nt300Apparently 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…… :confused:

I call this the "John Carmack Defense", AKA "blame the drivers" :nutkick::laugh:

15th WarlockI call this the "John Carmack Defense", AKA "blame the drivers" :nutkick::laugh:

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:
www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/11

nt300AMD 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:
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.

15th WarlockTBH, 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.

So, my usual e-tailer DABS has just put the 4 BD models online:

www.dabs.ie/brands/amd-521/components-and-storage,motherboards-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).

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....

2012 its intel for me imo. less bull shit more $$$

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.

A few hours and already OOS @ Newegg. Lol....204.14.213.185/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103960

dumoA few hours and already OOS @ Newegg. Lol....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.

Got one too. Will post oc results with CH V

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..........

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.

One more review (AMD FX-8150 vs. Core i5-2500K and Core i7-2600K CPU Review):
www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/AMD-FX-8150-vs-Core-i5-2500K-and-Core-i7-2600K-CPU-Review/1402

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. :eek: Is it me or does AMD need a new marketing team :confused:

Give me a sec while I pull my one nut out of my aris :banghead:

Give a few months all i can say, that or Piledriver on both AM3 and FM2.

Super XPIt'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..........

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.

Is BD reolutionary, yes? Is it great for you the consumer? Not particularly. Is it a failure? No, for it’s intended market, it’s freaking phenomenal.

Lastly, this is V1 of this silicon, V2 hits early next year, and they’re on a yearly tuning cadence from there on. I would expect you’ll find that there is a lot of headroom in this design they have yet to exploit, and it should allow them to be competitive with Intel, and superior in certain niche situations.

And really, given the sheer disparity between the two companies, that’s not half bad.

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.

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.

Well this proved to be typical AMD BS.

Super XPHere 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.

TheLaughingMan10 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.

TheLaughingMan10 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.

Super XPFully 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.

LagunaXOne more review (AMD FX-8150 vs. Core i5-2500K and Core i7-2600K CPU Review):
www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/AMD-FX-8150-vs-Core-i5-2500K-and-Core-i7-2600K-CPU-Review/1402

That review is pretty shady....

Check this out. It's interesting.

www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?275873-AMD-FX-quot-Bulldozer-quot-Review-%284%29-!exclusive!-Excuse-for-1-Threaded-Perf



They have a lot of tests in the thread, all with similar results.