RAM with good timings.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Sep 24, 2011)

Intel doesn't hold anything back. They are limited by manufacturing and their own big hardheadedness. You can't make chips with 250w TDPs, no one is going to buy them lol.

Hyperthreading was dropped b/c it was crap and didn't work. It was made for marketing since AMD was wiping the floor with them. It still has to be turned off for some apps b/c you'll get negative performance. It was reintroduced once they incorporated it into their uarch and software was optimized. 

Intel isn't comfortable enough to "hold back". You don't spend billions using illegal and unethical business strategies to knock AMD down b/c you're so secure with your prowess. You do it b/c you're scared.


----------



## Benetanegia (Sep 24, 2011)

Wow so they compare gaming performance against the 6 core Extreme chip, which costs 4x more, while being slower than Sandy and they compare multi-threaded performance against 4 core CPUs, where the 6 core chip would be faster, and to top it off it loses in most of them. Really funny. Not. 

I knew it would be a dissapointment and that SB-E and Ivy would eat BD alive.



TheGuruStud said:


> Intel isn't comfortable enough to "hold back". You don't spend billions using illegal and unethical business strategies to knock AMD down b/c you're so secure with your prowess. You do it b/c you're scared.



Intel is definately holding back for the past 2 years at least. There's absolutely no reason they could not release a 3.6-3.8 Ghz SB.

They definately cheated in the P4 era, and I wish they had been punished a lot harder than they were for that, but since Conroe they have been constantly beating AMD over and over.


----------



## cdawall (Sep 24, 2011)

TheGuruStud said:


> Intel doesn't hold anything back. They are limited by manufacturing and their own big hardheadedness. *You can't make chips with 250w TDPs, no one is going to buy them lol.*



thats a dirty lie i would buy several of them.



Benetanegia said:


> I knew it would be a dissapointment and that SB-E and Ivy would eat BD alive.



says who? did you already get SB-E and Ivy benchmarks?


----------



## TheGuruStud (Sep 24, 2011)

cdawall said:


> thats a dirty lie i would buy several of them.



Ok, almost no one


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 24, 2011)

cdawall said:


> 4C/8T these dozer chips are not real 8 core chips.



That isn't what AMD says.  From their own marketting slide: "4 extra cores"...



TheGuruStud said:


> Hyperthreading was dropped b/c it was crap and didn't work. It was made for marketing since AMD was wiping the floor with them. It still has to be turned off for some apps b/c you'll get negative performance. It was reintroduced once they incorporated it into their uarch and software was optimized.



I don't think there is a single app today that HT has to be turned off in.  In fact I had one of the first HT processors, a 478 P4, and never had to turn it off.  There were some apps that ran _slightly_ better with it off, but nothing that was really noticeable.


----------



## Benetanegia (Sep 24, 2011)

cdawall said:


> says who? did you already get SB-E and Ivy benchmarks?



Simple math. 4 core SB matches BD even on multi-threaded apps (and on AMD's own cherry picked benchmarks). 6 cores, a 50% increase in resources, will simply obliterate BD.

Ivy Bridge will probably attain higher clocks, even if it doesn't its die size alone will destroy any real option for AMD to undercut Intel's prices, if so Intel wants. Which will not happen anyway, because Intel needs AMD as a competitor to avoid monopoly.


----------



## nINJAkECIL (Sep 24, 2011)

cdawall said:


> 4C/8T these dozer chips are not real 8 core chips.



I believe these AMD FX cpus with 4 modules are indeed has 8 integer core, not like hyperthreading. In Hyperthreading, 1 core are able to run 2 threads, while in Bulldozer, each interger core (I wouldn't call them only "core"), has their own L1 data cache, and each integer core has its own integer datapath and integer scheduler, while sharing L2 and L3 cache in one module.


----------



## Inceptor (Sep 24, 2011)

TheGuruStud said:


> It was made for marketing since AMD was wiping the floor with them.



Exactly.  Marketing.



TheGuruStud said:


> You don't spend billions using illegal and unethical business strategies to knock AMD down b/c you're so secure with your prowess. You do it b/c you're scared.



Well, I don't know about the 'illegal and unethical' part -- many business strategies can be seen as unethical or in grey areas.  Considering the market share that Intel has, I really don't think they're scared, at all.  A competitor is a competitor, you do what you think is best to make sure they don't cause you to lose money.
The day when corporations act completely upright and ethical is the day hell freezes over 

As for the effectiveness of hyperthreading, it _did_ work, it just did not provide the kind of performance boost seen in current hyperthreading enabled cpus.  Yes, not many applications took advantage of it, but it performed its purpose.  Marketing.
The method was improved, announced, more developers came on-board, etc., performance boost.  Marketing.
Could have been done years sooner, if Intel so chose.  It wasn't necessary, AMD didn't catch up to Conroe.


----------



## Frizz (Sep 24, 2011)

Bahaha, if this is true then AMD just took a huge dump on Intel's mountain of cash. Nothing more satisfying than seeing a midget heabutt a fat guy in the balls.


----------



## Over_Lord (Sep 24, 2011)

But in general applications the FX-8150 can't beat the Core i7 2600k?

That's a shame.


----------



## nINJAkECIL (Sep 24, 2011)

thunderising said:


> But in general applications the FX-8150 can't beat the Core i7 2600k?
> 
> That's a shame.


We don't know for sure until an objective benchmark comes out.
But I do hope that FX 8150 could beat 2600K in some games/apps to lower the price of Intel cpus.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Sep 24, 2011)

I really fail to see where this enthusiasm comes. From their own marketing slides it is obvious that the 8150 is under the 2600K and it should be if they ask 60-70$ less. In gaming Dirt3 and Deus ex (both AMD gaming evolved) they compare it with the 1100T. That's the FX competition, AMD's own Phenom II x6 series. There's no magic trick here.


----------



## cdawall (Sep 24, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> That isn't what AMD says.  From their own marketting slide: "4 extra cores"...



its still only 4 modules. If they do end up working like 8 true cores i will be excited. 



Benetanegia said:


> Simple math. 4 core SB matches BD even on multi-threaded apps (and on AMD's own cherry picked benchmarks). 6 cores, a 50% increase in resources, will simply obliterate BD.
> 
> Ivy Bridge will probably attain higher clocks, even if it doesn't its die size alone will destroy any real option for AMD to undercut Intel's prices, if so Intel wants. Which will not happen anyway, because Intel needs AMD as a competitor to avoid monopoly.



well thats fine this is still a 4 module chip. It may or may not be considered a true 8 core chip in the end. we have also already seen overclocking increase within the AMD generations of chips. Even with intel running a smaller die size AMD has always managed to accomplish more with a larger die than intel. quotes from intel actually stated they could not have done what AMD did with a single 65nm die and phenom I. Prise wise AMD has been the "smart choice" for a while now due to low prices. Hell a 6 core unlocked 1100T for $189 vs a $315 2600K means you could go from a GTX570 to a GTX580 and gain quite a bit more than the CPU performance difference. AMD may not be a full competitor in price but in bang for the buck they are winning.



nINJAkECIL said:


> I believe these AMD FX cpus with 4 modules are indeed has 8 integer core, not like hyperthreading. In Hyperthreading, 1 core are able to run 2 threads, while in Bulldozer, each interger core (I wouldn't call them only "core"), has their own L1 data cache, and each integer core has its own integer datapath and integer scheduler, while sharing L2 and L3 cache in one module.



Its still not a true 8 core in the same sense we are used to.


----------



## heky (Sep 24, 2011)

Ehm...if the slides are true, that means the top bulldozer with its 8 cores and a higher stock clock scores 5.95 points in cinebench(rendering, highly multithreaded) while my 2600K with 4 cores 8 threads at stock scores 6.90.
Bulldozer overclocked to 4.8ghz scores 7.8, while my 2600K @4.8ghz scores 9.38! So much for multithread superiority of BD.


----------



## de.das.dude (Sep 24, 2011)

OH HELL YEAH!!
its AMD!!!


----------



## Crap Daddy (Sep 24, 2011)

cdawall said:


> Hell a 6 core unlocked 1100T for $189 vs a $315 2600K means you could go from a GTX570 to a GTX580 and gain quite a bit more than the CPU performance difference. AMD may not be a full competitor in price but in bang for the buck they are winning.



If you are talking about gaming then no. For 25$ more 2500K smokes the 1100T. So it's not bang for the buck.


----------



## nINJAkECIL (Sep 24, 2011)

cdawall said:


> Its still not a true 8 core in the same sense we are used to.


Exactly. That's why I called them "integer core".
As for AMD marketing people, they would call them "core". Meh.


----------



## Benetanegia (Sep 24, 2011)

cdawall said:


> well thats fine this is still a 4 module chip. It may or may not be considered a true 8 core chip in the end. we have also already seen overclocking increase within the AMD generations of chips. Even with intel running a smaller die size AMD has always managed to accomplish more with a larger die than intel. quotes from intel actually stated they could not have done what AMD did with a single 65nm die and phenom I. Prise wise AMD has been the "smart choice" for a while now due to low prices. Hell a 6 core unlocked 1100T for $189 vs a $315 2600K means you could go from a GTX570 to a GTX580 and gain quite a bit more than the CPU performance difference. AMD may not be a full competitor in price but in bang for the buck they are winning.



Nothing of that changes the fact that SB-E will probably be almost 50% faster than BD. A 2600k costs so much because it has no competition and in fact it really surprised me when I saw that price, since the only CPUs that could compete with SB's introduction, were Intel's own $600+ CPUs.

A 2500k costs a lot less than 2600k and is a lot faster than 1100T. I bought a 2500k and believe me at the time it was by far the smartest choice: cheaper than the 1100T and a hell of a lot faster. Plus 90% of games are probably faster on SB + GTX570 than on 1100T + GTX580. I have no facts to back that up, but stock clocked 2500k + GTX460 is more than 25% faster than the 3.8 Ghz Q6600 + GTX460 setup I had before.



> AMD may not be a full competitor in price but in bang for the buck they are winning.



No. You are winning, AMD definitely is not.


----------



## AhokZYashA (Sep 24, 2011)

good job AMD, 
now I'm off to go buy a 2500k


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Sep 24, 2011)

If this is true it's good news for AMD at their price point.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 24, 2011)

EastCoasthandle said:


> If this is true it's good news for AMD at their price point.



If the prices are true, it's fantastic. Good is an understatement.


----------



## xenocide (Sep 24, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> If the prices are true, it's fantastic. Good is an understatement.



I think the other way.  If the performance is true, it's fantastic.  The price's are pretty much what I expected.


----------



## kid41212003 (Sep 24, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Chart #1: FX-8150 has a natural clockspeed advantage and the 980X is an old architecture (Gulftown which is based on Bloomfield that is over two years old).  Would have been more fair to leave the 980X out of it but, they did it for a reason *(cherry picking)*.
> 
> Chart #2: Why is everything normalized to 2500K?  I'll tell you why, it makes little differences look bigger.  Take with a leathal dose of salt.
> 
> ...



- Cherry pick or not - the chip ran at stock speed... cherrypicked chip doesn't run faster than "normal" chip at same clockspeed just because it was cherrypicked...

- They compared it to 980X because it's the fastest current Intel cpu...

- These benchmarks are pretty legit... why? Because going from 3GHz to 4GHz in games give you like half a frame more.


----------



## heky (Sep 24, 2011)

kid41212003 said:


> - Cherry pick or not - *the chip ran at stock speed*... cherrypicked chip doesn't run faster than "normal" chip at same clockspeed just because it was cherrypicked...
> 
> - They compared it to 980X *because it's the fastest current Intel* cpu...
> 
> - These benchmarks are pretty legit... why? *Because going from 3GHz to 4GHz in games give you like half a frame more.*



1. Wrong, read the slides again. In some tests it was stock, but on some it was oc`d.

2. Wrong, at least not in games.

3. Wrong again. Where do you get those statements?


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Sep 24, 2011)

heky said:


> Ehm...if the slides are true, that means the top bulldozer with its 8 cores and a higher stock clock scores 5.95 points in cinebench(rendering, highly multithreaded) while my 2600K with 4 cores 8 threads at stock scores 6.90.
> Bulldozer overclocked to 4.8ghz scores 7.8, while my 2600K @4.8ghz scores 9.38! So much for multithread superiority of BD.



If you are talking about the Legitreview "leak" then they aren't even remotely true. If true was a city, that post would be on Pluto's dark side. The beauty of that post was not only was it complete BS someone made up and that its obvious BS, is that neither "tested" chip completely conforms to their specs.



Benetanegia said:


> Nothing of that changes the fact that SB-E will probably be almost 50% faster than BD. A 2600k costs so much because it has no competition and in fact it really surprised me when I saw that price, since the only CPUs that could compete with SB's introduction, were Intel's own $600+ CPUs.
> 
> A 2500k costs a lot less than 2600k and is a lot faster than 1100T. I bought a 2500k and believe me at the time it was by far the smartest choice: cheaper than the 1100T and a hell of a lot faster. Plus 90% of games are probably faster on SB + GTX570 than on 1100T + GTX580. I have no facts to back that up, but stock clocked 2500k + GTX460 is more than 25% faster than the 3.8 Ghz Q6600 + GTX460 setup I had before.
> 
> No. You are winning, AMD definitely is not.



I am not sure what old comparisons have to do with anything? Or comparisons to produces not out that will likely have the same $600 price tags as well.



AhokZYashA said:


> good job AMD,
> now I'm off to go buy a 2500k



Shop for a good bargin as prices can fluctuate based on the store.


----------



## heky (Sep 24, 2011)

TheLaughingMan said:


> If you are talking about the Legitreview "leak" then they aren't even remotely true. If true was a city, that post would be on Pluto's dark side. The beauty of that post was not only was it complete BS someone made up and that its obvious BS, is that neither "tested" chip completely conforms to their specs.



Nope, i am talking about the AMD slides from donanimhaber, the source we are comenting in this thread!


----------



## cdawall (Sep 24, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> Nothing of that changes the fact that SB-E will probably be almost 50% faster than BD. A 2600k costs so much because it has no competition and in fact it really surprised me when I saw that price, since the only CPUs that could compete with SB's introduction, were Intel's own $600+ CPUs.



How about the fact that nothing except for core 2 has ever been "50%" faster than the last gen and even then it wasn't "50%" faster than the first set of core architecture chips.


Benetanegia said:


> A 2500k costs a lot less than 2600k and is a lot faster than 1100T. I bought a 2500k and believe me at the time it was by far the smartest choice: cheaper than the 1100T and a hell of a lot faster. Plus 90% of games are probably faster on SB + GTX570 than on 1100T + GTX580. I have no facts to back that up, but stock clocked 2500k + GTX460 is more than 25% faster than the 3.8 Ghz Q6600 + GTX460 setup I had before.



I have been an AMD fan for a while now as everyone on here knows however. I still argue off of what i own in games i noticed no difference between a >4ghz clocked xeon 4c/8t with faster ram and my 1090T @4ghz. I have not personally played the new SB chips nor do i care too there is not enough performance gain. Your Q6600 having a crap FSB setup probably accounts for 90% of your speed increase.



Benetanegia said:


> No. You are winning, AMD definitely is not.



AMD can if this launch is done correctly. All they have to do is get a hold of more than HP/Compaq and Acer. You would be surprised the number of inexpensive machines sold vs expensive ones at BBY. If I had to choose between an Acer quad core AMD and Dell quad core Intel both with IGP's I am sorry but the AMD/Ati package makes more sense to me even if I loose 10-20% cpu performance I gain all of that back in GPU performance. Think that doesn't sell? your wrong.



heky said:


> 3. Wrong again. Where do you get those statements?



in his defense that depends on the game and it could in fact be half a frame more


----------



## LiveOrDie (Sep 24, 2011)

Nice AMDs matching a 3 year old socket only time will tell


----------



## heky (Sep 24, 2011)

cdawall said:


> I have been an AMD fan for a while now as everyone on here knows however. I still argue off of what i own in games i noticed no difference between a >4ghz clocked xeon 4c/8t with faster ram and my 1090T @4ghz. I have not personally played the new SB chips nor do i care too there is not enough performance gain. Your Q6600 having a crap FSB setup probably accounts for 90% of your speed increase.



If YOU cant notice a difference, that doesnt mean its not there. Not by a long shot.


----------



## Dent1 (Sep 24, 2011)

Live OR Die said:


> Nice AMDs matching a 3 year old socket only time will tell



What has the socket got to do with anything? AMD is matching Intels latest i7 2600k which came out this year in January 9, 2011.

Stop making excuse and give AMD some applause.


----------



## kid41212003 (Sep 24, 2011)

I'm trading my Intel setup for Bulldozer.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Sep 24, 2011)

Live OR Die said:


> Nice AMDs matching a 3 year old socket only time will tell



Cause its the socket that has all the power.


----------



## Shihab (Sep 24, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> Stop making excuse and give AMD some applause.



Applause for what ? A self-claimed increase in performance against dated hardware ? Or maybe it's outstanding value compared to a niche product aimed for a very limited section of the market ?
You should know better than to believe companies self-made benchmarks. Just wait for a unbiased source to do a review on them. If these numbers turn out to be accurate (against rivalling products from the same class/price range) then I'll clap my hands till they bleed.

^ Really, is it possible to do that ?


----------



## reverze (Sep 24, 2011)

ill be getting a bulldozer next month  gonna save money on the CPU and not to mention the mainboard also for top performance ( more than i even need )


----------



## erocker (Sep 24, 2011)

JrRacinFan said:


> If they want to boast numbers, show actual screenshots. Just a few slides does not have me beleiving this.



I don't even care about screenshots. Show BD vs. 980x vs. 2500/2600K in gaming. Hmmm, what will come out on top? I already know. 

Judging by the few gaming benchmarks (especially F1 2010) it looks like BD's IMC is just a bit behind Intel's older gen. i7.

It's going to be a great chip for the price.



newtekie1 said:


> That isn't what AMD says. From their own marketting slide: "4 extra cores"...



They can speak all the marketing jargon they want. Performance wise the chip either is bad at multi threading "real" cores or, it's really good "hyper threading".


----------



## cdawall (Sep 24, 2011)

heky said:


> If YOU cant notice a difference, that doesnt mean its not there. Not by a long shot.



Never said there was no difference. Said to my eyes I could not tell. Was playing @1080p on a projector so that may have hidden some.


----------



## NC37 (Sep 24, 2011)

Like you'd expect AMD internal benching to be completely accurate. Stop getting your undies sweaty over this. You all wanted benches and now your complaining cause they aren't independent. But AMD did give you benches finally.

Performance is on par with what I was expecting. Something that can put them in the range of i7, even if low end, and something better than i5. Truthfully that is all that matters is that they at least have something they can be competitive with. 

In the end, FX will probably be akin to the Radeon 3870. It couldn't beat NV but it got in at a price point which saved ATI till 4k series. As I said before, I'd be more interested in Piledriver than BD. BD to me seemed like a small step up from Phenoms while PD was looking to change more things.

Let the stopgap wars begin!


----------



## Benetanegia (Sep 24, 2011)

cdawall said:


> How about the fact that nothing except for core 2 has ever been "50%" faster than the last gen and even then it wasn't "50%" faster than the first set of core architecture chips.



And that has nothing to do with what I said. SB-E will have 50% more cores and will be 50% faster than SB in multi-threaded apps. Fact.

BD seems to be on par with SB. Fact(?) according to AMD's internal benchmarks.

A+B= SB-E will be 50% faster than BD at least in those apps where BD is faster, due to having more cores. 

SB-E is NOT the next gen. It's the high-end part of the current gen, while SB was the mid-range. It should have been obvious considering the prices for SB.



> I have been an AMD fan for a while now as everyone on here knows however. I still argue off of what i own in games i noticed no difference between a >4ghz clocked xeon 4c/8t with faster ram and my 1090T @4ghz. I have not personally played the new SB chips nor do i care too there is not enough performance gain. Your Q6600 having a crap FSB setup probably accounts for 90% of your speed increase.



PII was never much faster than Intel's Conroe. If a huge difference exists between Conroe and SB, it also exists between SB and PII. Many TPUers went to SB from PII's and have accounted for this massive difference. I guess it's good for you that you don't?



> AMD can if this launch is done correctly. All they have to do is get a hold of more than HP/Compaq and Acer. You would be surprised the number of inexpensive machines sold vs expensive ones at BBY. If I had to choose between an Acer quad core AMD and Dell quad core Intel both with IGP's I am sorry but the AMD/Ati package makes more sense to me even if I loose 10-20% cpu performance I gain all of that back in GPU performance. Think that doesn't sell? your wrong.



Oh sure IF they can snatch those vendors, but that's a big if because Intel can always undercut AMD's price where required. 

And BD does not have IGP so I don't know wtf are you saying there. SB on the other hand does have IGP, which is why it will most probably win all those vendors. Ivy will have an even better IGP.

Llanos and Piledrivers sure, but that's a story for another day. We are discussing Bulldozer.


----------



## Dent1 (Sep 24, 2011)

Shihabyooo said:


> Applause for what ? A self-claimed increase in performance against dated hardware ?





Shihabyooo said:


> Or maybe it's outstanding value compared to a niche product aimed for a very limited section of the market ??




So which hardware should they have review it against 


So the i5 2500k and i7 2600k which came out this year are dated?



Shihabyooo said:


> You should know better than to believe companies self-made benchmarks. Just wait for a unbiased source to do a review on them. If these numbers turn out to be accurate (against rivalling products from the same class/price range) then I'll clap my hands till they bleed.



Obviously the benchmarks are somewhat bias they are from AMD. But we can only go by the information we have at the moment whether true or not - and the information which we have right now is the AMD Bulldozer is the superior CPU. Until unbiased AMD reviews become available AMD deserve the benefit of the doubt and some applause. Let them have their victory until a unaffiliated website gets a chance to review it.


----------



## Benetanegia (Sep 24, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> So which hardware should they have review it against



Sandy Bridge. But in every benchmark, not only in those where it could win, while using an old and expensive CPU for gaming benchmarks and then say something as stupid as "$800 doesn't buy much in terms of performance improvement." God, stfu AMD and use a 2500k, then try to make the same claim with a straight face.


----------



## Dent1 (Sep 24, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> Sandy Bridge. But in every benchmark, not only in those where it could win, while using an old and expensive CPU for gaming benchmarks and then say something as stupid as "$800 doesn't buy much in terms of performance improvement." God, stfu AMD and use a 2500k, then try to make the same claim with a straight face.



Yes it would be nice to see Sandybridge in every benchmark and AMD's quotes were in bad taste. 

However, a few days ago the same people in this forum were saying Bulldozer will be slower than Sandybridge. Heck you guys were saying Bulldozer wouldnt touch any of the i7/i5 family including the Gulftown. The fact Bulldozer has been seen atleast on a FEW occassions to beat out Sandybridge (even if was cherrypicked results) demonstrated that AMD still proved you guys wrong.

Edit:



Shihabyooo said:


> The Xeon 5150 and the i7 980x are..




Maybe so, but the 2500k and 2600k not old 




Shihabyooo said:


> I would've given them that, if they hadn't called the 6990 "the world's fastest graphics card" :shadedshu .



That has nothing to do with Sandybridge vs Bulldozer. Stay on topic.


----------



## Shihab (Sep 24, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> So which hardware should they have review it against





Benetanegia said:


> Sandy Bridge. But in every benchmark, not only in those where it could win, while using an old and expensive CPU for gaming benchmarks and then say something as stupid as "$800 doesn't buy much in terms of performance improvement." God, stfu AMD and use a 2500k, then try to make the same claim with a straight face.


^ this



Dent1 said:


> So the i5 2500k and i7 2600k which came out this year are dated?


The Xeon 5150 and the i7 980x are.



Dent1 said:


> Obviously the benchmarks are somewhat bias they are from AMD. But we can only go by the information we have at the moment whether true or not - and the information which we have right now is the AMD Bulldozer is the superior CPU. Until unbiased AMD reviews become available AMD deserve the benefit of the doubt and some applause. Let them have their victory until a unaffiliated website gets a chance to review it.



I would've given them that, if they hadn't called the 6990 "the world's fastest graphics card" :shadedshu .


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Sep 24, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> stfu AMD and use a 2500k



They did and a 2600k or did you just decide to omit that because you felt like it? 

Jesus, I can't wait until BD is released so all the fanboyism (from both sides) will stop, and as has been the case with AMD for the last 5 years even if they don't take the performance crown from the prices they are going to go for should be about right for the performance they give.


----------



## erocker (Sep 24, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> Yes it would be nice to see Sandybridge in every benchmark and AMD's quotes were in bad taste.
> 
> However, a few days ago the same people in this forum were saying Bulldozer will be slower than Sandybridge. Heck you guys were saying Bulldozer wouldnt touch any of the i7/i5 family including the Gulftown. The fact Bulldozer has been seen atleast on a FEW occassions to beat out Sandybridge (even if was cherrypicked results) demonstrated that AMD still proved you guys wrong.



With things like gaming and other things where more memory bandwith is utilized, AMD FX series is slower. How much will remain to be seen. A comparison of a SB rig vs. a BD rig running CrossFire or SLi will clearly show this. That being said, BD is a winner at its price point.


----------



## RoutedScripter (Sep 24, 2011)

mtosev said:


> internal amd tests aren't relevant.somebody else who isn't associated with the company should review the cpu



no brainer


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Sep 24, 2011)

erocker said:


> With things like gaming and other things where more memory bandwith is utilized, AMD FX series is slower. How much will remain to be seen. A comparison of a SB rig vs. a BD rig running CrossFire or SLi will clearly show this. That being said, BD is a winner at its price point.



Even I will have to watch for TPU to see BD in Crossfire.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Sep 24, 2011)

8 cores needed to beat 4 cores? hahahahahahahaha


----------



## de.das.dude (Sep 24, 2011)

nvidiaintelftw said:


> 8 cores needed to beat 4 cores? hahahahahahahaha



the haha is 4 cores cost more than 3times of 8 cores. shows how you are getting ripped off.


----------



## Dent1 (Sep 24, 2011)

nvidiaintelftw said:


> 8 cores and 8 threads needed to beat 6 cores and 12 threads hahahahahahahaha



I fixed it


----------



## erocker (Sep 24, 2011)

TheLaughingMan said:


> Even I will have to watch for TPU to see BD in Crossfire.



Hopefully it will be done, but if not I will post results.


----------



## cdawall (Sep 24, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> And that has nothing to do with what I said. SB-E will have 50% more cores and will be 50% faster than SB in multi-threaded apps. Fact.



NO, NOT all multithreaded apps are the same, SB will not be faster in the vast majority which cap out at 4 cores. It will not be faster in any of those same games, etc.  You are also assuming multithreading is linear. It is not take cinebench a "normal HT-less" quad will often score 3.79X when multithreaded vs a single core. thats not 100% scaling just incase your math needs help.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Sep 24, 2011)

de.das.dude said:


> the haha is 4 cores cost more than 3times of 8 cores. shows how you are getting ripped off.



uhhh if my math is correct $219 is not 3x more then $245


----------



## cdawall (Sep 24, 2011)

nvidiaintelftw said:


> uhhh if my math is correct $219 is not 3x more then $245



if my math is correct they were trading blows. wait lets use your logic intel is probably still faster at superpi no matter what. better chip cause of it right?


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Sep 24, 2011)

cdawall said:


> if my math is correct they were trading blows.



yeah but he was like 4 cores that a priced 3x higher then 8 cores shows how much you got ripped off.


----------



## Benetanegia (Sep 24, 2011)

NdMk2o1o said:


> They did and a 2600k or did you just decide to omit that because you felt like it?
> 
> Jesus, I can't wait until BD is released so all the fanboyism (from both sides) will stop, and as has been the case with AMD for the last 5 years even if they don't take the performance crown from the prices they are going to go for should be about right for the performance they give.



Oh I must be blind, or maybe you can't read my post. This is not meant to be offensive, it's just that either of us is reading something wrong.

Show me the benchmark where BD is put against SB (2500k or 2600k I don't care) in *gaming* benchmarks. I can't find that chart. They deliberately used the slower and much more expensive 980X for gaming and the fewer core SB for multi-threaded apps. Also whenever price or perf/price is mentioned, the 980X is again used, instead of the faster and far far cheaper SB.


----------



## Dent1 (Sep 24, 2011)

Benetanegia. But that only holds true for gaming.

Putting gaming aside until we have better gaming benchmarks available. We all know the 980X is faster than the Sandybridge overall (due to additional cores/threads/cache).

It is clear the Bulldozer is as faster than the 980X, thus the Sandybridge overall. Again putting gaming aside.

Considering that gaming is just 1 cateogry, it's fair to say the Bulldozer is faster than the Sandybridge overall and is the more well rounded choice according to the information we have right now.


----------



## Benetanegia (Sep 24, 2011)

cdawall said:


> NO, NOT all multithreaded apps are the same, SB will not be faster in the vast majority which cap out at 4 cores. It will not be faster in any of those same games, etc.  You are also assuming multithreading is linear. It is not take cinebench a "normal HT-less" quad will often score 3.79X when multithreaded vs a single core. thats not 100% scaling just incase your math needs help.



You just proved my point thanks. In any and every benchmark where Bulldozer is faster because it's 8 cores supose an advantage over less cores, SB-E will necessarily be (almost) 50% faster than SB. ANY code capable of extracting the most out of an 8 core CPU will ALWAYS extract the same, most probably MORE, performance out of 6 cores. If in those same benchmarks, the 8 core BD is just as fast as the 4 core SB, it will necessarily be almost 50% slower than the 6 core SB.



Dent1 said:


> Benetanegia. But that only holds true for gaming.
> 
> Putting gaming aside until we have better gaming benchmarks available. We all know the 980X is faster than the Sandybridge overall (due to additional cores/threads/cache).
> 
> ...



That's irrelevant. AMD clearly used SB and the 980X in the way they did (that is, where they are respectively weaker), because that's the only way to show BD in a "good light". Otherwise they would have been consistent on using either the 2500k, 2600k or 980X for every benchmark.

- If they had used 2500k the price/perf argument would be invalidated, especially in gaming, where the 2500k would be faster AND cheaper, which is why they didn't do that direct comparison.

- If they used 2600k it would have been a close fight in price/perf in almost all categories, according to AMD's own benchmarks. But the only thing Intel would need to do is lower 2600k price. Matching is bad when you opponent can price you out f the market if so he wishes.

-  If they had used the 980X in multi-threaded benchmarks a 2 year old architecture would have consistenly beaten BD, which would not be good marketing.


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 24, 2011)

In the anandtech article on SB, the 980 loses 7 out of ten tests to the core i7 2500 and i7 2600 (in gaming).  To be honest guys, it's a marketing gimmick.  If it shows the BD barely beating the 980, then it clearly by logic is a long way off beating SB.

That being said, the 980 bested SB on two runs of Civ V (heavily core dependent) and DA:O.

There is no point comparing BD with the 980 as it is an obsolete chip for most people.  The 980 (like SB-E) is a part designed for heavy multi threaded use and in particular workstations.  If BD beats the SB architecture at heavy multi-tasking then it's good for AMD.  But it's a bit poo for the desktop gamers (most of whom are arguing here).  If a cheaper core i7 2500 can beat an i7 980 gaming (which has been shown by AMD's own slide to beat BD in most gaming cases shown) then BD coming in at more than a 2500 is bad for AMD.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/...core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/20


----------



## HalfAHertz (Sep 24, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> You just proved my point thanks. In any and every benchmark where Bulldozer is faster because it's 8 cores supose an advantage over less cores, SB-E will necessarily be (almost) 50% faster than SB. ANY code capable of extracting the most out of an 8 core CPU will ALWAYS extract the same, most probably MORE, performance out of 6 cores. If in those same benchmarks, the 8 core BD is just as fast as the 4 core SB, it will necessarily be almost 50% slower than the 6 core SB.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why would they compare it to the 980x in multithreading, when it costs 3x the price of BD?They chose to compare it to its real competition - the 2500 and 2600 

Seriously guys stop trying to make a mountain out of a molehill...


----------



## Crap Daddy (Sep 24, 2011)

So no comparison in games vs sandy, obviously why and all the slides try to convince us that this FX is meant for gaming. That's just great.


----------



## AhokZYashA (Sep 24, 2011)

SB is faster clock per clock and core per core than the 980x

that being said, 8core BD is about the same as 6 core 12t 980x in multi thread bench
that means clock per clock and core per core power of BD is lower than 980x 

which still has looooong way to catch up with SB


----------



## Benetanegia (Sep 24, 2011)

HalfAHertz said:


> Why would they compare it to the 980x in multithreading, when it costs 3x the price of BD?They chose to compare it to its real competition - the 2500 and 2600
> 
> Seriously guys stop trying to make a mountain out of a molehill...



Then why compare it to a 980X in gaming AND most importantly price? 

Seriously guys stop trying to defend AMD and their stupid marketing.

EDIT: Well the marketing is not entirely stupid. It assumes WE are stupid which is why I'm discussing it here to begin with. it's the "let's assume our customers are idiots" attitude taken to a new whole level. It's embarrasing and offensive.

We all want AMD to be fast and to compete, but not at this price. I'd rather keep my sould.


----------



## heky (Sep 24, 2011)

HalfAHertz said:


> Why would they compare it to the 980x in multithreading, when it costs 3x the price of BD?They chose to compare it to its real competition - the 2500 and 2600



Seriously? You come with that statement? In games they use the old proc from intel becouse they cant compare to SB, becouse BD looses. And in multithreading the 2600K beats the shit out of the 8 core BD(or thread whatever you want to call BD). Just take a look at cinebench, a classic multithread test.

Ehm...if the slides are true, that means the top bulldozer with its 8 cores and a higher stock clock scores 5.95 points in cinebench(rendering, highly multithreaded) while my 2600K with 4 cores 8 threads at stock scores 6.90.
Bulldozer overclocked to 4.8ghz scores 7.8, while my 2600K @4.8ghz scores 9.38! So much for multithread superiority of BD.


----------



## erocker (Sep 24, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> Seriously guys stop trying to defend AMD and their stupid marketing.



Honestly, why should you care? You obviously aren't changing anyone's mind and I recognize you are trying very hard with all of your posts in this thread. Those who know better will and those who don't can keep dreaming the dream. No amount of convincing or otherwise is going to change the truth.


----------



## Benetanegia (Sep 24, 2011)

erocker said:


> Honestly, why should you care? You obviously aren't changing anyone's mind and I recognize you are trying very hard with all of your posts in this thread. Those who know better will and those who don't can keep dreaming the dream. No amount of convincing or otherwise is going to change the truth.



That sentence was just a response to the one he posted. I take it as a semi-offense when someone tells me I'm trying to blow things out of proportion with nothing to back it up, or flawed proofs when I'm just stating the facts so that people get all the info. Blame me for indirectly assuming some readers may lack the info, but then please blame AMD too for thinking we are stupid, please.

If trying to get people informed and avoid them to harm themselves is a crime, please shoot me now, because I'm guilty.


----------



## erocker (Sep 24, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> That sentence was just a response to the one he posted. I take it as a semi-offense when someone tells me I'm trying to blow things out of proportion with nothing to back it up, or flawed proofs when I'm just stating the facts so that people get all the info. Blame me for indirectly assuming some readers may lack the info, but then please blame AMD too for thinking we are stupid, please.



Um, no. I actually agree with what you are saying in regards to the topic. I'm saying that a thousand forum posts isn't going to change people's minds. If you feel insulted that was not my intent.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Benetanegia (Sep 24, 2011)

erocker said:


> Um, no. I actually agree with what you are saying. I'm saying that a thousand forum posts isn't going to change people's minds. If you feel insulted that was not my intent.
> 
> Have a nice day.



I didn't feel insulted by you. I felt semi-insulted by his claim of me (between others) making a mountain out of a molehill... That sentence has bad connotations here.


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 24, 2011)

I feel for you Ben.  I post and run away - you stay to metaphorically 'fight'.  Not that you are fighting!  What erocker is saying is that your well reasoned argument is falling on deaf ears. 

Fans will be fans.  It's like football, hockey, baseball, tiddlywinks and chess.  Kasparov for the win.


----------



## HalfAHertz (Sep 24, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> I didn't feel insulted by you. I felt semi-insulted by his claim of me (between others) making a mountain out of a molehill... That sentence has bad connotations here.



I'm sorry you felt insulted. That wasn't my intention. Marketing is marketing, they'd do anything to sell you a product. Their logic was as it follows: gamers always try to go for the best product, the 980x costs an arm and a leg, therefore it should be the best, therefore we should bench games against it. The 2500/2600 are in our price range, therefore we should bench against them for everyday tasks like encoding, archiving, etc...The thing is their logic is very sound for the average consumer who hasn't read all the reviews and thinks that price is the only thing that matters. So if anything, you should ask ntel why they're still tryig to sell you a 2 year old technology that is supposed to be inferior for 800$


----------



## 3volvedcombat (Sep 24, 2011)

erocker said:


> Um, no. I actually agree with what you are saying in regards to the topic. I'm saying that a thousand forum posts isn't going to change people's minds. If you feel insulted that was not my intent.
> 
> Have a nice day.



You just talk to people on the wrong day, and regret it for the rest of the day 

So far, I like what I see with these benchmarks. 980x is fast enough, it isn't dated yet. No matter what theories any of you have in your minds. 

The way AMD is, there going to drop the prices on the FX BD's really low like they usually do in some time. Basically AMD is doing EXACTLY what AMD does, and releasing competitive hardware at great price points. There is absolutely NO reason to be hating or stating anything about non support and bull propaganda benchmarks period. This is going to be the same situation when the AMD Phenom 940 and 920 came out. Not as fast, fast enough, fun for the gamer, cheap, competitive.  

Just take it easy lets not widen a topic up so wide there's 500 ways to get mad about it.


----------



## Hayder_Master (Sep 24, 2011)

So it's just a good cpu


----------



## Benetanegia (Sep 24, 2011)

HalfAHertz said:


> I'm sorry you felt insulted. That wasn't my intention. Marketing is marketing, they'd do anything to sell you a product. Their logic was as it follows: gamers always try to go for the best product, the 980x costs an arm and a leg, therefore it should be the best, therefore we should bench games against it. The 2500/2600 are in our price range, therefore we should bench against them for everyday tasks like encoding, archiving, etc...The thing is their logic is very sound for the average consumer who hasn't read all the reviews and thinks that price is the only thing that matters. So if anything, you should ask ntel why they're still tryig to sell you a 2 year old technology that is supposed to be inferior for 800$



Come on but you know that's not what they thought, at all. 

Their logic was "if we compare the 980X for gaming and price, and 2600k for multi-theading (workstation tasks), Bulldozer will look a lot better than if we compare SB for gaming and price and 980X for workstation tasks".

I cannot say their logic is flawed at all, considering they have to sell, and after an inside inspection I dn't even have a problem with them doing that as much as I have a problem with people defending or rationalzing that behavior. It's as if just because we are bombarded with this marketing shit every day, everywhere, on top of having to smell it all day, we should concede and eat it too.


----------



## Steevo (Sep 24, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> Come on but you know that's not what they thought, at all.
> 
> Their logic was "if we compare the 980X for gaming and price, and 2600k for multi-theading (workstation tasks), Bulldozer will look a lot better than if we compare SB for gaming and price and 980X for workstation tasks".
> 
> I cannot say their logic is flawed at all, considering they have to sell, and after an inside inspection I dn't even have a problem with them doing that as much as I have a problem with people defending or rationalzing that behavior. It's as if just because we are bombarded with this marketing shit every day, everywhere, on top of having to smell it all day, we should concede and eat it too.



You just don't like it enough. Try it with some gravy. 


 A drop in replacement for many users here makes it a win.


Cheap comparison a 2500 is at $219 in a box, and a motherboard to fit it is only $50. 
At $245 and $60 for a BD combo, RAM being equal it needs to outperform it by 10% on average to be worth it. 


But then again, why do you care? Intel has reverted to a oh shit move by "officially' showing and supporting how to overclock. If some of the users here go thread crap in every Intel thread would that make you feel any better? That is what some feel you are doing here.


----------



## Benetanegia (Sep 24, 2011)

Steevo said:


> But then again, why do you care?



Oh because I'm stupid in my own way and I'm morally allowed to.


----------



## seronx (Sep 24, 2011)

https://github.com/DarkShikari/x264-devel/commit/78b99e797607576f5089231eabd4ad053cba951d

Darn....


----------



## Steevo (Sep 24, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> Oh because I'm stupid in my own way and I'm morally allowed to.



I prefer the immoral way, their cookies are better. 


Really most here commenting are probably considering it for a cheap upgrade, I am considering it as I want to try it since it is new, and with a server upgrade coming up soon I can dump it off it doesn't perform. They can read.......believe it or not. 


And yes, much like drunken painted football fans there are fanbois for each side.


----------



## Mindweaver (Sep 24, 2011)

This has me excited! I want 3 or 4 of these to crunch!


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Sep 24, 2011)

If it holds up to SB in multithreading and 980x for gaming at the price they are going to be selling it regardless if it is 100 cores/threads, it's a win for the consumer. 

/thread


----------



## erocker (Sep 24, 2011)

seronx said:


> https://github.com/DarkShikari/x264-devel/commit/78b99e797607576f5089231eabd4ad053cba951d
> 
> Darn....



Wat? Seriously, what is this?


----------



## seronx (Sep 24, 2011)

erocker said:


> Wat? Seriously, what is this?



x264 with XOP and FMA4 instructions getting implemented after August 31st

so, x264 1st pass and 2nd pass results are going to be inconsistent after some odd release


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 24, 2011)

seronx said:


> x264 with XOP and FMA4 instructions getting implemented after August 31st
> 
> so, x264 1st pass and 2nd pass results are going to be inconsistent after some odd release



lol.

I'm going to go and play with my lego bricks now.  I know when my knowledge is 0% about something.


----------



## NC37 (Sep 24, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> Then why compare it to a 980X in gaming AND most importantly price?
> 
> Seriously guys stop trying to defend AMD and their stupid marketing.
> 
> ...



So AMD is taking souls for CPUs now? 

If you don't think "Customers are idiots" then you have no sense of the corporate world or even society as a whole. If customers weren't idiots, Best Buy wouldn't be in business, lawyers wouldn't exist, and we'd actually have competent people in government.


----------



## Yellow&Nerdy? (Sep 24, 2011)

These slides should probably be taken with a grain of salt, since they are from AMD. But they must have some truth in them, and I have to admit, it doesn't look that bad. Considering it's much cheaper than the 2600K, the performance is actually pretty damn good. As the marketing trick with the huge OC showed, these processors should have pretty good OC potential. I have to say that I do look forward to October 12th and the 3rd party reviews.


