Jump to content
SceptreCore

AMD conFusion? Forget the hype!

Recommended Posts

After thinking about it, I'll likely give this Bulldozer a miss as I can't justify buying the FX series to replace my current 940 Black Edition.

 

But I do know that AMD will bounce back but how much faith is restored depends on Piledriver. If it does what AMD promises, then I'd be on it. Otherwise, consider me fully disappointed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After thinking about it, I'll likely give this Bulldozer a miss as I can't justify buying the FX series to replace my current 940 Black Edition.

 

But I do know that AMD will bounce back but how much faith is restored depends on Piledriver. If it does what AMD promises, then I'd be on it. Otherwise, consider me fully disappointed.

The guys over at AMDZone are usually in the know when new steppings come out. I might wait for one of them... or snag one as soon as they come down under. But not for the price listed above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too was going to build a brand new Bulldozer rig, but that's no longer on the cards. Blew the dust off my old Athlon XP system and started making proper use out of it. (Now that was a CPU!)

 

Look fellas, I don't think the end is nigh. Just a lot of disappointment, like what the first Phenom did to everyone. So with that in mind, I'll be looking forward to this 'Piledriver' when it comes out :)

 

Im trying to understand peoples gripe on the power consumption. Sure an 8 core uses a shload, but not much more than a Thurban, and it idles better too. Comparing the bulldozer quad to the old, it has significantly less power consumption; almost like the older i5 750's. Im only basing these facts off what I'm seeing from Legion Hardware Review, and this one is a little more merciful towards the Bulldozer's debut.

 

In my opinion (as stated before) Bulldozer isn't that bad.. just not as good as we thought it would be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First Australian retailer to advertise the FX processors (according to staticICE)

 

http://www.itsdirect.com.au/products/CPU-A...b_category/181/

 

For an outrageous $360 And no stock till November. "Tell him he's dreamin'". So if the process matures in that time... (and here's hoping we don't get already fabbed parts shipped then) Then we may have better proc's than have been tested. All I can do is be extremely optimistic at this point. But if I'm not overclocking. I can live with the power consumption.

I bet alot of randz over at OCAU all buy them just cause they want to try them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too was going to build a brand new Bulldozer rig, but that's no longer on the cards. Blew the dust off my old Athlon XP system and started making proper use out of it. (Now that was a CPU!)

 

Look fellas, I don't think the end is nigh. Just a lot of disappointment, like what the first Phenom did to everyone. So with that in mind, I'll be looking forward to this 'Piledriver' when it comes out :)

 

Im trying to understand peoples gripe on the power consumption. Sure an 8 core uses a shload, but not much more than a Thurban, and it idles better too. Comparing the bulldozer quad to the old, it has significantly less power consumption; almost like the older i5 750's. Im only basing these facts off what I'm seeing from Legion Hardware Review, and this one is a little more merciful towards the Bulldozer's debut.

 

In my opinion (as stated before) Bulldozer isn't that bad.. just not as good as we thought it would be.

Yes but BD is 32nm with HKMG and enhanced P and C states. It should be really good for power consumption. But as I think about it... it's really got to be more the architecture, and the clock speeds. I'm sure that these can come down in time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really want to know how they messed this up. On paper its a great design for a CPU but they just don't perform good enough. In this state it may have been a mistake releasing this CPU because its certainly damaging AMDs rep especially when its barely beating a Thurban in gaming tests.

 

I wonder when well actually get to know the real story...

 

 

If only these had have matched an i5 2500k - I would have upgraded but it hardly seems worthwhile now.

Edited by UberPenguin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really want to know how they messed this up. On paper its a great design for a CPU but they just don't perform good enough. In this state it may have been a mistake releasing this CPU because its certainly damaging AMDs rep especially when its barely beating a Thurban in gaming tests.

 

I wonder when well actually get to know the real story...

