Would you purchase a Bulldozer if the prices were $100-150?

Would you buy a Bulldozer for $100-150?

  • Yes - an absolute must based on performance

    Votes: 102 47.4%

  • No - Not even at that price point

    Votes: 113 52.6%
  • Total voters
    215
No. I wouldn't. Now I just bought a 95W Thuban for 120usd off eBay for my only remaining AMD setup - a mITX box that needs a serious CPU boost.
 
Yes...if I currently had no system at all and didn't need a blazing fast benchmark leader

**Yes- but it not an 'absolute must' like the poll option says
 
I would maybe buy a 4100 and OC the shit out of it. But I wouldn't pay more than $70 for it.
 
At that price point it would deliver a decent performance that could be clocked up and undercut Sandy. AMD could definitely help themselves by doing this.
 
I wouldn't touch a Bulldozer for over $100 at its current power consumption level. AMD talked a big game about power consumption and performance per watt, then managed to release a chip that uses double the power of chips that outperform it :eek:
 
munkle said:
No, too much power consumption.
Click to expand...

If it weren't for that I'd consider one for an HTPC build. I'd like that many cores to help me with encoding as I've got a rather large library of DVD's and Blu-Ray's to deal with.
 
For powerpoint and web browsing, maybe.
What if I needed to play a game of spider solitaire? I dont think I'd risk having a weak CPU with the power requirements of a microwave oven.

Save a hundred bucks now but screw your energy bill and the environment later?
No thanks.
 
Dan_D said:
If it weren't for that I'd consider one for an HTPC build. I'd like that many cores to help me with encoding as I've got a rather large library of DVD's and Blu-Ray's to deal with.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't quicksync take away the advantage of the extra cores?
 
Sure with a mild oc because of power consumption. It's the performance vs cost that really gets you at a price range of $100-150.
 
munkle said:
No, too much power consumption.
Click to expand...

Agreed, that is a really big deal and those power consumption numbers are effin ridiculous. I think AMD might be in real trouble here. They haven't even been able to get the best of their cheap desktop APU's to market. Not concern trolling at all as I am completely brand agnostic but I am actually a bit afraid for them going forward.

I can't see myself buying an AMD chip for several years now. It's low-end SB for me and then Ivy.
 
I'll tell you what... If Microcenter sells 8120 and 8150 for $169 and $199 respectively ($100~150 aint never gonna happen:eek:), I'm probably gonna jump on it.... It would be nice to have something to thinker with. The i7-870 I got now, is just too "borring"...;)
 
beto said:
Agreed, that is a really big deal and those power consumption numbers are effin ridiculous. I think AMD might be in real trouble here. They haven't even been able to get the best of their cheap desktop APU's to market. Not concern trolling at all as I am completely brand agnostic but I am actually a bit afraid for them going forward.

I can't see myself buying an AMD chip for several years now. It's low-end SB for me and then Ivy.
Click to expand...

I agree. This is actually that bad. There is not a single good reason to buy a BD over Intel's offering, and I am an AMD fanboy.

This is a huge setback and I am afraid AMD won't be able to recover. This architecture they spent 7 years working on was clearly a step in the wrong direction.

With Ivy Bridge's improvements as well as 22nm tri-gate tech, the gap will widen even more.

What's funny, the one bright spot AMD has which is the APUs, at this point I am not so sure Trinity will actually be better than Llano for mobile OEMs.
 
Sure it's fun to tinker with stuff, I'd play with a bulldozer if someone gave it to me or I got it super cheap, but in all seriousness, most people purchase stuff to last awhile and want their money's worth. This just isn't it. :(
 
sirmo said:
I agree. This is actually that bad. There is not a single good reason to buy a BD over Intel's offering, and I am an AMD fanboy.

This is a huge setback and I am afraid AMD won't be able to recover. This architecture they spent 7 years working on was clearly a step in the wrong direction.

With Ivy Bridge's improvements as well as 22nm tri-gate tech, the gap will widen even more.
Click to expand...

My thinking exactly.

What's funny, the one bright spot AMD has which is the APUs, at this point I am not so sure Trinity will actually be better than Llano for mobile OEMs.
Click to expand...