----------



## seronx (Sep 24, 2011)

the54thvoid said:


> lol.
> 
> I'm going to go and play with my lego bricks now.  I know when my knowledge is 0% about something.



It can calculate division by 0....just saying

Also to point out because Cinebench R11.5 is using the Intel compiler

FX-8150 is calculating with only SSE2
While
the i7 2600K and i5 2500K is calculating with AVX

Intel Compiler v12.0, 2010  32bit: Intel AVX, AMD SSE2, 64bit: Intel AVX, AMD SSE2


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Sep 24, 2011)

NC37 said:


> So AMD is taking souls for CPUs now?



Not souls, they're going one better and taking soulds, dirty ****ards 

I for one wouldn't mind going down the BD route if it can keep up with my 2500k and would swap it out for the same perf on BD, let alone 2600k as I haven't been AMD for 4 years now, not because of choice but because since then Intel has bested AMD, would be a nice change for me to go back to AMD


----------



## _Zod_ (Sep 24, 2011)

All AMD has to do is match the 2500k at a lower price for me to continue using their chips. That kind of performance is more than I require. But sadly AM3+ is a doomed socket so I will wait for the next gen anyway. Besides I just picked up this PII and it should go another year no problem with a GPU upgrade along the way.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 24, 2011)

Honestly I don't get all this bickering. These are MARKETING SLIDES. You know meant to SELL SOMETHING?! These are not a biased review by a third party like TPU. These slides are by AMD. They are garbage. Why fight?

Second keep things in perspective. Most people do not run multi GPU setups. So what advantage will SB have over BD other then that? If even that?! Will your E-mail open in 3 nano seconds with Sandy rather then 4 nano seconds with BD? BD will give you 150 FPS in Bad Company 2 when Sandy will give you 200 FPS? I mean really? Most console games run at 30 FPS! Is Sandy faster? Who knows. Probably. But how much faster is really needed at this point and is worth the price? I mean in a real world scenario. Is it worth the extra money. I mean you guys are arguing over a Shelby Super Snake with a super charger vs a Shelby Super Snake without a super charger. WTF does it matter?! They are both SUPER SNAKES.

The amount of audio encoders and 3D animators are like .5% of the market. So for you I say buy the fastest. Get the super charger. For everyone else buy the cheapest. The regular old Super Snake with its pissy 500hp.

Its about perspective. Lets not lose it.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Sep 24, 2011)

Totally agree MM, tell you what would be a surprise if for once the marketing slides where actually being conservative and BD actually nutkicked SB, but alas that is probably not the case, still can't complain if they go toe to toe (give or take) with SB/980x as they are priced just right, you want SB perf pay for it, you want damn near perf, pay $50 less for it


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Sep 24, 2011)

JrRacinFan said:


> If they want to boast numbers, show actual screenshots. Just a few slides does not have me beleiving this.



Same and let us not forget both intel and AMD inflate their benchmark numbers.


----------



## TRWOV (Sep 24, 2011)

thunderising said:


> But in general applications the FX-8150 can't beat the Core i7 2600k?
> 
> That's a shame.



AMD always said that BD was targeted at Core i5-2xxx performance and it seems that they've succeeded.


----------



## jpierce55 (Sep 24, 2011)

If this is true, great news, and I cant see how anybody is disappointed. Expecting more than this was just plain foolish.


----------



## Benetanegia (Sep 24, 2011)

NC37 said:


> So AMD is taking souls for CPUs now?



If I was AMD I'd rather keep my soul than trying to sell a product this way. That's what I meant and it's not something I have against AMD, only against the way they have conducted marketing. I don't even know if that kind of marketing is legal, yes legal, here in Spain.



> If you don't think "Customers are idiots" then you have no sense of the corporate world or even society as a whole. If customers weren't idiots, Best Buy wouldn't be in business, lawyers wouldn't exist, and we'd actually have competent people in government.



And your point being? I know very well how society is and the problem is that at so many levels, we get shit served instead of a meal, and most people would just rather eat it than bother standing up and getting the cake from the fridge. That doesn't trouble me, stupid people are stupid. What worries me is how people that I'd consider intelligent, as in they belong to TPU, apparently do the exact same thing, because hey "the rest of morons do the same thing anyway, that's how society works". What worries me even more is how I get so much opposition, as if I was doing something wrong by not eating shit. I mean what I'm simply offensive because I don't want to eat shit like the rest of conformists?? Seriously...


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 24, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> If I was AMD I'd rather keep my soul than trying to sell a product this way.
> 
> 
> 
> And your point being? I know very well how society is and the problem is that at so many levels, we get shit served instead of a meal, and most people would just rather eat it than bother standing up and getting the cake from the fridge. That doesn't trouble me, stupid people are stupid. What worries me is how people that I'd consider intelligent, as in they belong to TPU, apparently do the exact same thing, because hey "the rest of morons do the same thing anyway, that's how society works". What worries me even more is how I get so much opposition, as if I was doing something wrong by not eating shit. I mean what I'm simply offensive because I don't want to eat shit like the rest of conformists?? Seriously...



You understand these are share holder slides not meant for public consumption? AMD isn't marketing anything toward you. Technically your not even supposed to see these. Your rage is displaced.


----------



## Frick (Sep 24, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> You understand these are share holder slides not meant for public consumption? AMD isn't marketing anything toward you. Technically your not even supposed to see these. Your rage is displaced.



And marketing slides have always looked like this. It's their nature.


----------



## Super XP (Sep 24, 2011)

This is great news, let the competition begin and the prices drop


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 24, 2011)

erocker said:


> Hopefully it will be done, but if not I will post results.



I ain't posting shit unless AMD gives me the CPU. Why would you do marketing for free?


Of course, if the launch is October 12th, reviewers that will have reviews live for launch day should either have their CPUs, or will get them next week. I do not have one, nor do I expect one, as much as I'd like to do the review.

Oh, and look, I have no products to review currently, and lots of time to get a review done.




You guys wanna see how fail AMD marketing is? Let's see if TPU has a review ready for launch day. If yes, then AMD consumer marketing = OK. If not, then AMD consumer marketing = FAIL.

I guess we'll find out in a few weeks.



Super XP said:


> This is great news, let the competition begin and the prices drop



I do not expect price drops. INtel will justify higher costs because of equal perforamcne to BD(or close, anyway), plus, SB chips also have a GPU, that BD chips do not. Intel has NO REASON to lower prices. It's up to the consumer to decide what's better for them, and if they don't know, then sales peopel will push whatever has the highest profit margins. Basic stuff here.


----------



## alexsubri (Sep 25, 2011)

Just in time too, I recieved my ASUS Sabertooth 990FX MB yesterday ... I bought a new CPU Cooler, THERMALTAKE Spin Q to be exact...Do you guys think that it will support the new Bulldozer Chips?


----------



## erocker (Sep 25, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> I ain't posting shit unless AMD gives me the CPU. Why would you do marketing for free?



I'm a tech enthusiast plus, I do what I want. Any other factors mean nothing to me.


----------



## ironwolf (Sep 25, 2011)

Might want to read some opinions on HardOCP, they are calling it all faked, given the source site and their past, very possible.

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1638571


----------



## erocker (Sep 25, 2011)

ironwolf said:


> Might want to read some opinions on HardOCP, they are calling it all faked, given the source site and their past, very possible.
> 
> http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1638571



Why should we bother with another forum's bickering? There's plenty of it here already. None of it matters until release.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 25, 2011)

ironwolf said:


> Might want to read some opinions on HardOCP, they are calling it all faked, given the source site and their past, very possible.
> 
> http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1638571



Yes, the source does suck, but why should a bunch of people that know nothing more than us be a credible source of disproving something?

I'll still be buying it so I really don't give a shit if this is real or fake.


----------



## JATownes (Sep 25, 2011)

To me all this back and forth about SB vs BD is irrelevant.  I am going BD and have already made my mind up, because I find it the most cost effective, and I like to support the underdog.  I have been running an AMD 965 X4 on an *M4A79* with 4GB of *DDR2 1066*.  This gear is getting VERY OLD, and it will still slice through everything I throw at it without any hiccups. 

I say this because for the "average" consumer/gamer, that is not an overclocker/enthusiast, can any of you think of any game that a halfway decent quad with a halfway decent video card cannot push?  Most of these people just want to game at a decent frame rate with their single mid-range video card, and not get any of chop.  

So besides for us enthusiast (very small % in the grand scheme of things), what is the purpose of the "average" consumer having something that they will only use 25% of the power of anyway.  

Buy what you want, and let others buy what they want.  Until the game developers start giving us games that will push last generation technology (actually probably 2 generations ago) to it's limit, what is the purpose.  We should quit bitching at each other about AMD/Intel and start bitching at game developers to give us something that can actually show all that power we pay so much money for.

/RANT

Thank you for your time.


----------



## ironwolf (Sep 25, 2011)

erocker said:


> Why should we bother with another forum's bickering? There's plenty of it here already. None of it matters until release.



If you guys don't care about the legitimacy of the source site or article and it's checkered history of fake articles/posts, it's all good.  Simply trying to point out that there are a lot of people here commenting like all this info is concrete gospel truth.  How many times have we all seen sites make up crap that was not even remotely accurate/true/legit?


----------



## 15th Warlock (Sep 25, 2011)

What a let down  well, it was to be expected, there was no way AMD could meet the hype that has surrounded BD for so many years after so many delays, comparing to an old i7-980X (last I heard the 990X's been out for a few months) and barely matching or surpassing its performance, when Tom's showed a few weeks ago that the 6 core 2011 SB-E procs trounce the 990X in all multi threaded applications.

Besides, as quoted by the OP, BD performs on par with the 2600K, but beats its price by $70, well,  the 2700K will be out in a few weeks and chances are Intel will lower the prices of their existing processors, making this a non issue; seems like this so called "price-performance shock" won't be as dramatic as expected. The FMA4 instruction set advantage is questionable at best, how many everyday applications and games will benefit from this new set of instructions?

It's a shame, I was really  rooting for the AMD of the old days, able to match and surpass Intel, and creating a competitive environment that would only benefit us as consumers, but it seems like BD is not gonna be the CPU that will restore AMD to its former glory...


----------



## seronx (Sep 25, 2011)




----------



## Super XP (Sep 25, 2011)

This same source broke the news of the Phenom II. they are just as credible as HardCop and X-Bit Labs. Currently nobody knows how Bulldozer is going to perform, AMD still states a 50% performance improvement over Phenom II.

We need Bulldozer for healthy competition, can't wait to see the real thing in action. Once official reviews come out, I believe people will be amazed.........


----------



## Mussels (Sep 25, 2011)

looks like good news to me


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 25, 2011)

Mussels said:


> looks like good news to me


----------



## ensabrenoir (Sep 25, 2011)

MMMMMOOOOOORRRRRTTTTTAAAALLLLL. CCCCCCCCOOOOOOOMMMMMMBBBBAAATTTTTT!!!!!!!!.

FIGHT!


----------



## lashton (Sep 25, 2011)

they released this NOT for us but the scare the shit of intel and make intel think they will loose the performance crown


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 25, 2011)

erocker said:


> I'm a tech enthusiast. Any other factors mean nothing to me.



This was the answer I was hoping for, and expecting, the edit is the part that made me laugh.



I trust the non-marketing results than the marketing results, anyway. There are many things that can influence results.


----------



## lashton (Sep 25, 2011)

Inceptor said:


> So, roughly on par with SB, exactly where AMD needed to be with the 8 core.
> AND at a currently cheaper pricepoint than SB, exactly where they needed to be to continue their price/performance buyer aesthetic.
> Looks like the right moves have been made.
> 
> As for the comparison to the 980X, forget about it, it's just marketing-flashiness ... doesn't matter what field you're in, what industry you're talking about, or what company you're talking about, there's always dumb stuff like that in press packages.



Are you seriously that ^%&% stupid, the 980X is in there for one reason ALONE, to show that a $1000 CPu can be beaten (spanked on the ass) by at @$250 processot, no matter what industry you are in that ALL good value for money, im sorry intel fanboy you have finally lost 

It funny how when Intel does this EVERYONE accepts it, but when AMD does it no one likes it, the Performance crown with be taken by AMD again, Intel fanboys are trying to mark this is not good, if friggin awesome AMD here i come again, you will see lots of people jump from intel to AMD on this mark my words!


----------



## trickson (Sep 25, 2011)

YES ! About time AMD !


----------



## nINJAkECIL (Sep 25, 2011)

I'd still buy BD, and boasts it to all of my friends. Saying that it has the most core of all of desktop cpus


----------



## NC37 (Sep 25, 2011)

Wow only 181 posts in this fanboy war...whats wrong with you people, you should be at 500+ by now!! Come on they insulted your silicon wee wee!! Show them your true flamewar power!!!


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 25, 2011)

NC37 said:


> Wow only 181 posts in this fanboy war...whats wrong with you people, you should be at 500+ by now!! Come on they insulted your silicon wee wee!! Show them your true flamewar power!!!



I would like less fanboyism from both sides and more reasonable discussion, but that's just me.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 25, 2011)

Everything substantive to discuss has already been discussed (like modules, the higher clock speeds, etc.).  All that is left is the real products with real benchmarking.  In short, there's nothing to discuss (that isn't fanboyism driven) until it hits the shelves or NDAs are lifted.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 25, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Everything reasonable to discuss has already been discussed (like modules, the higher clock speeds, etc.).  All that is left is the real products with real benchmarking.  In short, there's nothing to discuss (that isn't fanboyism driven) until it hits the shelves or NDAs are lifted.



I agree. I still don't see any reason to throw out posts that are overly fanatical one way or the other though. Like it or not, we need both of these companies to be healthy and competitive.


----------



## DannibusX (Sep 25, 2011)

In this thread:


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 25, 2011)

DannibusX said:


> http://i763.photobucket.com/albums/xx280/seriousbuns/srs_business.jpg



Noted and accepted. I'll get off my soapbox. Flame on.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 25, 2011)

AMD has been sickly since 2006 (Core 2 debut, buyout of ATI, and disappointment of Phenom).  They do need another breakthrough on the level of K6 or Athlon 64 (Hammer).  I'm not so certain this (Bulldozer) is it but it's better than nothing.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 25, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> AMD has been sickly since 2006



Yep. and even though we are near 6 years later, AMD is still alive and kicking, evne though they lacked a "top performer". Clearly they don't need one to stay afloat...they merely need to sell every chip they make, which shouldn't be hard, IMHO.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Sep 25, 2011)

lashton said:


> Are you seriously that ^%&% stupid, the 980X is in there for one reason ALONE, to show that a $1000 CPu can be beaten (spanked on the ass) by at @$250 processot, no matter what industry you are in that ALL good value for money, im sorry intel fanboy you have finally lost :rockout!



Aaaahhhh...... intel showed this when they released sandy bridge


----------



## mastrdrver (Sep 25, 2011)

btarunr said:


> Btw, price confirmation of $245 for the FX8150:
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/110924/bta022.jpg
> 
> ...



I'm not sure I believe that price. Why is it a different color and font then the rest of the text in that slide? I think it has been edited from some original.

Maybe the rest is correct, but that price I don't believe. I suspect $300 though time will tell, surely.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 25, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Yep. and even though we are near 6 years later, AMD is still alive and kicking, evne though they lacked a "top performer". Clearly they don't need one to stay afloat...they merely need to sell every chip they make, which shouldn't be hard, IMHO.


Frankly, most people don't care what's inside their computer as long as it works.  So long as AMD can keep selling processors to Dell, HP, Sony, Lenovo, Acer, and the other big computer manufacturers out there, they'll be fine.  All those manufacturers appeal to price moreso than performance.  AMD made that component of their business easier by spinning off Global Foundries.  I think AMD's greatest weakness is if Global Foundries fail and they have no means to cheaply manufacture new processors.  As far as I know, Global Foundries isn't in any imminent danger.


----------



## Thefumigator (Sep 25, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Yep. and even though we are near 6 years later, AMD is still alive and kicking, evne though they lacked a "top performer". Clearly they don't need one to stay afloat...they merely need to sell every chip they make, which shouldn't be hard, IMHO.



They still sell their processors. I mean, take Intel's best selling processors, suppose  they are Celeron, Pentium dual core and core i3. AMD has some nice alternatives to each one. Where AMD is lacking is in the core i5 and i7 arena and mobile market (I love llano for gaming on a budget, but for everything else you have to admit there's nothing like SB)

But anyway, I'll take a Phenom 9550 over a celeron or sempron all the way if I had the chance to. 

The other day I updated a friends rig, he is broke so we spent the least amount of money EVER. I just did that, I dropped in a Phenom 9550 X4 (I particulary own the same model, but mine isn't for sale) and we even had the chance to sold the old sempron he had. A huge difference in performance, noticeable from the beginning to the end. mobo was AM2/AM2+ compatible, that helped.


----------



## xenocide (Sep 25, 2011)

lashton said:


> Are you seriously that ^%&% stupid, the 980X is in there for one reason ALONE, to show that a $1000 CPu can be beaten (spanked on the ass) by at @$250 processot, no matter what industry you are in that ALL good value for money, im sorry intel fanboy you have finally lost



Sandy Bridge called, it wants it's title back.  The 980X was cherry-picked because even their fluffed numbers in those slides don't show it beating the 980x, which the 2500k/2600k can beat in gaming performance.  They picked the 980x because they probably ran the tests against SB, and couldn't get a reliable enough result to ensure it looked good to investors.  As stated, these slides are intended to be viewed by _investors_.  AMD needs to make their products look like the company will sell them like hot cakes so said investors will dump more money into the company.

The i5-2500k is just as good a value, the key difference is that it has been out for over 9 months now, and we're still not sure Bulldozer really is going to be out 2nd week of October. (10/12 or 10/15 are the 2 dates I heard).  Once SB came out, nobody even gave the 9x0x CPU's a glance.  The reason AMD compared the price, is because if they had done the i5-2500k the difference in price would have been -$25 - $25.  Doesn't exactly seem impressive that their new product would only be on par in terms of cost and performance does it?



lashton said:


> It funny how when Intel does this EVERYONE accepts it, but when AMD does it no one likes it, the Performance crown with be taken by AMD again, Intel fanboys are trying to mark this is not good, if friggin awesome AMD here i come again, you will see lots of people jump from intel to AMD on this mark my words!



Well when was the last time AMD had the performance crown?  Pre-Core2 series which was about 5-6 years ago.  Nobody denies that (here at least), so I'm not sure who you're talking about.  I'm not a fanboy in the slightest, but it's not exactly inaccurate to say Phenom I was a bust and AMD hasn't offered a competative Enthusiast product for quite some time.  The last real one I can remember was the Athlon 64 FX-series CPU's.  Granted those were $1200 CPU's at the time, they were also Single-Cores that outperformed the first Dual-Cores.

As for the people jumping ship claim; People said the same thing about SB too, that it would be too expensive, it was only a slight upgrade, it wasn't going to be that good.  The result?  I recall Intel posting record profits off SB sales.  No matter which company you favor, you cannot deny SB hit the sweet spot everyone wanted.  It offered top-notch performance, and cost 1/3-1/2 what similar performing products cost.  Everyone won with that.


----------



## TRWOV (Sep 25, 2011)

lashton said:


> Are you seriously that ^%&% stupid, the 980X is in there for one reason ALONE, to show that a $1000 CPu can be beaten (spanked on the ass) by at @$250 processot, no matter what industry you are in that ALL good value for money, im sorry intel fanboy you have finally lost



wow, stop your horses. I think that everyone understands why did AMD pick up the 980X for price comparison.

And seriously, relax, these are just pieces or silicon.


----------



## Inceptor (Sep 25, 2011)

Where to begin...



HalfAHertz said:


> Their logic was as it follows: gamers always try to go for the best product, the 980x costs an arm and a leg, therefore it should be the best, therefore we should bench games against it. The 2500/2600 are in our price range, therefore we should bench against them for everyday tasks like encoding, archiving, etc...The thing is their logic is very sound for the average consumer who hasn't read all the reviews and thinks that price is the only thing that matters. So if anything, you should ask ntel why they're still tryig to sell you a 2 year old technology that is supposed to be inferior for 800$



Exactly my thoughts, I couldn't agree more.  



Benetanegia said:


> Their logic was "if we compare the 980X for gaming and price, and 2600k for multi-theading (workstation tasks), Bulldozer will look a lot better than if we compare SB for gaming and price and 980X for workstation tasks".



Of course, why would you expect anything more?  See first quote, above.



NdMk2o1o said:


> If it holds up to SB in multithreading and 980x for gaming at the price they are going to be selling it regardless if it is 100 cores/threads, it's a win for the consumer.



Definitely.  



TheMailMan78 said:


> Is Sandy faster? Who knows. Probably. But how much faster is really needed at this point and is worth the price? I mean in a real world scenario. Is it worth the extra money. I mean you guys are arguing over a Shelby Super Snake with a super charger vs a Shelby Super Snake without a super charger. WTF does it matter?! They are both SUPER SNAKES.



You Sir, are my hero. 



lashton said:


> im sorry intel fanboy you have finally lost



Umm, I'm not a 'fanboy' of either side... but uhh, did you look at my system specs?  I currently own an AM3+ board and will be buying a BD cpu within the next year...
But uhh, good job with the fanboy bit, you're good at it, maybe a bit too enthusiastic. 

Honestly people, this is waayyy too much hate and love over this thing.
It's gratifying to see so much ethical outrage playing itself out, but really, what's the point?
You can't change it, all you can do is figuratively bang your head against the wall.
Corporations do what corporations do, which is anything that's either not outright illegal or will only result in a corporate wrist slap.  It doesn't matter which perspective you look at it from, Intel or AMD, someone somewhere is fracking someone over, or causing some kind of outrage; just as in life in general.

The sad thing is this, this argument is playing itself out, in all the same ways on every damn tech site on the planet.  A Win - Win proposition for both AMD and Intel.  Marketing.
Epic fail.


----------



## Volkszorn88 (Sep 25, 2011)

Just got my 990fx board and i'm f*cking ready for BD and BF3!!! ^^


----------



## Jonap_1st (Sep 25, 2011)

rarely believe 100% anything that still based on the paper, so i give 50% and wait another 50% until the real benchmark comes out..


----------



## lashton (Sep 25, 2011)

bench-markers will be given the processor in 7-14 days to run benchmarks maybe someone will leak them early


----------



## AhokZYashA (Sep 25, 2011)

BD have 8 cores.
bleh...

you need more cores AMD? to compete with 4core SB?
fix your architecture and FAST


----------



## Volkszorn88 (Sep 25, 2011)

AhokZYashA said:


> BD have 8 cores.
> bleh...
> 
> you need more cores AMD? to compete with 4core SB?
> fix your architecture and FAST



Do you want AMD to fix their architecture fast because you're unhappy with your intel chip? Only reasoning I can think of over your distraught.


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 25, 2011)

cdawall said:


> its still only 4 modules. If they do end up working like 8 true cores i will be excited.



And each module has 2 cores on it.  Kind of like the Intel approach of duct taping two single-cores to get a dual-core, then AMD marketting their processors as "true dual-cores", then Intel duct taping two dual-cores together to get their quad-cores, and then AMD marketting their "true quad-cores".  Except it is AMD doing it this time, so I don't think they will put that type of marketting spin on it...

If sharing L2/L3 is enough for you to consider two or more cores a single core, then the Core 2 Duo was a single core, the Core 2 Quad was a dual core, and the i7's are single cores...:shadedshu


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 25, 2011)

AhokZYashA said:


> BD have 8 cores.
> bleh...
> 
> you need more cores AMD? to compete with 4core SB?
> fix your architecture and FAST



It's not core count that matters, it's performance.


----------



## AhokZYashA (Sep 25, 2011)

Volkszorn88 said:


> Do you want AMD to fix their architecture fast because you're unhappy with your intel chip? Only reasoning I can think of over your distraught.



im just stating that AMD's architecture is not as good as intel

im happy with my SB now lol


----------



## Volkszorn88 (Sep 25, 2011)

AhokZYashA said:


> im just stating that AMD's architecture is not as good as intel
> 
> im happy with my SB now lol



So why would Bulldozer be any concern to you if you're perfectly happy with your SB? No need to make a pointless fan-boy comment.


----------



## AhokZYashA (Sep 25, 2011)

Volkszorn88 said:


> So why would Bulldozer be any concern to you if you're perfectly happy with your SB? No need to make a pointless fan-boy comment.



as i say earlier, im just stating that AMD should fix their architecture.

back like the old Athlon which trumps the P4's

im not a fanboy or whatever you call it.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 25, 2011)

AhokZYashA said:


> as i say earlier, im just stating that AMD should fix their architecture.
> 
> back like the old Athlon which trumps the P4's
> 
> im not a fanboy or whatever you call it.



If these benchmarks and prices are true, there is definitely nothing wrong with the architecture.


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 25, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> If these benchmarks and prices are true, there is definitely nothing wrong with the architecture.



So you don't think requiring 8 cores to trump 4 core processors in Multi-threaded apps doesn't indicate that there is something wrong with the architecture?


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 25, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> So you don't think requiring 8 cores to trump 4 core processors in Multi-threaded apps doesn't indicate that there is something wrong with the architecture?



Not if it works.


----------



## AhokZYashA (Sep 25, 2011)

requiring double amount of cores to trump 4 cores in multithreaded apps, definitely have something to do with its architecture.


----------



## Jstn7477 (Sep 25, 2011)

I don't really understand why everyone is shitting on BD because it can't beat an i7-2xxx. Did you forget about something called Phenom II? Phenom II has been out for 2+ years and SB has only been out for 9 months, yet just because AMD can barely match Intel means it's the end of the world for some reason.

If it beats Phenom II (which is still quite adequate for me) then it's a winner to me. (Notice how all my systems are AMD by the way, so don't pull the fanboy crap with me.)

Just because it's new doesn't mean it is 100% better than everything in existence. A 2011 Prius won't beat a 2010 Camaro unless you're talking fuel consumption.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 25, 2011)

AhokZYashA said:


> requiring double amount of cores to trump 4 cores in multithreaded apps, definitely have something to do with its architecture.



What you are saying doesn't mean a thing. It's the price/performance that matters. I don't care how many cores are in any CPU as long as it performs, and neither should anyone else, really.


----------



## Goodman (Sep 25, 2011)

AhokZYashA said:


> requiring double amount of cores to trump 4 cores in multithreaded apps, definitely have something to do with its architecture.



4 cores 8 threads , 8 cores 8 threads where is the difference?

Beside i view Bulldozer FX8150 more like a 4 cores with 8 hardware threads then a real 8 cores CPU...


----------



## MilkyWay (Sep 25, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Honestly I don't get all this bickering. These are MARKETING SLIDES. You know meant to SELL SOMETHING?! These are not a biased review by a third party like TPU. These slides are by AMD. They are garbage. Why fight?
> 
> Second keep things in perspective. Most people do not run multi GPU setups. So what advantage will SB have over BD other then that? If even that?! Will your E-mail open in 3 nano seconds with Sandy rather then 4 nano seconds with BD? BD will give you 150 FPS in Bad Company 2 when Sandy will give you 200 FPS? I mean really? Most console games run at 30 FPS! Is Sandy faster? Who knows. Probably. But how much faster is really needed at this point and is worth the price? I mean in a real world scenario. Is it worth the extra money. I mean you guys are arguing over a Shelby Super Snake with a super charger vs a Shelby Super Snake without a super charger. WTF does it matter?! They are both SUPER SNAKES.
> 
> ...



Its like some car manufacturer brought out a nice car and it wiped the floor with the current Lamborghini models so Lamborghini decide hmmmmn lets make a slight redesign of the car stick on an extra 100bhp. Yeah well not exactly but its like AMD was getting its ass handed and needed to bring out this thing with "modular" fake cores threads whatever it is just to keep up. In the end i guess it comes down to price IF it truly can match a Sandybridge, i mean the i5 2500k is only about £160 right now which i dont find that expensive.


----------



## AhokZYashA (Sep 25, 2011)

i5 2500k is 4C/4T

BD is designed and build to compete with the i5's

and for AMD requiring 8 cores is something

and for mussels at the bottom, i5 2500k is slightly cheaper from BD


----------



## Mussels (Sep 25, 2011)

if it needs 8 cores to match an intel with 4 cores and 4 threads, but costs less... whats the problem?

if it still performs just as good, who gives a shit about the performance crown? processors are just part of a tool (computers), its stupid to get to uppity about who has the best tools.


----------



## mastrdrver (Sep 25, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> So you don't think requiring 8 cores to trump 4 core processors in Multi-threaded apps doesn't indicate that there is something wrong with the architecture?



And where does 8 cores lose to the 4 core 2500k? The 2600k is not a 4 core since it can handle 8 threads unless your implying that the 2500k = 2600k in performance?

Surely not though.

The 4 core 2600k does not always trump the 4 core 2500k. The more threaded the program (usually) the better performance you get from the 2600k over the 2500k. Like wise, the better the program is at multi threading, the closer to 2600k performance you get out a 8 core BD.

So where is the broken architecture? Is it with AMD or Intel?.......or in reality it depends on the program?


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 25, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> What you are saying doesn't mean a thing. It's the price/performance that matters. I don't care how many cores are in any CPU as long as it performs, and neither should anyone else, really.



Only in the short term.  I would prefer that AMD get their asses in gear and actually start to compete with Intel on the high end, and that won't happen if they need 8 cores just to compete with 4.  So if that trend continues they will need 16 cores to compete with Intel's planned 8.  And with their much lower profit margins, they will have far less R&D funds, and will only continue to fall behind until they can't compete.  I personally don't want to see that.



Goodman said:


> 4 cores 8 threads , 8 cores 8 threads where is the difference?
> 
> Beside i view Bulldozer FX8120 more like a 4 cores with 8 hardware threads then a real 8 cores CPU...



I assume you also think the Core 2 Quads were only 2 cores with 4 hardware threads then?



mastrdrver said:


> And where does 8 cores lose to the 4 core 2500k? The 2600k is not a 4 core since it can handle 8 threads unless your implying that the 2500k = 2600k in performance?
> 
> Surely not though.



So... Your argument is the 2600K isn't a 4 core processor.  If you believe that, you shouldn't be in a discussion about processors.  Sorry, the 2600K is a 4 core.  Just because each core can do two things at once doesn't mean they are magically considered 2 cores.  I can type and chew gum at the same time, I'm not two people.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 25, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Only in the short term.  I would prefer that AMD get their asses in gear and actually start to compete with Intel on the high end, and that won't happen if they need 8 cores just to compete with 4.  So if that trend continues they will need 16 cores to compete with Intel's planned 8.  And with their much lower profit margins, they will have far less R&D funds, and will only continue to fall behind until they can't compete.  I personally don't want to see that.
> 
> 
> 
> I assume you also think the Core 2 Quads were only 2 cores with 4 hardware threads then?



They already have 16 core server CPU's. It's not like they can't easily translate that to desktop.


----------



## AhokZYashA (Sep 25, 2011)

mastrdrver said:


> And where does 8 cores lose to the 4 core 2500k? The 2600k is not a 4 core since it can handle 8 threads unless your implying that the 2500k = 2600k in performance?
> 
> Surely not though.



the 2600k IS a 4 core CPU, but it has HyperThreading which exists since the P4 era.
that doubles the amount of thread in each core.

that said 2600k have 4 physical cores.

but the BD have 4 integer cores and 8 physical cores inside their hood


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 25, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> They already have 16 core server CPU's. It's not like they can't easily translate that to desktop.



Obviously they can't, or they already would have.  And have you seen the cost on 12 core Opterons?  Yeah, a pittiful 2.2GHz will cost you $1,300!  Yeah, turns out when you start using all that silicon those prices start to skyrocket.  Oh, and in desktop environments the 12 core gets it ass handed to it in pretty much everything by a SB processor.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 25, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Obviously they can't, or they already would have.



Show me an 8 core Intel CPU available today. The fact is that they don't need one right now.


----------



## AhokZYashA (Sep 25, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Show me an 8 core Intel CPU available today. The fact is that they don't need one right now.



i think they have from the Xeon 7xxx or something like that
CMIIW

intel doesnt need 8 core desktop CPU because 4 intel cores can trump 8 AMD cores.

i dont see the point where intel should do that.
4 cores is sufficient


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 25, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Show me an 8 core Intel CPU available today. The fact is that they don't need one right now.



Xeon X7560.  

But yeah, you are right, when Intel's 6 core processors are outperforming AMD's 12, an 8 core isn't really necessary.  But it sure is nice they offer it.  Now where is AMD's 16 core processor to compete with Intels 8 core w/ HT that is already out?


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 25, 2011)

AhokZYashA said:


> i think they have from the Xeon 7xxx or something like that
> CMIIW
> 
> intel doesnt need 8 core desktop CPU because 4 intel cores can trump 8 AMD cores.
> ...



Who has a Xeon?

Not enough is known about performance to determine who trumps who yet.


----------



## AhokZYashA (Sep 25, 2011)

im sure that 8 core intel chips trumps 16 core AMD.

end of story


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 25, 2011)

AhokZYashA said:


> im sure that 8 core intel chips trumps 16 core AMD.
> 
> end of story



That just proves your ignorance.


----------



## entropy13 (Sep 25, 2011)

This I guess is proof why for all intents and purposes AMD is actually doing very badly in the processor front, compared to the video card front.

With their GPUs, they're able to compare their next-gen with the competition's (Nvidia's) next-gen, or more obviously their current-gen is comparable to the competition's current-gen.

In the CPUs, they're essentially only making their next-gen comparable to the current-gen of the competition (Intel).


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 25, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> This I guess is proof why for all intents and purposes AMD is actually doing very badly in the processor front, compared to the video card front.
> 
> With their GPUs, they're able to compare their next-gen with the competition's (Nvidia's) next-gen, or more obviously their current-gen is comparable to the competition's current-gen.
> 
> In the CPUs, they're essentially only making their next-gen comparable to the current-gen of the competition (Intel).



Bulldozer is meant to compete with SB, Piledriver is meant to compete with IB. What's the issue?


----------



## AhokZYashA (Sep 25, 2011)

the issue is with AMD is unable to compete with SB 

at least in the raw core performance


----------



## entropy13 (Sep 25, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Bulldozer is meant to compete with SB, Piledriver is meant to compete with IB. What's the issue?



And Bulldozer was released more than 6 months ago? 



Although Nvidia wasn't quick as well with the 400 and 500 series, the "time-delay" between their and AMD's respective "current-gens" aren't as far apart as Bulldozer is to Sandy Bridge.


And as an additional point, with AMD comparing the FX 8150 to the Core i7-980X would be akin to Nvidia comparing the GTX 480 to the HD 4870X2, which they didn't do, unless you considering "HD 5870" as corresponding to "HD 4870X2"...


----------



## Melvis (Sep 25, 2011)

Hyper threading is basically a virtual "core" So when i see a BD chip going head to head to a 6 core and 6 virtual "core" (12 cores total) 980X i think that pretty dam impressive and for quarter of the price.


----------



## Goodman (Sep 25, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Only in the short term.  I would prefer that AMD get their asses in gear and actually start to compete with Intel on the high end, and that won't happen if they need 8 cores just to compete with 4.  So if that trend continues they will need 16 cores to compete with Intel's planned 8.  And with their much lower profit margins, they will have far less R&D funds, and will only continue to fall behind until they can't compete.  I personally don't want to see that.



You argue like you want to go back to AMD so bad....
Don't worry it hardly shows...


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 25, 2011)

AhokZYashA said:


> the issue is with AMD is unable to compete with SB
> 
> at least in the raw core performance



And that matters how? I don't care what's inside the CPU as long as it performs. It's stupid to say that what is inside the CPU is more important than how the CPU performs.


----------



## mastrdrver (Sep 25, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> So... Your argument is the 2600K isn't a 4 core processor.  If you believe that, you shouldn't be in a discussion about processors.  Sorry, the 2600K is a 4 core.  Just because each core can do two things at once doesn't mean they are magically considered 2 cores.  I can type and chew gum at the same time, I'm not two people.



No, my argument is that 2600k will sometime perform like the cheaper 2500k. So is it more about a broken architecture or more about well threaded programs?



AhokZYashA said:


> the 2600k IS a 4 core CPU, but it has HyperThreading which exists since the P4 era.
> that doubles the amount of thread in each core.
> 
> that said 2600k have 4 physical cores.
> ...



BD has 8 integers, 4 FPUs.

2600k has extra decoders to help with threading (if I remember correctly).

It's about getting more threaded performance for the die space. In either case the better the _program_ (important part here) is written for multi threading, the better performing the 2600k and the 8 core BD will be over the 2500k.

When it comes to performance over 2500k, then BD wins every time (if the price is correct which I'm not sure it is).



Melvis said:


> Hyper threading is basically a virtual "core" So when i see a BD chip going head to head to a 6 core and 6 virtual "core" (12 cores total) 980X i think that pretty dam impressive and for quarter of the price.



While I agree on this (the performance part not so much the virtual core part), it also proves my point of multi thread processors need programs that take advantage of them or you end up with a CPU (AMD or Intel) that performs like a cheaper version.


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 25, 2011)

Melvis said:


> Hyper threading is basically a virtual "core" So when i see a BD chip going head to head to a 6 core and 6 virtual "core" (12 cores total) 980X i think that pretty dam impressive and for quarter of the price.



Couple problems.  

The virtual cores don't really do a whole lot of work, the processor is still has 6 physical cores to do the work, and they can only do the work of 6 physical cores.  No matter what it appears to the OS.

The BD chip doesn't go head to head with the 980x, it barely touches the 980x in multithreaded apps, and the 980x is a generation old.  The BD really goes head to head with the 2600K for pretty much the same price.




Goodman said:


> You argue like you want to go back to AMD so bad....
> Don't worry it hardly shows...



If you hadn't noticed, I do own an AMD rig(actually several, just only one in the 4 primary machines I use).  And in the next few weeks I'll be replacing another one of my Intel rigs with an AMD because  for what it is used for, AMD is a better buy.



mastrdrver said:


> No, my argument is that 2600k will sometime perform like the cheaper 2500k. So is it more about a broken architecture or more about well threaded programs?



Really, because you pretty clear said:



mastrdrver said:


> The 2600k is not a 4 core since it can handle 8 threads



Your lack of knowledge on how HT works, and how closely the 2600K performs to the 2500K really shows.  Even in the best coded multi-threaded apps, the 2600K only gets a relatively small boost thanks to HT.


----------



## Goodman (Sep 25, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> If you hadn't noticed, I do own an AMD rig(actually several, just only one in the 4 primary machines I use).  And in the next few weeks I'll be replacing another one of my Intel rigs with an AMD because  for what it is used for, AMD is a better buy.



Than why are you still arguing about how "bad" AMD 8 cores is?
If the price & perform is real , it will be a good CPU for the price IHO no matter how many cores it has


----------



## mastrdrver (Sep 25, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Your lack of knowledge on how HT works, and how closely the 2600K performs to the 2500K really shows.  Even in the best coded multi-threaded apps, the 2600K only gets a relatively small boost thanks to HT.



If the 2600k is a 4 core then why doesn't it perform exactly like a 2500k? Because of extra hardware enabled so it can handle more threads.

Sorry for poorly chosen words. My point was pointing out that saying that the 2600k is _just_ a 4 core CPU is misleading since it can handle 8 threads. It is more then just a 4 core (4 core plus extra hardware) otherwise it would perform like the 2500k since it could only handle 4 threads like the 2500k.

I prefer to compare performance based on number of threads a CPU can handle. Cores are misleading (I think) because you leave out the ability of some CPUs to handle more threads (therefore) and allow them to perform better in certain circumstances.

Example:
If a program only does 4 threads, then both BD and 2600k look bad from an architecture and price standpoint (compared to a 2500k). The more threads the program can do, the greater the potential for BD and 2600k to distance themselves from the 2500k and provide a better price/performance. The closer the program relies on more actual "core hardware" the better the BD architecture should distance itself from SB. At this point, it really depends on how well the program is written to take advantage of the architecture. Lean either way (BD or SB) and one will perform better then the other.

If anything, I hope this will drive down Intel's 32nm Westmere prices so I can move up to a 6 core 1366 CPU for even less. That's my hope.


----------



## bear jesus (Sep 25, 2011)

I think AMD marketing its 4 modules as 8 cores is really biting them in the butt when it comes to some people.

Going by all the information AMD has released they really are just dual threaded cores with enough extra non shared hardware that AMD felt it suitable to market as separate cores thus some people think each "core" should be better than they are.

What makes me laugh though is that when it comes to average consumers the whole 8 core thing will go down well and lend it's self great to marketing use so as far as mass market goes it will probably be a good thing but it's the people who should know better that just can't seam to accept the architecture for what it is.


----------



## Melvis (Sep 25, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Couple problems.
> 
> The virtual cores don't really do a whole lot of work, the processor is still has 6 physical cores to do the work, and they can only do the work of 6 physical cores.  No matter what it appears to the OS.
> 
> The BD chip doesn't go head to head with the 980x, it barely touches the 980x in multithreaded apps, and the 980x is a generation old.  The BD really goes head to head with the 2600K for pretty much the same price.



Then whats the point of hyper threading then???

Far as i know a virtual core is about 25% of a normal cores performance, it mimics the core.

Well we dont know that with 100% as none of the tests show that, only against he 2600K and it wins half losses half. 

We need some better benches to see how it realy all turns out. So far im happy been a AMD user i can now get a CPU upgrade to be on par with others from the other camp for cheaper, win win for me.


----------



## btarunr (Sep 25, 2011)

FX 8150 vs. i7-990X, FX 8150 performs well: _Boohoo, 980X is slower than SB_
FX 8150 vs. i7-2600K (SB), FX 8150 performs well: _Boohoo, that's an unfair 8 core vs. 4 core comparison_


----------



## Mussels (Sep 25, 2011)

so to get what some people are saying straight: is bulldozer using AMD's version of hyper threading, or are they all 'real' cores?

i think thats what i've seen people argue about a few times now


----------



## btarunr (Sep 25, 2011)

Mussels said:


> so to get what some people are saying straight: is bulldozer using AMD's version of hyper threading, or are they all 'real' cores?
> 
> i think thats what i've seen people argue about a few times now



OK, imagine the lulz if AMD marketed Bulldozer as an SMT quad-core chip (4c/8t) instead. Bulldozer would have still gone on to beat i7-980X (6c/12t) in multi-threaded tests, and Intel would run for cover.


----------



## nINJAkECIL (Sep 25, 2011)

Mussels said:


> so to get what some people are saying straight: is bulldozer using AMD's version of hyper threading, or are they all 'real' cores?
> 
> i think thats what i've seen people argue about a few times now


They are indeed a real core (to be exact, an integer core. AMD has moved away from a "real core" marketing slogan and what we see as a "real core" right now).
4 module, each module has 2 integer core, and each integer core has its own L1 data cache, integer scheduler and integer datapath, while sharing L2 and L3 cache between integer core in one module.