 

 

If only these had have matched an i5 2500k - I would have upgraded but it hardly seems worthwhile now.

put the 8150 up against the phenom II 980 (which isnt for sale it au) and the phenom will be faster in most games then 2500k will be ~30-50% faster in most games if there isnt a gpu bottleneck and this gap only gets larger with overclocking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So your saying that a Phenom II 980 will beat a 2500k? I cant find any benchmarks to support that.

 

But that's not the point the 8150 should have matched or beaten the 2500k not occasionally loose to a 1100T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So your saying that a Phenom II 980 will beat a 2500k? I cant find any benchmarks to support that.

 

But that's not the point the 8150 should have matched or beaten the 2500k not occasionally loose to a 1100T

Did you read the guru3d review. Did anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So your saying that a Phenom II 980 will beat a 2500k? I cant find any benchmarks to support that.

 

But that's not the point the 8150 should have matched or beaten the 2500k not occasionally loose to a 1100T

haha no

amd 980 beats 8150 in most games as they lack the capability to utilise more than 4 threads

then 2500k is ~30-50% faster again than the 980 in those games

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Dasa - yeah I was gonna say that doesnt sound right at all....

 

@sceptrecore Yeah its a good summation of where they were headed but the single threaded performance should have been a lot better in my opinion. At least besting thurban by a decent proportion but it just doesn't. In threaded applications its not that much faster than thurban either considering that thurban is considerably cheaper.

 

If they could boost each cores performance and lower the power usage then this would have been a fantastic CPU but in its current state its a bit of a Fermi

Edited by UberPenguin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As per my post in another thread:

 

I was going to get a Bulldozer or two for review in a few days, but I 'm not sure I see the point now. On top of everyone and his dog having reviewed the thing... if performance was ambiguous enough I could investigate where it does excel, maybe get some insight into the architecture and it's future directions but honestly, and I know a lot of you disagree with me, I just think it's sufficiently unimpressive as compared to Phenom II as for there to be nothing to see.

 

However there may be some value for AMD fans or those curious - can you folks think of anything you'd like investigated such as simulated Opteron performance (think of it as a reacharound and penance for my rather harsh clarion calls about BD)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will try and think of something proper, as benchmarks only show 1 side of the story

 

Though, thi would be cool if it were possible. Going from my Athlon 64 X2 to my Phenom II X4 yielded not performance boosts in many things back then (I was running XP and graphics card was bottlenecking), but it felt a lot faster due to the extra cores, in everyday tasks

 

I know that kind of thing is hard to quantify, but I'd love to know if possible does and 8-core Bulldozer chip "feel" faster than a 4-core Phenom II chip?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So your saying that a Phenom II 980 will beat a 2500k? I cant find any benchmarks to support that.

 

But that's not the point the 8150 should have matched or beaten the 2500k not occasionally loose to a 1100T

Did you read the guru3d review. Did anyone?

 

they have a AMD FX 8150 - 8120 - 6100 and 4100 performance review up now

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150-...ormance-review/

giving there reviews a better look

 

edit

looks like a good review

only 2 games tested but they did them well and the two they chose are good as they have some level of multithreading beyond 4 cores unfortunately the games are still not making very good use of more than 3-5 cores

the cpu usage graph can be a little misleading as if you disable say 4-5 threads then the cpu % will increase on the other cores and the fps may only change by ~0-5%

Edited by Dasa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the 95w iteration of the 8120 might be worth a look its essentially the same as the 8150 but the wattage is a lot lower so I wonder how much it would draw at 8150 clocks and beyond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will try and think of something proper, as benchmarks only show 1 side of the story

 

Though, thi would be cool if it were possible. Going from my Athlon 64 X2 to my Phenom II X4 yielded not performance boosts in many things back then (I was running XP and graphics card was bottlenecking), but it felt a lot faster due to the extra cores, in everyday tasks

 

I know that kind of thing is hard to quantify, but I'd love to know if possible does and 8-core Bulldozer chip "feel" faster than a 4-core Phenom II chip?