This is the best die shot I have on BD architecture:


----------



## mastrdrver (Sep 25, 2011)

btarunr said:


> FX 8150 vs. i7-990X, FX 8150 performs well: _Boohoo, *980X is slower than BD*_
> FX 8150 vs. i7-2600K (SB), FX 8150 performs well: _Boohoo, *BD is slower then SB*_



Fixed that for you. 



Mussels said:


> so to get what some people are saying straight: is bulldozer using AMD's version of hyper threading, or are they all 'real' cores?
> 
> i think thats what i've seen people argue about a few times now



Neither. It's the difference between SMT and CMT.


----------



## seronx (Sep 25, 2011)

Bulldozer(2011) => Piledriver(2012) => Steamroller(2013)
Competes with
Haswell(2013) -> Haswell(2013) -> Haswell(2013)

and 8-cores Sandy Bridge-EP vs 16-core Interlagos

Interlagos wins the price and power brackets at being $1400~ below and below 150~ watts while maintaining Intel's $5000 and above performance bracket

Server market is much more diluted than the Desktop market
---
Also, these benchmarks/demos weren't done by AMD...just telling


----------



## heky (Sep 25, 2011)

btarunr said:


> OK, imagine the lulz if AMD marketed Bulldozer as an SMT quad-core chip (4c/8t) instead. Bulldozer would have still gone on to beat i7-980X (6c/12t) in multi-threaded tests, and Intel would run for cover.



Buahahahaha, you have got to be joking right. Or am i blind? In which multithreaded test did BD beat I7-980X(which is more than a year old now)? Your comments are a joke. Mean no disrespect, but seriously, wtf.

Oh and lets not forget, that AMD also uses higher clock speeds, so that means more cores with higher clocks, for less performance. Well done AMD.:shadedshu


----------



## Nesters (Sep 25, 2011)

Well, at least AMD has gotten one gen closer to Intel.


----------



## YautjaLord (Sep 25, 2011)

BTW: 2 all those that say 2600K outperforms 980X (let alone 990X) - i think it's on a contrary: don't remember @ which sites, but in most cases 990X & 980X outperform the afformentioned CPU stock & OC'd; in games & synthetic benchies i think it's better than 2600K excluding apps that specifically desingend for SB if there's any. No fanboy s*** on my side, but this Westmere 980/990X is still heck of CPU compared to SB; not that 2500/2600K's are bad: if i had enough ca$h i would buy one BD-based gaming rig & one SB/SB-E-based rig & than pit one gainst the other to see which beats the f*** out of the other. 

Regardless of what i said above, these news completely acceptable by me, since this is how i hoped the BD (this FX-8150) will fair out. Now the only thing left to know is how it'll run when paired with C5F, Sabertooth 990FX or any other 990FX/X-based mobo, 2x4GB DDR3 1600MHz RAM, 2xGTX 4xx/5xx or 2xHD 6xxx, 1kW+ PSU & fast HDD or SSD & tested here. If you'll pit it (FX-8150) gainst both 990X & 2600K - ace.  

P.S. Is there a CPU-based Photoshop benchie to test multithreading? I might check this one out once i'll buy this CPU; probably end of October/middle of November.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Sep 25, 2011)

This is a marketing smokescreen by AMD. The funny/sad part is that they present the FX as the ultimate gaming chip and they fail to confirm this in all those slides. Comparisons are made with their own Phenom and a general presentation comparing it with an Intel last gen chip (by the way, discontinued) which is proven to be under the current Sandy Bridge generation in gaming. Furthermore we don't know if they used an xfire setup or a medium class single GPU since this might alter drastically the results. 

Anyway, BD has to be better than Phenom II x6 otherwise what's the purpose? It's 315 mm2 die size compared to Sandy's 216 mm2 (on which we also have an IGP) should provide some performance, isn't it?


----------



## de.das.dude (Sep 25, 2011)

nINJAkECIL said:


> They are indeed a real core (to be exact, an integer core. AMD has moved away from a "real core" marketing slogan and what we see as a "real core" right now).
> 4 module, each module has 2 integer core, and each integer core has its own L1 data cache, integer scheduler and integer datapath, while sharing L2 and L3 cache between integer core in one module.
> 
> This is the best die shot I have on BD architecture:
> ...



sure its not from google earth? 
j/k


----------



## heky (Sep 25, 2011)

YautjaLord said:


> BTW: 2 all those that say 2600K outperforms 980X (let alone 990X) - i think it's on a contrary: don't remember @ which sites, but in most cases 990X & 980X outperform the afformentioned CPU stock & OC'd; in games & synthetic benchies i think it's better than 2600K excluding apps that specifically desingend for SB if there's any. No fanboy s*** on my side, but this Westmere 980/990X is still heck of CPU compared to SB; not that 2500/2600K's are bad: if i had enough ca$h i would buy one BD-based gaming rig & one SB/SB-E-based rig & than pit one gainst the other to see which beats the f*** out of the other.
> 
> Regardless of what i said above, these news completely acceptable by me, since this is how i hoped the BD (this FX-8150) will fair out. Now the only thing left to know is how it'll run when paired with C5F, Sabertooth 990FX or any other 990FX/X-based mobo, 2x4GB DDR3 1600MHz RAM, 2xGTX 4xx/5xx or 2xHD 6xxx, 1kW+ PSU & fast HDD or SSD & tested here. If you'll pit it (FX-8150) gainst both 990X & 2600K - ace.
> 
> P.S. Is there a CPU-based Photoshop benchie to test multithreading? I might check this one out once i'll buy this CPU; probably end of October/middle of November.



Nope, 2600K beats the 980x in almost all game tests. In just 1(one!) game test, the 980x wins.

Proof:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/142?vs=287


----------



## Melvis (Sep 25, 2011)

Crap Daddy said:


> This is a marketing smokescreen by AMD. The funny/sad part is that they present the FX as the ultimate gaming chip and they fail to confirm this in all those slides. Comparisons are made with their own Phenom and a general presentation comparing it with an Intel last gen chip (by the way, discontinued) which is proven to be under the current Sandy Bridge generation in gaming. Furthermore we don't know if they used an xfire setup or a medium class single GPU since this might alter drastically the results.
> 
> Anyway, BD has to be better than Phenom II x6 otherwise what's the purpose? It's 315 mm2 die size compared to Sandy's 216 mm2 (on which we also have an IGP) should provide some performance, isn't it?



Ummm don't they show a test in games against the 2500k in eyefinity? and the 8150 shows up to a 30% performance over the 2500k. Its in one of the slides, ive got it open now.


----------



## Rookienoob (Sep 25, 2011)

I don't see why people compare 8 AMD cores to 4 Intel cores - Remember that for each BD module, two FAMC units are shared between the "cores". I guess with only 4 cores active, those cores have access to all the FAMC's...

We really should be comparing 4 active cores on a BD 8-core CPU to the 4 cores in a core i5 CPU...

And before we see any official benches, we can hardly even make qualified guesses as to how the two competitors compare in regards to real world performance.

The performance of BD decides my next CPU... but I think that the mere option to freely tweak and OC the CPU's are going to win over a lot of semi-enthusiasts that "plan on" venturing into overclocking.
Let's not forget that the BD lineup will contain the cheapest unlocked CPU of this generation (so far).


----------



## HalfAHertz (Sep 25, 2011)

I've never liked HT. The only reason it works is because of shoddy software. If you fully stress the 2600's cores with 4 threads, you will *not* see any benefits from HT, because what HT does in very basic terms is widen the processor pipeline, so that if a thread stalls, it can be parked and the next thread after it can be picked up and processed while the stalled step is flushed.

However BD's design does not widen the pipeline, it literally adds a second parallel pipeline next to it, so that two threads can run simultaneously through the module. The thing is that for you to truly experience this extra performance, you need properly written software and that is somethig we rarely find in today's world...

I applaud AMD for what they're trying to do. It may not be the best solution right now but it sure is the one better suited for the future. There are new algorithms found every day and new and better libraries made for the popular compilers. Sooner or later we will not be able to scale hardware any further or with the same pace as today and when that time comes we will need better software. And I believe AMD's design will be better suited for that software.


----------



## NC37 (Sep 25, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Who has a Xeon?



Mac users.


----------



## YautjaLord (Sep 25, 2011)

The CPUs (4xxx/6xxx/8xxx Dozers) will be released October 12, right? Like i said: prior to or at it (release) TPU staff have to pit these (especially FX-8150) gainst both 990X & 2600K, that's when it'll be unbiased & legit. Waiting to see that happen; if the results are identical or 90%+ same - ace twice. Still hoping BD to wipe the floor with 990X & 2600K in most gaming/synthetic/system benchies suite you got guys.


----------



## heky (Sep 25, 2011)

HalfAHertz said:


> Sooner or later we will not be able to scale hardware any further or with the same pace as today and when that time comes we will need better software. And I believe AMD's design will be better suited for that software.



You do realize that wont happen in the near future. Not for at least 10 years.


----------



## Bundy (Sep 25, 2011)

I'm not so sure why all the debate about hyperthreading and vityual cores.

What matters for gaming will be core speed and instruction efficiency. None of that other rubbish will matter for nearly every game on the market.


----------



## claylomax (Sep 25, 2011)

Bundy said:


> I'm not so sure why all the debate about hyperthreading and vityual cores.
> 
> What matters for gaming will be core speed and instruction efficiency. None of that other rubbish will matter for nearly every game on the market.



True.


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 25, 2011)

If:

BD is better than SB 2500 for majority of general use including gaming it is good.
BD is cheaper than SB 2600 it is good.
BD core count (whatever it is) allows it to perform better than SB in multi threaded non cherry picked tasks, it is good.

BD is 125w versus SB 95w TDP:

it uses 30w more at top spec, which is 30/95 = 32%.

For ref as well, accord to other marketing slides (http://www.techpowerup.com/149464/C...aster-On-Average-Than-Core-i7-990X-Intel.html) the SB-E top cpu (which is a more relevant competitor to use than 980x) is 47% faster than the 990.  Given the unrealistic price point, the 1000 dollar cpu shouldn't be used and if it is, like i say, use the upcoming 3960, not an outdated 980.

Price point versus price point, BD looks good enough BUT not the winner.  But consider if it keeps up with (or near enough to) the SB line up, then it is an excellent step for AMD.  If AMD have got a competitively priced cpu that comes fairly close to SB then it has succeeded.

However, one caveat.  Going back to power, its akin to the 6970 versus 580 debates.  The 580 wins but at a considerable power cost.  With a component drawing 32% more juice than it's rival, you'd want it to hammer it.  BD draws far more power but doesn't exceed it's competitor (well not by the vague PR slides).

I game and surf.  If BD games well (within 10% of SB) and costs much less (system wide), I'd happily put it in my PC. If only IB wasn't coming in 6 months.


----------



## seronx (Sep 25, 2011)

the54thvoid said:


> it uses 30w more at top spec, which is 30/95 = 32%.



It produces 30 watts of heat more at top spec*

TDP = Heat, Joules per second

Max Consumption of power can either be higher than the TDP if the CPU is inefficient or it can be lower if the CPU is efficient(actually, I might have flipped these but oh well hahahahaha)

The estimation is that Bulldozer consumes in max workloads is

105 to 110 watts @ turbo clocks while it produces the bracket of 125 watt heat

TDP wattage tends to be bracket based

95 = 94.9999 and below
125 = 124.99999 and below(ends at 94.9 where it can be called 95 watt TDP)


----------



## Rookienoob (Sep 25, 2011)

> 105 to 110 watts @ turbo clocks while it produces the bracket of 125 watt heat



This is physically impossible. Every single Watt that is "consumed" by the CPU and is not output as data signals will be converted directly to heat.
If the CPU consumes 125W at full load, then it produces 125W of heat energy. - if it consumes less than 110 watts, there's no way, it can produce more than 110 watts of thermal energy (first law of thermodynamics).


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 25, 2011)

Rookienoob said:


> This is physically impossible. Every single Watt that is "consumed" by the CPU and is not output as data signals will be converted directly to heat.
> If the CPU consumes 125W at full load, then it produces 125W of heat energy. - if it consumes less than 110 watts, there's no way, it can produce more than 110 watts of thermal energy (first law of thermodynamics).



I think what he meant is it draws 110 watts but runs in a bracket category of 125 watts (for safety margins).

Either way, a 30% difference in TDP is still mighty big.  And by seronx's own statement SB could be far lower than 95 watts (it fits into the 95 watt bracket for TDP).

So using apples to apples in logical terms what AMD say is "My CPU requires 125 watts of cooling power" and Intel say "My CPU requires 95 watts of cooling power".  Which in essence says, my cpu runs 30% cooler because it creates less heat because it uses less power.

Even taking in to account inter company variances in calculations, 30% is still a large difference.


----------



## repman244 (Sep 25, 2011)

the54thvoid said:


> BD is 125w versus SB 95w TDP



AMD's TDP ≠  Intel's TDP


----------



## Mussels (Sep 25, 2011)

repman244 said:


> AMD's TDP ≠  Intel's TDP



it'd be nice if they did use equal TDP values, but sadly they dont compare directly.


----------



## Rookienoob (Sep 25, 2011)

the54thvoid said:


> I think what he meant is it draws 110 watts but runs in a bracket category of 125 watts (for safety margins).



AH... This makes a lot more sense. Sorry for misunderstanding that 
So basically, the two 8-core CPU's will probably have different power consumptions even if they're in the same 125 TDP bracket? Does this mean that some of the 8120 or even 8100-chips may be able to run at 8150 speeds without breaking the 125TDP?

If I were to sell an Intel chip, I'd clearly point out that it has a superior performance/power consumption ratio and that the procssing power is concentrated in just 4 cores.

If, however, I were to sell an AMD CPU, I'd point out that it supports a new instruction set, that Intel doesn't, that it provides better value for the money and that it's a good way to get into overclocking.


----------



## repman244 (Sep 25, 2011)

Mussels said:


> it'd be nice if they did use equal TDP values, but sadly they dont compare directly.



Yes it would be nice, AMD also has ACP which AFAIK is mostly used for server CPU's.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 25, 2011)

Rookienoob said:


> AH... This makes a lot more sense. Sorry for misunderstanding that
> So basically, the two 8-core CPU's will probably have different power consumptions even if they're in the same 125 TDP bracket?



this is always the case. if a CPU is labelled as 95W, it doesnt use 95W perfectly. - it just means it fits under 95W TDP.


you can have a dozen chips in a lineup rated for the same TDP, but individual power consumption will vary depending on clock speed and voltage. they really just list a maximum (and thanks to them TDP asshattery, its more of a maximum average )


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 25, 2011)

Mussels said:


> and thanks to them TDP asshattery, its more of a maximum average


And that is where the differences are between the two...



> *AMD's ACP uses a "round down" average of power measurements performed with industry standard benchmarks (usually running at 100% CPU load, with the exception of Stream).
> 
> *AMD's TDP is close to the electrical maximum a CPU can draw (when it is operating at its maximum voltage).
> 
> *Intel's TDP is a "round up" average of power measurements of processor intensive benchmarks.



http://www.anandtech.com/show/2807/2


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 25, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Who has a Xeon?


Two Xeon 5310, in my server. 




nINJAkECIL said:


> They are indeed a real core (to be exact, an integer core. AMD has moved away from a "real core" marketing slogan and what we see as a "real core" right now).
> 4 module, each module has 2 integer core, and each integer core has its own L1 data cache, integer scheduler and integer datapath, while sharing L2 and L3 cache between integer core in one module.
> 
> This is the best die shot I have on BD architecture:
> ...


The unique thing about AMD modules is that two cores share a floating point unit.  Not exactly sure how that provides an advantage but as you said, they are "real cores."  They don't fit the description of logical cores like Hyper-Threading or IBM's implementation of logical cores.  They're closer to physical cores.




Mussels said:


> it'd be nice if they did use equal TDP values, but sadly they dont compare directly.


AMD is the odd one out.  Everyone else uses Intel's method of measuring TDP, including Via.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Sep 25, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> And that matters how? I don't care what's inside the CPU as long as it performs. It's stupid to say that what is inside the CPU is more important than how the CPU performs.



Wow they got u pretty worked up there....
 isn't what inside a cpu what gives it its performance?


----------



## MikeMurphy (Sep 25, 2011)

So much hate for calling them 8 cores??

AMD can save a bundle of silicon by doing it this way and hopefully not compromise performance much, if at all.

It makes sense and they pass the savings on to you.  So, whats the problem?


----------



## Mussels (Sep 25, 2011)

MikeMurphy said:


> So much hate for calling them 8 cores??
> 
> AMD can save a bundle of silicon by doing it this way and hopefully not compromise performance much, if at all.
> 
> It makes sense and they pass the savings on to you.  So, whats the problem?



maybe thats BD's secret to the low prices, maybe it really did cut costs a lot.


----------



## pantherx12 (Sep 25, 2011)

Well isn't it like a 25% die increase for 80% of the performance ?

( something like that) Bound to save some pennies.


----------



## MikeMurphy (Sep 25, 2011)

pantherx12 said:


> Well isn't it like a 25% die increase for 80% of the performance ?
> 
> ( something like that) Bound to save some pennies.



I recall reading that the Intel hyperthreading feature accounted for only 5% of the die.  Impressive stuff.

I imagine AMD's implementation should be north of 5%.


----------



## jpierce55 (Sep 25, 2011)

AhokZYashA said:


> BD have 8 cores.
> bleh...
> 
> you need more cores AMD? to compete with 4core SB?
> fix your architecture and FAST



This is an argument I don't understand, that argument makes sense only in 3 possibilities. 1 possibility would be double the power consumption, yet BD's supposed power consumption will be no worse than SB. 2nd possibility would be mass heat, considering the world record run I doubt that is going to be a problem. 

3rd would be the only realistic possibility, that the per core performance is not strong. We have many unknown factors there. Will software treat it like 8 cores, or 4? We know most software only uses 2 cores......


----------



## Swamp Monster (Sep 25, 2011)

jpierce55 said:


> 3rd would be the only realistic possibility, that the per core performance is not strong. We have many unknown factors there. Will software treat it like 8 cores, or 4? We know most software only uses 2 cores......



Software will "see" 8 cores:
http://tof.canardpc.com/view/4f1778db-1460-465e-8136-e88852809258.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp2XGoL9JaI&feature=player_detailpage#t=61s


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Sep 25, 2011)

Speaking of, could someone explain why HT does anything at all? How does segregating tasks increase performance? You'd think the effort expended doing so would waste power and give no benefit, yet it seems to benefit in some circumstances... though there's also some instances where it really is wasteful and the 2500k beats the 2600k, which is what I'd expect. Seriously couldn't they just give us more clock speed or better ipc if they took out hyperthreading? I know just disabling it tends to get you a higher OC. I'd imagine the gain would be better if it wasn't part the design from the get go.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 25, 2011)

NC37 said:


> Mac users.



But who here? And I guess it performs better than desktop chips in gaming? And that is why everyone here is gaming on a Mac?



FordGT90Concept said:


> Two Xeon 5310, in my server.



Exactly, server, what it was meant for and where you can get a 16 core Interlagos. 



ensabrenoir said:


> Wow they got u pretty worked up there....
> isn't what inside a cpu what gives it its performance?



You're missing my point. Of course it's what is in the CPU that gives performance. It just doesn't matter how someone builds a chip to get that performance.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 25, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> Speaking of, could someone explain why HT does anything at all? How does segregating tasks increase performance? You'd think the effort expended doing so would waste power and give no benefit, yet it seems to benefit in some circumstances... though there's also some instances where it really is wasteful and the 2500k beats the 2600k, which is what I'd expect. Seriously couldn't they just give us more clock speed or better ipc if they took out hyperthreading? I know just disabling it tends to get you a higher OC. I'd imagine the gain would be better if it wasn't part the design from the get go.



because processes arent magic, they have limitations. they have to wait until they're done before another process can begin. with HT, a process that is idling waiting on another process/ram/hard drive, whatever - while it waits, the processing power is shunted over to the HT thread, which then uses the hardware thats idling.


its really just more efficient multi tasking.


----------



## Jonap_1st (Sep 25, 2011)

this thread will be endless.. :shadedshu

whoever b*tching about cores, threads, TDP, architectures, designs, and bla..bla..bla.. should  remember the REAL cost..

its like comparing two cars, both have different approach. but in the end, these two cars have the same exact time when they reach the finish. the only things that make it different is the way you can make all the cost to use it goes as efficients as possible..

i'm not defending either AMD or Intel, both are awesome. but i will pick whoever side that can get along nicely with my pocket..


----------



## Inceptor (Sep 25, 2011)

Goodman said:


> 4 cores 8 threads , 8 cores 8 threads where is the difference?
> 
> Beside i view Bulldozer FX8150 more like a 4 cores with 8 hardware threads then a real 8 cores CPU...



Exactly.  It is not a 'true' 8 core, it's essentially hardware-hyperthreading as opposed to virtual hyperthreading.  Eight cores grouped into 4 modules, each module sharing a floating point unit; 'integer cores'.
It's too early in the morning for me to remember the technical terms for it, but there it is.

Stop arguing semantics.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Sep 25, 2011)

Wow, you guys are still going....12 pages? And still on the core, module, thread thing.

There is no rigid, defined term for what is and is not a "core" when it comes to technology. Its a word and nothing more. It is mainly just used for categorization and distinguishing the difference between the architecture of a CPU and other components.

AMD's use of term 8 core is not just about the architecture. It is about marketing, general public limited technical understanding, legal deals with Intel to not use Hyper-Threading-like technology, etc. If the creates of the chip want to call the FX-8XXX series 8 core processors, that is what they are.

And if you ever wonder why they used the term "core" instead of cluster, node, processing zones, and 20 other terms that would fit, go try to explain to your mother why is not a "real" core and see how that turns out.


----------



## Swamp Monster (Sep 25, 2011)

Inceptor said:


> Exactly. It is not a 'true' 8 core, it's essentially hardware-hyperthreading as opposed to virtual hyperthreading. Eight cores grouped into 4 modules, each module sharing a floating point unit; 'integer cores'.
> It's too early in the morning for me to remember the technical terms for it, but there it is.
> 
> Stop arguing semantics.



I agree. We can call it what we want, what matters is that there are 8 *hardware* threads, so when using multi threaded software there will be benefit even when CPU is heavily loaded - WIN!


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 25, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> And Bulldozer was released more than 6 months ago?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 lol well........if you wanna go down that road I got some bad news for ya. The Phenom architecture is almost 10 years old and look how well its scaled. Just NOW Sandy Bridge has made it truly inferior. Took almost ten years for Intel to beat AMD if I go by your logic. Again......lets keep this in perspective.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Sep 25, 2011)

*wheels on the bus go round & round*

Until tpu d oes some benches this will never end. Till then everyone should realize we've been here Before.  If bd is the truth, two days later intel will release a monster...again and the cycle continues until ivy bridge and pile driver. Then raindow bridge and atomic elbow


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 25, 2011)

ensabrenoir said:


> Until tpu d oes some benches this will never end. Till then everyone should realize we've been here Before.  If bd is the truth, two days later intel will release a monster...again and the cycle continues until ivy bridge and pile driver. Then raindow bridge and atomic elbow



Be careful. Mods have already given out points for calling BS on people in this thread. Just a heads up.


----------



## entropy13 (Sep 25, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> lol well........if you wanna go down that road I got some bad news for ya. The Phenom architecture is almost 10 years old and look how well its scaled. Just NOW Sandy Bridge has made it truly inferior. Took almost ten years for Intel to beat AMD if I go by your logic. Again......lets keep this in perspective.





What does anything you have just said have anything to do with anything that I have just said?


If I go by YOUR "logic", you're saying as if I'm saying that the "next-gen" only happens when there's a new architecture? So why didn't I say anything else about the GTX 400 and GTX 500 series then, as well as the HD 5000 and HD 6000 series?


What you just did is reinterpret my points and construe it into a perspective that would fit your own. And then you call it keeping things "in perspective"...


----------



## JATownes (Sep 25, 2011)

TheLaughingMan said:


> Wow, you guys are still going....12 pages? And still on the core, module, thread thing.
> 
> .....
> 
> And if you ever wonder why they used the term "core" instead of cluster, node, processing zones, and 20 other terms that would fit, go try to explain to your mother why is not a "real" core and see how that turns out.



Thank you very much for this comment.  12 pages on and still going strong with the back and forth.

I have a couple of simple questions for all, that go back to my post on page 7:

1.) How many "average" consumers use their rig for anything more than gaming/general usage...better yet, how many here at TPU use their rig for anything more that gaming/general usage/benching for epeen?

2.) Does anyone know of a game/general program that will bring an Athlon II/Core 2 quad with a decent video card to the point of slow motion video?  If so, please PM me the prog/game because I have been searching for one to make my rig break a sweat, and still haven't found it.

I say this because, as much as I enjoy the back and forth commenting, both arguments are an exercise in futility.  Until software/game developers start to give us something that will push hardware that is 2 generations old to it's limit, the power we are all purchasing with new SB/BD hardware is pointless to the general consumer, as they will concur that what ever processor they own is awesome and does everything they want with room to spare.

That being said...I hope the FX8150 benchies I get to run on October 12th will help my epeen grow to ENORMOUS SIZE!!!!  8=========}  

Thanks for entertaining me for the last 36 hours or so.  It has been an interesting read.

JATownes


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 25, 2011)

JATownes said:


> Thank you very much for this comment.  12 pages on and still going strong with the back and forth.
> 
> I have a couple of simple questions for all, that go back to my post on page 7:
> 
> ...



Someone played the tardcard and we all must follow the rules.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Sep 25, 2011)

JATownes said:


> 1.) How many "average" consumers use their rig for anything more than gaming/general usage...better yet, how many here at TPU use their rig for anything more that gaming/general usage/benching for epeen?
> 
> 2.) Does anyone know of a game/general program that will bring an Athlon II/Core 2 quad with a decent video card to the point of slow motion video?
> 
> JATownes



1) I benchmark for reviews, play games, video encoding, general use, and often have my system doing 4 or 5 CPU intensive tasks at once. I don't just run a virus scan. I run the virus scanner in tandem with Spybot, CCleaner, while watching a video on Netflix.

2) Assuming all settings on their highest with AA on at least 2x and AF on at least 8x and decent being say a 6850 or better, Crysis 2, Metro 2033, Shogun Total War 2, battlefield 3, and Rage off the top of my head.


----------



## repman244 (Sep 25, 2011)

JATownes said:


> Does anyone know of a game/general program that will bring an Athlon II/Core 2 quad with a decent video card to the point of slow motion video?



Rendering


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 25, 2011)

repman244 said:


> Rendering



I didn't say that. 

Edit: You fixed it.


----------



## repman244 (Sep 25, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> I didn't say that.



Yea I know, sorry about that used the wrong post for quoting, fixed it now


----------



## JATownes (Sep 25, 2011)

Rendering I can agree with, but for gaming/general usage...I find a Athlon II quad/C2Q is more than enough...and as far as 2x AA & 8x AF, wouldn't that be video card issues and CPU would have little to do with it?  No matter what CPU you have, a limited video card is limited.


----------



## repman244 (Sep 25, 2011)

JATownes said:


> Rendering I can agree with, but for gaming/general usage...I find a 965 quad/C2Q is more than enough...and as far as 2x AA & 8x AF, wouldn't that be video card issues and CPU would have little to do with it?  No matter what CPU you have, a limited video card is limited.



Yes I agree, that's why I said a few pages back that an FX-4170 should be a nice CPU for game (or maybe even the 6 "core" version) because of it's high clock and large L3 cache.

I don't 100% trust these benchmarks since it's from AMD so I'm still waiting for reviews...


----------



## Wile E (Sep 25, 2011)

cdawall said:


> NO, NOT all multithreaded apps are the same, SB will not be faster *in the vast majority which cap out at 4 cores.* It will not be faster in any of those same games, etc.  You are also assuming multithreading is linear. It is not take cinebench a "normal HT-less" quad will often score 3.79X when multithreaded vs a single core. thats not 100% scaling just incase your math needs help.



Yeah, maybe 2 years ago. Gulftown changed that. The only multithreaded apps that don't max out all 12 of my threads these days are those that suffer a bottleneck somewhere else, like mpeg2/DVD encoding (it goes so fast, my hard drive setup is the bottleneck), or games.

I can't comment for sure on who will be overall faster in multithreading, BD vs SB, but if I was forced to bet, I'd put my money on Intel pulling ahead in most of them. I would also put my money on SB-E decimating everything. Of course, it will come at a large premium, but that doesn't much bother me.



TheMailMan78 said:


> Honestly I don't get all this bickering. These are MARKETING SLIDES. You know meant to SELL SOMETHING?! These are not a biased review by a third party like TPU. These slides are by AMD. They are garbage. Why fight?
> 
> Second keep things in perspective. Most people do not run multi GPU setups. So what advantage will SB have over BD other then that? If even that?! Will your E-mail open in 3 nano seconds with Sandy rather then 4 nano seconds with BD? BD will give you 150 FPS in Bad Company 2 when Sandy will give you 200 FPS? I mean really? Most console games run at 30 FPS! Is Sandy faster? Who knows. Probably. But how much faster is really needed at this point and is worth the price? I mean in a real world scenario. Is it worth the extra money. I mean you guys are arguing over a Shelby Super Snake with a super charger vs a Shelby Super Snake without a super charger. WTF does it matter?! They are both SUPER SNAKES.
> 
> ...


Faster =  better, period. I don't believe in "good enough".



Damn_Smooth said:


> They already have 16 core server CPU's. It's not like they can't easily translate that to desktop.



Exactly, therefore BD will never compete on the top end. I want some competition up here too, dammit.



btarunr said:


> FX 8150 vs. i7-990X, FX 8150 performs well: _Boohoo, 980X is slower than SB_


Only in gaming, not in heavy multitasking/multithreading.


btarunr said:


> {list][*]FX 8150 vs. i7-2600K (SB), FX 8150 performs well: _Boohoo, that's an unfair 8 core vs. 4 core comparison_
> [/LIST]


Only in multitasking/multithreading, not gaming. The 2500k will preform on par with BD at a lower price point.

All in all, if true, this is not a big enough improvement for me to switch back to AMD.


----------



## de.das.dude (Sep 25, 2011)

TheLaughingMan said:


> 1) I benchmark for reviews, play games, video encoding, general use, and often have my system doing 4 or 5 CPU intensive tasks at once. I don't just run a virus scan. I run the virus scanner in tandem with Spybot, CCleaner, while watching a video on Netflix.
> 
> 2) Assuming all settings on their highest with AA on at least 2x and AF on at least 8x and decent being say a 6850 or better, Crysis 2, Metro 2033, Shogun Total War 2, battlefield 3, and Rage off the top of my head.



i can easily do them all with my x4 945.










in the end it was laggin because of FRAPS! its a son of a bitch. and my HDD is a 3yr old 80gb crap. the OS and the fraps are installed on the same. so when fraps was maxing out the write at 23MBps, os had very little to do


----------



## Wile E (Sep 25, 2011)

de.das.dude said:


> i can easily do them all with my x4 945.



He can do them all, plus more, and do it faster.


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 25, 2011)

Melvis said:


> Then whats the point of hyper threading then???
> 
> Far as i know a virtual core is about 25% of a normal cores performance, it mimics the core.



Not even close to 25%, when you have a multi-threaded app that really pushes the CPU the benefit is usually under 10%.

In a 4 Core processor, there are only 4 cores to do the executing.  It can only do the work of 4 cores, period.  However, the registers for each core are duplicated, so that different information can be stored and sent to be executed on the core.  This allows the processor scheduler to make it appear to the system like 2 cores, but it still only has the execution power of one, but with the duplicated registers the processor can very efficinetly switch between workloads.  HT isn't anything close to mimick the actual work of 2 cores, it is an efficiency improvement for a single core more than anything else.



Mussels said:


> so to get what some people are saying straight: is bulldozer using AMD's version of hyper threading, or are they all 'real' cores?
> 
> i think thats what i've seen people argue about a few times now



They are real cores.  They are just dividing them into units that share L2/L3, Intel has been doing that for ages, and AMD even launched a marketting campaign against it.  Each unit has 2 cores to do execution tasks, that is a Core.  They might share resources, but they are cores that do all the execution duties.


----------



## de.das.dude (Sep 25, 2011)

Wile E said:


> He can do them all, plus more, and do it faster.



i did compare it to an i3 and i5. the i5 crashed once LOL.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 25, 2011)

Wile E said:


> Exactly, therefore BD will never compete on the top end. I want some competition up here too, dammit.



All they would have to do is release some 12 cores to compete with SB-e. Will they? I doubt it because that's the smallest percentage of enthusiasts, which is the smallest percentage of the market. But it is possible.


----------



## Super XP (Sep 25, 2011)

btarunr said:


> FX 8150 vs. i7-990X, FX 8150 performs well: _Boohoo, 980X is slower than SB_
> FX 8150 vs. i7-2600K (SB), FX 8150 performs well: _Boohoo, *that's an unfair 8 core vs. 4 core comparison*_


No problem, how about the super fast Quad-Core FX-4170 with it's stock speed of 4.20 GHz. I am sure this will easily outperform the i7-2600K....


----------



## Wile E (Sep 25, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Not even close to 25%, when you have a multi-threaded app that really pushes the CPU the benefit is usually under 10%.
> 
> In a 4 Core processor, there are only 4 cores to do the executing.  It can only do the work of 4 cores, period.  However, the registers for each core are duplicated, so that different information can be stored and sent to be executed on the core.  This allows the processor scheduler to make it appear to the system like 2 cores, but it still only has the execution power of one, but with the duplicated registers the processor can very efficinetly switch between workloads.  HT isn't anything close to mimick the actual work of 2 cores, it is an efficiency improvement for a single core more than anything else.
> 
> ...


H.264 encoding can see up to 20% from HT enabled, with all threads blasting along at 100% load.



de.das.dude said:


> i did compare it to an i3 and i5. the i5 crashed once LOL.



Yeah, because your test was done so scientifically. 



Damn_Smooth said:


> All they would have to do is release some 12 cores to compete with SB-e. Will they? I doubt it because that's the smallest percentage of enthusiasts, which is the smallest percentage of the market. But it is possible.



They don't do it because they can't on the current platform, not because they don't want to. Competing up top doesn't mean having to sell a lot of top end cpus, it means a marketing advantage, that will sell more lower cpus thru recognition. And even if they did release the 12core, intel only has to release an 8 core SB-E to be back on top.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 25, 2011)

Wile E said:


> They don't do it because they can't on the current platform, not because they don't want to. Competing up top doesn't mean having to sell a lot of top end cpus, it means a marketing advantage, that will sell more lower cpus thru recognition. And even if they did release the 12core, intel only has to release an 8 core SB-E to be back on top.



What makes you think that they can't? There is no proof of this assumption.

As far as I know, eBD is still supposed to be coming out at some point, and we know next to nothing about that.


----------



## Rookienoob (Sep 25, 2011)

> No problem, how about the super fast Quad-Core FX-4170 with it's stock speed of 4.20 GHz. I am sure this will easily outperform the i7-2600K....


That's not likely.

This is a quad core CPU with 2 modules - it only has a total of 4 floating point units to share between the 4 cores, while an equivalent i7 has 8 (or am I wrong here?)

With an 8 core bulldozer running 4 active cores, those 4 cores have access to the full 8 FPU's - that's as far as I see it the only competition for the i7 2600K.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Sep 25, 2011)

If it goes 5Ghz on air I don't care if it is Intel or AMD... the cheaper is base sample that can gain it - that's the winner for me.
I just can't understand these haters or lovers, this is a machine ffs... everything depends on its application.

The main point is that is concerning myself, if it can feed a current best SLI/CFX setup with data without bottlenecking everything, that's the real benchmark!! Leave those synthetics for pr0n(number) geeks... (same philosophy). That's it...


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Sep 25, 2011)

de.das.dude said:


> i can easily do them all with my x4 945.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your system was laggin due to IO performance of your HDD.

You want to see how your system handles my daily use. Turn on uTorrent, download a 800 MB movie (they have free ones in their browser now), run your virus scanner and spybot S&D, while you watch a movie on a non-GPU accelerated player like KMPlayer with Post Processing on. You are welcome to scan one HDD while you play the movie from another. Stuttering is not an option.

Is that a lot? Not to me. As you stated, the power is for the games which many of us including myself will be playing while on TeamSpeak/Skype/Steam Voice Chat/whatever. Does that need 8 cores? No, 4 is probably enough. (assuming say 3.0 GHz)

Now what happens when a tank explodes in my face 4 feet from my location, covering the entire screen with Frostbite 2.0 or Havok calculated particles and smoke effects? Adding something like that on top of maintaining the other tasks would be a slide show on a dual core, barely passable on 3 cores, a small dip in performance for 4 cores. Many of us here aren't willing to accept that when we can spend an extra $XX to throw 8 cores at it. One of two things will happen. Either the extra threads will prevent or lessen the drop in performance to make it unnoticeable, or require less power to achieve the same performance. Its win/win to me.

Hell. Maybe I will be able to play BF3, chat on TS, while I convert videos with handbrake from MPEG to AVI.


----------



## Wile E (Sep 25, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> What makes you think that they can't? There is no proof of this assumption.
> 
> As far as I know, eBD is still supposed to be coming out at some point, and we know next to nothing about that.



The proof is that they aren't doing it. Again, they would compete up top if they could. They don't have to sell a lot of those chips to make it worthwhile. The marketing potential alone makes it worth it.

Maybe on the next socket, but not this one.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 25, 2011)

Wile E said:


> The proof is that they aren't doing it. Again, they would compete up top if they could. They don't have to sell a lot of those chips to make it worthwhile. The marketing potential alone makes it worth it.
> 
> Maybe on the next socket, but not this one.



And how do you know what market segment eBD will be competing with? That will be on AM3+.

SB launched what, 6 months ago? And SB-e still isn't here. 

Just because they're not competing with the first wave doesn't mean it can't be done.


----------



## laszlo (Sep 25, 2011)

if price and perf will be decent the final consumer will be the winner;amd fans  will buy it;intel fans will buy cheaper also so is a win situation for all

don't forget that both intel&amd are linked to each other with many patents and i wouldn't be surprised if they exchange "secrets&technology" behind closed doors;neither of them can't make progresses without these exchange; many innovation&features are similar or tend to be and i wouldn't be surprised if they both we'll have similar price/perf. products in near future

all we should care is to have cheaper good products without thinking of manufacturer label


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Sep 25, 2011)

Rookienoob said:


> That's not likely.
> 
> This is a quad core CPU with 2 modules - it only has a total of 4 floating point units to share between the 4 cores, while an equivalent i7 has 8 (or am I wrong here?)
> 
> With an 8 core bulldozer running 4 active cores, those 4 cores have access to the full 8 FPU's - that's as far as I see it the only competition for the i7 2600K.



Most of the tasks your CPU does are Integer based. And each module will have 2 128-bit floating point calculation units that can be used as a single 256-bit floating point unit.

Long story short for Bulldozer:

Multi-threaded application wants Integer processing = 8 cores
dido wants 128-bit or less floating point processing = 8 cores
dido wants 256-bit floating point processing = 4 cores (note as far as I know this is limited to encryption programs as of right now.)

As for what I know of each design from Intel and AMD, I think this will be interesting to see. I consider an i7 2600K vs. an FX-8150 to be completely fair.


----------



## Wile E (Sep 25, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> And how do you know what market segment eBD will be competing with? That will be on AM3+.
> 
> SB launched what, 6 months ago? And SB-e still isn't here.
> 
> Just because they're not competing with the first wave doesn't mean it can't be done.



SB-E hasn't released because there has been no need for it.

And I would bet money that AMD won't be able to ever compete at the top end on the AM3+ socket at all. Maybe the next arch.


----------



## jpierce55 (Sep 25, 2011)

Amazing that every BD thread comes to speculating on speculations. Or speculating on rumors that are speculating on speculated rumors that are purely speculating.

People need to take a deep breath and calm down. Why fight when nobody knows for 100% certain yet.

The thread needs locked.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 25, 2011)

Wile E said:


> SB-E hasn't released because there has been no need for it.
> 
> And I would bet money that AMD won't be able to ever compete at the top end on the AM3+ socket at all. Maybe the next arch.



So Intel is fine with their mainstream CPU's outperforming their high end line?

My crystal ball is broken, so I won't be taking any bets. Thanks for the offer though.


----------



## Wile E (Sep 25, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> So Intel is fine with their mainstream CPU's outperforming their high end line?
> 
> My crystal ball is broken, so I won't be taking any bets. Thanks for the offer though.



SB only outperforms the high end in gaming. Most of the high end market wants the threading capabilities, and aren't as concerned with gaming. My cpu is still faster than SB in the things I want it for, thus the reason I still have it over an SB setup.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 25, 2011)

Wile E said:


> SB only outperforms the high end in gaming. Most of the high end market wants the threading capabilities, and aren't as concerned with gaming. My cpu is still faster than SB in the things I want it for, thus the reason I still have it over an SB setup.



It's only faster due to core count and even then, it's not a vast difference. Throw 2 more of the exact same cores on a 2600k and it will stomp your 980x, which is what they are doing with SB-e. But I digress, gaming is what is most important to me, and apparantly BD will hold up well, so it's fine for me.


----------



## martthefart (Sep 25, 2011)

so i got a 1090t cpu shopuld i waied for bd?????????


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 25, 2011)

martthefart said:


> so i got a 1090t cpu shopuld i waied for bd?????????


----------



## Wile E (Sep 25, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> It's only faster due to core count and even then, it's not a vast difference. Throw 2 more of the exact same cores on a 2600k and it will stomp your 980x, *which is what they are doing with SB-e.* But I digress, gaming is what is most important to me, and apparantly BD will hold up well, so it's fine for me.



Right, but why release it when they still have Gultowns left to sell? They would be cutting their own throats.


----------



## martthefart (Sep 25, 2011)

will bnd b better than a 1090 6 core on a gig 990xa board?


----------



## martthefart (Sep 25, 2011)

???????????????????


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 25, 2011)

Wile E said:


> Right, but why release it when they still have Gultowns left to sell? They would be cutting their own throats.



Because they have people like you dying to get there hands on it. Guaranteed profit.


----------



## de.das.dude (Sep 25, 2011)

haters gonna hate


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 25, 2011)

martthefart said:


> ???????????????????



I don't understand your question.

Should you have waited or should you wait now?



martthefart said:


> will bnd b better than a 1090 6 core on a gig 990xa board?



Yes.


----------



## Wile E (Sep 25, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Because they have people like you dying to get there hands on it. Guaranteed profit.



At the loss of profit from Gulftown sales.

Clear out old stock before pushing new stock. Business 101.


----------



## martthefart (Sep 25, 2011)

id b pissed off just got a new 1090t cpu and a 990xa motherboard ffs


----------



## Wile E (Sep 25, 2011)

martthefart said:


> id b pissed off just got a new 1090t cpu and a 990xa motherboard ffs



Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but you should have probably waited for BD, from what I can tell. It will be better than the 1090t.


----------



## martthefart (Sep 25, 2011)

is the bulldozer cpu good ? better? than a 1090t cpu if so better by how much?


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 25, 2011)

Wile E said:


> At the loss of profit from Gulftown sales.
> 
> Clear out old stock before pushing new stock. Business 101.



I'm pretty sure that Gulftown has run it's course. It's the people like you that have them and want to upgrade that will bring the greatest profit.



martthefart said:


> is the bulldozer cpu good ? better? than a 1090t cpu if so better by how much?



Yes, and quite a bit if anything we know is true.


----------



## martthefart (Sep 25, 2011)

oh well sharted again lol


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 25, 2011)

martthefart said:


> oh well sharted again lol



It happens to the best of us.


----------



## Wile E (Sep 25, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> I'm pretty sure that Gulftown has run it's course. It's the people like you that have them and want to upgrade that will bring the greatest profit.



Not if they already produced a lot that need cleared out. 

If they felt any need to release SB-E, they would have. We've been seeing board shots for months. The parts are available, they just have no reason to release them. Their only competition in the segment is themselves, and they can just wait to release to achieve both clearing out the old stock, and to sell a bunch of new stuff upon SB-E release. Best of both worlds.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 25, 2011)

Wile E said:


> Not if they already produced a lot that need cleared out.
> 
> If they felt any need to release SB-E, they would have. We've been seeing board shots for months. The parts are available, they just have no reason to release them. Their only competition in the segment is themselves, and they can just wait to release to achieve both clearing out the old stock, and to sell a bunch of new stuff upon SB-E release. Best of both worlds.



They already shot themselves in the foot then. Anyone interested in spending that much money on a CPU is educated enough to know that SB-e is right around the corner. Ask AMD how Phenom II sales are going.


----------



## martthefart (Sep 25, 2011)

well fuck amd i feel like3 a noob i alaways got amd not any more i will go intell w3ay bastards


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 25, 2011)

martthefart said:


> well fuck amd i feel like3 a noob i alaways got amd not any more i will go intell w3ay bastards



When did you get the 1090?


----------



## Wile E (Sep 25, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> They already shot themselves in the foot then. Anyone intersted in spending that much money on a CPU is educated enough to know that SB-e is right around the corner. Ask AMD how Phenom II sales are going.



No, because they still get those sales when it does release, and they still sell the current top end until then, albeit at a reduced rate, but still selling better than if SB-E was already out. Selling the old stuff at a slower rate is way better than not selling it at all. When it releases, the new stuff will sell regardless of how long they held it for. 

The only reason they would have had to release SB-E already is if there was another competitor in that market. There isn't, therefore the need does not exist. They can sit on it as long as they want, and still pull in money on Gulftown sales, for which there is also no competitor. PII sells poorly because there ARE other competitors in it's market segment.

This is why I want AMD to compete up top. We would already have SB-E out to compare.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 25, 2011)

Wile E said:


> No, because they still get those sales when it does release, and they still sell the current top end until then, albeit at a reduced rate, but still selling better than if SB-E was already out. Selling the old stuff at a slower rate is way better than not selling it at all. When it releases, the new stuff will sell regardless of how long they held it for. PII sells poorly because there ARE competitors in it's market.
> 
> The only reason they would have had to release SB-E already is if there was another competitor in that market. There isn't, therefore the need does not exist. They can sit on it as long as they want, and still pull in money on Gulftown sales, for which there is also no competitor.
> 
> This is why I want AMD to compete up top. We would already have SB-E out to compare.



I see what you are saying, but I dissagree. They aren't going to sell their stock before SB-e hits in a month or two. SB is already cannabalizing Gulftown sales because the performance difference between the two isn't worth the price difference at all. The segment of the market that is willing to pay that much is so small that nearly everyone that is willing to pay that price already has, and I still think their best bet is to launch it for the people like you that are excited to upgrade. 

I have always respected you and your posts Wile E, but I really do think they would make more money by releasing it.


----------



## Wile E (Sep 25, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> I see what you are saying, but I dissagree. They aren't going to sell their stock before SB-e hits in a month or two. SB is already cannabalizing Gulftown sales because the performance difference between the two isn't worth the price difference at all. The segment of the market that is willing to pay that much is so small that nearly everyone that is willing to pay that price already has, and I still think their best bet is to launch it for the people like you that are excited to upgrade.
> 
> I have always respected you and your posts Wile E, but I really do think they would make more money by releasing it.


The price difference being worth it is irrelevant on the top end. Top end customers willingly pay the premium for the small increases. SB is not cannibalizing Gulftown. Only for gamers or bang for buckers. Those represent an even smaller percentage than the already small top end.

Look, they know more than both of us. If they felt that more money would come to them, they would have released it already.


----------



## martthefart (Sep 25, 2011)

month ags ffs when is this bd realresed????????????


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 25, 2011)

Wile E said:


> The price difference being worth it is irrelevant on the top end. Top end customers willingly pay the premium for the small increases. SB is not cannibalizing Gulftown. Only for gamers or bang for buckers. Those represent an even smaller percentage than the already small top end.
> 
> Look, they know more than both of us. If they felt that more money would come to them, they would have released it already.



Good point, but I don't think Gulftown will be a good seller between now and the point that SB-e is released. And we don't know anything about the yields for the chip, there are a billion things that could go wrong and that could be why it hasn't released already.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 25, 2011)

martthefart said:


> month ags ffs when is this bd realresed????????????



Supposedly next month. No one is absolutely sure though. 

You can sell your 1090 when BD is released and take a good chunk out of the CPU cost of Bulldozer if you want to though.


----------



## Frick (Sep 25, 2011)

martthefart said:


> month ags ffs when is this bd realresed????????????



Calm down, and check where your fingers land. We do not know for sure, but it seems mid october.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 25, 2011)

martthefart said:


> 1 more thing should i go sli with the gts 460????????????????????



It would definitely give you more performance so it's not a bad idea.



martthefart said:


> any 1 want to stuck me off misses in work lol



This is why you shouldn't drink and type.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Sep 25, 2011)

Go to bed mart


----------



## blu3flannel (Sep 25, 2011)

martthefart said:


> im off to beb bu when is bd  released to online sale ?





martthefart said:


> i loe u guys u rokk got a hang ove3r  in mornong lol





martthefart said:


> sry for mi miss spellimg





martthefart said:


> any 1 love me?



Sweet quadruple post.


----------



## martthefart (Sep 25, 2011)

hi blu  u know when bd on sale?

wiil bd slot in mu gig 999oxa board?


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 25, 2011)

martthefart said:


> hi blu  u know when bd on sale?



Nobody knows for sure. Rumors say October.



martthefart said:


> wiil bd slot in mu gig 999oxa board?



Yes.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Sep 25, 2011)

On sale october apparently, and yes it will go into your board.

You need t stop multi posting or a mod is going to get upset with you mart.

Go to bed and sleep your booze off ok


----------



## martthefart (Sep 25, 2011)

ty vm u rock save my pennies for bd tyvm


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 25, 2011)

Wile E said:


> Faster =  better, period. I don't believe in "good enough".


 Says the man who rocked a 4870x2 well into the 6xxx series before upgrading........because it was good enough.


----------



## Wile E (Sep 25, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Says the man who rocked a 4870x2 well into the 6xxx series before upgrading........because it was good enough.



No, it was because the upgrade options weren't good enough until the latest series. Just like I won't be buying SB-E until 8 cores release.


----------



## martthefart (Sep 25, 2011)

ok tyvm im  off to bed tyvm for info


----------



## Inceptor (Sep 25, 2011)

Awesome


----------



## springs113 (Sep 25, 2011)

Well I spoke to MSI last week and was told that their current boards will not support BD as they claimed AMD made some hard changes, so it would be safe to assume the other boards wont either.

On another note the MSI rep did also tell me that the 990 chipset is fresh out luck.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 25, 2011)

springs113 said:


> Well I spoke to MSI last week and was told that their current boards will not support BD as they claimed AMD made some hard changes, so it would be safe to assume the other boards wont either.
> 
> On another note the MSI rep did also tell me that the 990 chipset is fresh out luck.



Out of luck for what?


----------



## martthefart (Sep 25, 2011)

990 xa wont fit a bd cpu ????????????????????

if not what will take a bd cpu?


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 25, 2011)

martthefart said:


> 990 xa wont fit a bd cpu ????????????????????



Yes, it will.


----------



## Inceptor (Sep 25, 2011)

springs113 said:


> Well I spoke to MSI last week and was told that their current boards will not support BD as they claimed AMD made some hard changes, so it would be safe to assume the other boards wont either.
> 
> On another note the MSI rep did also tell me that the 990 chipset is fresh out luck.



Their current top-end 890FX boards, I'm assuming. the -65s and -80s?  The ones that they claimed a few months ago would be AM3+ ready with a BIOS update?

The 990FX boards are compatible, even if the chipset is essentially the same as the 890FX.

The 990 chipset and boards are for BD (AM3+) and AM3 Phenom IIs, but after that, the next AMD cpu will require a new socket and chipset.  That's probably what the MSI person meant.  Ehh? Ehh?

Be clear and concise.


----------



## Totally (Sep 25, 2011)

Performance looks acceptable, what about power consumption? If BD is getting those numbers but uses 20% more power it, it's not really something to write home about.


----------



## erek (Sep 25, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Nobody knows for sure. Rumors say October.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.



i pre-ordered mine from ShopBLT (which appears to have the highest resellerratings i've personally ever seen)


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 25, 2011)

erek said:


> i pre-ordered mine from ShopBLT (which appears to have the highest resellerratings i've personally ever seen)



What is their estimate for delivery?


----------



## springs113 (Sep 26, 2011)

Sorry guys was putting together my new rig, will put it up in the case mod to show

@Dan, I meant the 990fx atleast from MSI, the rep I spoke to stated that AMD did some hard coded changes.

@Inceptor I know what I said to the guy and exactly what was stated to me...I was torn in between BD n Ivy so I wanted to see if they could give some sort of hint towards BDs release.  I really wanted to go AMD but at the same time I really wanted to upgrade as I was getting tired of slowdowns on my htpc.  anyways I wanted to build now so I couldn't wait any longer as the rep was telling me that the new AMD boards would be late Jan to Mid Feb...so I went i5 2500k route.  

I think it was Intels time anyways...my last 2 builds was AMD and before that the previous 2 was Intel, so sticking to that trend I guess my next is Intel too.

thoroughbred rev a, barton 2500, venice 3000, e6420, *q6600, p2 720be, p2 955be now sandy 2500k* the ones in bold I still have running.  I think I'm gonna put the 720 as my htpc and retire the q6600 anyways back to topic...

I just hope BD is competitive cause I will jump ship if Ivy aint that great.


----------



## Jegergrim (Sep 26, 2011)

I for one decided not to go BD for one reason alone, no PCI-E 3.0.. I really want something futureproof (SB-E), before 2012, since I'm primarily a gamer, and primarily switch/upgrade GPU's, and I think PCI-E 3.0 will last just as long or long enough compared to 2.0, oh reason for going SB-E is cause I can't stand the fact of waiting till Ivy...netbook is getting tiresome


----------



## xenocide (Sep 26, 2011)

Jegergrim said:


> I for one decided not to go BD for one reason alone, no PCI-E 3.0.. I really want something futureproof (SB-E), before 2012, since I'm primarily a gamer, and primarily switch/upgrade GPU's, and I think PCI-E 3.0 will last just as long or long enough compared to 2.0, oh reason for going SB-E is cause I can't stand the fact of waiting till Ivy...netbook is getting tiresome



If I recall, SB-E is only launching with 8x/8x PCI-E 3.0, which is the exact same thing as 16x/16x PCI-E 2.1, so that point is rather moot.  I expect PCI-E 3.0 might be just like USB 3.0 and have very very slow adoption.


----------



## Jegergrim (Sep 26, 2011)

xenocide said:


> If I recall, SB-E is only launching with 8x/8x PCI-E 3.0, which is the exact same thing as 16x/16x PCI-E 2.1, so that point is rather moot.  I expect PCI-E 3.0 might be just like USB 3.0 and have very very slow adoption.



Aye, but I never run SLI/Crossfire, so the 16x pci-e 3.0 should do me fine


----------



## Super XP (Sep 26, 2011)

Jegergrim said:


> I for one decided not to go BD for one reason alone, no PCI-E 3.0.. I really want something futureproof (SB-E), before 2012, since I'm primarily a gamer, and primarily switch/upgrade GPU's, and I think PCI-E 3.0 will last just as long or long enough compared to 2.0, oh reason for going SB-E is cause I can't stand the fact of waiting till Ivy...netbook is getting tiresome


Generation:      Year:    Bit Rate:     Interconnect   Bandwidth      Max-Bandwidth
			            Bandwidth	     (Per Lane)      (16 Lanes)
PCI-Express 1.1 -(2000) -2.5GT/sec	2GB/sec	     250MB/sec	8GB/sec
PCI-Express 2.0 -(2007) -5GT/sec	4GB/sec	     500MB/sec	16GB/sec
PCI-Express 3.0 -(2012) -8GT/sec	8GB/sec	     1GB/sec	32GB/sec
PCI-Express 4.0 -(2016) -16GT/sec	16GB/sec	     2GB/sec	64GB/sec

I think it's a safe bet to upgrade to Bulldozer and a nice Socket AM3+ motherboard. Perhaps in about 3 years time the PCI-E 3.0 spec will be fully utilized, until then I don't see a need to wait for a solid Bulldozer upgrade....Just like USB 3.0, it's been out for a while now, but I am still using USB 2.0 and don't plan on using 3.0 for at least another year or 2..


----------



## springs113 (Sep 26, 2011)

PCI-e 2.1 is not the same as 3.0, 8x/8x in 3.0 is double the rate so it would be considered 16x/16x


----------



## Jegergrim (Sep 26, 2011)

but that still means a single GPU would run 16x on a PCI-E 3.0 am I correct? Just limited with sli and cf


----------



## ensabrenoir (Sep 26, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> So Intel is fine with their mainstream CPU's outperforming their high end line?
> 
> My crystal ball is broken, so I won't be taking any bets. Thanks for the offer though.



Yes when the highend is last generation.  Thie new generation highend will out perform the mainstream and last generation highend.


----------



## xenocide (Sep 26, 2011)

Jegergrim said:


> but that still means a single GPU would run 16x on a PCI-E 3.0 am I correct? Just limited with sli and cf



It logically should mean that, but I'm not certain that's the case.  You also have to consider that there are literally 0 cards on the market that support 3.0 and even need that kind of bandwidth.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Sep 26, 2011)

Given that they have already shipped processors to retailers and all we see are cherry picked slides then I'd assume the worst.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 26, 2011)

ensabrenoir said:


> Yes when the highend is last generation.  Thie new generation highend will out perform the mainstream and last generation highend.



What's your point? Of course the next generation of a family will out-perform the previous generation.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 26, 2011)

xenocide said:


> It logically should mean that, but I'm not certain that's the case.  You also have to consider that there are literally 0 cards on the market that support 3.0 and even need that kind of bandwidth.



so, i guess we should have stuck with ISA then... cause when that was the standard, nothing was ever made to go faster.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Sep 26, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> What's your point? Of course the next generation of a family will out-perform the previous generation.



I don't think you get what I am saying. If the sides are true then they still are a generation behind intel and two when SB-E hits. I wanted to see better numbers for AMD for competition's sake but we will take what we can get nowadays.


----------



## ViperXTR (Sep 26, 2011)

can the current cards really saturate the PCI-E 2.0 bandwidth? (HD 6990 and GTX 590 cards)


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 26, 2011)

DaedalusHelios said:


> I don't think you get what I am saying. If the sides are true then they still are a generation behind intel and two when SB-E hits. I wanted to see better numbers for AMD for competition's sake but we will take what we can get nowadays.



No, if the slides are correct, they caught up with Intel. SB-e is in a whole different marketplace and not targeted for competition. IB is Intel's next generation chip and AMD will have Piledriver to compete with that.

Are you two the same person? It's weird having a different person reply for someone else, and take credit for writing the post I originally responded to.


----------



## xenocide (Sep 26, 2011)

Mussels said:


> so, i guess we should have stuck with ISA then... cause when that was the standard, nothing was ever made to go faster.



Not exactly what I meant, but I suppose if you plan on keeping your system for half a decade you could upgrade based on which one offers PCI-E 3.0 currently.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 26, 2011)

the systems have to upgrade to the new standard, or no video card companies will make mainstream products that use it.


if that means that some of the early products are imperfect (8x 3.0) to reach the point everyone decides to support it... well, i'm fine with that. i dislike the dodgy marketing about it all, however.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 26, 2011)

Mussels said:


> the systems have to upgrade to the new standard, or no video card companies will make mainstream products that use it.
> 
> 
> if that means that some of the early products are imperfect (8x 3.0) to reach the point everyone decides to support it... well, i'm fine with that. i dislike the dodgy marketing about it all, however.



I definitely see your point, and I am glad that someone is breaking the water, but I personally will wait until it's perfected to adopt.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Sep 26, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> No, if the slides are correct, they caught up with Intel. SB-e is in a whole different marketplace and not targeted for competition. IB is Intel's next generation chip and AMD will have Piledriver to compete with that.
> 
> Are you two the same person? It's weird having a different person reply for someone else, and take credit for writing the post I originally responded to.



Sb(1155)> 980x,990x. Or whatever the # is.(x-58).   They caught up to the out going series.....which is still a mighty feat in itself.. looking forward to 3rd party benches.  The winner will be my next machine.    I am ensabrenoir (en sabah nur). The first one and there is only 1 such as I (what I keep telling myself)


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Sep 26, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> No, if the slides are correct, they caught up with Intel. SB-e is in a whole different marketplace and not targeted for competition. IB is Intel's next generation chip and AMD will have Piledriver to compete with that.
> 
> Are you two the same person? It's weird having a different person reply for someone else, and take credit for writing the post I originally responded to.



Thought you were talking to me at first but then the quote looks different upon further inspection. Wasn't trying to confuse you. 


The slides picked the weaker Intel offering in each aspect of certain cpus in each category to make their case. If you don't see that then feel free to buy many bulldozers. I am more impressed by AMD's effort with brazos. If brazos was sold cheap enough than it could dominate in emerging markets where there isn't as much competition with Intel on the R&D side. AMD needs to force their A8 series down in price and sell more units in that midrange market. They sold out most places I looked at buying it from so unless yields are bad the A8 must sell well. I don't see AMD making a big difference with bulldozer. Sure, die hard fans that bought Phenom II x4 at launch will most likely buy bulldozer but Intel will still reign supreme unless AMD figures out a way to win the price war. 

The price graph was way off. Didn't even enumerate individual item costs. So it was more propaganda than a valid graph.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 26, 2011)

ensabrenoir said:


> Sb(1155)> 980x,990x. Or whatever the # is.(x-58).   They caught up to the out going series.....which is still a mighty feat in itself.. looking forward to 3rd party benches.  The winner will be my next machine.    I am ensabrenoir (en sabah nur). The first one and there is only 1 such as I (what I keep telling myself)



But they surpassed SB in multithread if these benches are true, so they caught up with SB. That last part made me laugh.

I can't wait to see how BF3 performs on this.



DaedalusHelios said:


> Thought you were talking to me at first but then the quote looks different upon further inspection. Wasn't trying to confuse you.
> 
> 
> The slides picked the weaker Intel offering in each aspect of certain cpus in each category to make their case. If you don't see that then feel free to buy many bulldozers. I am more impressed by AMD's effort with brazos. If brazos was sold cheap enough than it could dominate in emerging markets where there isn't as much competition with Intel on the R&D side. AMD needs to force their A8 series down in price and sell more units in that midrange market. They sold out most places I looked at buying it from so unless yields are bad the A8 must sell well. I don't see AMD making a big difference with bulldozer. Sure, die hard fans that bought Phenom II x4 at launch will most likely buy bulldozer but Intel will still reign supreme unless AMD figures out a way to win the price war.
> ...



I can see that as plain as day, I'm not even certain these are real. But this performance would definitely be acceptable to me, if the results are real, for a $245 CPU.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Sep 26, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> It's not core count that matters, it's performance.



exactly, but I want benchies for a real source not inflated investor slides


----------



## Mussels (Sep 26, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> exactly, but I want benchies for a real source not inflated investor slides



inflatable slides!?!?!? fuck yeah, they can go with the bouncy castles!


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Sep 26, 2011)

Mussels said:


> inflatable slides!?!?!? fuck yeah, they can go with the bouncy castles!



har har har


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 26, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> exactly, but I want benchies for a real source not inflated investor slides



You and me both. I can't wait for launch.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Sep 26, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> You and me both. I can't wait for launch.



I am tired of waiting, and am trying to make myself not care, not very successful so far.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 26, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> I am tired of waiting, and am trying to make myself not care, not very successful so far.



Well, it really can't be too much longer. They've run out of reasons to delay it.


----------



## seronx (Sep 26, 2011)

This thread! It makes no sense anymore!!!


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 26, 2011)

seronx said:


> http://i28.tinypic.com/2ljp5ok.gif
> 
> This thread! It makes no sense anymore!!!



Should have been here earlier.


----------



## Hunt3r (Sep 26, 2011)

and cache how many?


----------



## erek (Sep 26, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> What is their estimate for delivery?



Status:  Processing
One or more items are currently back ordered, or are shipping from the mfg.
Your credit card has been approved, but not yet charged.

ETA Past Due


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 26, 2011)

erek said:


> Status:  Processing
> One or more items are currently back ordered, or are shipping from the mfg.
> Your credit card has been approved, but not yet charged.
> 
> ETA Past Due



I do agree with the past due.


----------



## nothappy (Sep 26, 2011)

*If I may say a few things*

I've been a fan of intel in my early years (Junior High) up till my freshmen years. I made numerous rigs for my friends and family, in all of them I have 1 rule "keep the purpose in mind, and no heroes in the components". I buy components with equal measure, what use is a V8 engine with junk transmission and even worse chassis? if you got monster processor be sure to have enough to buy the rest of the monster zoo (RAM, Motheboards, etc).

But the Sandy bridge still has PCI-E Gen 3 READY! (not fully, the ones that have full support are too expensive), and AMD still uses Gen 2. I want the whole deal, a great Processor, an almighty Chipset, fast RAM, and a mesmerizing VGA card.

All I need is patience, when the ATI/AMD 7000 comes, a new Chipset emerges, you can bet Gen 3 is bug free, and all the goodies are in the maket. Then will I buy, unless my girlfriend wants me to marry her or something else needs my set aside cash.


----------



## mastrdrver (Sep 26, 2011)

ViperXTR said:


> can the current cards really saturate the PCI-E 2.0 bandwidth? (HD 6990 and GTX 590 cards)








I don't know, you tell me. When you see only a 7% drop in performance from 16x bandwidth to 4x bandwidth do you think they maybe limited by PCIe 2.0?


----------



## Mussels (Sep 26, 2011)

mastrdrver said:


> http://tpucdn.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GTX_480_PCI-Express_Scaling/images/perfrel.gif
> 
> I don't know, you tell me. When you see only a 7% drop in performance from 16x bandwidth to 4x bandwidth do you think they maybe limited by PCIe 2.0?



personally i think that test needs to be redone to check for increases in microstutter, and not just average FPS.


----------



## seronx (Sep 26, 2011)

Mussels said:


> personally i think that test needs to be redone to check for increases in microstutter, and not just average FPS.








Agreed


----------



## Inceptor (Sep 26, 2011)

springs113 said:


> @Inceptor I know what I said to the guy and exactly what was stated to me...I was torn in between BD n Ivy so I wanted to see if they could give some sort of hint towards BDs release. I really wanted to go AMD but at the same time I really wanted to upgrade as I was getting tired of slowdowns on my htpc. anyways I wanted to build now so I couldn't wait any longer as the rep was telling me that the new AMD boards would be late Jan to Mid Feb...so I went i5 2500k route.



I'm sure you do know what you said and what was said to you, I have no way of questioning that, since it's so vague...

But what I _do_ know is that the AM3+ motherboard from Gigabyte, that I own, *IS* a BD compatible board;  Gigabyte just released another BIOS update for it, to tweak BD support...
... which is consistent with all reports and news so far... and that is not at all vague...

http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=3894#ov
"To enable AM3+ AMD FX-Series CPU support, please update your motherboard with the most current BIOS found in your motherboard’s download section. "

[that's the third update.]

From what I can see only MSI isn't listing the FX series.  Asus, Asrock, Gigabyte, Biostar, all have FX support.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-bulldozer-cpu-fx-series-motherboard,13342.html

At least for Gigabyte, the support is there, and the F4 BIOS is currently the latest update for their 990FX boards (As of Aug 31st/Sept 1st).  _*Any problems with a change in board requirements would have been communicated months before to the board manufacturers, since that is the lead time they work with, from AMD or Intel*_.  The chips are manufactured, and in the process of being shipped, the final engineering took place quite some time ago.  The boards are manufactured and have been updated with the needed BIOS/UEFI settings.  
So, either the MSI representative you spoke to did not understand what you were asking and gave you another piece of information _(whatever it was that you specifically asked...)._  Or, MSI made a serious error in their board designs that have since gone to market, something that isn't correctable with a BIOS/UEFI update...


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 26, 2011)

If the Board has the black slot on it, it will support BD but I suspect a bios update in the works for MSI



Inceptor said:


> I'm sure you do know what you said and what was said to you, I have no way of questioning that, since it's so vague...
> 
> But what I _do_ know is that the AM3+ motherboard from Gigabyte, that I own, *IS* a BD compatible board;  Gigabyte just released another BIOS update for it, to tweak BD support...
> ... which is consistent with all reports and news so far... and that is not at all vague...
> ...


----------



## Frick (Sep 26, 2011)

My €55 Asus board supports BD.


----------



## Volkszorn88 (Sep 26, 2011)

Frick said:


> My €55 Asus board supports BD.



Ye, but how are the OC abilites on that board? Unless you don't plan on doing any OC.


----------



## Frick (Sep 26, 2011)

Volkszorn88 said:


> Ye, but how are the OC abilites on that board? Unless you don't plan on doing any OC.



Eh, good enough. Looks exactly like the 785G board I had and that was pretty good. I have not tried it out a lot though, I don't really need more CPU power than I already have..


----------



## ViperXTR (Sep 26, 2011)

mastrdrver said:


> http://tpucdn.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GTX_480_PCI-Express_Scaling/images/perfrel.gif
> 
> I don't know, you tell me. When you see only a 7% drop in performance from 16x bandwidth to 4x bandwidth do you think they maybe limited by PCIe 2.0?


Maybe i guess there would be 1-2fps average increase (at least comparing it to an 8X). 

Ah yes microstutter, just read about it in techreport recently


----------



## v12dock (Sep 26, 2011)

And how did I miss this...


----------



## Inceptor (Sep 26, 2011)

You know, I'm wondering...
Originally, AMD was saying that BD chips would use HyperTransport 3.1 (6400MT/s).
According to the Tom's hardware link I gave in my last post, the models slated for first release are using HyperTransport 3.0 (5200MT/s).  And current AM3+ boards only support up to HT 3.0.  It can't be because the technology is not available for the boards.
So, maybe the BD cpus with HT 3.1 support are Q1 or Q2 2012  -- meaning the FX-8170, FX-4170, etc.
An improved IMC?
This puts into perspective the mysterious MSI comments communicated to *springs113* about new boards coming in the new year.
And PCI-E 3.0?

Just speculation.


----------



## springs113 (Sep 26, 2011)

Inceptor said:


> You know, I'm wondering...
> Originally, AMD was saying that BD chips would use HyperTransport 3.1 (6400MT/s).
> According to the Tom's hardware link I gave in my last post, the models slated for first release are using HyperTransport 3.0 (5200MT/s).  And current AM3+ boards only support up to HT 3.0.  It can't be because the technology is not available for the boards.
> So, maybe the BD cpus with HT 3.1 support are Q1 or Q2 2012  -- meaning the FX-8170, FX-4170, etc.
> ...



I was curious as to what should be my next build, the MSI agent did specifically state that the 990 chipset was not built for BD and that the new boards were in fact coming out next quarter.  He did say AMD made some changes but he was not specific but maybe it was what you noticed.  I'm not backing him at all but I wanted to build now with a decent upgrade path and wanted the best possible solution which was Intel.

All I want is a competitive BD and my 7980 I'll be good for atleast 3 more years


----------



## Ahhzz (Sep 26, 2011)

All I know, is a 980x is about a grand. An FX-8150 is about a quarter that. I'll take two, please, and thank you.


----------



## Bronan (Sep 26, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> That isn't what AMD says.  From their own marketting slide: "4 extra cores"...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think there is a single app today that HT has to be turned off in.  In fact I had one of the first HT processors, a 478 P4, and never had to turn it off.  There were some apps that ran _slightly_ better with it off, but nothing that was really noticeable.



LoL you yell alot but its nonsense when you use power programs like me which heat up those crappy intel cpu's alot.
All my amd's run cooler then the intel counterparts, you should try to run GIMPS on your so called 8 cores and then come back and tell me what the real performance of your so called cores is....... Indeed 4 times a joke.
In fact programs which search for the biggest primes and such (scientific work) benefit from and are in fact most of the time faster on amd machines.
Its HT not a core at all you just try to run another thread (program) on a fake cpu.
The way amd has made the module even though some parts are shared they look to me are real cores for programs, but untill i have one for testing here i can not say if its a good solution when it comes to the programs which i use. 
Believe me they stress the real cpu cores at their max, like furmark does on your videocard.
As i do want them lazy cpu's to work 

Ofcourse intels new toy is not bad, but intel does use tricks to improve performance often.
For instance when you watch bluray in full hd the intel solution skips frames to speed up the visual appearance while amd really does show all frames and not skip them, yes its hard to see cause most people will not see it only people like me see the flikkering as i see with tl lights. 
Still its just cheating the big mass who do not notice it directly


----------



## ivicagmc (Sep 26, 2011)

I don't know if this is already posted, or is it valid, but here it is, very disappointing performance of bulldozer... link...
http://obrovsky.blogspot.com/2011/09/amd-fx-vs-p-ii-x6-clock-clock.html


----------



## repman244 (Sep 26, 2011)

ivicagmc said:


> I don't know if this is already posted, or is it valid, but here it is, very disappointing performance of bulldozer... link...
> http://obrovsky.blogspot.com/2011/09/amd-fx-vs-p-ii-x6-clock-clock.html



No offense but OBR is a joke. He himself admitted of creating fake scores, so why should we still trust him?


----------



## ivicagmc (Sep 26, 2011)

repman244 said:


> No offense but OBR is a joke. He himself admitted of creating fake scores, so why should we still trust him?



I just found that on another forum: I hope it is a fake, because I already bought AM3+ motherboard for bulldozer, it better not disappoint me again, or I go to intel, forever...


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 26, 2011)

ivicagmc said:


> I don't know if this is already posted, or is it valid, but here it is, very disappointing performance of bulldozer... link...
> http://obrovsky.blogspot.com/2011/09/amd-fx-vs-p-ii-x6-clock-clock.html



Bwahahahaha..... OBR..... seriously man, that's a good one.


----------



## repman244 (Sep 26, 2011)

ivicagmc said:


> I just found that on another forum: I hope it is a fake, because I already bought AM3+ motherboard for bulldozer, it better not disappoint me again, or I go to intel, forever...



Just stop and think about it, would you spend a truckload of money to make something that is slower than you already have?
It's just silly, BD has higher IPC and higher clock which leads to higher performance.

So don't worry, it will be a nice upgrade.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Sep 26, 2011)

Bronan said:


> LoL you yell alot but its nonsense when you use power programs like me which heat up those crappy intel cpu's alot.
> All my amd's run cooler then the intel counterparts, you should try to run GIMPS on your so called 8 cores and then come back and tell me what the real performance of your so called cores is....... Indeed 4 times a joke.
> In fact programs which search for the biggest primes and such (scientific work) benefit from and are in fact most of the time faster on amd machines.
> Its HT not a core at all you just try to run another thread (program) on a fake cpu.
> ...



I have a i7 860.  Its a four core with ht.  Never seen intel market any of its cpus as having extra cores because of ht.  A for core is a four core.  A duo core is 2 cores.  Ht is ht we all know what it does.   I love amd gpus and really want 2 give their cpus a chance.  It perfectly fine you feel so passionately for amd but that's just venom .  Don't go superman because of marketing slides. Even if bd lives up to its claims intel being intel already has one in the chamber and a whole new. Machine  in the holster. This is indeed interesting times


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 26, 2011)

Ahhzz said:


> All I know, is a 980x is about a grand. An FX-8150 is about a quarter that. I'll take two, please, and thank you.



Build an Opteron Setup, last you longer 16core Power


----------



## Ahhzz (Sep 26, 2011)

Thought about that, and before I changed my system specs in drooling anticipation, a Denmark 170 was listed. However, the only boards I'm finding for the Opty's are server, and the vast majority of those are dual proc boards, which I REALLY don't need.....


----------



## Goodman (Sep 26, 2011)

ivicagmc said:


> I just found that on another forum: I hope it is a fake, because I already bought AM3+ motherboard for bulldozer, it better not disappoint me again, or I go to intel, forever...



Or you could buy a PII x6 & overclock the hell of it , should last you for a good year or so... 
As PII x6 should get a price cut after bulldozer is out


----------



## Ahhzz (Sep 26, 2011)

Hmmm... buy a year-old-plus proc, and get a year out of it.... or buy a new proc, and get 3-5...... hmmmmmm..


----------



## erocker (Sep 26, 2011)

There is no new AMD processor. There isn't even an official release date yet. No, the Dominhaber article doesn't count.


----------



## Ahhzz (Sep 26, 2011)

LIES!!!!!!! he LIES!!!!!!!!


----------



## erek (Sep 26, 2011)

We have been informed that the ordered product has an updated estimated time of arrival (ETA) into our warehouse of November 24.


...


----------



## erocker (Sep 26, 2011)

erek said:


> We have been informed that the ordered product has an updated estimated time of arrival (ETA) into our warehouse of November 24.
> 
> 
> ...



Link or just troll. Even if troll, need link to be successful.


----------



## erek (Sep 26, 2011)

erocker said:


> Link or just troll. Even if troll, need link to be successful.


----------



## Inceptor (Sep 26, 2011)

Phenom and Athlon end of life.
There's no confirmation for this, but then again there's no confirmation for much in this thread.

http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/item/24211-phenom-and-athlon-eol-this-year


----------



## seronx (Sep 26, 2011)

erek said:


> http://i.imgur.com/WRU1x.png
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/2x72y.png



Well, there is one goodness out of all this

After the many delays

Renegade Ops is coming out on October 14th(for pc)


----------



## Inceptor (Sep 26, 2011)

Sorry to quibble, but according to that shopBLT screenshot there, it says 16MB.  The current FX information is 1MB/core, so 8MB not 16.  And only AMD processors up to Phenom IIs are listed on shopBLT, it's not even possible to search for FXs by their internal stock designation or by the AMD product designation.  No results.  If they were selling, even on preorder, it would be listed.
I'm guessing that shopBLT put up that preorder before they had confirmation of delivery.  I'm also guessing the processor information was entered incorrectly into their database.  Their site was reported, everywhere, as having preorders available.  They probably got inundated with them and realized they had to pull the item off their site, in order to minimize customer problems.
All of which still doesn't tell us anything useful... just that _they_ can't get the hardware until Nov. 24th.  Which means you're either far down the list, and have to wait for the next shipment, or they just can't get the things in until November.  In retail, it's usually the big guys who can buy in large volume who get the product from the manufacturer first.


----------



## seronx (Sep 26, 2011)

Inceptor said:


> Sorry to quibble, but according to that shopBLT screenshot there, it says 16MB.  The current FX information is 1MB/core, so 8MB not 16.



It's 16MB because of L2 and L3

L2 2MB and L3 2MB per module

2 x 4 + 2 x 4


----------



## btarunr (Sep 26, 2011)

Inceptor said:


> Sorry to quibble, but according to that shopBLT screenshot there, it says 16MB.  The current FX information is 1MB/core, so 8MB not 16.



Zambezi's cache order is: 
8 x 16 KB L1D
4 x 64 KB L1I
4 x 2048 KB L2
1 x 8192 KB L3
AMD's notion of "total cache" is total L2 + L3. Hence 16 MB.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Sep 26, 2011)

*can we at least have 3rd party benches*

So the scheduled delay ran.into an unscheduled delay that will probually delay any future delays.   Oh Amd just stop it and release piledriver.   BULL-dozer has accomplished its goal.  Or just let 3rd party do bench marks.    Piledriver is probually ahead of schedule.


----------



## repman244 (Sep 26, 2011)

Anyway, anyone noticed the 1 at the final line of BD? Is there any trick I don't know about unlocked processors?


----------



## Super XP (Sep 26, 2011)

AhokZYashA said:


> requiring double amount of cores to trump 4 cores in multithreaded apps, definitely have something to do with its architecture.


No disrespect my friend, and yes you are intitled to your opinion. A word of advice, you may want to research AMD's Bulldozer Arcitecture, because it's a Genus of a design full of innovation. The only problem AMD may have with it is it's complexity. They will require more time to further fine tune the design to achieve maximum throuput. (I.E.: Piledriver etc...)

These CPU's should perform quite well with the 2nd generation (Piledriver) providing AMD can perfect the tweaking. As of now, we don't know how Bulldozer Gen 1 will perform when it gets released in OCT...


Inceptor said:


> Phenom and Athlon end of life.
> There's no confirmation for this, but then again there's no confirmation for much in this thread.
> 
> http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/item/24211-phenom-and-athlon-eol-this-year


This explains one reason why AMD delayed the Bulldozer awhile longer. If they haven't the current Phenom II's would have sold for peanuts....


----------



## Bronan (Sep 26, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> Build an Opteron Setup, last you longer 16core Power


To be honest i allways test them both if i can afford them, in fact i currently run on both since they have in each their strong points
I simply can't stand when ppl start crying to intel is the best and fastest, I know people who had to travel to the usa to buy their Extreme intel for a insane price and could not buy it anywhere in our country ..... Can you imagine how idiot that sounds to me a trip to usa + $1500+  just for a cpu .....
Even if it would perform 10 times the speed of a model on the market its not worth so much money > Period <
In my opinion xeon and opterons are also very expenssive especially the ones with more then 8 cores, so for normal home users its true they are simply not usable as to run word en ie5 
For me those setups would be awesome, but lol i can't afford such power house setups
So i stop drooling over a g34 mainboard with 1 or 2 opterons or 2 xeons on evga 1366 mainboard
I wish i could but sadly i am not that rich and still have not found a rich sponsor which gives me such a nice monster


----------



## RevengE (Sep 26, 2011)

Super XP said:


> No disrespect my friend, and yes you are intitled to your opinion. A word of advice, you may want to research AMD's Bulldozer Arcitecture, because it's a Genus of a design full of innovation. The only problem AMD may have with it is it's complexity. They will require more time to further fine tune the design to achieve maximum throuput. (I.E.: Piledriver etc...)
> 
> These CPU's should perform quite well with the 2nd generation (Piledriver) providing AMD can perfect the tweaking. As of now, we don't know how Bulldozer Gen 1 will perform when it gets released in OCT...



Agreed.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Sep 26, 2011)

erek said:


> We have been informed that the ordered product has an updated estimated time of arrival (ETA) into our warehouse of November 24.
> 
> 
> ...



obvious troll is obvious


----------



## TRWOV (Sep 26, 2011)

erek said:


> http://i.imgur.com/WRU1x.png
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/2x72y.png




If I recall correctly, someone linked to a post from JF-AMD on another forum mentioning that outlets that don't follow the rules (no posting of pricing or shipping information before the actual launch) get the lowest shipping priority as punishment. Since BLT were the ones that "announced" the FX-8150 I'm hoping that this is the case. Another delay would surely hurt AMD a lot in the enthusiast market.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 26, 2011)

repman244 said:


> Anyway, anyone noticed the 1 at the final line of BD? Is there any trick I don't know about unlocked processors?



1. AMD and ATI processors are intended to be operated only within their associated specifications and factory settings. Operating your AMD or ATI processor outside of specification or in excess of factory settings, including but not limited to overclocking, may damage your processor and/or lead to other problems, including but not limited to, damage to your system components (including your motherboard and components thereon (e.g. memory)), system instabilities (e.g. data loss and corrupted images), shortened processor, system component and/or system life and in extreme cases, total system failure. AMD does not provide support or service for issues or damages related to use of an AMD or ATI processor outside of processor specifications or in excess of factory settings. You may also not receive support or service from your system manufacturer.
 DAMAGES CAUSED BY USE OF YOUR AMD OR ATI PROCESSOR OUTSIDE OF SPECIFICATION OR IN EXCESS OF FACTORY SETTINGS ARE NOT COVERED UNDER YOUR AMD PRODUCT WARRANTY AND MAY NOT BE COVERED BY YOUR SYSTEM MANUFACTURER’S WARRANTY.


----------



## btarunr (Sep 26, 2011)

ensabrenoir said:


> So the scheduled delay ran.into an unscheduled delay that will probually delay any future delays.   Oh Amd just stop it and release piledriver.   BULL-dozer has accomplished its goal.  Or just let 3rd party do bench marks.    Piledriver is probually ahead of schedule.



You will have them the moment the clock strikes 00:00 in New Zealand, on the 12th October.


----------



## Super XP (Sep 26, 2011)

*Where AMD leads, Intel follows...*

*A History Lesson and how AMD help change the PC Industry but also released the Monster inside Intel...This is why Bulldozer is very important *



> Where AMD leads, Intel follows
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ...