Yeah that's very true - the gonzo-journalist style feel of a chip in a computer is very important. Albeit from what I understand the anaemic single-threaded performance could make this a negative rather than a positive, either way it's important 'what is a Bulldozer like to live with'?

 

 

the 95w iteration of the 8120 might be worth a look its essentially the same as the 8150 but the wattage is a lot lower so I wonder how much it would draw at 8150 clocks and beyond

I'd imagine it's just a matter of silicon binning - so the presumably inferior FX-8120 silicon would draw more power at a given speed. But still, might be worth looking into eh. Edited by philo-sofa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, the FX-4100 isn't much of an improvement over current Phenom II X4s especially the Black Editions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine sandybridge cores in a bulldozer config - impossible I know but THAT would be some real performance.

Apples and Oranges. It probably wouldn't work very well at all.

 

I have this feeling like AMD under-specked it with the latency and other performance targets because maybe simulations were showing them something else. Probably because of fixed estimations that didn't quite meet the mark. Like the process.

 

 

So your saying that a Phenom II 980 will beat a 2500k? I cant find any benchmarks to support that.

 

But that's not the point the 8150 should have matched or beaten the 2500k not occasionally loose to a 1100T

Did you read the guru3d review. Did anyone?

 

they have a AMD FX 8150 - 8120 - 6100 and 4100 performance review up now

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150-...ormance-review/

giving there reviews a better look

 

edit

looks like a good review

only 2 games tested but they did them well and the two they chose are good as they have some level of multithreading beyond 4 cores unfortunately the games are still not making very good use of more than 3-5 cores

the cpu usage graph can be a little misleading as if you disable say 4-5 threads then the cpu % will increase on the other cores and the fps may only change by ~0-5%

 

When you think of the eight core, six core, and quad core chips as quad, tri, and dual... then the results are quite impressive. After all these are cut down cores working together. I was hoping for more though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the feeling that they were having serious trouble getting the estimated performance figures and decided that they would just have to release something, ANYTHING and released this CPU despite not being properly finished or optimised.

 

At least I hope that's the case because that means that its fixable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you think of the eight core, six core, and quad core chips as quad, tri, and dual... then the results are quite impressive. After all these are cut down cores working together. I was hoping for more though.

yer while it doesnt look like much now if games do progress so that the majority of new games make good use of 8 threads in 2 years time it may be a bit like the q6600 and be a chip that just keeps on chugging for those of us who dont upgrade often

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is that it isnt that good now. If threading does become the way of the future (and I think it is) then Bulldozer may be the beast that we all hoped for but can we all really see games being properly threaded in the near future? What with consoles still being the lead development platform (or at least developed for) until at least 2013 - games are being announced for that year on the current platforms.

 

The problem is that this doesn't match intel now. That just means that even more systems are going to jump ship to Intel and give amd less of a chance to still be around when their strategy actually does come out on top (if indeed it will)

Edited by UberPenguin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well just done some research and there was 1 year 1 month and 12 days between Phenom and Phenom II. So if we see the same turn around here then pencil in early December 2012 in the calendar. Not say ing it will be a repeat, but thats how long it took them to turn fail into success last time.

 

Of course to go from the terrible stuff up phemon B2 to the fixed up phenom B3 took 4 moths 8 days. So maybe AMD will give us some love for valentines day next year.

 

 

and in terms of what I'd like to see from a bd review. Grab k10stats (if it works on bd) drop voltages, pump the stock and turbo clocks as far as they will go on stock clocks and see where everything really falls on power consumption.

 

From my perspective if power consumption was more reasonable and the clocks were around 4.4ghz stock then it would have been a damn nice chip. So maybe they can do a phenom B2/B3 fix and have us something nice in 4 months. Or maybe the problems are deeper and call for a more phenom to phenom II fix and the time required to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×