To sum this all up, IMO AMD had no choice to do what they did and still continue doing because they are the little guy. If Bulldozer and Piledriver is anything like the great Hammer Core, Oh boy will Intel have a good fight on there hands


----------



## erek (Sep 26, 2011)

Inceptor said:


> Sorry to quibble, but according to that shopBLT screenshot there, it says 16MB.  The current FX information is 1MB/core, so 8MB not 16.  And only AMD processors up to Phenom IIs are listed on shopBLT, it's not even possible to search for FXs by their internal stock designation or by the AMD product designation.  No results.  If they were selling, even on preorder, it would be listed.
> I'm guessing that shopBLT put up that preorder before they had confirmation of delivery.  I'm also guessing the processor information was entered incorrectly into their database.  Their site was reported, everywhere, as having preorders available.  They probably got inundated with them and realized they had to pull the item off their site, in order to minimize customer problems.
> All of which still doesn't tell us anything useful... just that _they_ can't get the hardware until Nov. 24th.  Which means you're either far down the list, and have to wait for the next shipment, or they just can't get the things in until November.  In retail, it's usually the big guys who can buy in large volume who get the product from the manufacturer first.



it basically sold out, so it's no longer listed as far as i can tell

i assure you that this is real, and i will continue to post updates as they give them to me... others who have pre-ordered can verify


----------



## erek (Sep 26, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> obvious troll is obvious



http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2407356&postcount=426


----------



## Bronan (Sep 27, 2011)

No problem erek i have a friend which have ordered also some in pre order.
He send me the link where i could look but when i clicked it 12 hours later.. i live in holland ... the link was dead.
But i saw he had bought 4 fx the lucker. However i think there can indeed be a penalty to those companies who launched the sales too soon. They just should have waited till the official launch date. Anyway as long as he is not going to be charged on his creditcard for the order before they actually get launched all will be ok don't you think.
I remember you could pre order Starcraft2 several months before they actually hit the shops, so no harm is done so far.
On the other side claiming that a order is false because the site put wrong information in is kinda foolish, on many hardware vendors sites all new amd releases show they got ssse3 support, which most advanced users know they lack. These instruction sets are protected so the only thing amd can do is to try to create a similar working set. So in my distributed computing community we speak of sse3 and sse3a for the amd counterpart.  

Back on topic  Amd is pretty strict about non disclosure and release dates nowadays.
And to be honest i do not give a rats ass about those leaked info untill i can actually see them myself from a trustworthy test or good hardware review site.
However amd has not claimed anything about being on par or better performance compared to certain sandy bridge processors.
The only thing we know is that those cherry picked cpu's made a awesome overclock on these very extreme speeds, so if you want to go for it and your lucky you could have such screamer one day yourself.
Still for me i do not buy a 8 core to run it just on 2 cores xD, when i buy one it will sweat or burn on all cores . 
And for those who play games i still advise to buy a good duo or triple core with high clocks


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 27, 2011)

2 minutes in, FX confirmed for October.


----------



## xenocide (Sep 27, 2011)

Super XP said:


> _More Reading Than I Wanted To Do_



So, you quoted an article from 2004, when AMD was still innovating.  While I admit during that time frame AMD did a lot of really amazing things, they have failed to really do anything exciting since then.  Whether or not they had previously done very impressive things doesn't matter when they fail to do it for such a long time.  IBM has done several important things over the years, but I wouldn't say they are on par for Intel when it comes to CPU manufacturing.


----------



## de.das.dude (Sep 27, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> 2 minutes in, FX confirmed for October.



thats an Indian.  lucky bastard.


----------



## Inceptor (Sep 27, 2011)

There's a lot of bickering about cores, AMD vs Intel.  Anandtech did a great write-up on the BD architecture last year.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3863/amd-discloses-bobcat-bulldozer-architectures-at-hot-chips-2010/4

Here's a beautiful description of how the architecture of a BD cpu works.  Here's a quote concerning the BD 'module':
_*"The basic building block is the Bulldozer module. AMD calls this a dual-core module because it has two independent integer cores and a single shared floating point core that can service instructions from two independent threads. The two thread machine is larger than a single core but smaller than two cores with straight duplication of resources.
All else being the same, it should give you more threaded performance than a single SMT (Hyper Threaded) core but less than two dedicated cores."
*_

An interesting solution.  I think we should expect on-par or better multithreaded performance compared to SB.  Core for Core Intel will still come out on top though, but that only really matters in a few applications that are still not optimized for highly scalable multithreaded operation (i.e more than 4 threads), like most games.  Overall, from what I can see and understand, the BD is the better multi/general purpose choice (in the 6-8 core range), that isn't too expensive.

So, it all depends on your buying preferences, most frequently used applications, the way you operate your system, etc.  If you're just a straight on hardcore gamer, you'd be better off with any quad core or quad w/HT.  If you do more than that, like the archetypical 'power user', you don't mind only getting 90FPS instead of 100 or 110 in games, multithreaded performance is what matters to you.  And you also may be interested in the design innovation in the new architecture.

You're all talking past each other, assuming too much about everyone who is on this forum, I think.
Personally, I haven't called myself a PC gamer since the late 90s-very early 2000s.  I still occasionally play games, but that's not what my life revolves around.  And I think others could say the same.


----------



## Goodman (Sep 27, 2011)

Inceptor said:


> There's a lot of bickering about cores, AMD vs Intel.  Anandtech did a great write-up on the BD architecture last year.
> 
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/3863/amd-discloses-bobcat-bulldozer-architectures-at-hot-chips-2010/4
> 
> ...



Old article 24/08/2010... & you should learn how to quote something (from an article) look up when you write up your post it is right there , just saying...


----------



## Inceptor (Sep 27, 2011)

Goodman said:


> Originally Posted by Inceptor View Post
> There's a lot of bickering about cores, AMD vs Intel. *Anandtech did a great write-up on the BD architecture last year*.



Here, let me highlight the reference to date for you.  Read a little more carefully, it's good practice.


----------



## xenocide (Sep 27, 2011)

Inceptor said:


> Here, let me highlight the reference to date for you.  Read a little more carefully, it's good practice.



Reading past the second line is far too time-consuming.


----------



## heky (Sep 27, 2011)

Anyone seen this:
http://vr-zone.com/articles/more-sandy-bridge-e-overclocking-details-come-to-light/13639.html

Maybe intel will take the world record from AMD, under LN2 or LHe.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 27, 2011)

Only if it scales with cold and there isnt a CB/CBB...which being intel, is doubtful.


----------



## Super XP (Sep 27, 2011)

xenocide said:


> So, you quoted an article from 2004, when AMD was still innovating.  While I admit during that time frame AMD did a lot of really amazing things, they have failed to really do anything exciting since then.  Whether or not they had previously done very impressive things doesn't matter when they fail to do it for such a long time.  IBM has done several important things over the years, but I wouldn't say they are on par for Intel when it comes to CPU manufacturing.


You make a very valid point, but remember it was AMD that forced Intel to innovate and finally release the Conroe Architecture which basically caught AMD by surprise. At that time and in my opinion, AMD's CEO made a few mistakes, one being the failure of Barcelona. 

Anyway it's been a long time since AMD had something good which is why we are all hoping for a nice Bulldozer success...


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Sep 28, 2011)

Super XP said:


> Anyway it's been a long time since AMD had something good which is why we are all hoping for a nice Bulldozer success...



TBH.

IMO BD is just being hyped to death. people will have such high expectations of the CPU then when it fails to live up to those expectations then people will start with the hating and trolling again. Its a vicious circle.

I will withhold my own judgement about BD until i see some solid reviews


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 28, 2011)

FreedomEclipse said:


> TBH.
> 
> IMO BD is just being hyped to death. people will have such high expectations of the CPU then when it fails to live up to those expectations then people will start with the hating and trolling again. Its a vicious circle.
> 
> I will withhold my own judgement about BD until i see some solid reviews



Where do you see it being hyped to death? I see way more negativity and FUD being reported about it than anything good.

We need to switch what we're reading.


----------



## Bronan (Sep 28, 2011)

Super XP said:


> Generation:      Year:    Bit Rate:     Interconnect   Bandwidth      Max-Bandwidth
> Bandwidth	     (Per Lane)      (16 Lanes)
> PCI-Express 1.1 -(2000) -2.5GT/sec	2GB/sec	     250MB/sec	8GB/sec
> PCI-Express 2.0 -(2007) -5GT/sec	4GB/sec	     500MB/sec	16GB/sec
> ...



lol this is a nice crystal ball 
But i agree untill we see 4 to 16 core video cards you probably still have more then enough with current X8-16 slots ( all fastests 2 core video cards do fine in a X8 slot )  in most cases the cpu are being held resposable for the bottleneck
I have no reason to believe that any change will happen anytime soon, tell me if you have proof other wise 
This thread goes back and forth with false and asumed info, i still wait till i see the real deal and then decide which brand is going to deliver my new pc.
For me just a good performing / good priced system is what is my choice, and i like it to do well on scientific/heavy calculations ( a must for me personally) 
And ofcourse i would like it not cost me a arm and leg.


----------



## nt300 (Sep 28, 2011)

FreedomEclipse said:


> TBH.
> 
> IMO BD is just being hyped to death. people will have such high expectations of the CPU then when it fails to live up to those expectations then people will start with the hating and trolling again. Its a vicious circle.
> 
> I will withhold my own judgement about BD until i see some solid reviews


AMD is getting a bad rap for something that is not even out yet. Personally I think Bulldozer is going to perform just as it should, a lot faster than the Phenom II for a much better price tag. 

I am sure Bulldozer will be quite competitive vs. Intel's CPU's. Isn't this what we want? To keep the competition and choice vibrant. 

I think people forget the FACT Bulldozer is a dam complex design, one is hoping AMD can get this thing running the way it was meant to run like. If it does, AMD has a real winner, something that may once again release the ferocious beast within Intel and force them to further innovate.


----------



## Ahhzz (Sep 28, 2011)

and as long as they keep trying, but failing, to put each other out of the business, it's better for all of us.


----------



## TRWOV (Sep 29, 2011)

FreedomEclipse said:


> TBH.
> 
> IMO BD is just being hyped to death. people will have such high expectations of the CPU then when it fails to live up to those expectations then people will start with the hating and trolling again. Its a vicious circle.



I agree that people have high expectations but I don't think that BD is being hyped, like at all. Based on what we've seen and my limited understanding of the architecture, BD is going to be a kickass productivity chip but not so much for gaming.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 29, 2011)

I would say Second Gen Bulldozer will



nt300 said:


> AMD is getting a bad rap for something that is not even out yet. Personally I think Bulldozer is going to perform just as it should, a lot faster than the Phenom II for a much better price tag.
> 
> I am sure Bulldozer will be quite competitive vs. Intel's CPU's. Isn't this what we want? To keep the competition and choice vibrant.
> 
> I think people forget the FACT Bulldozer is a dam complex design, one is hoping AMD can get this thing running the way it was meant to run like. If it does, AMD has a real winner, something that may once again release the ferocious beast within Intel and force them to further innovate.


----------



## HalfAHertz (Sep 29, 2011)

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4894/amd-confirms-32nm-yield-issues-at-global-foundries

No BulldoZr for U and me


----------



## Volkszorn88 (Sep 29, 2011)

HalfAHertz said:


> http://www.anandtech.com/show/4894/amd-confirms-32nm-yield-issues-at-global-foundries
> 
> No BulldoZr for U and me


----------



## mastrdrver (Sep 29, 2011)

HalfAHertz said:


> http://www.anandtech.com/show/4894/amd-confirms-32nm-yield-issues-at-global-foundries
> 
> No BulldoZr for U and me



In related news Charlie says his moles say only Llano is having yield problems. BD is ok.

S|A news


> To make things more interesting, SemiAccurate moles tell us that the problems are related to Llano in particular, not the 32nm process. Bulldozer and Trinity, the next two 32nm parts coming out of GloFo, are yielding much better, far above Llano levels.



Personally on this matter I would trust Charlie over Anandtech. Also Anandtech questioning BD is their opinion and not based on anything they proclaim to know or AMD statements.


----------



## Frick (Sep 29, 2011)

I have a shrine at home devoted to Charlie. Actually it's two shrines, one for Charlie and one for Charlie Sheen so I have total Charlie coverage. And I trust and believe in Charlie and Charlie says he's right and Charlie agree so he's probably right.


----------



## repman244 (Sep 29, 2011)

HalfAHertz said:


> No BulldoZr for U and me



I don't see a mention of BD having problems, it's Llano (probably because of the GPU).


----------



## de.das.dude (Sep 29, 2011)

true that the llano is the one with the problems. But, its a better marketing strategy to distribute the losses resulting from the fabrication of llano over multiple products.

This will ease the costs of the llano, without making much significant cost addition to the bulldozer.

You guys must also keep in mind that the Phenom II prices have really plummeted. This shows that after Bulldozer comes out, AMD knows, the existing phenoms wont stand a chance in the market. thats why i think AMD lowered prices and want to emty their stock as fast as they can.

I REALLY REALLY regret buying my Phenom II X4 945 last year at 180$ 
if i waited i could have gotten a good x6 now


----------



## HalfAHertz (Sep 29, 2011)

Well let's hope it's only llano then. It kind of makes sence because it's the first chip(brazos is made on TSMC's 40nm HmK LP process) that uses soi for GPUs and GPUs have much denser transistor meshes compared to CPUs so they'd be more prone to errors.


----------



## Ahhzz (Sep 29, 2011)

Frick said:


> I have a shrine at home devoted to Charlie. Actually it's two shrines, one for Charlie and one for Charlie Sheen so I have total Charlie coverage. And I trust and believe in Charlie and Charlie says he's right and Charlie agree so he's probably right.



Winning!!!!!   

 heheheh


----------



## Volkszorn88 (Sep 29, 2011)

Rejoice!


----------



## xenocide (Sep 29, 2011)

de.das.dude said:


> You guys must also keep in mind that the Phenom II prices have really plummeted. This shows that after Bulldozer comes out, AMD knows, the existing phenoms wont stand a chance in the market. thats why i think AMD lowered prices and want to emty their stock as fast as they can.



Wait what?

That doesn't make any sense.  The reason AMD had to lower the price on Phenom II's is to keep their Cost\Performance ratio on par for stuff like Sandy Bridge.  It has nothing to do with Bulldozer really.  AMD knows their best bet is to tackle the Best Value, so they lowered the price so the Cost\Performance was competitive.  Nobody wants to pay the same price for an AMD CPU that performs 30% worse than an Intel CPU of the same price.  Ergo, they lower the price so people still buy their CPU, and most likely buy a better GPU from them as well.  Business 101.  Phenom II's price dropping had NOTHING to do with Bulldozer being good.


----------



## Super XP (Sep 29, 2011)

Have you guys seen this?
AMD Cancels Next-Gen Komodo Processor, Corona Platform in Favour of New Chips.
AMD's Readies Vishera CPUs, Volan Platform as Next-Gen Desktop

So Socket AM3+ lives on in 2012 with nice super fast Piledriver 8 and 10 Core CPU's... Good move AMD IMO.
LINK:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...r_Corona_Platform_in_Favour_of_New_Chips.html


----------



## mastrdrver (Sep 29, 2011)

Super XP said:


> Have you guys seen this?
> AMD Cancels Next-Gen Komodo Processor, Corona Platform in Favour of New Chips.
> AMD's Readies Vishera CPUs, Volan Platform as Next-Gen Desktop
> 
> ...



Source


----------



## Inceptor (Sep 29, 2011)

xenocide said:


> Wait what?
> 
> That doesn't make any sense. The reason AMD had to lower the price on Phenom II's is to keep their Cost\Performance ratio on par for stuff like Sandy Bridge. It has nothing to do with Bulldozer really. AMD knows their best bet is to tackle the Best Value, so they lowered the price so the Cost\Performance was competitive. Nobody wants to pay the same price for an AMD CPU that performs 30% worse than an Intel CPU of the same price. Ergo, they lower the price so people still buy their CPU, and most likely buy a better GPU from them as well. Business 101. Phenom II's price dropping had NOTHING to do with Bulldozer being good.



Actually, it probably did have to do with Bulldozer, at least in part; Phenoms and Athlons are coming out of production this quarter, and AMD started to clear out inventory a few months ago.


----------



## de.das.dude (Sep 29, 2011)

xenocide said:


> Wait what?
> 
> That doesn't make any sense.  The reason AMD had to lower the price on Phenom II's is to keep their Cost\Performance ratio on par for stuff like Sandy Bridge.  It has nothing to do with Bulldozer really.  AMD knows their best bet is to tackle the Best Value, so they lowered the price so the Cost\Performance was competitive.  Nobody wants to pay the same price for an AMD CPU that performs 30% worse than an Intel CPU of the same price.  Ergo, they lower the price so people still buy their CPU, and most likely buy a better GPU from them as well.  Business 101.  Phenom II's price dropping had NOTHING to do with Bulldozer being good.



what? costs here plummeted just now after bulldozer was announced! them bastard shop keepers!


----------



## TRWOV (Sep 29, 2011)

Super XP said:


> Have you guys seen this?
> AMD Cancels Next-Gen Komodo Processor, Corona Platform in Favour of New Chips.
> AMD's Readies Vishera CPUs, Volan Platform as Next-Gen Desktop
> 
> ...



bummer... I was actually hoping for a FM2 PD release around summer 2012.  I hope AMD sticks with AM3+ at least for another CPU generation; I wouldn't want to buy an AM3+ PD setup only to find out that it's the end of the upgrade path.

So Vishera is AM3+ PD and Komodo was FM2 PD then. I had those two mixed up.


----------



## Super XP (Sep 29, 2011)

TRWOV said:


> bummer... I was actually hoping for a FM2 PD release around summer 2012.  I hope AMD sticks with AM3+ at least for another CPU generation; I wouldn't want to buy an AM3+ PD setup only to find out that it's the end of the upgrade path.
> 
> So Vishera is AM3+ PD and Komodo was FM2 PD then. I had those two mixed up.


Well I think you are right, by the end of Q4 2012, that is when I think AMD is going to move to Socket FM2.
I can see why AMD chose to stick with Socket AM3+ for the remaining 2012, if people knew about then dumping AM3+ they would have had bad Bulldozer sales IMO.


----------



## de.das.dude (Sep 30, 2011)

Super XP said:


> Well I think you are right, by the end of Q4 2012, that is when I think AMD is going to move to Socket FM2.
> I can see why AMD chose to stick with Socket AM3+ for the remaining 2012, if people knew about then dumping AM3+ they would have had bad Bulldozer sales IMO.



i think AMD will stick to AM sockets for a little longer than that.

llano is more of a power efficient, compact kind. the AM processors pack the real punch.


----------



## YautjaLord (Sep 30, 2011)

> Fear, uncertainty and doubt, frequently abbreviated as FUD, is a tactic used in sales, marketing, public relations,[1][2] politics and propaganda. FUD is generally a strategic attempt to influence public perception by disseminating negative and dubious/false information designed to undermine the credibility of their beliefs. An individual firm, for example, might use FUD to invite unfavorable opinions and speculation about a competitor's product; to increase the general estimation of switching costs among current customers; or to maintain leverage over a current business partner who could potentially become a rival.
> 
> The term originated to describe disinformation tactics in the computer hardware industry and has since been used more broadly.[3] FUD is a manifestation of the appeal to fear.



In general - it SUCKS.  BTW: this is the last day of September - less then 2 weeks & Dozer is out; October 12 - this is the release date still, is it?


----------



## Volkszorn88 (Sep 30, 2011)

YautjaLord said:


> In general - it SUCKS.  BTW: this is the last day of September - less then 2 weeks & Dozer is out; October 12 - this is the release date still, is it?



It freaking better be. I just bought a 990FX mobo and if I don't get BD I'll be  next step  and then  and will be forced to buy an i7 2600k which i'll finally  to Intel after i'm done  to my new cpu.


----------



## Inceptor (Sep 30, 2011)

*GloFo 32nm yield issues*

The low yields at GloFo are most likely what has been delaying BD.

There was an article on it 3 weeks ago @ semi-accurate (forget about the title, probably refers to server part):
http://semiaccurate.com/2011/09/07/bulldozer-finally-shipped-last-week/



> ...If you want to look at it the simple way, on average, each wafer will yield X Llanos or Y Bulldozers. On average, each Llano will sell for $A, and each Bulldozer will sell for $B. Assuming that AMD will be able to sell everything they make, likely at this point, so the math is simple. If X * A is bigger than Y * B, make more Llanos. If X * A is smaller, make more Bulldozers. Yield improvements, customer bitching, and many other things come in to play to influence the split, but the gross calculation is simple. You run the one that makes the most money in the end...



So, Llanos have been selling like hotcakes, so they prioritize Llano production over BD, and delay BD release.


----------



## YautjaLord (Sep 30, 2011)

Volkszorn88 said:


> It freaking better be. I just bought a 990FX mobo and if I don't get BD I'll be  next step  and then  and will be forced to buy an i7 2600k which i'll finally  to Intel after i'm done  to my new cpu.



I'm still with rig listed in my sys specs, nothing changed; will wait for TPU (or few more tech sites) to cover/review FX-8150, get rest of the planned setup (Sabertooth 990FX, 2x4GB DDR3 1600, AX1200W) & live happily with what it gives in apps i have (games, Photoshop, etc...); job opportunity still missing, but i still search for anything Web designing & stuff. Seeya in October 12. 

P.S. If there's someone @ AMD that plays Carmageddon 1 & 2, the complete lineup of CPUs should read like this (i exclude the years): Bulldozer, Piledriver, Plow Mk. 4, Semi, Dump Truck, DaPanzer (TDR 2000) & Suppressor. jk (Unless they'll actually call 'em like that. )


----------



## Goodman (Sep 30, 2011)

Are we going to have Bulldozer before the year end?



> Meanwhile, AMD's server processor codenamed Interlagos will also have difficulty shipping on schedule and is expected to be delayed to* November*



http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20110930PD207.html

I hope it was a typo & meant October not November...?


----------



## TRWOV (Sep 30, 2011)

Wait, didn't Interlagos shipped already? 

EDIT: It did.
http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=151727

Maybe the digitimes article refers to a second batch or availability in China.


----------



## Super XP (Sep 30, 2011)

HalfAHertz said:


> http://www.anandtech.com/show/4894/amd-confirms-32nm-yield-issues-at-global-foundries
> 
> No BulldoZr for U and me





Volkszorn88 said:


>


Bulldozer is still on schedule for October 12, 2011. BD does not have yield issues, and it would be nice if Global Foundries get's that 32nm out the bloody door in good time.


----------



## YautjaLord (Oct 1, 2011)

Super XP said:


> Bulldozer is still on schedule for October 12, 2011. BD does not have yield issues, and it would be nice if Global Foundries get's that 32nm out the bloody door in good time.



When to expect the review? October 11? 12? Hope they (AMD) will release all models in one shot: BANG & quadie, hex & octo-cored monstrosities out. Also October 8th Serious Sam 3 is out if i'm correct, so twice the fun - both OpenGL benchmark of game & FX-8150 among the others (FX-4xxx/6xxx/etc...). Month of great releases, thanx.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 1, 2011)

In my honest opinion, this is the reasoning why Bulldozer was pushed back by more than a month (Release Date: Oct. 12, 2011 - Bloody F'ing Finally).

1) 32nm Issues. (No issues with the Bulldozer Design)
2) AMD delayed the release for 30+ days to ensure there's enough stock for retailers/etailers.
3) Apple is sucking back a lot of the 32nm and AMD/NV are taking it from behind.
4) None of the above...
5) All of the above...
6) Only answers 1) & 2) are correct...

Now hurry up AMD, my ASUS Crosshair V Formula (ROG) masterpiece is looking for some Bulldozer Blood.....


----------



## Nesters (Oct 1, 2011)

Dunno if posted already but someone might have benched Bulldozer...

http://cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8150+Eight-Core


----------



## Super XP (Oct 1, 2011)

Nesters said:


> Dunno if posted already but someone might have benched Bulldozer...
> 
> http://cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8150+Eight-Core


Not sure if it's a legit benchmark. Anyhow if it is, then Bulldozer looks very good. What I am looking for is for Bulldozer to blow away the Phenom II's by at least 30% to 50%. Anyway we can also look forward to Piledriver (Bulldozer II) via Socket AM3+ (We Hoping)...

I assume this was benched without Turbo Core enabled... Still Synthetic Benchmarks mean Jack, what we need is Real World Performance, something AMD claimed that is where  Bulldozer's strength is at.


----------



## Inceptor (Oct 1, 2011)

Well, that benchmark puts it right where everyone thinks it will fall, in between the 2600k and 2500k, in synthetic benchmarks.
But no information on the chip, which suggest to me it was an engineering sample.  There's no reason for Passmark to have a retail sku.


----------



## Nesters (Oct 1, 2011)

Benchmarks on that site can be published by anyone who uses the suite and the score is average of all uploaded results (there's only one FX-8150 tho).


----------



## YautjaLord (Oct 1, 2011)

Nesters said:


> Dunno if posted already but someone might have benched Bulldozer...
> 
> http://cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8150+Eight-Core



What revision is it? B2? Or ES (B0)? Someone needs to roll out B2 (or better yet C0) results. If rev. B2 CPU turns out slightly better than 2600K - ace; but if rev. C0 comes - say - few weeks after rev. B2 - better wait for rev. C0.


----------



## Jegergrim (Oct 1, 2011)

Nesters said:


> Dunno if posted already but someone might have benched Bulldozer...
> 
> http://cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8150+Eight-Core



I would have wanted this to beat the 2600k, but I have to admit that I'm impressed it even gets this close in the first place, since it had a big ground to cover


----------



## entropy13 (Oct 2, 2011)

http://obrovsky.blogspot.com/2011/10/clock-to-clock-42-ghz-comparision.html


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Oct 2, 2011)

Sigh, when will people learn to quit posting bullshit from OBR? The troll has already failed.


----------



## bear jesus (Oct 2, 2011)

Seriously why would AMD even consider releasing a product the performs worse than it's last generation?

Do people think AMD wants to commit corporate suicide?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 2, 2011)

bear jesus said:


> Seriously why would AMD even consider releasing a product the performs worse than it's last generation?
> 
> Do people think AMD wants to commit corporate suicide?



dude chillout, you dont have to buy it if you dont like it, but theres billions more that will buy it if you dont.


----------



## bear jesus (Oct 2, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> dude chillout, you dont have to buy it if you dont like it, but theres billions more that will buy it if you dont.



I was trying to say those results are probably wrong, as in faked.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Oct 2, 2011)

bear jesus said:


> I was trying to say those results are probably wrong, as in faked.



lol I think he was just mad and didn't read into it with a clear mind. That happens a lot in the US. 

I will buy one bulldozer most likely. I buy something from every company's generation just to see how it compares but there is no way that I expect it to compete with Intel's higher offerings. I just hope it will have something unique to offer. Either features or price per performance. Or even performance per watt. Just don't count on it being the "Smarter Choice". I always thought it was rather arrogant marketing that would insist "Smarter Choice", like buying Intel is a bad buy.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 2, 2011)

erm i suppose, tbh i dont care if its not any faster than wut intel has, it suits my requirements for a good machine. I just know for my bros machine the last AM3+ Bulldozer or w/e its called will be dropped into it to replace the BE 555 Unlocked to 955, n max the ram out


----------



## bear jesus (Oct 2, 2011)

From a logical point of view surly even if there was no intel then AMD would surly make the next generation better than the past one, it would truly defy logic to produce a new product that is worse than the last ones to then discontinue the older better performing products.

Until the NDA lifts and there is reviews from multiple trusted sites which can be compared to each other there is no reason to think any of these "leaks" are accurate or anything other than attention whoring by sites who are desperate to try and increase how many people visit their site.

I try to have no expectations for bulldozer but one i cannot help but have it the one of it being better performing than the phenom II architecture, i'm just waiting to see legit reviews before i get excited or disappointed.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 2, 2011)

only thing that got be was changing the CPU names n then Phenom 1 had serious issues.


----------



## Melvis (Oct 2, 2011)

bear jesus said:


> Seriously why would AMD even consider releasing a product the performs worse than it's last generation?
> 
> Do people think AMD wants to commit corporate suicide?



Yea i agree with ya there, that would just defeat the purpose.

Far as im concerned if these CPU's are about as fast as intels then thats good enough for me, who here would love to have the performance of a 980X but just cant afford it. Yes i know the 2600K is there and it would be one to go to for sure, but for the AMD users this is awesome realy.

And for the new SB-E been 50% faster? i call BS on that right now, as not even SB was 50% faster then Skt 1366. It was just cheaper and more affordable, performance wasnt a big difference.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 2, 2011)

From sounds of it Amd intends on releasing 2 more CPU series for the AM3+ Platform before going full FM2, its nice considering Intel is constantly changing sockets, first 1366, then 1156, now 1155, WTF Intel stick with 1 socket for desktop, 1 for Server and 1 for mobile.



Melvis said:


> Yea i agree with ya there, that would just defeat the purpose.
> 
> Far as im concerned if these CPU's are about as fast as intels then thats good enough for me, who here would love to have the performance of a 980X but just cant afford it. Yes i know the 2600K is there and it would be one to go to for sure, but for the AMD users this is awesome realy.
> 
> And for the new SB-E been 50% faster? i call BS on that right now, as not even SB was 50% faster then Skt 1366. It was just cheaper and more affordable, performance wasnt a big difference.


----------



## Wile E (Oct 2, 2011)

Melvis said:


> Yea i agree with ya there, that would just defeat the purpose.
> 
> Far as im concerned if these CPU's are about as fast as intels then thats good enough for me, who here would love to have the performance of a 980X but just cant afford it. Yes i know the 2600K is there and it would be one to go to for sure, but for the AMD users this is awesome realy.
> 
> And for the new SB-E been 50% faster? i call BS on that right now, as not even SB was 50% faster then Skt 1366. It was just cheaper and more affordable, performance wasnt a big difference.



SB-E is 50% faster than SB i7 (and therefore roughly BD) because it has 50% more cores available. 

Really, it's just simple math: 4 cores with HT in SB i7, and 6 cores with HT in SB-E's top offerings (and hopefully 8 core offerings on refresh).


----------



## entropy13 (Oct 2, 2011)

http://library.madeinpresse.fr/samples/MPqY2Vg2v45Z-f



> This is what I hacked together with Google translator:
> 
> FX-8120 has the best price/performance ratio of the Bulldozer line. It is able to compete with 2500K in most computing applications, but lags in video games.
> 
> FX-8150 is the fastest model "currently" available. Slightly cheaper than 2600K, but can at best match it in some multimedia processing applications, and is systematically left behind in games.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Oct 2, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> http://library.madeinpresse.fr/samples/MPqY2Vg2v45Z-f



Not done with the FUD yet? Wait for launch.


----------



## Inceptor (Oct 2, 2011)

That doesn't tell us anything new.
I think that you'll find, aside from flaming fanboys, what people interested in Bulldozer like is not that gaming benchmarks might lag behind Sandybridge, but that overall, it looks to be a well rounded cpu at a reasonable price, with an interesting architecture.
We're not all hardcore gamers.


----------



## Melvis (Oct 2, 2011)

Wile E said:


> SB-E is 50% faster than SB i7 (and therefore roughly BD) because it has 50% more cores available.
> 
> Really, it's just simple math: 4 cores with HT in SB i7, and 6 cores with HT in SB-E's top offerings (and hopefully 8 core offerings on refresh).



Yea ok i can understand that, more cores to get the 50%. But that doesn't mean it will perform 50% better.

It will be an increase that's for sure, but it wont be 50% no way, regardless if it gets 50% more cores.

Ok to me if its going to be a 50% increase i would expect the new SB-E to be 50% faster then there current 980/990X CPU's ( both 6 cores of course) , if not then its not going to be anything to write home about in my eyes. As SB vs the old 1366 975 isnt much different in performance at all if any. Just more affordable.


----------



## Inceptor (Oct 2, 2011)

Melvis said:


> Yea ok i can understand that, more cores to get the 50%. But that doesn't mean it will perform 50% better.
> 
> It will be an increase that's for sure, but it wont be 50% no way, regardless if it gets 50% more cores.



Well... I'm sure at least one of those SB-E chips will be +50% performance... like the $1000 i7-3960X.
But that's off topic and not even in the same performance category as the FX processors.


----------



## entropy13 (Oct 2, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Not done with the FUD yet? Wait for launch.



Where's the Fear, Uncertainty, and Despair there?

I doubt a published magazine would be publishing FUD. What are they, a tabloid?


The relevant pages would be 8 and 9, btw. Which I guess you didn't bother reading.


----------



## Melvis (Oct 2, 2011)

Inceptor said:


> Well... I'm sure at least one of those SB-E chips will be +50% performance... like the $1000 i7-3960X.
> But that's off topic and not even in the same performance category as the FX processors.



We dont know that for sure, and i honestly dont think it will be, if there both 6 cores with HT?

Heck we dont even know 100% how well BD is going to be against SB, but going by what we have got in this thread its up there.

I think SB-E will be an improvement in performance just not what everyone things it will be, maybe 20% im guessing, hell we all are.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Oct 2, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> Where's the Fear, Uncertainty, and Despair there?



It's doubt, and if you can't see it, there's something seriously wrong there. 

I'm not going to listen to some French moron that won't give any specifics. You can if you want to, but I pity your gullibility.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 2, 2011)

bear jesus said:


> From a logical point of view surly even if there was no intel then AMD would surly make the next generation better than the past one, it would truly defy logic to produce a new product that is worse than the last ones to then discontinue the older better performing products.



geforce FX anyone? radeon 6K vs 5K?


----------



## entropy13 (Oct 2, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> It's doubt



Making it redundant then, does "uncertainty" mean something else? 




Damn_Smooth said:


> I'm not going to listen to some French moron that won't give any specifics. You can if you want to, but I pity your gullibility.



I pity how quick you "defend" AMD then, blindly even. He actually says that the 2 AMD CPUs are great in price/performance. Which would actually be akin to how AMD's GPU division has been relatively successful of late. It's not like he said that Bulldozer was a failure or something.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Oct 2, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> Making it redundant then, does "uncertainty" mean something else?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You have no need to pity me, I'm not sticking up for anyone. I just prefer to listen to credible sources. It's a shame we don't all feel that way.


----------



## Melvis (Oct 2, 2011)

Mussels said:


> geforce FX anyone? radeon 6K vs 5K?



Yea we get it, but this isnt about GPU's, its CPU's. has there been a time in the past that the new high end gen from either company been "less" then there older current gen? i cant think of any.

Honestly if a program is coded well for 8 cores then surely it would perform better then its last gen 6 core? surely????


----------



## mastrdrver (Oct 2, 2011)

Wile E said:


> SB-E is 50% faster than SB i7 (and therefore roughly BD) because it has 50% more cores available.
> 
> Really, it's just simple math: 4 cores with HT in SB i7, and 6 cores with HT in SB-E's top offerings (and hopefully 8 core offerings on refresh).



50% faster (probably) in well threaded programs. Otherwise it will be just as fast as SB regardless of how much PR Intel throws at it.


----------



## bear jesus (Oct 2, 2011)

Mussels said:


> geforce FX anyone? radeon 6K vs 5K?



I can't say with the gefore fx as i was not using nvidia back then but as far as i knew the 6970 does not perform worse than the 5870, same with 6950 vs 5850.

I admit ignoring the change to naming so if trying to compare the 6870 to a 5870 instead of what should really be 6870 vs 5770 then yes it does not look good but the whole point of the name change i though was to be able to push in another core under the top end but still above 57xx cards leaving them to be re branded.

Did the nvidia fx cards really perform worse than the generation before?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 2, 2011)

bear jesus said:


> I can't say with the gefore fx as i was not using nvidia back then but as far as i knew the 6970 does not perform worse than the 5870, same with 6950 vs 5850.
> 
> I admit ignoring the change to naming so if trying to compare the 6870 to a 5870 instead of what should really be 6870 vs 5770 then yes it does not look good but the whole point of the name change i though was to be able to push in another core under the top end but still above 57xx cards leaving them to be re branded.
> 
> Did the nvidia fx cards really perform worse than the generation before?



Cough GF 8, 9, 250 Series were just rebags.


----------



## Frick (Oct 2, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> Cough GF 8, 9, 250 Series were just rebags.



Geforce 8xxx was a rebagde?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 2, 2011)

the 512 GTS Model was


----------



## Frick (Oct 2, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> the 512 GTS Model was



Very different from "Geforce 8 was just a rebadge", which indicates that the entire series was rebadged.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 2, 2011)

Regardless, when the 512 Model came out there was no GTX model, when GF 9 Came out they just renamed the unsold 512 Units as GF 9 Units n same with the 250 Models


----------



## bear jesus (Oct 2, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> Cough GF 8, 9, 250 Series were just rebags.



But surly they had at least the same power not a reduction, the point i was trying to make is pretty much every CPU or GPU the next generation is better than the last, i admit that does not take in to account re branding but in those cases it normally means the same performance but as bulldozer is a new architecture it is obviously not a re branded phenom II thus in theory should be faster than them.

I admit the new architecture could in theory cause a reduction in performance per core but with increased IPC surly AMD's CPU design team would at least aim to keep the same performance per core if not try to increase it?

But as i said, my point is surly it would be unlikely that clock for clock bulldozer would be beaten by the phenom II architecture going by previous CPU releases for as many years as i have been paying attention .


----------



## Mussels (Oct 2, 2011)

the point was that heaps of new models come out with zero performance improvements. they might be cheaper (5870 vs 6870) and rarely (FX series) far worse.


a new model does not always mean higher speeds.


----------



## bear jesus (Oct 2, 2011)

Mussels said:


> the point was that heaps of new models come out with zero performance improvements. they might be cheaper (5870 vs 6870) and rarely (FX series) far worse.
> 
> 
> a new model does not always mean higher speeds.



Well yes i agree on that but i was thinking more along the lines of the improvement coming from more cores and that there not being a decrease per core, my main thought is about the supposed benchmarks is decreases in performance as in it being slower so not even the same speed clock for clock even though there is supposed to be an increase of the IPC.

I admit i was heavily suggesting an increase per core or an increase overall due to it being the next generation but would you not agree it would be unlikely for it to be a reduction over the previous generation?

Even when there is no improvement between generation due to whatever reason is it not very rare that there is a decrease in performance?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 2, 2011)

Mussels said:


> the point was that heaps of new models come out with zero performance improvements. they might be cheaper (5870 vs 6870) and rarely (FX series) far worse.
> 
> 
> a new model does not always mean higher speeds.



ya it can mean reduction in power and production costs but then also overclocking headroom to boot


----------



## Inceptor (Oct 2, 2011)

Mussels said:


> the point was that heaps of new models come out with zero performance improvements. they might be cheaper (5870 vs 6870) and rarely (FX series) far worse.
> 
> 
> a new model does not always mean higher speeds.



5870 vs 6870 is not a valid comparison.
Their numbering scheme may be similar, _*but they are not equivalent performace tiers*_.
5970 vs 6990 is valid, and there is a performance increase in the 6990.
5870 vs 6970 is valid, and there is a performance increase in the 6970.
5850 vs 6870 is valid, and there is a performance increase in the 6870, albeit a slight increase.
5770 vs 6850 is valid, and there is a performance increase in the 6850.

It's amazing that even over a year since release and explanation, the 5870 vs 6870 and 5850 vs 6850 mistake is still made, constantly.  What flavour of gpu core that is in each card is irrelevant, what matters is the performance tier in which the card is meant to compete.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Oct 2, 2011)

.....this story is already writen in 2 week ....hopefully some 3rd party reviews  that will show tons of Future possibilities and marginal  present gains. World wide web war breaks out between sides.  Sandy bridge e drops....expensive powerful. Insert arguement about cost / performance increase etc. Onto piledriver vs ivybridge


----------



## NAVI_Z (Oct 2, 2011)

havin much fun reading everyone's posts!

some folks here say to wait and see what the real world numbers will look like before buying.

very wise imho. its still fun to read the opinions over speculation 

will have fingers crossed until after Oct 12th....


----------



## TRWOV (Oct 2, 2011)

I think that the french magazine is very much right since AMD themselves said that BD would be targeted at Core i5-2xxx performance.



> "The AMD FX-8120 is probably the model of the new series "Bulldozer" that offers the best price/performance ratio. It's able to compete with the i5-2500K in most computing applications even if it lags behind in video games. But don't forget that overclocking capabilities are available with no additional cost. Faced with the old Phenom X4 980, this is a very good alternative."
> 
> "Offered at a slightly lower price than the Intel Core i7-2600K, the FX-8150 is currently the most powerful model of the new "Bulldozer" architecture from AMD. Unfortunately, it fails in comparison, at best it can match its direct competitor in some media processing applications but is always behind in games."



http://library.madeinpresse.fr/samples/MPqY2Vg2v45Z-f  p.9 "Nos choix" panel.


Nobody thought that BD could "beat" SB, not even AMD (if they did they would have said so) BUT with the announced prices and the fully unlocked multiplier I think that BD would be a very good choice for gaming on a budget. People with larger budgets will go for the highest performance regardless of cost but that isn't AMD's turf right now.

Clock for clock BD will fall behind SB, of course, but that only matters in technical discussion. For the end user it's about the price/performance and I hope that AMD can deliver. 



By the way, does someone know how to convert from AMD's TDP to Intel's TDP?  I think that AMD should market their consumer CPUs with the same measure. People are going to see the 95w v 130w and probably choose SB because it seems to be "greener".


----------



## YautjaLord (Oct 2, 2011)

2ensabrenoir:

Pile Driver have to be monstrous car to crash Ivy's Bridge; i'd like to see the Ped Basher vs Army Hangar.  jk Just having laugh @ the AMD's & Intel's CPUs naming scheme; though AMD reminds me why i love Carmageddon & this firm's CPUs. They had SledgeHammer, don't they?  How's that ambulance from Carmageddon Splat Pack called? Fits in it's nature to AMD names.


----------



## TRWOV (Oct 2, 2011)

YautjaLord said:


> 2ensabrenoir:
> 
> Pile Driver have to be monstrous car to crash Ivy's Bridge; i'd like to see the Ped Basher vs Army Hangar.  jk Just having laugh @ the AMD's & Intel's CPUs naming scheme; though AMD reminds me why i love Carmageddon & this firm's CPUs. They had SledgeHammer, don't they?  How's that ambulance from Carmageddon Splat Pack called? Fits in it's nature to AMD names.



You know, If AMD had chosen to name BD CPUs as "Phenom III" I think that there wouldn't be such an uproar over performance numbers. By using the FX moniker people's expectations just went apeshit. 

Calm down people. It's just two more weeks.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Oct 2, 2011)

TRWOV said:


> You know, If AMD had chosen to name BD CPUs as "Phenom III" I think that there wouldn't be such an uproar over performance numbers. By using the FX moniker people's expectations just went apeshit.
> 
> *Calm down people. It's just two more weeks.*



Finally, some words of wisdom.


----------



## erocker (Oct 2, 2011)

10 days. Just sayin'


----------



## Wile E (Oct 2, 2011)

Melvis said:


> Yea ok i can understand that, more cores to get the 50%. But that doesn't mean it will perform 50% better.
> 
> It will be an increase that's for sure, but it wont be 50% no way, regardless if it gets 50% more cores.
> 
> Ok to me if its going to be a 50% increase i would expect the new SB-E to be 50% faster then there current 980/990X CPU's ( both 6 cores of course) , if not then its not going to be anything to write home about in my eyes. As SB vs the old 1366 975 isnt much different in performance at all if any. Just more affordable.


SB is faster clock for clock/core for core than 1366.

Besides, I never decided the context of the 50% comment. That was established earlier by someone else as being 50% faster than current SB and BD. And while 50% more cores doesn't give exactly a 50% increase, it's damn close in multithreaded apps. 50% was being used as a ballpark figure. And in that context, it's pretty much correct.

Now, that says nothing of pricing. The 50% increase over BD/SB will cost an arm and a leg.



mastrdrver said:


> 50% faster (probably) in well threaded programs. Otherwise it will be just as fast as SB regardless of how much PR Intel throws at it.



Or able to run 50% more tasks without a performance penalty. Still 50% faster. You just have to use it to it's potential. That's like saying a Ferrari isn't faster than a 370z. Just because you don't use the available performance on your drive to work, doesn't mean it isn't there when you do want or need it.


----------



## YautjaLord (Oct 2, 2011)

TRWOV said:


> You know, If AMD had chosen to name BD CPUs as "Phenom III" I think that there wouldn't be such an uproar over performance numbers. By using the FX moniker people's expectations just went apeshit.
> 
> Calm down people. It's just two more weeks.



lol'd

True, more or less what i say: while i participate here, why not have a good laugh. BTW: the ambulance from Carma Splat Pack called BloodMobile; will AMD use that name for some future CPU?  jk

Seeya all in 10 days (actually few hours less lol) from now.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 2, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> http://obrovsky.blogspot.com/2011/10/clock-to-clock-42-ghz-comparision.html
> 
> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ejjh4QYNYaw/TocizISSJBI/AAAAAAAABKg/qpPpPD0Od4g/s1600/update.png


These numbers look like they came out of an aris. More nonesense without any backing...


----------



## erocker (Oct 2, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Sigh, when will people learn to quit posting bullshit from OBR? The troll has already failed.



On other forums people get infracted for posting his stuff. No joke.


----------



## mastrdrver (Oct 2, 2011)

Wile E said:


> SB is faster clock for clock/core for core than 1366.
> 
> Besides, I never decided the context of the 50% comment. That was established earlier by someone else as being 50% faster than current SB and BD. And while 50% more cores doesn't give exactly a 50% increase, it's damn close in multithreaded apps. 50% was being used as a ballpark figure. And in that context, it's pretty much correct.
> 
> ...



Maybe fast clock for clock but only core per core because the uncore is clocked higher. 90% of desktop work that is going to be done is not going to see this magical 50% fast part either. A SSD (from what I hear) would be worth it more then a SB-E system.

And where is this mythical performance left untapped you talk of? It is in well threaded programs. Of which very few exist that will see work on a desktop PC. Server is a different story and I would agree with the 50% faster on them.

You also drive a Ferrari instead of a 370Z because you have the money and want to show it off. Not necessarily because it's faster, that's a secondary concern. Ferrari's also are higher maintenance then a 370Z. What are you trying to say about SB-E?  (j/k)


----------



## Wile E (Oct 2, 2011)

None of your concerns change the fact that it is 50% faster, give or take. Whether you use it all the time or not is completely irrelevant. Why SB is faster than the 1366 i7's is also completely irrelevant, all that's relevant is that it is faster clock for clock.

And all you need to do to see the 50% increase is encode some videos. Not an uncommon task at all.


----------



## Covert_Death (Oct 2, 2011)

Super XP said:


> These numbers look like they came out of an aris. More nonesense without any backing...



here's what i don't get...

they OC'd an i7 more then the 8150, i know it's "clock to clock" but that is utterly pointless really, if the 8150 has as much overhead to OC as we are seeing how about we do either "stock to stock" or "max to max" because really those are the two things that matter, nobody is going to clock an 8150 to 4.2 just because its a good number, they will either leave it stock or crank it up high enough to feel good about themselves. now sure SOME people might land at 4.2 but its retarded to think that its a good comparison to OC them to the same clock, when that comparison doesn't mean anything...

if the i7 is faster at the SAME clock, but the 8150 can OC much more then the i7 then what good is that test? its pointless


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Oct 2, 2011)

erocker said:


> On other forums people get infracted for posting his stuff. No joke.



I can see why. The guy admitted himself that he can't be trusted.

I wouldn't blame you if you wanted to start doing that yourself.


----------



## mastrdrver (Oct 2, 2011)

Wile E said:


> None of your concerns change the fact that it is 50% faster, give or take. Whether you use it all the time or not is completely irrelevant. Why SB is faster than the 1366 i7's is also completely irrelevant, all that's relevant is that it is faster clock for clock.
> 
> And all you need to do to see the 50% increase is encode some videos. Not an uncommon task at all.



It's relevant if the performance does not justify the extra price.

It was like that with Lynnfield vs Bloomfield. The only real reason to get Bloomfield was for triple SLI/Crossfire and 6 core CPU support. You could easily (about 2 yrs ago) build a Lynnfield system for a lot cheaper then a Bloomfield one.


----------



## Wile E (Oct 2, 2011)

mastrdrver said:


> It's relevant if the performance does not justify the extra price.
> 
> It was like that with Lynnfield vs Bloomfield. The only real reason to get Bloomfield was for triple SLI/Crossfire and 6 core CPU support. You could easily (about 2 yrs ago) build a Lynnfield system for a lot cheaper then a Bloomfield one.



Who decides what justifies the extra price? I found it justifiable enough to buy a 980X. 

We weren't talking price/performance here. We were talking raw numbers. 50% faster is 50% faster. Price doesn't change that.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 3, 2011)

Inceptor said:


> 5870 vs 6870 is not a valid comparison.
> Their numbering scheme may be similar, _*but they are not equivalent performace tiers*_.
> 5970 vs 6990 is valid, and there is a performance increase in the 6990.
> 5870 vs 6970 is valid, and there is a performance increase in the 6970.
> ...



you really are missing the point. as far as everyone was concerned on launch, thats exactly what it meant. and thats why everyone thought a slower, cheaper product was released as a succesor. this is a direct reply to the initial comment someone made that slower hardware is never released to replace something - in this case, it was. they redid the naming scheme, but but direct numerical successor was slower when they did.


----------



## Covert_Death (Oct 3, 2011)

yes but a new tearing system means you work from the top down.... you compare 1st to 1st 2nd to 2nd .... not 2nd to 1st just because " the numbers have 3 digits in common"


----------



## Super XP (Oct 3, 2011)

Hey everybody 9 days left for Bulldozer's launch. I am hoping there will be no more delays


----------



## Inceptor (Oct 3, 2011)

Mussels said:


> you really are missing the point.



mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.


----------



## sk (Oct 4, 2011)

*official Test*

hello techp forums and peeps.
Heres an official bench, posted this weekend.

8150 is about 17 proc's down @ 8,600+
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

so im guessing the 8170 released down the road will be up to the Intel EX SB's.
not bad not bad,

this will be my 1st "personal" AMD build in 10yrs, but i've built alot for others...
i cant wait


----------



## Inceptor (Oct 4, 2011)

sk said:


> so im guessing the 8170 released down the road will be up to the Intel EX SB's.
> not bad not bad,



If the FX-8170 is 10% faster than the FX-8150, then yes, at stock speeds, it will probably be in the SB-E stock range.  But somehow I doubt that the overclock performance will be any different than the FX-8150.  They are both from the same processor line, after all.  Unless the FX-8170 has an improved IMC...


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 4, 2011)

Inceptor said:


> If the FX-8170 is 10% faster than the FX-8150, then yes, at stock speeds, it will probably be in the SB-E stock range.  But somehow I doubt that the overclock performance will be any different than the FX-8150.  They are both from the same processor line, after all.  Unless the FX-8170 has an improved IMC...



Normally the fastest CPU is deved then the lower models are gained from it, so the IMC could be slower on the 8150 or clock speed could be slightly less cuz they cant obtain the clock speed they want etc


----------



## nt300 (Oct 4, 2011)

Inceptor said:


> If the FX-8170 is 10% faster than the FX-8150, then yes, at stock speeds, it will probably be in the SB-E stock range.  But somehow I doubt that the overclock performance will be any different than the FX-8150.  They are both from the same processor line, after all.  Unless the FX-8170 has an improved IMC...


FX 8170 is based on Bulldozer, not Piledriver. Piledriver should use a different name such as FX 9150, 9170 etc....

LINK:
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/20887/amd_fx_8150_to_take_on_core_i7_980x_and_2600k_pushes_them_up_against_a_wall_and_mugs_them_of_their_price_performance_crown/result.html


----------



## YautjaLord (Oct 4, 2011)

One thing bugs me, in all threads like that & in this one especially that there's no mention of something quite important for me (& i bet for some of you too): what revision are those? If rev. B2 - ace; if C0 - quite a dream. 

Besides, it should be more important than whether to buy Dozer or wait for Piledriver: wait & buy rev. C0 FX-8150; unless PileDriver actually _is rev. C0_. If there is a slight chance there will be rev. C0 FX-8150 right or soon after rev. B2 - dream.


----------



## Inceptor (Oct 4, 2011)

nt300 said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Inceptor View Post
> If the FX-8170 is 10% faster than the FX-8150, then yes, at stock speeds, it will probably be in the SB-E stock range. But somehow I doubt that the overclock performance will be any different than the FX-8150. They are both from the same processor line, after all. Unless the FX-8170 has an improved IMC...
> 
> _*FX 8170 is based on Bulldozer, not Piledriver. Piledriver should use a different name such as FX 9150, 9170 etc....*_



Yes, but we're talking about FX-8170 vs FX-8150, not Piledriver.
To link it to your line of thought, think about this: *If* Piledriver is going to be 10% faster than Bulldozer, which BD cpu are they talking about, the 8150 or 8170?  Then link that to reports of the 8170 being either, 1) up to 10% faster than the 8150, or 2) simply 200Mhz faster than the 8150.
Either way, the purported Piledriver performance increase may be on top of the 8150-to-8170 purported performance increase.

_*Conjecture:*_ *FX-8150 + 200Mhz? + 10% performance = stock Piledriver?*
[That would be ~16% stock performance increase over a stock FX-8150, if true.]


----------



## ensabrenoir (Oct 4, 2011)

The estimate 10% increase over  an unknown estimate ..............  the 12 can't come fast enough


----------



## Ahhzz (Oct 4, 2011)

My desire is the best bang for the buck, and without spending more than half a grand on a processor. My guess is that those numbers are neither spectacular enough, nor dismal enough, to be too far in the extreme, which puts them close enough to middle to suit me.  So, the math is simple. For the price, the 'Dozer 8-core will be the best purchase. Put it on a Crosshair, and squeeze the trigger


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 4, 2011)

Ahhzz said:


> My desire is the best bang for the buck, and without spending more than half a grand on a processor. My guess is that those numbers are neither spectacular enough, nor dismal enough, to be too far in the extreme, which puts them close enough to middle to suit me.  So, the math is simple. For the price, the 'Dozer 8-core will be the best purchase. Put it on a Crosshair, and squeeze the trigger



Shoot any AM3+ Motherboard just about, I think U can get some really good numbers out of AsRock n GB, MSI I dunno


----------



## Super XP (Oct 5, 2011)

Ahhzz said:


> My desire is the best bang for the buck, and without spending more than half a grand on a processor. My guess is that those numbers are neither spectacular enough, nor dismal enough, to be too far in the extreme, which puts them close enough to middle to suit me.  So, the math is simple. For the price, the 'Dozer 8-core will be the best purchase. Put it on a Crosshair, and squeeze the trigger


That is what I am doing, getting a new setup ready for Rage, Skyrim and Diablo III 
It includes the AMD FX 8150 with a Crosshair V Formula along with a nice 16GB of DDR3-1866 G-Skill RipJaw or what ever they call it


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 5, 2011)

Super XP said:


> That is what I am doing, getting a new setup ready for Rage, Skyrim and Diablo III
> It includes the AMD FX 8150 with a Crosshair V Formula along with a nice 16GB of DDR3-1866 G-Skill RipJaw or what ever they call it



Max 7 HP 64bit supports is 16GB so Id say if you plan on more get Pro or Ultimate


----------



## HalfAHertz (Oct 5, 2011)

Actually the big problem for AMD is not the performance gap but the fact that intel will focus on power reduction and not performance with ivy. So they'll try to offer a marginally better performance for half the power of BD/PD. And unless Glo Fo magically manages to catch up to intel's manufacturing process AMD has nothing in response...So for the sake of AMD i hope that BD can scale in power efficiency.


----------



## Ahhzz (Oct 5, 2011)

HalfAHertz said:


> Actually the big problem for AMD is not the performance gap but the fact that intel will focus on power reduction and not performance with ivy. So they'll try to offer a marginally better performance for half the power of BD/PD. And unless Glo Fo magically manages to catch up to intel's manufacturing process AMD has nothing in response...So for the sake of AMD i hope that BD can scale in power efficiency.



For some people, they just want the raw clock speed, some prefer the performance per cost numbers, and some like the power efficiency. Personally, I don't care how much the draw is. I've got a Corsair enthusiast 750 waiting for it, and I'm not concerned. I don't particularly see AMD concerned that if they're not efficient enough, that people won't buy, but that's my opin...


----------



## nt300 (Oct 5, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> Max 7 HP 64bit supports is 16GB so Id say if you plan on more get Pro or Ultimate


Socket AM3+ spports 32GB of Dual-Channel ram. Windows 7 x64 Ultimate supports a lot more than that.


----------



## TRWOV (Oct 5, 2011)

Seven more days *weeeeee*

http://www.nordichardware.com/news/...irms-amd-bulldozer-fx-series-launch-date.html

http://www.pcper.com/news/General-Tech/AMD-Bulldozer-FX-CPUs-dated-October-12th-Shhh


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 6, 2011)

nt300 said:


> Socket AM3+ spports 32GB of Dual-Channel ram. Windows 7 x64 Ultimate supports a lot more than that.



Yes I know, it supports 192GB I believe, but to not be capped at 16GB you need Win 7 64 Pro or Ultimate


----------



## Mussels (Oct 6, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> Yes I know, it supports 192GB I believe, but to not be capped at 16GB you need Win 7 64 Pro or Ultimate





buy technet = problem solved, multiple ultimate keys!


----------



## Super XP (Oct 6, 2011)

Looking forward to the *Bulldozer Launch!!!!*


----------



## TRWOV (Oct 7, 2011)

Looking forward to the *Bulldozer Lunch!!!!* 







Sorry, had to. 


6 more days!


----------



## ensabrenoir (Oct 7, 2011)

TRWOV said:


> Looking forward to the *Bulldozer Lunch!!!!*
> 
> http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/4152/30001633128653944634000.jpg
> 
> ...




U had 2 have that one saved just waiting for someone to use that line


----------



## fullinfusion (Oct 7, 2011)

Freakin EH!


----------



## Mussels (Oct 7, 2011)

TRWOV said:


> Looking forward to the *Bulldozer Lunch!!!!*
> 
> http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/4152/30001633128653944634000.jpg
> 
> ...



you must have been saving that one up for a while...


----------



## Goodman (Oct 7, 2011)

Found this article about Bulldozer...

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9220590/AMD_s_first_eight_core_desktop_processors_detailed  Oct 5 2011



> The FX-8150 and FX-8120 processors are part of the re-launched FX family of chips, which are pitched as high-performance parts aimed at gaming machines and other high-end systems. The FX chips are based on AMD's new Bulldozer architecture, which provides a speed boost of 50% or more compared to its predecessor, according to AMD.





> The chips will compete with Intel's high-end Core i7-990X Extreme Edition



But...


> AMD plans to launch the FX chips this quarter but can't yet give a specific date, said AMD spokesman Phil Hughes, who declined to comment further about the chips.



More wait?


----------



## mastrdrver (Oct 7, 2011)

Googe Cache

Check the bottom of those slides. They say October 12th. Do you really think that AMD is going to commend on something that is under NDA? Reason demands a no answer.

Also note this image





Notice that the FX and i7 parts are switched from this slide





It appears as though someone took official slides and modified them so as to "look" official with the i7 being more on top.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 7, 2011)

Stop Worrying, they be out when they be out



Goodman said:


> Found this article about Bulldozer...
> 
> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9220590/AMD_s_first_eight_core_desktop_processors_detailed  Oct 5 2011
> 
> ...


----------



## heky (Oct 7, 2011)

mastrdrver said:


> It appears as though someone took official slides and modified them so as to "look" official with the i7 being more on top.



Or the other way around.


----------



## YautjaLord (Oct 7, 2011)

Just noticed on a front page the FX-8120 related news - approx. 6 days left, last days to polish architecture, test revisions & officially launch 'em @ - what - night of October 12/noon October 13? Probably. When will they give a samples (prefferrably rev. B2) to all tech sites including TPU? At October 12? Good; have to give _all_ CPUs - meaning, quad-, hex- & octo-cored ones.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 7, 2011)

Interesting how AMD is keeping this all very quiet. Also the fact they finally called a CPU "FX" which was originally waiting for the next high end CPU design deserving of this FX name. Plus once again, in those AMD slides, providing they are for real, still claim to be 50% better performance. I assume clock for clock, but it could very well mean Price/Performance.

Either way, I see a WIN for AMD, now lets see these babies in action...


----------



## LagunaX (Oct 9, 2011)

Not good AMD, not good at all(Bulldozer vs. 2600k):
http://lab501.ro/procesoare-chipseturi/amd-fx-8150-bulldozer-preview


----------



## Thefumigator (Oct 9, 2011)

LagunaX said:


> Not good AMD, not good at all(Bulldozer vs. 2600k):
> http://lab501.ro/procesoare-chipseturi/amd-fx-8150-bulldozer-preview



That previews shows bulldozer not doing very well against i7 2600, but at least BD has lower power consumption (90 something against 120 something of i7)

which brings us to the fact that it could be more power efficient at least.

Assuming the preview can be trusted, of course...


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Oct 9, 2011)

LagunaX said:


> Not good AMD, not good at all(Bulldozer vs. 2600k):
> http://lab501.ro/procesoare-chipseturi/amd-fx-8150-bulldozer-preview



I call BS for several reason, but lets start with: http://lab501.ro/procesoare-chipseturi/amd-fx-8150-bulldozer-preview/10

wPrime does give a "score" and that time needed to finish from the AMD 1100T....if it was in seconds that is. I know, because I ran it twice today.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Oct 9, 2011)

its a bunk review

1100T is pretty much on par with the 8150 in cinebench 11.5 which is cpu agnostic it uses w.e the fuck you throw at it.

that review is utter crap lol


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 9, 2011)

TheLaughingMan said:


> I call BS for several reason, but lets start with: http://lab501.ro/procesoare-chipseturi/amd-fx-8150-bulldozer-preview/10
> 
> wPrime does give a "score" and that time needed to finish from the AMD 1100T....if it was in seconds that is. I know, because I ran it twice today.





crazyeyesreaper said:


> its a bunk review
> 
> 1100T is pretty much on par with the 8150 in cinebench 11.5 which is cpu agnostic it uses w.e the fuck you throw at it.
> 
> that review is utter crap lol



I call BS due to the fact some of those scores are worse then my 1090T. Sorry but I ain't buying it. However if that review is to be believed then we are all screwed. 12th can't come fast enough.


----------



## dumo (Oct 9, 2011)

I really want to believe that this review is BS, but I'm afraid that I will find the same results @ launch day

Here is Monstru (the reviewer) answers...


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 9, 2011)

dumo said:


> I really want to believe that this review is BS
> 
> Here is Monstru (the reviewer) answers...
> 
> http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/9239/screenshot218x.jpg



Again if this is true its worse then my 1090T......I don't buy it. DAMN IT OMEGA! WE NEED YOUR REVIEW!


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Oct 9, 2011)

the review is BS,

lets move on, the asshat who did the review is just another moron  his stats and benchmarks make no sense if you start cross reference his scores with Phenom II scores it makes it even more readily apparent


----------



## ivicagmc (Oct 9, 2011)

If this is true, get PII X6 while you still can. It is just as fast and costs less... If this is true I will make a lawsuit against AMD for disappointing me, and misusing my trust into buying AM3+ board for nothing...


----------



## zsolt_93 (Oct 9, 2011)

It's sooo sad. Even being an Intel fanatic I would have wanted a decent performance from this revolutionary chip. Noone expected this I think. I think the (p)review is mostly reliable as the people who made it are some of the best in the enthusiast segment, and they have won the MSI oc cup a few days ago and wouldn't want to ruin their reputation with a fake review. So it might be disappointing, but true.
For a first impression it's very bad, but thinking of improvements with later revisions or BIOS updates it might be able to catch the 2500K and have a reasonable power consumption compared to the rival. Over 200W seems unlikely to be true for just a small bump in performance, but considering the fact that this is what was measured it worries me a bit... consuming more than a 6950/70 for a CPU.


----------



## Goodman (Oct 9, 2011)

ivicagmc said:


> If this is true, get PII X6 while you still can.



That is what i am thinking of doing , can't imagine how the 4100fx would perform probably be outperform by the good old PII :shadedshu

Anyhow ill wait for the official release/benchmarks of the Bulldozer FX before making my final decision (stick to AMD or go Intel) & beside i am not buying anything for my PC until Christmas time so i can wait a bit more...


----------



## Melvis (Oct 9, 2011)

zsolt_93 said:


> It's sooo sad. Even being an Intel fanatic I would have wanted a decent performance from this revolutionary chip. Noone expected this I think. I think the (p)review is mostly reliable as the people who made it are some of the best in the enthusiast segment, and they have won the MSI oc cup a few days ago and wouldn't want to ruin their reputation with a fake review. So it might be disappointing, but true.
> For a first impression it's very bad, but thinking of improvements with later revisions or BIOS updates it might be able to catch the 2500K and have a reasonable power consumption compared to the rival. Over 200W seems unlikely to be true for just a small bump in performance, but considering the fact that this is what was measured it worries me a bit... consuming more than a 6950/70 for a CPU.



Huh? what are you looking at? the slides that have been given to us, and are more credible then any other shows it up with a 980X and 2600K and beats the 2500K by 30%, god even a 1100T looks at a 2500K eye to eye. (just not in games)

So unless your blind your statement is irrelevant!


----------



## Crap Daddy (Oct 9, 2011)

This review is totally legit. Check other forums and understand the huge dissapointment. There's no reason to deny it.


----------



## zsolt_93 (Oct 9, 2011)

Melvis said:


> Huh? what are you looking at? the slides that have been given to us, and are more credible then any other shows it up with a 980X and 2600K and beats the 2500K by 30%, god even a 1100T looks at a 2500K eye to eye. (just not in games)
> 
> So unless your blind your statement is irrelevant!




I was talking about this, which was posted above... nothing to do with those marketing gimmick slides. it shows just the opposite and people say it's legit, so? No equality with 2600 or 980 there.


----------



## heky (Oct 9, 2011)

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


----------



## Melvis (Oct 9, 2011)

Crap Daddy said:


> This review is totally legit. Check other forums and understand the huge dissapointment. There's no reason to deny it.





zsolt_93 said:


> I was talking about this, which was posted above... nothing to do with those marketing gimmick slides. it shows just the opposite and people say it's legit, so? No equality with 2600 or 980 there.



 From a site ive never heard of, not in English and with a dodgy CPU-Z shot like that you have gotta be joking?

And BD isnt even out officially.


Ill wait till a "real" review reviews it thanks. (TPU/Guru3D)


----------



## Day (Oct 9, 2011)

^ Trust me , is the real deal. A big disappointing Bulldozer... :shadedshu

As you wish...


----------



## Mussels (Oct 9, 2011)

Day said:


> ^ Trust me , is the real deal. A big disappointing Bulldozer... :shadedshu



nah. i'll wait on proper results.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 9, 2011)

The review case out of an aris, I call it Bullshit...... That picture of the AMD FX looks like a photoshop IMO.


----------



## TRWOV (Oct 9, 2011)

Melvis said:


> From a site ive never heard of, not in English and with a dodgy CPU-Z shot like that you have gotta be joking?



There is a CPU-Z validation link in page 3.

Anyway, the review was done with an enginering sample (8150*P*) so I wouldn't put much weight in it. We already knew that the first steppings didn't perform well and this preview just proves that. If reviews aren't done with a B2 they aren't relevant. 

On the other hand, don't expect a miracle either; AMD has always stated that Core i5 class performance is the goal.


----------



## Jegergrim (Oct 9, 2011)

Legit or fake, it's still moral breaking for people with AM3+ boards ready to install their BD chip. We could've gotten SB boards months ago if just people could have benched these earlier. This however seems like another of AMD's marketing tricks, to stall SB sales untill their bring a less performing but cheaper chip on the market for variance. In either case, I doubt this review is fake, perhaps doesn't show the full potential performance, but it's probably a good indication of overall performance


----------



## heky (Oct 9, 2011)

TRWOV said:


> There is a CPU-Z validation link in page 3.
> 
> *Anyway, the review was done with an enginering sample (8150P) so I wouldn't put much weight in it. We already knew that the first steppings didn't perform well and this preview just proves that. If reviews aren't done with a B2 they aren't relevant.
> *
> On the other hand, don't expect a miracle either; AMD has always stated that Core i5 class performance is the goal.



What are you talking about. He is using a B2 stepping FX-8150 chip. It says so in the CPU-z screenshot, which is the latest version for BD reviewers also. He is also using the latest bios version for the C5F.(from 3.october)


----------



## TRWOV (Oct 9, 2011)

Sorry, you're right. I didn't catch that up. As he was listing the FX-8150 as an 8150P in the graphs I assumed he was using an ES.


----------



## ivicagmc (Oct 9, 2011)

Listed in Slovenia... 300€... For that money it would have to blow 2600K
http://www.commit.si/sl/virtuemart/...odnoje-am3/1071-amd-bulldozer-x8-fx-8150.html


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Oct 9, 2011)

cant see it myself  im expecting better performance from BD and if you aint speakin my language im not listenin anyway especially if your graph says P and somewhere else says F wtf amatur i call bs, worse case tho bf3 runs ok on a quad so i personally could wait another age till PD lol i think if AMD had got to B2 with this poor performance they would have held off manufacture untill a better stepping they have done so a few times already.

plus  imho software will deffinately need tweeking to best use its rescources


----------



## Inceptor (Oct 9, 2011)

1) The close-up of the actual cpu is blurred and out of focus with a further blacking out of processor number.  If there was no NDA, and the review was legitimate, there would be no reason to do this.

2) The CPU-Z font in the text boxes is slightly off; not quite correct.

3) The game benchmarks were only for 1280x1024. Game benchmarks do not scale linearly at higher resolutions, and are primarily dependent on the graphics card.  Simplistic.

4) The review follows the usual template, but fails to give comprehensive and systematic detail, which is what is required for a review of this kind.  Like other small review sites run by people with little formal logical and organizational training (or ability), the whole thing lacks a truly solid and methodologically unassailable foundation.

6) Simply for business reasons, AMD's secrecy over the BD processor doesn't mean it is worse than their last generation.  I know it may seem that way to some of you, but AMD isn't run by teenage boys (or otherwise immature young men) who constantly make errors in reasoning that they don't notice and understand, because of their youth...
You can be guaranteed BD will outperform the Phenom II, as for everything else, that's just youthful nonsense.

5) The people with the knowledge, and the real BD cpus and reviews are under NDA.  No one really has a clue about the performance except for them and AMD.


----------



## dr emulator (madmax) (Oct 9, 2011)

personally i think intel knows something bad is coming their way with the new 2011 processor, and have bumped the price up of the older i7 990x to compensate for their mess-up 

why do i say this ? 

well i was tempted to get one but the price has sky rocketed from £750 or about  1 166.4 US$
to £819 or about 1 273.7088 US$ 

ye i know things vary in price, but not by that much, it's actually more expensive than it was when it was first released :shadedshu

can't wait for more benches from the amd corner


----------



## heky (Oct 9, 2011)

Inceptor said:


> 1) The close-up of the actual cpu is blurred and out of focus with a further blacking out of processor number.  If there was no NDA, and the review was legitimate, there would be no reason to do this.
> 
> 2) The CPU-Z font in the text boxes is slightly off; not quite correct.
> 
> ...



What a shame we dont live in the same country, i would bet you a couple of beers these numbers are legit. Even if i would loose, id still feel good after


----------



## Kantastic (Oct 9, 2011)

heky said:


> What a shame we dont live in the same country, i would bet you a couple of beers these numbers are legit. Even if i would loose, id still feel good after



If you were that confident, you should offer real money on a one-sided bet. He wins, you pay him; he loses, he walks free.


----------



## heky (Oct 9, 2011)

Just for the info, Monstru, the person who benchmarked the chip, is a respected member of extremesystems.org, and not just some random troll.


----------



## burebista (Oct 9, 2011)

Guys it's a *P*review and *matose* it's an OK guy (just won for the second time MSI Master OC Arena if that matter).
They know what they're doing. 
Maybe they don't have a special BIOS, maybe AMD will send another chip revision for official reviews but generally speaking miracles don't come over night so roughly speaking those are Bulldozer results.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 9, 2011)

AMD claims a 50% performance improvement with Bulldozer over Phenom II in it's slides. Not sure if they mean clock for clock, but nevertheless it's for Bulldozer getting released on October 12, 2011....


----------



## mastrdrver (Oct 9, 2011)

Crap Daddy said:


> This review is totally legit. Check other forums and understand the huge dissapointment. There's no reason to deny it.



Sure there is.

Why bench games at 1280x1024 unless you have a bent on something? Adding 8xAA at that resolution does not keep it from becoming a CPU benchmark.

It's OBR version 2.0


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 9, 2011)

Super XP said:


> AMD claims a 50% performance improvement with Bulldozer over Phenom II in it's slides. Not sure if they mean clock for clock, but nevertheless it's for Bulldozer getting released on October 12, 2011....



OK, so, we have a 33% boost in core numbers(6core-to-8core), plus IPC and memory controller improvements = 50%.


I've been saying for MONTHS, peeple are expecting too much, and *AMD DOES NOT NEED TO HAVE THE FASTEST CHIP EVER*. They merely need to have similar or slightly less performance, for lower cost. And Bulldozer will be EXACTLY that.

Why does everyone think it need to be better than SandyBridge? Do you really think it's gonna cost $100 less than a chip it beats? Are you insane? Just because you want more for less $$$, doesn't mean AMD has any plans to give it to you!



burebista said:


> Guys it's a *P*review and *matose* it's an OK guy (just won for the second time MSI Master OC Arena if that matter).
> They know what they're doing.
> Maybe they don't have a special BIOS, maybe AMD will send another chip revision for official reviews but generally speaking miracles don't come over night so roughly speaking those are Bulldozer results.




Yes, Matose won, and part of his prize was the article. He got to bench a BD system, keep the numbers, and write a review with it, IMHO. Nearly NOONE knows who Matose is, and this is a move to get his name out there more. There's no reason to doubt the numbers, and if they are low, then oh well. Doesn't mean it's a bad thing...that's 100% the fault of nearly everyone here having the wrong perspective on things, mind you, that's nothing new, either, is it?


----------



## burebista (Oct 9, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Yes, Matose won, and part of his prize was the article.


That's low man. 
Wait for official benchmarks then.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Oct 9, 2011)

I'm not going to question the legitimacy of this site, or the credibility of the previewer, but there has to be something wrong here. I have never cared if FX beat SB or not, I just wanted it to be an upgrade to the Phenom IIs. If these benches are correct, it falls short of doing that.
I just can't bring myself to believe that AMD is going to release something worse than what they already have. 

I am going to wait these final few days until I find out for sure, but if these benches are legit, I am seriously disappointed.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 9, 2011)

burebista said:


> That's low man.
> Wait for official benchmarks then.



I did say IMHO...I don't know for sure as I 100% detest OC competitions like this, so pay little attention to them. They serve a purpose, but I think OEMs spending thousands of dollars for a competition like this is a waste of marketing cash. If they are doing it for R&D for guys that like to clock to the extreme, then it should be a R&D event, and not bother with any of the marketing side of it.

It jsut stikes me as ood that he won, then all of a sudden, he has access to BD chips, but no NDA. That says someone with NDA gave him access to the chip, or it's 100% fake. I do not think Matose would really fake this, and he really does beleive the numbers are true, for whatever reason.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Oct 9, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> They merely need to have similar or slightly less performance, for lower cost. And Bulldozer will be EXACTLY that.



Unfortunately from what we have seen until now - legit or not - it's similar or less performance compared to phenom II at a slightly higher price. That's worrying.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 9, 2011)

Crap Daddy said:


> Unfortunately from what we have seen until now - legit or not - it's similar or less performance compared to phenom II at a slightly higher price. That's worrying.



Um, I don't see how you think a PhenomII is anywhere near a 2600K. I have both 2600k and 1100T here, and there are NOWHERE near each other. There's not a single benchmark where Thuban is even remotely close.

I see lots of numbers showing 8150 near 2600K...that's FAR BETTER than any phenom II chip. So what exactly makes you think this?


That said, I really think AMD expects enthusiasts to OC, so stock performance means little to us, doesn't it? 

Perhaps, like I said, 50% performance is really 2 added cores, plus 17% from memory and IPC, but it overclocks WAY MORE than thuban, so enthusiasts get their extra performance there, when overclocked.

I've been running around begging everyone I can to get a chip for my future reviews, and obvioulsy i need one. But me actually getting a 100% yes answer from anyone seems near impossible..quite a few have told me they'll try to get me one...

If AMD had a clear winner here, I think i'd have no problem getting a chip for review purposes. I am having problems, so the chip cannot be as good as everyone here seems to expect. That's jsut my opinion, but we'll see how it pans out real soon.


Personally, stock performance means little. For personal uses, I'd be trying to 5GHz with 8150 this chip, like I do with my SB chips. Thuban cannot do 5GHz 24/7....


----------



## Crap Daddy (Oct 9, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Um, I don't see how you think a PhenomII is anywhere near a 2600K. I have both 2600k and 1100T here, and there are NOWHERE near each other. There's not a single benchmark where Thuban is even remotely close.



I didn't say that Phenom II is near to 2600K. Based on this particular review FX 8150 is nowhere near the 2600K, it's closer to Phenom II achieving this at higher clocks. Where do you see in the review that Bulldozer is close to the 2600 apart from handbrake?


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 9, 2011)

Crap Daddy said:


> I didn't say that Phenom II is near to 2600K. Based on this particular review FX 8150 is nowhere near the 2600K, it's closer to Phenom II achieving this at higher clocks. Where do you see in the review that Bulldozer is close to the 2600 apart from handbrake?



Don't forget that running benchmarks for reviews is a big part of what I do with my board reviews. Anything I see that has the 8150 performing low is memory-related, and I see that as a non-issue. Understanding the code the benchmarks run changes that picture, IMHO.

Handbrake, Cinebench, wPrime, SuperPi, and the SuperPI oc test are all much better than Thuban. The rest of the tests shown my Lab501 are memory limited, and are explained by the AIDA benchmarks. AIDA performance is about 10-20% faster than Thuban. Now, of course, we got 33% more cores..and are looking for that extra 20%...oh look..there it is.


Frankly, those results are exactly what I expected. I've been saying forever that memory performance is critical, but still, noone seems to get it.  AMD cannot have excellent memory performance, or they'd not need 16MB of cache on the chip!!! Sixteen Megabytes!!!!!!

Like why would ANYONE expect stellar performance from a chip with so much cache! Cache is the largest heat producer in chips and needs to be kept to a minimum, so if there is large amounts of cache, it's because they had no other option!!!

If bulldozer had 8MB of cache, I would have expected much more, like everyone else here seems to, but that cache @ 8MB L3, and 8MB of L2, says A LOT to me.


----------



## Inceptor (Oct 9, 2011)

That was very informative, Cadaveca. 
Thank you


----------



## Crap Daddy (Oct 9, 2011)

Ok, I understand your point. Now I would like to ask you what performance do you expect that these chips will have in gaming compared to SB counterparts since the FX is clearly marketed as a a "gaming" CPU?


----------



## erocker (Oct 9, 2011)

Here's something a bit new in terms of memory performance/overclocking







@ CrapDaddy.. For many games performance with a thuban is very good. There are some games out there that really like memory bandwidth though. In these games Intel excels in. With BD, that pic above looks promising.  And that's an ES.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 9, 2011)

Crap Daddy said:


> Ok, I understand your point. Now I would like to ask you what performance do you expect that these chips will have in gaming compared to SB counterparts since the FX is clearly marketed as a a "gaming" CPU?



OK, so, you're in the market for a gaming chip. The top Intel chip is $350, and the top AMD chip is $250.

let's fudge those numbers to make this easy...Intel chip @ $400, and AMD @ $300. Well, so you'd expect the $300 chip to be 3/4 the performance of the $400 chip, right? It would be a better deal, if it's faster than what price says, right?

1100T is $200, and 8150 is $250...you'd expect the 8150 to be 25% faster than the $200 chip, based on cost, right?

Gamers, on a whole, are broke. So the affordable option, with near the same performance, or at least, a but extra performance, with cost considered, would be a winner.


Every single one of us here is an enthusiast. AMD isn't selling chips to enthusiasts...they are selling to the masses. Until you look at it from that perspective, you'll never be satified...AMD isn't going to make an enthusiast happy, really....becuase enthusiast don't pay the bills.

But, the FX moniker doesn't say anything about gaming...it's about overclocking. And these FX chips can clock like mad. Enthusiasts are covered, not my stock performance, but by being able to get near 5GHz on mid-high-end cooling, like the included watercoolers.



You need to keep in mind, AMd has but one complete fab line for 32nm products, and both APUs and CPUs need to run from it. They can only make so many chips, and making a killer chip, that wil lcreate demand they cannot supply, would be death.

I have *NEVER* expected Bulldozer to be the top performer...AMD as a company cannot handle that demand. They can afford to be the affordable option.



erocker said:


> Here's something a bit new in terms of memory performance/overclocking
> 
> http://www.pt1t.eu/public/AM3+/19788.png



I have a pic of my own, to show how POOR that there pic of p1t1's is(333MHz less clock, but 3000 MB/s better performance):





Again, the cache amount of Bulldozer tells me to not expect high memory performance. Note the differences in L2 cache speed. Note that screenshot was a set-up, thanks very much for coming through on that, erocker.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Oct 9, 2011)

Interesting point and a new perspective on why AMD won't deliver a killer processor. But anyway, thanks for the ideas and as for a clearer perspective on how Bulldozer will be received it seems that we'll have to wait just a few more days and find out what the general consensus will be regarding performance. Oddly enough, even if everybody knows it's the 12th of October I don't remember any official statement from AMD themselves...


----------



## erocker (Oct 9, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> OK, so, you're in the market for a gaming chip. The top Intel chip is $350, and the top AMD chip is $250.
> 
> let's fudge those numbers to make this easy...Intel chip @ $400, and AMD @ $300. Well, so you'd expect the $300 chip to be 3/4 the performance of the $400 chip, right? It would be a better deal, if it's faster than what price says, right?
> 
> ...



I'm more or less comparing the pic between thuban. But okay.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 9, 2011)

Crap Daddy said:


> Oddly enough, even if everybody knows it's the 12th of October I don't remember any official statement from AMD themselves...



AMD never really offcially states the day embargo lifts. *I personally am not expecting full retail availability of chips until the end of the month, or early November.* I have been saying this, all along, since about May, constantly telling people hyping release dates they aren't official, etc...this time...I am quiet.


----------



## nemesis.ie (Oct 9, 2011)

In the pic of the "Octal Core AMD" AIDA results, the L2 cache speed is slower than the L3.

Is that also the case with retail samples (in the results that have been posted) or is it an AIDA bug? It seems a bit nuts for L2 to be slower than L3 I would think.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 9, 2011)

nemesis.ie said:


> In the pic of the "Octal Core AMD" AIDA results, the L2 cache speed is slower than the L3.
> 
> Is that also the case with retail samples (in the results that have been posted) or is it an AIDA bug? It seems a bit nuts for L2 to be slower than L3 I would think.





erocker said:


> I'm more or less comparing the pic between thuban. But okay.




erocker's post here is may hold the answer. We could say, easily, that the L2 cache of pre-release chips was held back, speed-wise, to give false numbers, and not give any indicator of true performance early.

Erocker's post was more saying, look at the raw speed...then i posted up showing that "speed" (or MHz)isn't always the answer.

So, let's give it a few days, and see if that L2 is still that slow. If it is, then the Lab501 benchmarks are probably 100% accurate. If not, the performance increase will 100% be contained there, IMHO. 

After all, I noticed these differences for a reason....because pretty much all I do every day when writing reviews is run benchmarks. I knew where to look.

Matose is defending his numbers. Whether they are indictive of retail performance, I do not know...but it does seem to be that he thinks they are real, for whatever reason. I am not a CPU reviewer, and don't want to be, so it'll be up to others to find out...I'll be looking at performance in relation to board performance...in the future, my reviews will seperate AMD and Intel from each other, so platform compares aren't something I am "professionally" interested in.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 9, 2011)

AMD Bulldozer Release Date Finalised
http://lenzfire.com/2011/07/amd-bulldozer-release-date-finalised-24475/


----------



## Super XP (Oct 9, 2011)

Bulldozer to get officially released in Japan on October 12, 2011:
LINK:
http://www.gdm.or.jp/voices_html/201110/05a.html

Google Translate:


> One minute and a formal announcement at 1:00 pm Japan time on October 12, "AMD FX series," ban days and leisure time were found for *****.
> 12, 2009 at 1:00 pm one day ban and other media information benchmark first. Sun is selling ban 01 minutes at midnight on August 16 that will retail from Sunday.
> 
> In addition, the selling price and the expected line-up is as follows. Attention "FX-8150". The retail end-users with the water-cooled cooler that comes with that tentative price is set higher than had been originally told. There also seem to reference the so-called air-cooled cooler Bundle, White BOX here for the first (for BTO) is limited to the ship by means of that free time and Date undetermined at this time.
> ...



Hydrogen - Water-Cooled AMD FX-8150
LINK: 
http://www.xfastest.com/cms/tid-66449/


----------



## Inceptor (Oct 10, 2011)

Super XP said:


> Hydrogen - Water-Cooled AMD FX-8150
> LINK:
> http://www.xfastest.com/cms/tid-66449/



Looks like an Antec kuhler h20 920.
AMD would have to be selling the water cooling at their cost from Antec.  Or even at a loss, depending on FX-8150 pricing.

Edit 1:
Correction, 34000 yen is expensive... that's $443 USD.  Even accounting for things being more expensive in Japan... looks like they're charging full pop for the water cooling... in Japan.
I wonder if the ~$250 price floating around is cpu only, no water cooling.

Edit 2:
Asetek not Antec.  Thanks to Kantastic.


----------



## Kantastic (Oct 10, 2011)

Inceptor said:


> Looks like an Antec kuhler h20 920.
> AMD would have to be selling the water cooling at their cost from Antec.  Or even at a loss, depending on FX-8150 pricing.



Asetek manufactures Antec's Kuhler series coolers, so I doubt AMD would be foolish enough to purchase from the distributor rather than the OEM at a lower cost. If AMD were smart and these benchmarks _are_ accurate indicators of the final silicon's performance, they would sell these bundles at a slight loss.


----------



## mastrdrver (Oct 10, 2011)

The water cooler is optional.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Oct 10, 2011)

Here's another review of the 8150. Unfortunately it's in Turkish and it's a video - Donanimhaber - but the charts can be understand. Judge for yourselves:

http://www.donanimhaber.com/islemci...ekirdekli-FX8150-islemcisi-video-inceleme.htm


----------



## Ahhzz (Oct 10, 2011)

http://www.provantage.com/amd-fd4100wmw4kgu~7AAMD2MC.htm


----------



## Jstn7477 (Oct 10, 2011)

I want these to come out already so we can see how they stack up vs. Intel. I have a lot of $$$ burning in my pocket and I really want to know if I should go AMD again or go to the dark side. My current platforms are too old to upgrade to BD so it would be a new board and chip nonetheless.


----------



## nemesis.ie (Oct 10, 2011)

Ahhzz said:


> http://www.provantage.com/amd-fd4100wmw4kgu~7AAMD2MC.htm



And the FX-8150

http://www.provantage.com/amd-fd8150frw8kgu~7AAMD2ML.htm


----------



## Kantastic (Oct 10, 2011)

That's a Provantage "special order" item, which means you place the order and they only charge you when they have stock. The catch is though, there have been numerous reports of Provantage preselling at lower prices, then when they have stock, they bump the price back up and charge the normal/higher price.


----------



## TRWOV (Oct 10, 2011)

Crap Daddy said:


> Here's another review of the 8150. Unfortunately it's in Turkish and it's a video - Donanimhaber - but the charts can be understand. Judge for yourselves:
> 
> http://www.donanimhaber.com/islemci...ekirdekli-FX8150-islemcisi-video-inceleme.htm



It's a mixed bag, mostly with not so good results. It seems that whenever you'd want to get a BD or not will depend on what you'd do with it (as with any other processor). If I'm getting the slides right, for older applications using legacy instruction sets the FXs won't be better than an Phenom II X6, also make sure to use DDR3-1866 RAM or the CPU will suffer. 

I sincerely hope that the L2 cache speed is what is holding the CPU back and that retail processors will have that corrected.

I still think that by choosing the FX name AMD set the expectations too high even if they didn't hype the processor. If these were called Phenom III, there woukn't be so much drama.


----------



## YautjaLord (Oct 10, 2011)

Two more days left; and seriously, who of the TPU staff gonna do FX-8150 review? W1z? Cadaveca? Couple it with fast DDR3 1600MHz or 1866MHz RAM & 2xGTX 4xx/5xx (or 2xHD 68xx/69xx) & roll 'em out. You already got M5A99X setup, so you partially covered. 

Hope to see you testing this CPU on C5F or Sabertooth 990FX but that's just me; if it's the same as 980X or 2600K in games & other resource hogging apps - ace.


----------



## Ahhzz (Oct 10, 2011)

TRWOV said:


> It's a mixed bag, mostly with not so good results. It seems that whenever you'd want to get a BD or not will depend on what you'd do with it (as with any other processor). If I'm getting the slides right, for older applications using legacy instruction sets the FXs won't be better than an Phenom II X6, also make sure to use DDR3-1866 RAM or the CPU will suffer.
> 
> I sincerely hope that the L2 cache speed is what is holding the CPU back and that retail processors will have that corrected.
> 
> I still think that by choosing the FX name AMD set the expectations too high even if they didn't hype the processor. If these were called Phenom III, there woukn't be so much drama.




I'm partially inclined to agree,... I take that back. I agree.. I don't think there would be THIS much drama, but there'd still be drama: it's a new AMD chip, and AMD competes with Intel, which means everyone has an opinion, and right or wrong, there'd be people disagreeing with it. 



YautjaLord said:


> Two more days left; and seriously, who of the TPU staff gonna do FX-8150 review? W1z? Cadaveca? Couple it with fast DDR3 1600MHz or 1866MHz RAM & 2xGTX 4xx/5xx (or 2xHD 68xx/69xx) & roll 'em out. You already got M5A99X setup, so you partially covered.
> 
> Hope to see you testing this CPU on C5F or Sabertooth 990FX but that's just me; if it's the same as 980X or 2600K in games & other resource hogging apps - ace.



I won't be doing a lot of benching, esp since I'll be out of town a couple of weeks after release (and missing my PC!!!), but in my specs is my upcoming build. The only thing missing is the MB and chip, as I'm still hedging that the BD might disappoint severely , and I'll have to Sandybridge it


----------



## YautjaLord (Oct 10, 2011)

2Ahhzz:

lol'd @ Sandybridge it. 

2 more days to see which one of these (Dozer or SB) beat the f*** out of the other. You gonna do just benching or full blown review? 2 more days.


----------



## Ahhzz (Oct 10, 2011)

Just benching mainly. I'll leave the reviews to the big boys  they're the ones that get testing units anyway  (*grumble-grumble*). But, like I said, I'll be leaving town for a couple of weeks, and honestly, while I want to clock it and see who bottles first, either the proc or the 2 6950s, the first thing I'm going to do, is load up Deus Ex: HR, and go get some augments  ... that and make a folder called "Skyrim", waiting for the first mods!!


----------



## radaja (Oct 10, 2011)

Melvis said:


> From a site ive never heard of, not in English and with a dodgy CPU-Z shot like that you have gotta be joking?
> 
> And BD isnt even out officially.
> 
> ...





Inceptor said:


> 2) The CPU-Z font in the text boxes is slightly off; not quite correct.



thats the way cpu-z validations look like,they are different than cpu-z SS's.
see below in the WR cpu-z validation,fonts look the same


----------



## Inceptor (Oct 10, 2011)

So, Cadaveca goes into detail about what to expect _*and how it's not likely to be unexpected or disappointing when compared to the Phenom II*_, how 'FX' is now an unlocked overclocking designation *NOT* an ultra-high end Intel destroyer designation, and then you all forget what he said and go back to,
"If BD doesn't beat SB it's a fail"  and other textual flavours of the usual stupidity...

Wait for benchmarks from the BIG, REPUTABLE sites.
No guarantees of anything, except better performance than Phenom II.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 10, 2011)

Keep in mind I do not have a chip...I'm just basing my opinion on the info AMD has given offically. I could be totally wrong...but I'm doing pretty good so far...


----------



## de.das.dude (Oct 10, 2011)

one more day!

AMD bulldozer wont be here in india before november


----------



## erocker (Oct 10, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> I personally am not expecting full retail availability of chips until the end of the month, or early November.



It's the 12th.. at least here in the States. Confirmed by a call to my favorite e-tailer. They actually have FX CPU's listed on their site right now.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 10, 2011)

erocker said:


> It's the 12th.. at least here in the States. Confirmed by a call to my favorite e-tailer. They actually have FX CPU's listed on their site right now.



What part of "FULL RETAIL AVAILIBILITY" did you not understand? 

I'm fully expecting chips to come out this week..and sell out. For me, full retail availability means that there is NOT limited quantities. I have a local retailer(4, actually) who has NO CHIPS. That is NOT a full retail release.

that said, I can not recal AMD ever having chips ready for launch up here in Canada. I could care less what some US retailer says when I cannot buy a chip myself.


----------



## erocker (Oct 10, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> What part of "FULL RETAIL RELEASE" did you not understand?
> 
> I'm fully expecting chips to come out this week..and sell out. For me, full retail availability means that there is NOT limited quantities. I have a local retailer(4, actually) who has NO CHIPS. that is NOT a full retail release.



Tomato, tomatoe. I don't really care the differences between "FULL RETAIL RELEASE" and release. But okay, wait.


----------



## Ahhzz (Oct 10, 2011)

@ cada wow.... aggro much?  dude... less coffee in the AM


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 10, 2011)

erocker said:


> Tomato, tomatoe. I don't really care the differences between "FULL RETAIL RELEASE" and release. But okay, wait.



Like I said, they can launch in the US all they want. Doesn't mean shit to me when I am not located in the US. 

Comprende?





Ahhzz said:


> @ cada wow.... aggro much?  dude... less coffee in the AM




What you don't know is that erocker and I talk on TS nearly every day. That's just me, and how I talk; I don't mean nothing by it. It's aggressive, because I'm an agressive, over-confident dude. I'm sorry if it makes you feel uncomfortable, but you know, I'm actually laughing.

EDIT: And actually, I don't drink coffee any more. Gave that up a few weeks ago in preparation for my shoulder surgery.


----------



## erocker (Oct 10, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Comprende?



No hablo mi Mexicano amigo! 

Yeah, I get it.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Oct 10, 2011)

Mexican is not a language. Its a type of food.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 10, 2011)

TheLaughingMan said:


> Mexican is not a language. Its a type of food.



n a description of a person from Mexico.


----------



## Ahhzz (Oct 10, 2011)

Hmmm... I need a smilie for "Grain of Salt"...




http://www.overclock.net/amd-general/1137265-new-fx-8120-bulldozer-pics-benches.html


Guy's using a waffle iron for a motherboard, with, I think, 1333 Ram... I think this might need more than a grain.... Complete budget PC....


----------



## YautjaLord (Oct 10, 2011)

The mobo used (according to what the guy says in the post) is M5A99X with 1333MHz RAM me thinks too; CPU-Z lists the CPU as OR-B2 revision & not ES but as full blown FX-8120; _how the f*** he got this CPU in a first place?_ Smells like either BS or some countries already get the CPU earlier; WTF? 

P.S. Looked @ SuperPI score (1M) - i think mine is lower, albeit it is OC'd; 25.xxx sec for 3.1GHz: is it good or not? 48.3fps in RE5 with 1280x720 res? So it is CPU score or GPU (HD 5870)? Other than that - you right: budget PC & actually strict budget one.


----------



## Inceptor (Oct 10, 2011)

I would have liked to have seen memory performance with the NB overclocked.  IMC performance is where Intel is lightyears ahead.  While a 2200 Mhz stock NB is nice, for an AMD cpu, NB overclock performance is more interesting.

Edit: 
Those are nice +15% and +25%, memory read and memory write performance bumps over what I've got @ 20% overclock.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 10, 2011)

TheLaughingMan said:


> Mexican is not a language. Its a type of food.



How many Mexicans do you know personally? I grew up in a town full of migrant camps. My first girlfriend was Mexican as a matter of fact. They speak a form of Spanish but make no mistake Mexicans have their own way of talking that is unique to Mexico. Its a language.

Chingate culero!


----------



## alexsubri (Oct 10, 2011)




----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 11, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> How many Mexicans do you know personally? I grew up in a town full of migrant camps. My first girlfriend was Mexican as a matter of fact. They speak a form of Spanish but make no mistake Mexicans have their own way of talking that is unique to Mexico. Its a language.
> 
> Chingate culero!



several dialects, its the same about being in Dixieland too.


----------



## Steevo (Oct 11, 2011)

Sourthern aint not no danged a lauguage, its etts!


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 11, 2011)

you makin fun of where i come from?


----------



## mastrdrver (Oct 11, 2011)

Saw this linked over on the S|A forms. Don't know the validity of the claim, just thought it was interesting because I've read a couple times about people mentioning a software patch needed for best performance.

link


			
				looncraz said:
			
		

> Actually, we already have such an issue known for Bulldozer, and NO bench-marked system has the patch installed!
> 
> The shared L1 cache is causing cross invalidations across threads so that the prefetch data is incorrect in too many cases and data must be fetched again.  The fix is a "simple" memory alignment and (possible)tagging system in the kernel of Windows/Linux.
> 
> ...


----------



## ensabrenoir (Oct 11, 2011)

We speak American....My God ...how do others actually translate their native language to ours... it like first you must learn proper English and then forget 75% of that and then ....the rest is a mystery


----------



## Mussels (Oct 11, 2011)

alexsubri said:


> http://forum.overclockers.ua/download/file.php?id=14104&mode=view
> 
> http://playstationeu.i.lithium.com/...899C3CBA84/image-size/original?v=mpbl-1&px=-1



it doesnt mention clockspeed like all the others, so i don't believe it.


----------



## xenocide (Oct 11, 2011)

I don't anticipate BD being much faster if at all faster than SB CPU's.


----------



## Inceptor (Oct 11, 2011)

mastrdrver said:


> Saw this linked over on the S|A forms. Don't know the validity of the claim, just thought it was interesting because I've read a couple times about people mentioning a software patch needed for best performance.
> 
> link
> Quote:
> ...



Looks like the Linux patch was being hammered out July/August:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1170214

Here's the last message in the chain, at the bottom of the page:



> Re: [PATCH] x86, AMD: Correct F15h IC aliasing issue
> 
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 11:57:45AM -0400, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > Out of curiosity, what's the performance impact if the workaround is
> ...



Interesting.


----------



## Fatal (Oct 11, 2011)

alexsubri said:


> http://forum.overclockers.ua/download/file.php?id=14104&mode=view
> 
> http://playstationeu.i.lithium.com/...899C3CBA84/image-size/original?v=mpbl-1&px=-1



That's about where I would think it would be I don't see how that is fail


----------



## Super XP (Oct 11, 2011)

xenocide said:


> I don't anticipate BD being much faster if at all faster than SB CPU's.


If not faster, then equal we hope. Both are completely different in design, its going to be very interesting indead.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Oct 11, 2011)

*left hook!*

Few hours more....then well know for sure.  Wanna believe bd will be a contender.  Few more hour til a major sucker punch to intel....... or to us.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 11, 2011)

if BD is actually powerful, this thread is going to make a fool out of a lot of people.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 11, 2011)

Inceptor said:


> Looks like the Linux patch was being hammered out July/August:
> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1170214
> 
> Here's the last message in the chain, at the bottom of the page:
> ...



This doesn't give much hope to Windows using BD properly then. How long was it before it used hyper threading correctly for Intel?


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 11, 2011)

Mussels said:


> if BD is actually powerful, this thread is going to make a fool out of a lot of people.


Powerful is so subjective. T-minus what, 15 hours??? 

There will be people, no matter what performance, say this thing is the best CPU since sliced bread. And if it does spank SB, there will be the other side spewing hate. Man, I have been around waaaaay too many product releases and forums over the past 10 years.

Predictable. People are predictable.

PS - Wanna take a bet on 'powerful'?


----------



## nt300 (Oct 11, 2011)

Wonderful, my baby is almost released I hope. Come on Bulldozy we await you my grace


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Oct 11, 2011)

EarthDog said:


> Powerful is so subjective.



More powerful then Gandalf "you shall not pass!" moment? or are we talking about a different kind of powerful here?


----------



## ensabrenoir (Oct 11, 2011)

*powerful?*



EarthDog said:


> Powerful is so subjective. T-minus what, 15 hours???
> 
> There will be people, no matter what performance, say this thing is the best CPU since sliced bread. And if it does spank BD, there will be the other side spewing hate. Man, I have been around waaaaay too many product releases and forums over the past 10 years.
> 
> ...


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 11, 2011)

FreedomEclipse said:


> More powerful then Gandalf "you shall not pass!" moment? or are we talking about a different kind of powerful here?


Exactly my point. People can find the silver lining out of anything, and conversely will rain on something good's parade.

You have seen hundreds of examples in this thread already and it will only get worse when the benchmarks come out.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Oct 11, 2011)

ensabrenoir said:


> EarthDog said:
> 
> 
> > Powerful is so subjective. T-minus what, 15 hours???
> ...



At it's price point the 8150 has to fall between the i5 and i7 or it's not worthwhile for anybody. Those are my expectations.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Oct 11, 2011)

I still believe that it wont trump the 2500k or 2600k but i think it will come very very close, very close indeed. However I think SB's overclocking headroom will just make it pull away effortlessly from BD though we've yet to see how overclockable BD is. I know they set a new world record with it at over 8Ghz or whatever, but i want to see 'everyday' overclocking - overclocking that you dont need LN2 for.


----------



## Ahhzz (Oct 11, 2011)

I think it will fall close to them as well, but price will make the diff....


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Oct 11, 2011)

i think the overclocking headroom will honestly surprise more then a few people on what it can achieve 24/7 on a good air cooler. and by that i mean it should be able to clock as good as SB if not better and its less reliant on luck of the draw with the CPU.


----------



## heky (Oct 11, 2011)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> i think the overclocking headroom will honestly surprise more then a few people on what it can achieve 24/7 on a good air cooler. and by that i mean it should be able to clock as good as SB if not better and its less reliant on luck of the draw with the CPU.



It might be, but it will be slower clock for clock, and consume more power.

I dont see in what world does the math ad up, that if the price for BD is lower, its the better chip to buy, if it consumes more power(according to previews) and you ultimately end up paying more.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Oct 11, 2011)

well some ppl talk and interestingly enough BD might just be cable of higher 24/7 clock speeds then SB so while Intel might have Higher IPC it might be possible to negate it.


and the SB overclocks great is a bit of a misnomer i have SB and it clocks like dog shit

I hit the multi wall at 44x meaning 4,3ghz is the max 100% stable frequency my chip will do. 

from what ive heard BD will clock better, and dosent have a multiplier limit like Sandybridge, so

people cooling with Air coolers, all in one water kits, custom water, should be able to match or exceed Sandybridge. on a regular basis if my hunch is correct. this should result in an even playing field. 

the next big question is will memory performance scale past 1866mhz

most benchmarks out right now are 1333mhz on all chips not the BD default of 1866, now Sandybridge does have the better IMC, but if BD can effectively overclock and hit higher memory speeds IMC bandwidth may also be negated.

its also been pointed out on xtreme system that apparently theres an issue with how Windows deals with Bulldozer chips. guess we just have to wait and see dont we 

also theres issues like XMP profiles on the K chips overclocking all 4 cores to 3.7ghz when turbo kicks on with intel so theres a bunch of things that have to be kept in mind when comparing these chips the XMP profile auto clocking the cpu to 3.7 on all cores for instance voids your CPU warranty so Intel is pushing overclocking on all its K series chips and at the same time its basically voiding everyones warranties  theres alot to look at in the SB vs BD senario its all very very interesting


----------



## heky (Oct 11, 2011)

Ehm...AMD even mentions in its marketing slides for the FX line, that overclocking voids the warranty. So that is nothing new. And i have not had any problems with XMP profiles raising clocks. It doesnt happen on my board.

And you seriously have to have the worst SB chip i have ever seen. Most chips can do 4.4 on stock volts. Ever thought about changing the board?

But yeah, we will see how it goes tomorrow. My opinion is, BD wont be able to compete head to head with SB. But thats just me...


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Oct 11, 2011)

heky said:


> Ehm...AMD even mentions in its marketing slides for the FX line, that overclocking voids the warranty. So that is nothing new. And i have not had any problems with XMP profiles raising clocks. It doesnt happen on my board.
> 
> And you seriously have to have the worst SB chip i have ever seen. Most chips can do 4.4 on stock volts. Ever thought about changing the board?
> 
> But yeah, we will see how it goes tomorrow. My opinion is, BD wont be able to compete head to head with SB. But thats just me...



Yes, by now everyone knows you hope it won't. If you could refrain from posting your opinions as fact for another 24 hours though, that would be swell.


----------



## Jegergrim (Oct 11, 2011)

Current prices of BD seems too high in Denmark at least, currently the 8150 is priced exactly at same pricepoint as 2600k... I dont see how that'll last very long, and release seems to be the 19th in Denmark


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Oct 11, 2011)

heky said:


> Ehm...AMD even mentions in its marketing slides for the FX line, that overclocking voids the warranty. So that is nothing new. And i have not had any problems with XMP profiles raising clocks. It doesnt happen on my board.
> 
> And you seriously have to have the worst SB chip i have ever seen. Most chips can do 4.4 on stock volts. Ever thought about changing the board?
> 
> But yeah, we will see how it goes tomorrow. My opinion is, BD wont be able to compete head to head with SB. But thats just me...



you missed my point

XMP so say your ram is 1333mhz XMP settings that auto configure your ram to run properly yea that voids your warranty and thats that  basically Intels own creation there telling everyone to use voids the warranty and if you send back a chip that did die and you happened to use XMP intel will know and deny replacment and its not the ram its because the XMP profile makes all cores clock up

run manual ram timings with turbo on only 1 core clocks up  use xmp all cores clock up thus warranty void its interesting to note that distinction for us it dosent matter

but for joe schmo buying ram that says compatible with such and such use xmp blah blah well you get the idea 

eitherway  

BD i feel will surprise people by what it can on the cpu clocking front. but the reviews will prove that soon enough

also when looking at Bulldozer benchmarks see if you can find anyone running said benchmarks in Windows 8  in 24hrs all the info will be available and alot of whats going on will come to light haha


----------



## heky (Oct 11, 2011)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> XMP profile makes all cores clock up



No it doesnt, where did you hear that. I can run my ram with XMP and the proc at stock and it doesnt clock any higher than stock turbo clocks. And i dont know where you heard that intel would refuse replacement if using XMP? Really, think about it. How would they even know that?


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Oct 11, 2011)




----------



## cadaveca (Oct 11, 2011)

heky said:


> No it doesnt, where did you hear that. I can run my ram with XMP and the proc at stock and it doesnt clock any higher than stock turbo clocks. And i dont know where you heard that intel would refuse replacement if using XMP? Really, think about it. How would they even know that?



If you run anything over stock(1333MHz), you have voided your warranty. 


XMP profiles up clocks to 3.7 or 3.8 GHz on 5 boards I have here, including ASUS, Gigabyte, MSI, and Zotac, ensuring that you warranty is void no matter what you do. On 3 of those 5 boards, it's quite difficult and involved to get normal, warrantied operation of chips. A couple of the boards jsut up the clocks, XMP or not!

Gigabyte Sniper2 will not allow Turbo and XMP to run at the same time, in fact, which is one of the many reasons I say they need a BIOS update. Teh sniper is the worst offender, with anything over 1333MHz on mem(1600, 1866, 2133 all inclusive), it defaults to 3.8GHz on all cores.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Oct 11, 2011)

basically with Intel your always doing it wrong so your warranty is fubared lol

at least AMD hasnt resorted to that


----------



## Covert_Death (Oct 11, 2011)

so what is AMD's method of determining whether you have OC'd or not? i am actually kind of curious on this for current Phenom II chips and what they will do with BD, because i plan to OC out of the box


----------



## Crap Daddy (Oct 11, 2011)

I just got the results of my son's school tests. The purpose of the tests was some kind of evaluation for internal purpose for the teachers and us parents to know what is the kid capable of. Now, the results were mixed, good on geography and foreign languages, so and so for math and physics and some other and downright bad for biology and others. Our expectations were high but the results are not what we expected. Now, I can see potential here, I'm sure he can do better than other nerds who spent the last days learning for the tests while my son was playing BF3 Beta. Do you think I can overclock him for the next tests?


----------



## Covert_Death (Oct 11, 2011)

Crap Daddy said:


> I just got the results of my son's school tests. The purpose of the tests was some kind of evaluation for internal purpose for the teachers and us parents to know what is the kid capable of. Now, the results were mixed, good on geography and foreign languages, so and so for math and physics and some other and downright bad for biology and others. Our expectations were high but the results are not what we expected. Now, I can see potential here, I'm sure he can do better than other nerds who spent the last days learning for the tests while my son was playing BF3 Beta. Do you think I can overclock him for the next tests?



short answer yes


----------



## heky (Oct 11, 2011)

@cadaveca and crazyeyesreaper

I just talked to Intel about this voiding warranty stuff. And while it is true, that your warranty is void when using XMP, there is NO WAY for Intel to know that. Confirmed from Intel themselves. So this problem is actually non-existant!


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Oct 11, 2011)

Crap Daddy said:


> Do you think I can overclock him for the next tests?



a clout around the back of the head will make anyone go faster


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Oct 11, 2011)

so you would think but theres other underlying issues that we cant speak on and intel wont tell you about concerning there chips XMP and potential issues it causes.


----------



## heky (Oct 11, 2011)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> so you would think but theres other underlying issues that we cant speak on and intel wont tell you about concerning there chips XMP and potential issues it causes.



Sorry, what?


----------



## erocker (Oct 11, 2011)

I have no issues with XMP and/or it overclocking any other components. As far as Intel and AMD knowing if you OC'd your chips or not? They don't as far as I know, though they possibly could with the i5/i7 series using the debug pads on the chip. I just really haven't heard of anyone being denied due to overclocking. I've seen people completely destroy chips from Intel and have no problems with RMA. This argument is dumb. If your CPU breaks, RMA it, show no technological know-how. Easy.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 11, 2011)

erocker said:


> I have no issues with XMP and/or it overclocking any other components. As far as Intel and AMD knowing if you OC'd your chips or not? They don't as far as I know, though they possibly could with the i5/i7 series using the debug pads on the chip. I just really haven't heard of anyone being denied due to overclocking. I've seen people completely destroy chips from Intel and have no problems with RMA. This argument is dumb. If your CPU breaks, RMA it, show no technological know-how. Easy.



Intel will ask questions like what ram you are using and such when applying for an RMA, as is standard for any company.

When you tell them the model of memory, this will more than likely indicate whether you've vioded your warranty or not, depending on how the questions are asked and answered.

I have heard of 4 different instances lately of denied CPU RMAs due to chip dying, and using XMP-enabled ram. Seems the qualifier for CPU death not covered by warranty is running over 1.5v and 1333 MHz on the memory. It enough that local stores are not carrying any memory over spec's for all platforms(1866), and are requesting waiver signing for no warranty from retailer when they do sell it as a "special order" item.

Read between the lines, and the argument isn't dumb at all, and you might understand why this is being brought up.

Anyway, why are we discussing this in an AMD thread? 

Oh, that's right, becuase it seems AMD is expecting enthusiasts to overclock to get the performance they need, but at the same time invalidate their warranty rights, as XMP does. 


Bleh. It's monday for me. 

In the end, I am not going to recommend someone to VOID their warranty, and try to claim on said warranty knowing they've invalidated it.


----------



## erocker (Oct 11, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Intel will ask questions like what ram you are using and such when applying for an RMA, as is standard for any company.
> 
> When you tell them the model of memory, this will more than likely indicate whether you've vioded your warranty or not, depending on how the questions are asked and answered.
> 
> ...



They never asked me. Granted I returned a E8400 and a E7200. Both times it was, send it in, get a new one.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 11, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> If you run anything over stock(1333MHz), you have voided your warranty.
> 
> 
> XMP profiles up clocks to 3.7 or 3.8 GHz on 5 boards I have here, including ASUS, Gigabyte, MSI, and Zotac, ensuring that you warranty is void no matter what you do. On 3 of those 5 boards, it's quite difficult and involved to get normal, warrantied operation of chips. A couple of the boards jsut up the clocks, XMP or not!
> ...


I think you have a jenky bios! Weird how the tables turned there! Not sure which one our sample shipped with, however I am running XMP on DDR3 2133Mhz sticks and sitting at stock speeds last I checked...?

I will confirm later tonight...

________

+1 on anyone knowing you overclocked anything. Ive been in this game deeper and longer than most and havent had an issue with returning anything and 90% of my crap was overclocked (but didnt die from overclocking so as to prevent people from running their yap that I return shyte I broke).


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 11, 2011)

erocker said:


> They never asked me. Granted I returned a E8400 and a E7200. Both times it was, send it in, get a new one.



I dunno, seems they are being more strict now, not sure why. Best to educate people on what's what, so they are prepared, IMHO.



EarthDog said:


> I think you have a jenky bios! Weird how the tables turned there! Not sure which one our sample shipped with, however I am running XMP on DDR3 2133Mhz sticks and sitting at stock speeds last I checked...?
> 
> I will confirm later tonight...
> 
> ...



TBH, I am not sure why this is occuring, but lately every Intel board I reviewed was provided with a BIOS that either ran single-thread multi @ multi-thread loads, and I have mentioned it in the reviews too, as it's a pain in my ass that makes comparisons biased because OEM sent me a weird BIOS. It's at the point now where I have had to re-jiggle how I do things review-wise. In fact, the Zotac board had NO PROPER TURBO at all, and I deducted points because of it.


Oh, and on that, EarthDog, 3-pin jumperblock by the VRM controller? I did mention this header in my review...did you inquire as to what it was for? How aobut the 2-pin jumpers on the ASUS board? Or the "COUPON" headers on Gigabyte?


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 11, 2011)

I saw that in your review and did not inquire either. I am curious though... 

love the live edit update here... didnt inquire about any of those things...


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 11, 2011)

EarthDog said:


> I saw that in your review and did not inquire either. I am curious though...



I suggest asking. You're into the extreme cooling/clocking thing, I am not.


I wonder what the AMD board will have?


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 11, 2011)

I will and report back.. though not sure if its useful considering I hit 54x on all review boards and had no clue what those features are or what it helps!

AMD thread wut?


----------



## Super XP (Oct 11, 2011)

Both Guru3D and XBit are currently conducting offical reviews of Bulldozer. Reviews should be out sometime this week. From what I've been told, we should take all those early released benchmarks and shove them up our aris, they do not reflect offical benchmarks. 

A friend of a friends girlfriend knows the reviewer from Guru3D, if you are asking where I got this info from. And that Guru3D reviewer knows the guy from XBit labs and so I was told. 

Now where's my bloody BEER!!!


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Oct 11, 2011)

sometime this week:shadedshu i was hopein to have the what will BD actually do issue resolved by bedtime 2 am


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Oct 11, 2011)

Super XP said:


> Both Guru3D and XBit are currently conducting offical reviews of Bulldozer. Reviews should be out sometime this week. From what I've been told, we should take all those early released benchmarks and shove them up our aris, they do not reflect offical benchmarks.
> 
> A friend of a friends girlfriend knows the reviewer from Guru3D, if you are asking where I got this info from. And that Guru3D reviewer knows the guy from XBit labs and so I was told.
> 
> Now where's bloody my BEER!!!



or you could STFU STFD and wait for Thelaughingman to do his review

hes doing the Bulldozer FX review for futurelooks and is a member here so... screw the friend of a friends girlfriend knows a reviewer

i know multiple reviewers and i know one with bulldozer and one that will soon have bulldozer


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 11, 2011)

I'd laugh if everything up to this point, including pricing and Monstru's "preview" were all fake and wrong, and AMD comes out with something that blows everyone's socks off.

I'm not confident that will happen, but it'd be nice, for sure. It's gonna be just as fun if it's all true though.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 11, 2011)

pricing for the cpus might be low cuz they are staging for the Next series. Being tight lipped about their stuff could mean they are great n just dont want to release it n suprise the competition.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Oct 11, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> I'd laugh if everything up to this point, including pricing and Monstru's "preview" were all fake and wrong, and AMD comes out with something that blows everyone's socks off.
> 
> I'm not confident that will happen, but it'd be nice, for sure. It's gonna be just as fun if it's all true though.



You might add to Monstru's preview other donanimhabers and russian/ukrainians and chinese and the infamous AMD hater czech OBR whatever but I personally don't remember any official reviews totally reversing the results of leaked benches. The only strong point of Bulldozer as it looks right now is the overclockability and that's the only marketing stunt AMD has pulled in promoting the FX. At what expense you'll be able to get the 8150 to 5GHz in order to match a 4.something GHz 2600K remains to be seen.


----------



## heky (Oct 12, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> ntel will ask questions like what ram you are using and such when applying for an RMA, as is standard for any company.
> 
> When you tell them the model of memory, this will more than likely indicate whether you've vioded your warranty or not, depending on how the questions are asked and answered.
> 
> ...



So what you are saying is, if a chip dies from overclocking and Intel asks: "what did you do with it?" people will say:"Well i ran 1.7v through the chip and used 2200mhz XMP 1.7v ram".

Come on, be serious. Look at this thread:
http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2422201#post2422201

And he will get an RMA, even though he pushed more than 1.6v through the chip.


----------



## Melvis (Oct 12, 2011)

Doesn't SB CPU's have DRM?


----------



## xenocide (Oct 12, 2011)

Crap Daddy said:


> You might add to Monstru's preview other donanimhabers and russian/ukrainians and chinese and the infamous AMD hater czech OBR whatever but I personally don't remember any official reviews totally reversing the results of leaked benches. The only strong point of Bulldozer as it looks right now is the overclockability and that's the only marketing stunt AMD has pulled in promoting the FX. At what expense you'll be able to get the 8150 to 5GHz in order to match a 4.something GHz 2600K remains to be seen.



Get out of here with your logic, this is no place for that.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 12, 2011)

it is now the 12th. rock on BD.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 12, 2011)

heky said:


> So what you are saying is, if a chip dies from overclocking and Intel asks: "what did you do with it?" people will say:"Well i ran 1.7v through the chip and used 2200mhz XMP 1.7v ram".
> 
> Come on, be serious. Look at this thread:
> http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2422201#post2422201
> ...



Basically, yes. But just even the mention of XMP ram could have your product scrutinized more than at other times and RMA denied, which is something they seem to be pushing more often as of late, for whatever reason.

Just because you ship something back doesn't mean they will replace it...

And technically, although unintentional, ndm shouldn't get an RMA, and users doing such as he is are part of the reason things cost what they do.

There are more threads on various forums with users being denied RMAs as of late.

Rather than making this the big issue you are, it's not that important, and just a bit of info. Intel are being more cautious with RMAs...could be a new policy, could even just be one single employee....not something to argue over while OT from the thread.


----------



## Melvis (Oct 12, 2011)

Mussels said:


> it is now the 12th. rock on BD.



Now we just have to wait for the rest of the world to catch up


----------



## YautjaLord (Oct 12, 2011)

1:51am @ Israel, October 12. Caught up?  Few more hours left; i actually see myself obsessed with it on a hourly basis now.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 12, 2011)




----------



## MetalRacer (Oct 12, 2011)

http://www.ozeros.com/2011/10/review-amd-bulldozer-fx-8150/


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 12, 2011)

MetalRacer said:


> http://www.ozeros.com/2011/10/review-amd-bulldozer-fx-8150/



English Please


----------



## MetalRacer (Oct 12, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> English Please



Try google translate.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Oct 12, 2011)

Blink


----------



## erocker (Oct 12, 2011)

MetalRacer said:


> http://www.ozeros.com/2011/10/review-amd-bulldozer-fx-8150/



Seems to be a decent review! The stock vs. overclocked settings in games seem to yield pretty much the same results though.. :/

*Just looked at the video. The CPU/NB is only running at 2200mhz for the overclock, that is promising.


V @Viper, then the SB platforms wouldn't get that extra 5-10 fps if they were saturated. I'm assuming with overclocking the CPU/NB a bit more, it will free up some memory bandwidth and we have a winner.


----------



## ViperXTR (Oct 12, 2011)

^maybe because the GPU is already saturated?


----------



## ViperXTR (Oct 12, 2011)

Gaming:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums...-AMD-FX-quot-Bulldozer-quot-Review-(1)-Gaming

Synthetics:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums...ulldozer-quot-Review-(2)-Synthetic-benchmarks


----------



## wolf (Oct 12, 2011)

FX 8150 review anyone?

http://guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150-processor-review/


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 12, 2011)

And another review...! http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6984294#post6984294


----------



## TRWOV (Oct 12, 2011)

It goes through benchmarks with highs and lows, results are inconsistent at times but apparently the FX-8150 is a worthy processor that will give Intel a run for its money. The only thing I don't like is the power consumption. 

I hope that Piledriver corrects whatever needs correcting and get a nice performance boost. Those turbocore results are weird.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 12, 2011)

TRWOV said:


> It goes through benchmarks with highs and lows, results are inconsistent at times but apparently the FX-8150 is a worthy processor that will give Intel a run for its money. The only thing I don't like is the power consumption.



gotta realize that launch models are not gonna have the best of it all, it takes steppings to refine them. Now I cant wait for the second stepping or the Piledriver models, n then SKT FM2


----------



## xenocide (Oct 12, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> Now I cant wait for the second stepping or the Piledriver models, n then SKT FM2



Coming to an e-Tailer near you in 2026!


----------



## Mussels (Oct 12, 2011)

seems that per core performance is a bit average, but in 8 threaded benchies their value for dollar kicks in.


pity about the power consumption, i expected better there.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 12, 2011)

Yeah... I was hoping for a Distributed platforms delight, but with power consumption that much higher, one should likely grab a 2600k for $50 more.

MEH. That is all.


----------



## alexsubri (Oct 12, 2011)

another one (sorry if double post) 

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1741/1/


----------



## xenocide (Oct 12, 2011)

It's honestly better than I expected in terms of performance, but not enough to really crush SB.  They're still competative, but nothing too exciting, and definitely no reason to upgrade for most people. :/


----------



## wolf (Oct 12, 2011)

feeling much better about my 2500K purchase considering gaming is the machines #1 use. per core performance seems to matter the most on the whole, and especially for gaming at the moment. unless of course you specifically need as many cores as possible for parallel processing tasks, but even then a 2600K stands up tall against it.


----------



## Melvis (Oct 12, 2011)

xenocide said:


> It's honestly better than I expected in terms of performance, but not enough to really crush SB.  They're still competative, but nothing too exciting, and definitely no reason to upgrade for most people. :/



I have to agree here. Im actually disappointed in the performance  As long as the software supports many cores it seems to be up there, but if it doesn't then its no better then the old Phenom II.

I was going to upgrade but now im not to sure, i might just get a faster Phenom II and call it a day.

It doesn't deserve the FX branding IMO


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 12, 2011)

xenocide said:


> Coming to an e-Tailer near you in 2026!



love the sarcasm


----------



## alexsubri (Oct 12, 2011)

Some people have failed to understand, the FX-8170 has yet to come out..yes, the FX-8150 didn't performed that well, but it still has time to improve itself


----------



## PopcornMachine (Oct 12, 2011)

wolf said:


> FX 8150 review anyone?
> 
> http://guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150-processor-review/



Just read that one, and Hilbert sums it up pretty well.



> Surprisingly enough even the Phenom II X6 1100T (170 EUR) stands ground and is mostly on par with the FX 8150 a lot of the time...



Overclocked performance is what I would have expected for stock.  Not a chip that performs the same as the last generation.

Very disappointing and confusing.


----------



## Melvis (Oct 12, 2011)

alexsubri said:


> Some people have failed to understand, the FX-8170 has yet to come out..yes, the FX-8150 didn't performed that well, but it still has time to improve itself



Lets hope so, i wasnt planning to upgrade till next yr anyway, but going by these numbers i might be skipping AM3+ and go straight to Piledriver.


----------



## entropy13 (Oct 12, 2011)

alexsubri said:


> Some people have failed to understand, the FX-8170 has yet to come out..yes, the FX-8150 didn't performed that well, but it still has time to improve itself



The Core i7 2700K is yet to come out too...


----------



## _Zod_ (Oct 12, 2011)

Melvis said:


> Doesn't SB CPU's have DRM?



Yes


----------



## Goodman (Oct 12, 2011)

Melvis said:


> I have to agree here. Im actually disappointed in the performance  As long as the software supports many cores it seems to be up there, but if it doesn't then its no better then the old Phenom II.
> 
> I was going to upgrade but now im not to sure, i might just get a faster Phenom II and call it a day.
> 
> It doesn't deserve the FX branding IMO



Same here i was waiting for official performance before buying anything new , looks like my board will be good enough for the next year with a nice oc PII x6 in it 

As i see it the FX 61xx series would perform worst than PII x6 no wonder why AMD want to remove the PII x6 out of the market by the year end...:shadedshu


----------



## entropy13 (Oct 12, 2011)

> So what has AMD delivered to the desktop in the form of Bulldozer?
> 
> AMD has delivered what will be a disappointment to many. The Intel fanboys have won this round. There just isn't any way around it. AMD fans, get ready to eat crow. If you expected something to outshine Sandy Bridge in terms of performance overall, it is just not there.





> The Bottom Line
> 
> What we wanted out of Bulldozer and AMD and what we are getting are two different things. AMD has built a very good processor in Bulldozer that can be had at a very good price. Bulldozer however is just some "Me too!" when comparing to Intel's $200 2500K Sandy Bridge part that has already been out for a good while.
> 
> ...


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




> The allure of having the "world's first destop 8-core processor" is more than slightly muted by the performance results we saw in our review today.  Obviously the Bulldozer design team had to make some decisions years ago that couldn't be easily rolled back but it appears obvious to me at this point that the "2 cores per module" design didn't bring with it the benefits AMD expected.  And with the inability for the processors to scale to higher frequencies, the FX series from AMD is left holding promises that it couldn't keep for consumers.
> 
> The AMD FX processor release really comes down to the one thought: are you willing to give up performance on lightly-threaded everyday applications in hopes of better performance per dollar on highly threaded programs like Handbrake?  Even if the answer to that question is yes, Intel's Core i7/i5 line of processors based on Sandy Bridge have competitive solutions that don't require you to give up performance in either direction.  Will a system based on the new FX-8150 be competant and competitive while also making for a great gaming machine?  It definitely will but is that enough to pull consumers away from the Intel platforms that offer better performance in many areas for similar prices?  It is hard to see how it could be.


http://pcper.com/reviews/Processors...ulldozer-Unearth-AMD-Victory/Closing-Thoughts




> Concluding then. The reality remains that for me personally I would have preferred a faster per core performing AMD quad-core processor rather then an eight-core processor with just 'nice' per core performance. Who knows, for you, that just might not be the case. It's going to be interesting to see what you as an end-user will prefer. Overall though, the AMD FX 8150 is a processor we can recommend for the upper segment of mid-range computers at best.
> 
> It is nice and fast in your desktop environment with the many threads you can fire off at it, and if you love to compress, transcode or use your PC as a workstation, well it will offer heaps of performance and features for a fair price. The AMD FX 8150 can be purchased for 244 USD or cheaper for all that 8-core lovin'.


http://guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150-processor-review/21





> At the end of the day the AMD FX-8150 looks to be an interesting processor.  It isn't a home run that puts AMD back on top, but the bones of processor look to be pretty solid. AMD is headed in the right direction, but they haven't managed to 'Bulldoze' Intel by any means.
> 
> Legit Bottom Line:  The AMD FX-8150 offers solid performance and is competitive with the Intel 'Sandy Bridge' series of processors.


http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1741/20/





> For the die-hard AMD fans that have been waiting for this day since the company first started hinting at Bulldozer, the performance exhibited by this first batch of FX series processors is probably somewhat puzzling. This was supposed to be the architecture that propelled AMD back into a strong, competitive position versus Intel’s desktop processors. Alas, that is obviously not the case. The FX-8150 is very competitive with Intel’s upper-mainstream Core i5 processors, but the Core i7 remains the ultimate performance champion. No if, ands, or buts about it.
> 
> With that said, AMD still has a good product on its hands with the FX series. Performance is good; in some workloads the processor significantly outpaces the previous-gen Phenom II. And while it’s true that in some areas the Phenom II can still be faster, the Phenom II’s margin of victory is generally small. Although we didn’t have time to test it for ourselves just yet, performance improvements should be coming with future versions of Windows as tweaks are made to the scheduler to better utilize the resources afforded by the Bulldozer microarchitecture. As more software is optimized for the FX series, it’s architectural and feature enhancements (like XOR, AVX, etc.) should afford it a big edge over previous-generation processors as well.
> 
> Ultimately, although AMD wasn’t able to overtake Intel with the FX series, this launch is important for the company. It has been over a decade since AMD has completely redesigned its desktop processors.  The company needed a more forward-looking microarchitecture to lay the foundation for the future. Bulldozer may not have been able to put AMD back into the leadership position it was in when the original Athlon and Athlon 64 hit the scene, but may be the launching pad AMD needs to better tweak and optimize its desktop processors moving forward in preparation for the Piledriver, Steamroller, and Excavator microarchitectures AMD has slated for release over the next few years.


http://hothardware.com/Reviews/AMD-FX8150-8Core-Processor-Review-Bulldozer-Has-Landed/?page=11




> But the devil is in the details. The FX is a balancing act, giving up genuine per-core processing, present on Phenom II, and, due to architecture decisions, FX, in many cases, reduces just how much work can be accomplished by each core. Take into account non-independent cores and a lower IPC and there exist situations where the eight-core FX-8150 is taken to task by the six-core 1100T: something you wouldn't expect.
> 
> And while AMD, across a range of old and new applications, can claim solid performance with the FX, Intel's incumbent Sandy Bridge processors remain a more elegant solution. They're strong in every area, offer 'free' integrated graphics and have considerably better power-draw credentials to boot, thus making a persuasive argument as the mainstream chips of choice.
> 
> ...


http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/32110-amd-bulldozer-fx-8150/?page=8




> We won't deny it, we really were hoping for a lot more from Bulldozer and AMD's eight-core processors. It's disappointing to find these newly launched processors do little to improve AMD’s situation. The FX processors come short of competing hand to hand with the now 9-months old Sandy Bridge processors, and in certain instances surpass their own Phenom II range. Still, this is just the start for Bulldozer, and there's much more to be seen from the FX range, or so AMD says.


http://www.techspot.com/review/452-amd-bulldozer-fx-cpus/page13.html


----------



## v12dock (Oct 12, 2011)

It's competitive, AMD needs to boost the clocks asap and price it right.


----------



## Melvis (Oct 12, 2011)

v12dock said:


> It's competitive, AMD needs to boost the clocks asap and price it right.



Not clock speed, core performance i think.


----------



## xenocide (Oct 12, 2011)

Melvis said:


> Not clock speed, core performance i think.



Basically.  It's a slightly better Phenom II that needs 33-50% more cores to get slightly better performance.  It needs better per-core performance to really make a dent.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 12, 2011)

So, the AMD FX-8150 looked the Core i7-980X and i7-2600K in the eye...



And ran away?



But it did throw a couple of punches before it left...





Funny thing is, I am not one bit surprised. Laughing, but not surprised.


----------



## v12dock (Oct 12, 2011)

Melvis said:


> Not clock speed, core performance i think.



architectural tweeks, seems like AMD designed it to be a extremely high clocker and large gains when overclock.

AMDs memory controller team needs to get their heads out of there asses...


----------



## entropy13 (Oct 12, 2011)

v12dock said:


> architectural tweeks, seems like AMD designed it to be a extremely high clocker and large gains when overclock.



Large "gains" in power consumption too.







I can't seem to get to load bit-tech.net for me...hmm. Someone else took the screenshot.


----------



## bear jesus (Oct 12, 2011)

If only they could have improved the IPC a little more i would have been more impressed, as things stand i'm rather meh towards it.


----------



## ViperXTR (Oct 12, 2011)

so is this like the old days of Netburst architecture now? Ultra fast clocks and high power consumption with the speed not as proportional?


----------



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

where is bulldozer!!!!!!!!!!! its 12th oct here!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Covert_Death (Oct 12, 2011)

i'll probably be holding on to my Phenom II x4 955 @ 4.1Ghz if this is my upgrade option, ill probably wait for stepping revisions or something, unless this thing proves to OC with closed loop water cooling like a beast (meaning over 5Ghz on an H60 or something) then i probably will just wait...

slightly dissapointed... was reallying hoping for atleast NEAR 2600k performance even if i had to OC a little further, if it could have just competed with it!!!


----------



## LagunaX (Oct 12, 2011)

wolf said:


> FX 8150 review anyone?
> 
> http://guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150-processor-review/



Nice review. 
Pretty much does sum it up.

Only thing that would have made the review better would to have included right next to the overclocked 4.6ghz 8 Core Bulldozer an overclocked 4.6ghz 8 Thread i7-2600k.

But that probably would not have been too pretty.

Kudos to AMD but I'm sticking to my 2600k for now


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Oct 12, 2011)

again people need to take it with a grain of salt

Windows 7 scheduler for the cpu is fucked up it dosent work properly with Bulldozer 

Windows 8 dosent have these problems and Bulldozer shows a 5-20% performance improvement in Windows 8 over Windows 7 currently

Windows 7 needs patches and updates and they could be here tomorrow or 2-3 months from now sadly...

if you want realy Bulldozer benches youll have to find someone willing to test the cpu in Windows 8 which is surprisingly stable... stable enough to handle the BF3 beta etc. but i doubt youll see any benchmarks running Bulldozer in the enviroment its suppose to be in lol.

AMD admits to the problem openly in the reviewers bundle and info they included with it, 

Laughingman might do a Windows 8 bench session so it will be interesting to see if he can finish the current review and find time for it.


----------



## TRWOV (Oct 12, 2011)

These results certaintly put the PII x6 in a new light as the new MSRP is a very good deal for an hex-core. For guys that are rocking an Athlon X4 it would be a very sensible upgrade given it's price point.



As for the FXs I think that AMD is thinking too far ahead of themselves. Sure, multithreaded applications are the future but they need to sell their CPUs in the present. Maybe they should have released a PII die shrink with some improvements in IPC and memory bandwidth and refine the Bulldozer architecture for FM2 next year. Might it be that the AM3 platform is holding it back a little?

I don't put too much importance on the benchmarks using legacy instruction sets, like Prime (x87), but still I hope that the next steppings along with bios updates, kernel patches and applications' updates extract more performance from the architecture to make it at least beat the 1100T consistently.

Anyway, in short, a good productivity processor but average for gaming. The problem is that Intel has processors that are good at both things.


----------



## entropy13 (Oct 12, 2011)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> again people need to take it with a grain of salt
> 
> Windows 7 scheduler for the cpu is fucked up it dosent work properly with Bulldozer
> 
> ...



http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-23.html


----------



## xenocide (Oct 12, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-23.html



In other words the performance hit is minimal at worst.  I don't think redoing most benchs on W8 would result in the FX CPU's ultimately pulling ahead.


----------



## entropy13 (Oct 12, 2011)

xenocide said:


> In other words the performance hit is minimal at worst.  I don't think redoing most benchs on W8 would result in the FX CPU's ultimately pulling ahead.



Yeah, there was some improvement for the FX while there was some performance hit on the 2500K and YET the gap was still significant enough.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Oct 12, 2011)

you do realize that World of warcraft is a shit benchmark

but it still shows a near 17% performance shift correct?

so the 5-20% argument still stands

and i would expect WoW to perform like crap its still based on the ancient Intel Compiler that is from pre lawsuit days meaning the unoptimized code path is used

so on an unoptimized code path the performance shift is 17%

what i would like to see is Crossfire results and high resolution gaming tests

in which case on Kitguru and Hardware heaven the 8150 performs much better getting withing 1-2FPS of the 2600k

now if 5%-20% is added to that it puts them on completely equal footing which means the memory bottleneck is gone and in general performance with multi gpus has improved which was AMDs biggest draw back.

]in reality AMD shouldnt have called the FX 8150 an 8 core chip

the discussion on teamspeak tonight was enlightening

look at Bulldozer 8150 as a quadcore dual threaded chip and it looks alot better in that regard LOL

also 2 tests on Windows 8 is hardly indicitive of performance solidworks is a decent test but WoW isnt really suited to a test,

would be more interested to see

Bad Company 2 on Windows 8
BF3 beta
GTA IV
etc.

but overall im glad i didnt wait for Bulldozer ive had this performance level for awhile now out of a 2500k.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 12, 2011)

TRWOV said:


> These results certaintly put the PII x6 in a new light as the new MSRP is a very good deal for an hex-core. For guys that are rocking an Athlon X4 it would be a very sensible upgrade given it's price point.
> 
> As for the FXs I think that AMD is thinking too far ahead of themselves. Sure, multithreaded applications are the future but they need to sell their CPUs in the present. Maybe they should have released a PII die shrink with some improvements in IPC and memory bandwidth and refine the Bulldozer architecture for FM2 next year. Might it be that the AM3 platform is holding it back a little?
> 
> ...



I feel the major change will be in FM2, Less they pull it off with Piledriver


----------



## largon (Oct 12, 2011)

Disappointing. 
Single thread performance is basically ≤ Deneb.
It's an _FX_ for sure...


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 12, 2011)

But it can almost go over 9000!!!! Guinness-style!! That's cool, right?

Disappointing to not see any 5.0 GHz OC results, or did I miss a review?

Also interesting to see some reviews done on ES chips, too.


I'm upset a bit at the perforamnce, but glad that I was right.


----------



## ViperXTR (Oct 12, 2011)

GTA4 and BFBC2

indeed, last time i see a GTA4 bench was in behardware and toms, would love to see this heavily multithreaded game run on this new architecture.


----------



## entropy13 (Oct 12, 2011)

Wow, apparently an AMD fanboy took offense on me posting links to several reviews sites, which are all apparently false and a sign of Intel fanboyism. 

@ViperXTR: Too late on the warning, I already asked him if I posted links to reviews on a Cooler Master CPU cooler would that mean I'm automatically "relying on other people's opinions"?


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Oct 12, 2011)

whos an AMD fanboy? point them out?

cause if its me i fail to see it im running a 2500k and ive bashed the Phenom II architecture for the last 6 months for shit multigpu scaling lol

and for the most part im just trolling tossing out hope to those hanging on by a thread for Bulldozer. been stirring the pot and trolling all day  but im guessing everyone but cadaveca and mailman missed the fact i was trolling.


----------



## entropy13 (Oct 12, 2011)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> whos an AMD fanboy? point them out?
> 
> cause if its me i fail to see it im running a 2500k and ive bashed the Phenom II architecture for the last 6 months for shit multigpu scaling lol
> 
> and for the most part im just trolling tossing out hope to those hanging on by a thread for Bulldozer. been stirring the pot and trolling all day  but im guessing everyone but cadaveca and mailman missed the fact i was trolling.




No, it's a different forum.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Oct 12, 2011)

okay well link.... so i can sign up and troll them over there


----------



## entropy13 (Oct 12, 2011)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> okay well link.... so i can sign up and troll them over there



We don't strictly use English there.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Oct 12, 2011)

awww shucks.... there goes my fun. oh well its been a good ride, giving false hope for the last 12-13hours has been alot of fun

what i can say is this

if you do any 

Encoding
Photoshop
3D rendering aka Maya, 3DS max etc, you know real apps not Cinebench

Bulldozer is win...

if you do none of the above its epic fail 

my last parting gift is dont hate me for trolling someone had to do it. cause Mailman couldnt. he was to emotionally attached to the AMD / fanboy love child that is BD


----------



## Inceptor (Oct 12, 2011)

I think what AMD needs to do is improve FPU performance, and wait for a Windows 7 patch/ Windows 8.
Their timing was off, I think.  But it definitely is an interesting architecture.
There really aren't any surprises here.  No point holding banners for AMD or Intel.
So, there are some things that need fixing, but the 8150 is at the moment, at least, in the i5-2xxx performance range, overall, and approaches the i7-2xxx range.  Anyone who was expecting more than that was dreaming, I think.
The architecture is promising, but it looks to me like it is 'looking forward in time' to the later generation APUs -- which might explain its poor FPU performance --- something that would be offloaded onto an on-die gpgpu.
That brings up the question as to whether, a BD or PD cpu, paired with an AMD gpu, could see some performance optimization, in the future.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Oct 12, 2011)

Either way you look at it it's not good. The power consumption is downright scary when overclocked and OCing is the only way it can distance itself from the X6 and get close to the 2600K stock. The 8150 is more or less closer to 2500K so the price should be 210$ and even then for gaming purposes the 2500 is a clear win. As I said before, all the leaks heavily contested by many just proved to paint the real picture of this first generation of Bulldozer. Sorry but I really can't find a sound reason to purchase these chips.


----------



## mastrdrver (Oct 12, 2011)

Two things I would be interested in seeing: performance in Crossfire/SLI and with a higher clocked NB.

Phenom IIs are not very good at scaling performance when you have two (or more) GPUs. I also wonder how much/high you can overclock the NB part. If I understand correctly, all of SB cores and caches have a single clock. If that is true then I wonder how much overclocking the BD NB would help its performance?


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Oct 12, 2011)

going from 2200nb to 2400nb gives 1000mb/s memory bandwidth improvement

so say Bulldozer at 1866mhz gets 18gb/s memory bandwidth a 2400mhz NB will bump it up to 19gb/s

so right now 200mhz NB clock speed bump gives 1000mb/s memory bandwidth bump

problem is on an overclocked 8150 at 4.6-4.7ghz the NB tops out at 2400mhz meaning

the NB was only capable of a 200mhz overclock while the CPU cores were cable of a 1ghz overclock


----------



## Inceptor (Oct 12, 2011)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> problem is on an overclocked 8150 at 4.6-4.7ghz the NB tops out at 2400mhz meaning
> the NB was only capable of a 200mhz overclock while the CPU cores were cable of a 1ghz overclock



At what bus speed?
At what NB multiplier?
At what NB voltage?

You know, I haven't made the decision whether or not to buy BD yet, but uhh... who cares about a 1 ghz cpu overclock. I don't care what the UEFI/BIOS auto settings set the NB frequency to, I want to see what is possible with a manual increase. A cpu multiplier overclock is the simplest possible way to do it.  I want to see someone bench one of these cpus with an increased bus speed, to up the NB frequency.

I thought you said you were done?


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Oct 12, 2011)

its Laughingmans review for Bulldozer over on futurelooks its not up yet but im in TS3 with him

2200nb is Bulldozers default

2400nb aka 12x200 = 2400nb

that was all it would do

litterally set the NB any higher board wont post wont boot nothing blah done.


nb clocking isnt the BD chips forte cpu core clocks are.

and im not ALWAYS trolling alot of the info ive posted in this thread is actually truth, almost all of it is , i just played it to a very optimistic tune to piss ppl off

that said again

2400nb was all he could get out of the chip up from 2200 but it did give a 1000mb/s bandwidth increase at 1866mhz ram so it went from 18gb/s to 19gb/s its an improvement still not as good as Sandybridge tho

overclocked sandy at 1866 puts out 24-25gb/s but still far better then Phenom II's memory bandwidth but it hardly effects any of the benchmarks it did make a difference in cinebench but not a large one not enough to beat a 2600k anyway not anywhere near close 

basically in 99% of tests nb speed didnt effect performance at all, it gave a nice bump to memory bandwidth but it didnt translate to better performance.


----------



## Inceptor (Oct 12, 2011)

That's @200mhz.
I'm talking about higher bus speeds and higher NB voltage.
Did he try upping the NB voltage?


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Oct 12, 2011)

yes he did it didnt post whats so hard to understand about that

from what ive seen NO one has touched the northbridge period except for Laughingman lol im guessing thats the reason for it.

basically

your stuck at interals of 2 on the NB

2200
2400
2600
2800

at max overclock on the cpu the nb wont go above 2400 system dosent boot, not clock speed adjustments might make more of a difference but from what im looking at its not bringing any real performance gains, altho i can say Laughingmans review will probably be the only one around with NB clocks in the mix

I found what you wanted

http://www.madshrimps.be/articles/article/1000220/AMD-FX-8150-Bulldozer-CPU-Review/6#axzz1aYGbhypH

2200 2600 3200 NB speeds

guess what performance benefit = 0%

memory bandwidth increased but thats it no benefit otherwise.


----------



## SpeedwayNative (Oct 12, 2011)

Here is a great review, lots of comparison graphs.  

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/amd_fx8150/

Glad I have 1155 and an ivy bridge upgrade coming


----------



## ivicagmc (Oct 12, 2011)

That they just shrink Phenom to 32nm, with few tweeks, packed in 8 real cores it would be much better, and earlier.  WTF AMD engineers were doing? This is disaster and fail not compering to SB, but compering to Thuban... And I have spent my hard earned money and bought AM3+ board. AMD you have fail me for the last time. As soon as I get some money I'm going to the dark side...


----------



## Mussels (Oct 12, 2011)

i want to see some DX11 benchies, as the multi threadedness there should really help.

DX11 in crossfire/SLI would be best.


----------



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

as always AMDs problem lies with its memory controller. some one isnt working hard enough.


----------



## HalfAHertz (Oct 12, 2011)

AMD needs lots of it^

Well this blows. I was looking forward to adding a new AMD PC to my makeshift "rendering farm". It will still be an AMD CPU but from the looks of it I'll stay clear from Bulldozer.


----------



## TRWOV (Oct 12, 2011)

So the best buy is going to be the FX-8120. Being the same silicon it should overclock almost as good as the FX-8150.

Next steppings and kernel patches just can't come fast enough. I think that this platform will need some revisiting by year's end to see how much performance is to be expected with appropriate software.


The good:
- Decent multi-thread performance depending on the application.

The bad:
- Lower clock for clock performance than Thuban.
- Requires software patches.
- Needs overclocking out of the box to consistently beat the 2500K and 1100T at stock clocks.

The ugly:
- The power bill.



Grab a PII x6 while you can if you don't have it already. Later on, if the platform evolves to something worthy you can upgrade then.


----------



## HalfAHertz (Oct 12, 2011)

Well the few good things about it is that it has Hardware AES-Ni support, TurboCore that actually works and low power consumption(for its gynormous size) at idle thanks to power gating at the silicon. So it's finally on par with $ntel in those fields and further behind in the rest


----------



## btarunr (Oct 12, 2011)

Much of the ~2 billion transistor count is accounted for by the 16 MB cache.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 12, 2011)

btarunr said:


> Much of the ~2 billion transistor count is accounted for by the 16 MB cache.



Yeah, which also explains the high power draw. Makes me wonder jsut how good per-core perforamcne is with a CPU core that small.

Really, liek I said a couple fo days ago, the large amount of cache kinda hinted that bulldozer jsut couldn't live up to the hype some had placed on it. Everything is quite obvious, and has clear reasons why things are the way they are.


I jsut don't get why everyone is so surprised. Maybe next time when I say to ignore the hype, more people will listen.


----------



## AhokZYashA (Oct 12, 2011)

so, BD is marginally slower than SB in most application?


----------



## Shihab (Oct 12, 2011)

AhokZYashA said:


> so, BD is marginally slower than SB in most application?



To put it bluntly, yes.

*Sigh* And with the SB-E unpromising reviews, will any 2011 CPU release worth the bother ?


----------



## HalfAHertz (Oct 12, 2011)

AhokZYashA said:


> so, BD is marginally slower than SB in most application?










On average 8,8% slower than 2500k(not counting superPi coz it's ghey) and 19% slower than 2600k according to hardwarecanucks

What's more appalling is how much "faster" it is than it's predecessors:






Again on average and not counting superPi: 11,9% faster than a PhII 980 and the whopping 2,6% faster than a 1100T

The moral here, at least ofr me, is that the 1100T was already competing quite nicely with the 2500k in multi-threaded workloads and what AMD needed to mainly focus on was their IPC and IMC.

Edit: sorry for my thread crapping in all the BD threads but I'm simply lost for words here


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 12, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Yeah, which also explains the high power draw. Makes me wonder jsut how good per-core perforamcne is with a CPU core that small.
> 
> Really, liek I said a couple fo days ago, the large amount of cache kinda hinted that bulldozer jsut couldn't live up to the hype some had placed on it. Everything is quite obvious, and has clear reasons why things are the way they are.
> 
> ...



I listened. Still not gonna scrap my whole rig for a SB however! YOU CANT MAKE ME! lol


----------



## Bucknuts77 (Oct 12, 2011)

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150-processor-review/

The 8150 is a joke, and not even a good one. Sure its a good CPU for a work PC if the price was a bit lower, but this CPU was market as a high end gameing CPU, and is no better than my 1090T @ 4.2, and you OC this BD to 4.6 and your useing over 430 wats. This almost makes me want to rip out my Sabertooth and break it in half.


----------



## digibucc (Oct 12, 2011)

how does it compare to pre-sb intels? i7 920/940/965?


----------



## 15th Warlock (Oct 12, 2011)

digibucc said:


> how does it compare to pre-sb intels? i7 920/940/965?



TBH, who cares, that comparison would have been relevant two years ago, when BD was supposed to be released. The present is SB, and SB-E is just around the corner, X58 is EOL as far as upgrade options go...


----------



## Shihab (Oct 12, 2011)

digibucc said:


> how does it compare to pre-sb intels? i7 920/940/965?



According to tom's hardware's review, the 920 beats BD in many single threaded progs, In gaming, the 920 smothers it. BD managed to outperform the 920 in most multi-threaded apps.


----------



## nt300 (Oct 12, 2011)

Apparently AMD is complaining about an issue with how Windows Operating systems are reading Bullodzer. It can't seem to figure out the design in terms of its modules and therefore Bulldozer should in reality be approx: 15% faster if Microsoft can figure this out and come out with a patch or something to ensure Bullodzer is fully understood. I believe Guru3D has a much better explanation in this matter. 

Microsoft did state that Windows 8 will be fully optimised to take advantage of Bulldozer. In the meantime, do I have an incentive to upgrade my setup with a Bulldozer CPU? Dam this sucks……


----------



## AhokZYashA (Oct 12, 2011)

that makes my word many pages back true then.

tbh im looking forward to BD performance, 
turns out its just a joke, even compared to an older i7 9xx


----------



## 15th Warlock (Oct 12, 2011)

nt300 said:


> Apparently AMD is complaining about an issue with how Windows Operating systems are reading Bullodzer. It can't seem to figure out the design in terms of its modules and therefore Bulldozer should in reality be approx: 15% faster if Microsoft can figure this out and come out with a patch or something to ensure Bullodzer is fully understood. I believe Guru3D has a much better explanation in this matter.
> 
> Microsoft did state that Windows 8 will be fully optimised to take advantage of Bulldozer. In the meantime, do I have an incentive to upgrade my setup with a Bulldozer CPU? Dam this sucks……



I call this the "John Carmack Defense", AKA "blame the drivers"


----------



## nt300 (Oct 12, 2011)

15th Warlock said:


> I call this the "John Carmack Defense", AKA "blame the drivers"


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


----------



## Bucknuts77 (Oct 12, 2011)

nt300 said:


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



Maybe it will, but it's just the same BS. You can buy MB for the CPU, but not the CPU for how long, and now you can buy the CPU, but you have to wait for a new OS to take full advantage of the CPU. This is the kinda crap that will make people say enough is enough and so long AMD I'm just a Intel person now.


----------



## digibucc (Oct 12, 2011)

15th Warlock said:


> TBH, who cares, that comparison would have been relevant two years ago, when BD was supposed to be released. The present is SB, and SB-E is just around the corner, X58 is EOL as far as upgrade options go...



obviously i care, because i asked the question. and yes x58 is eol - meaning if i decided to go back to amd this time around i wanted to know how it compares. I know SB is more powerful, but i like AMD and was willing to take lesser performance than SB when amd's price on their cpus goes down.

thanks to Shihabyooo for giving me an actual response, i now know that i can just hang on to my 920 for at least another generation. the SB-E performance won't be enough to get me to buy a new mobo/cpu, and neither will bulldozer.


----------



## nemesis.ie (Oct 12, 2011)

So, my usual e-tailer DABS has just put the 4 BD models online:

http://www.dabs.ie/brands/amd-521/c...ds-and-processors,processors/11147-4294944361

Pricing is somewhat in line with what has been discussed, however, the availability is 3 to 3 WEEKS. It looks like they had no initial stock, so maybe yields (or allocations) are limited.

So now I am wondering if I should wait (and (vainly?) hope for a Windows patch or new stepping in this time or go for an X4 or X6 for the CHV I have sitting in a HAF X.

Very disappointing either way - another 3-4 week delay or a non-BD CPU, never mind the performance question.

Edit: The spec reads like this:

Features

Multiplier Unlocked
Eight Core Technology
3.60GHz Clock Speed
4.20GHz Turbo Clock Speed
5.2 GT/s System Bus
AM3+ Socket
8MB L2 Cache
8MB L3 Cache
64-Bit Technology
TDP: 125W
Voltage: 0.9375v - 1.4125v
32nm technology
Integrated memory controller upto 29.8GB/sec
Support upto 1866MHz DDR3
HyperTransport 3.0 Technology
AMD Virtualization (AMD-V) Technology
3 Year Warranty
Heatsink & Fan Included

=========================

2 things from this:

1. It implies voltage up to 1.4125 should still be "in spec".

2. Did any reviews show remotely close to 29.8GB/sec for memory B/W? Seems like it's just quoting the theoretical for PC15000 (1866MHz) in dual channel which seems wrong if that's not what we get. I think reviews even with faster RAM were 22GB/sec or less. It also seems odd that both L2 and L3 are showing speed close to main memory in the reviews (albeit with much better latency).


----------



## Ahhzz (Oct 12, 2011)

I'm afraid I'm looking at the intel camp... I'll not be moving in, but I think I'll sneak in and steal some supplies for a few years... Hopefully AMD will get their asses in gear, sort out what went wrong, and make it better next time....


----------



## catnipkiller (Oct 12, 2011)

2012 its intel for me imo. less bull shit more $$$


----------



## Inceptor (Oct 12, 2011)

At this point, I wonder what would damage control be?

Lower TDP to 95W.
Improved stepping.

I can't see anything else they can do, I'm guessing Microsoft isn't going to shoot their future OS sales in the foot by giving Win 7 the Win 8 memory scheduling improvements.


----------



## dumo (Oct 12, 2011)

A few hours and already OOS @ Newegg. Lol....http://204.14.213.185/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103960


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 12, 2011)

dumo said:


> A few hours and already OOS @ Newegg. Lol....http://204.14.213.185/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103960



Not surprising at all. I fully expected there to be a limited supply today, and posted as much a couple of days ago, hoping that those that wanted one would be ready and waiting to order ASAP before they sold out.


Erocker got one!!! I wonder how many other here will too? TOo many reviews with ES chips, and I'm still kinda hopeful.


----------



## dumo (Oct 12, 2011)

Got one too. Will post oc results with CH V


----------



## Super XP (Oct 12, 2011)

It's nice to see everybody playing nice. I like that, guys that support Intel are being very nice and informative with the AMD boys. Good too see 

I too may get a AMD FX-8150 or FX-4170 because I already have the best AM3+ mobo on the market. For me Bulldozer will give me a little bump in performance, but overall I am not happy with it's overall performance.

I can see Bulldozer NOT taking out Intel, but the Phenom II? This feels like the Pentium 4 says all over again..........


----------



## Bucknuts77 (Oct 13, 2011)

With comparing all the Futuremark benchmarks it's really sad the BD@4.6 only out did my 1090t@4.2 one time CPU wise and that was on Vantage CPU score which it did beat me by 1,700 points. Only one total test was higher and thats 3Dmark11, and that was by 77 points and with a GTX 570, not a GTX 580 that Guru of 3D was useing. I just wanted this CPU for gameing and thats were the problem is. I have work PC's so dont care to have just another work CPU for $270.


----------



## LagunaX (Oct 13, 2011)

One more review (AMD FX-8150 vs. Core i5-2500K and Core i7-2600K CPU Review):
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/AMD-FX-8150-vs-Core-i5-2500K-and-Core-i7-2600K-CPU-Review/1402


----------



## Super XP (Oct 13, 2011)

O.K. so AMD's excuse is the fact Bulldozer is based on a future design and programs along with the OS need to catch up to it.   Is it me or does AMD need a new marketing team 

Give me a sec while I pull my one nut out of my aris


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 13, 2011)

Give a few months all i can say, that or Piledriver on both AM3 and FM2.



Super XP said:


> It's nice to see everybody playing nice. I like that, guys that support Intel are being very nice and informative with the AMD boys. Good too see
> 
> I too may get a AMD FX-8150 or FX-4170 because I already have the best AM3+ mobo on the market. For me Bulldozer will give me a little bump in performance, but overall I am not happy with it's overall performance.
> 
> I can see Bulldozer NOT taking out Intel, but the Phenom II? This feels like the Pentium 4 says all over again..........


----------



## Super XP (Oct 13, 2011)

Here is a nice QUOTE from somebody that seems to know what he's talking about.




> Vulk Oct 12, 2011 at 6:20 pm #
> 
> 
> AMD has been very clear that this is a server chip, and as a server chip it is far from suckage. The consumer chip is piledriver which is out next year and supposedly has 10-15% more single threaded performance… Time will tell, but honestly, they increased the performance of their existing system and brought it up to core i5-2500 levels pretty much, which considering that they started this design 5 years ago, and managed to hit Intel’s performance despite all the delays… Think of where this would have been if it came out last year, like it was supposed to. Still, there’s a lot to be said for BD considering where they were with Stars, and what they’ve managed to accomplish.
> ...


Can this be the same for Bulldozer vs. Bulldozer II (AMD FX vs. AMD FX2) Phenom II was a massive boost in performance, but obviously something has to be done in regards to Windows 7 messing up the schedulers or something of that matter...


> *Phenom II vs. Phenom I *
> 
> For performance comparison we used Phenom 9950 Black Edition that was overclocked at 3GHz and northbridge at 1.8GHz. At same clock Phenom II is faster in every benchmark. If we take a look at results we can conclude that AMD tuned more, than cache on K10 core. AMD stated that for X4 940 on 3GHz we can expect 21% increase of performance levels compared to 9950 Black Edition: 3% thanks to optimizations of cores, 6% thanks to larger and more efficient L3 cache and 12% thanks to higher frequency. Our results showed increase of performances between 0-25%. As expected, biggest gains are in games, then in data and video compression where you can expect 10% increase in performances on same clock. Applications that rely intensively on cache can have 40% increase in performances. Based on results of synthetic tests we can conclude that AMD improved also memory controller. Rendering applications can have performance increase from 3-6%. This is consequence of increased number of instructions that cores can process in one cycle. AMD development team didn’t add new instructions this time, instead they focused on increased efficiency. Unofficially, branch predictor is also improved and this will also have positive impact on most applications when it comes to performances. As you can see from results Phenom II wiped out its older brother Phenom if we compare them clock-per-clock. When we overclocked Phenom II it is clear that this CPU is completely different category of CPU and older core cannot measure with it anymore.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 13, 2011)

dude combine ur posts, u know the rules here, but on another note, it takes time to come out with something extrodinary, i suspect Piledriver to be something heavy hitting than bulldozer is.  Bulldozer does sound more like a MP system than a SP System.


----------



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

Well this proved to be typical AMD BS.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Oct 13, 2011)

Super XP said:


> Here is a nice QUOTE from somebody that seems to know what he's talking about.



10 to 15% better in single thread performance is not enough. I want consistent performance for older software. I also want 25 to 45% better performance in single threads.

If it wants that FX moniker, it needs to earn it.


----------



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

TheLaughingMan said:


> 10 to 15% better in single thread performance is not enough. I want consistent performance for older software. I also want 25 to 45% better performance in single threads.
> 
> If it wants that FX moniker, it needs to earn it.



We never agree, but for once your right.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 13, 2011)

TheLaughingMan said:


> 10 to 15% better in single thread performance is not enough. I want consistent performance for older software. I also want 25 to 45% better performance in single threads.
> 
> If it wants that FX moniker, it needs to earn it.


Fully agree. I wonder if Bulldozer at the very least will do better with more DDR3 ram, say about 16GB at 1866? Obviously AMD needs to do some real good tweaking because this does not feel like another Barcelona. I wouldn't be surprised if AMD within months releases AMD FX2 or something, such as they did with Phenom I to II.


----------



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

Super XP said:


> Fully agree. I wonder if Bulldozer at the very least will do better with more DDR3 ram, say about 16GB at 1866? Obviously AMD needs to do some real good tweaking because this does not feel like another Barcelona. I wouldn't be surprised if AMD within months releases AMD FX2 or something, such as they did with Phenom I to II.



They are phasing it out at the end of 2012, and some people did tests at 1866 and it made 0 difference.


----------



## johnnyfiive (Oct 13, 2011)

LagunaX said:


> One more review (AMD FX-8150 vs. Core i5-2500K and Core i7-2600K CPU Review):
> http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/AMD-FX-8150-vs-Core-i5-2500K-and-Core-i7-2600K-CPU-Review/1402



That review is *pretty* shady....


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Oct 13, 2011)

Check this out. It's interesting.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums...ew-(4)-!exclusive!-Excuse-for-1-Threaded-Perf







They have a lot of tests in the thread, all with similar results.


----------



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

johnnyfiive said:


> That review is *pretty* shady....



yep


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Oct 13, 2011)

i love how ppl call it shady

but they are pretty much the only review site beside johnny guru that did decent PSU review let alone OVERLOADING psu to see what there truly capable of

basically put

Hardware secrets is far more trust worthy then Toms Hardware lol put it that way. and everyone loves to quote Toms lolz


----------



## Mussels (Oct 13, 2011)

personally i just laugh at whatever toms writes. i'm sure not all their staff suck, but some of them sure love writing biased reviews.


----------



## TRWOV (Oct 13, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Check this out. It's interesting.
> 
> http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums...ew-(4)-!exclusive!-Excuse-for-1-Threaded-Perf
> 
> ...



Interesting. So due to the shared resources single thread performance suffers (if the graphs are real, that is).  Hopefully, AMD will figure out the cache thrashing issue.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Oct 13, 2011)

TRWOV said:


> Interesting. So due to the shared resources single thread performance suffers (if the graphs are real, that is).  Hopefully, AMD will figure out the cache thrashing issue.



Yeah, it might be worth it to pick it up and run it as a quad until they do. I can't wait until someone here starts benching so we can see if those results can be backed up.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 13, 2011)

TRWOV said:


> Interesting. So due to the shared resources single thread performance suffers (if the graphs are real, that is).  Hopefully, AMD will figure out the cache thrashing issue.



i saw mentions of a windows update being required to fix that. might need a service pack or windows 8?


----------



## Inceptor (Oct 13, 2011)

That's an interesting review, and point of view.
So, disable 1 core per module to create a quad-core which you can overclock higher.  A quad core which would not have the scheduling problems.
That's interesting... but what you basically get is Phenom II 980 stock performance with more overclock ceiling, which is not bad, especially for gaming.  And then you still have the other cores available to play around with configs, if you choose.

An interesting way to look at it, but not at initial release prices unless the idea takes hold of you as a 'must have'.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Oct 13, 2011)

Inceptor said:


> That's an interesting review, and point of view.
> So, disable 1 core per module to create a quad-core which you can overclock higher.  A quad core which would not have the scheduling problems.
> That's interesting... but what you basically get is Phenom II 980 stock performance with more overclock ceiling, which is not bad, especially for gaming.  And then you still have the other cores available to play around with configs, if you choose.
> 
> An interesting way to look at it, but not at initial release prices unless the idea takes hold of you as a 'must have'.



I don't think these release prices will last very long. It could still turn out to be a nice purchase.

I hope anyway.

I really still want an official TPU review before I pass final judgement though.


----------



## nemesis.ie (Oct 13, 2011)

LagunaX said:


> One more review (AMD FX-8150 vs. Core i5-2500K and Core i7-2600K CPU Review):
> http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/AMD-FX-8150-vs-Core-i5-2500K-and-Core-i7-2600K-CPU-Review/1402



Interestingly they seemed to get a better OC on less voltage than most of the other sites, a shame there was no power consumption noted.


----------



## nemesis.ie (Oct 13, 2011)

Super XP said:


> Fully agree. I wonder if Bulldozer at the very least will do better with more DDR3 ram, say about 16GB at 1866? Obviously AMD needs to do some real good tweaking because this does not feel like another Barcelona. I wouldn't be surprised if AMD within months releases AMD FX2 or something, such as they did with Phenom I to II.



I've got 16GB of 2,000MHz RAM sitting in my CHV waiting for the CPU. I'll be happy to post results if I get a chip before someone beats me to it.


----------



## Frick (Oct 13, 2011)

Regarding tech sites: The only sites I'm on these days are TPU, Anandtech, JonnyGURU and Hardware Secrets which have really nice PSU reviews. There are so many of them I just can't be bothered to look at them all.


----------



## ViperXTR (Oct 13, 2011)

Ah hardwaresecrets, that site helped me convinced in my choice of PSU back then


----------



## Ahhzz (Oct 13, 2011)

Well, when it comes down to it... I'm still not seeing an overwhelming reason, or even a serious one, to choose the BD over a 2600k right now... *sigh* disappointed....


----------



## nt300 (Oct 13, 2011)

Frick said:


> Regarding tech sites: The only sites I'm on these days are TPU, Anandtech, JonnyGURU and Hardware Secrets which have really nice PSU reviews. There are so many of them I just can't be bothered to look at them all.


Guru3D is quite good too IMO.

Anyhow there's still some performance hope in Bulldozer afterall


----------



## pantherx12 (Oct 13, 2011)

I'm still fairly tempted by bull dozer TBH, selling my old CPU nets me 2 3rds of the money, it will give me something new to play with ( and keep myself busy whilst unemployed) and it does seem there's potentialy for software based improvements.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 13, 2011)

not to mention lots of OCing based improvements.


----------



## pantherx12 (Oct 13, 2011)

Mussels said:


> not to mention lots of OCing based improvements.



Yup, Hell I'd try dissabling all but one "core" and see how far I can push it


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Oct 13, 2011)

If people are still reluctant to buy a FX8150, then i suggest keeping an eye on Ebay...within the next few days theres probably gonna be THOUSANDS flooding the auctions from disgruntled and dissapointed customers. cheaper to get one that way, and it would still be 99.9% as all they did was bench the CPU before deciding they didnt want it


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 13, 2011)

FreedomEclipse said:


> If people are still reluctant to buy a FX8150, then i suggest keeping an eye on Ebay...within the next few days theres probably gonna be THOUSANDS flooding the auctions from disgruntled and dissapointed customers. cheaper to get one that way, and it would still be 99.9% as all they did was bench the CPU before deciding they didnt want it



With the limited quantities that are available I doubt that.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Oct 13, 2011)

All I need to do is invent an all in one liquid helium/nitrogen. Home  kit that u could use like nos...


----------



## LagunaX (Oct 13, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Check this out. It's interesting.
> 
> http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums...ew-(4)-!exclusive!-Excuse-for-1-Threaded-Perf
> 
> ...



So someone get one and run it as 4 cores b2 clusters disabled in bios and overclocked to 4.8-5.0ghz for us!


----------



## Inceptor (Oct 13, 2011)

They didn't overclock it for those graphs.
But yeah, it makes for an interesting proposition, but only as an _upgrade_ from an x4 Phenom, just as the fully enabled 4 'module' chip is only a decent buy as an _upgrade_ from an x4 Phenom.


----------



## ivicagmc (Oct 13, 2011)

AMD FX-8150 vs. Intel i7-2600k CrossFireX HD 6970 x3 Head-to-Head
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/4...rossfirex_hd_6970_x3_head_to_head/index1.html


----------



## Super XP (Oct 13, 2011)

ivicagmc said:


> AMD FX-8150 vs. Intel i7-2600k CrossFireX HD 6970 x3 Head-to-Head
> http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/4...rossfirex_hd_6970_x3_head_to_head/index1.html


Interesting and good benchmark results for the AMD FX 8150. The i7 2600k was also 430MHz higher clocked. This shows the FX 8150 looking better, though there was a few games that was slower than normal for the FX. Other that this, not bad at all in terms of scaling with the 3 cards...


----------



## v12dock (Oct 13, 2011)

Retest in a month reviews are way to inconstant


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Oct 13, 2011)

well thats partly do to OS and the fact alot of reviewers are using ES chips given to them by Gigabyte, and some reviews are using Retail chips


----------



## Inceptor (Oct 14, 2011)

AMD published this back in April:
"Software Optimization guide for AMD family 15h processors" [aka Bulldozer/Zambezi]
http://support.amd.com/us/Processor_TechDocs/47414.pdf

So, they knew that software had to catch up in order to properly use the architecture.


----------



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

crazyeyesreaper said:


> well thats partly do to OS and the fact alot of reviewers are using ES chips given to them by Gigabyte, and some reviews are using Retail chips



I'm sorry blaming the OS for piss poor performance is laughable as an explenation for failure.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Oct 14, 2011)

it is laughable

but broken fucking ES chips that dont support full functionality on an OS that dosent properly support it can cause issues herp derp

its kinda stacking the fail untill its ready to watch it fall

i could care less eitherway i have an Intel rig

but in games Windows 8 does offer a 4-20% performance improvement,

and I5 systems see a 2-7% performance drop in those same things

so at this point Bulldozer when tested vs Sandybridge could see a 6%-27% performance GAIN on sandybridge, but even then it still not enough to best the competition and its no where near close to being the answer to everyones prayers but it is interesting note to remember.  Overall i dont care i trolled everyone in here for nearly 2 days giving false hope then i went back to the awesomeness of my Intel rig. and im an AMD fanboy honestly but eitherway.

Bulldozer is fucked up in alot of ways

i mean for christs sake Gigabyte demanded a tpu member here who does reviews test the Bulldozer chip on there 890FX board that has the black socket. and eventually he MUST test it. all the reviews using Gigabyte motherboards are using ES chips so keep that in mind as well, if you look closely, ES chips score around the same  and the Retail chips score around the same but in many reviews the difference between ES and retail can be tiny or staggering.


----------