I don't know obviously but I would think that AMD had better hope to God that isn't the case. They really need to keep their foot in the door somewhere.
 
Sure, since it's half the price of 2500k which is what I think they intended for it to compete with, but it sure fell short.

But you'd have to be high if you think AMD would cannibalize their Thuban sales. Actually, I have no idea what they're going to do, except shit their pants.
 
Well according to Anand FX-8150/20 have ~2 billion transistors, twice as much as thuban even.

I wonder what AMD engineers were thinking designing this chip. "Hey performance sucks, let's keep adding cache until we run out of transistor real estate". WTF AMD!

I doubt they can even afford to drop the price much without severely impacting their margins. And since they no longer own their fabs, they're probably just better of keeping the prices high, and sell what they can.
 
sirmo said:
What's funny, the one bright spot AMD has which is the APUs, at this point I am not so sure Trinity will actually be better than Llano for mobile OEMs.
Click to expand...

What worries me is that obviously reviewers had the chips and did tests for the last week.
I haven't seen anything to indicate that the high voltage is a defect. :(

So you may be right... but Trinity is supposed to have Northern Islands based GPU as apart of the package versus Llano's Evergreen.
 
Yossarian22 said:
Sure, since it's half the price of 2500k which is what I think they intended for it to compete with, but it sure fell short.

But you'd have to be high if you think AMD would cannibalize their Thuban sales. Actually, I have no idea what they're going to do, except shit their pants.
Click to expand...

Exactly, Thuban hands this proc it's ass and evens up with it in gaming. WTFF
 
I was just wondering to my self if I'd be even willing to go the AM3+ route if BD was FREE!! but I couldn't even answer that with a confident yes. The efficiency is just abysmal.
 
i think you guys are over reacing just a bit

Your saying the fx 8150 @ $150 isn't worth it ?

look at toms


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-15.html


in the majority of benchmarks it trades blows with the i7 2600 and i5 2500


content creation benchmarks

Total 6 benchmarks

its faster than the i5 2500k in 5 of these

its faster than the i7 2600 in 1 of these

productivty

Total 7

its faster than the i5 2500k in 2

It comes in last in 4 of the tests , beating just the x6 in some

media encoding

total 3

faster than the i5 2500k in 2 of the tests

comes in last once




in the games its a mixed bag , the thing however is that i'm not really interested in how the cpu performs because i'm an actual gamer and i will be pushing my gpu to the max at 5760x1080p and the game tests show that as you ramp up the features all the cpus become gpu limited.


I certianly think the fx 8150 is worth the $150 . Its not even a bad chip at around $220 providing you have a mobo that works with it.
 
@eastmen problem is overclocking, with BD you need like 200+ watts when you overclock which means you need a more expensive PSU and probably a more expensive motherboard. Not to mention extra heat and power usage you'll have.

It's the power efficiency that kills it for me.

2500k + 1155 is the pinnacle of value right now, and BD doesn't even come close. Even if it was $150.
 
sirmo said:
@eastmen problem is overclocking, with BD you need like 200+ watts when you overclock which means you need a more expensive PSU and probably a more expensive motherboard. Not to mention extra heat and power usage you'll have.

It's the power efficiency that kills it for me.

2500k + 1155 is the pinnacle of value right now, and BD doesn't even come close. Even if it was $150.
Click to expand...

Despite the lackluster performance (especially single threaded) at the suggested price point, I am curious what happens when you disable every core in a module, so all four modules have their own L2 and I'm curious to see how far a good radiator and water block takes you.

Actually, it's a bit exciting. Overclocking is [H]ard, c'mon... :D
 
sirmo said:
@eastmen problem is overclocking, with BD you need like 200+ watts when you overclock which means you need a more expensive PSU and probably a more expensive motherboard. Not to mention extra heat and power usage you'll have.

It's the power efficiency that kills it for me.

2500k + 1155 is the pinnacle of value right now, and BD doesn't even come close. Even if it was $150.
Click to expand...

Right , I can get that . I even say it but its not a total fail like some are making it out to be.


Look at me , I have a am3+ mobo and a 1090T . So the 1090T overclocked already uses power almost the same as the bulldozers. But bulldozer will give me i7 2600k in the few things i actually use consistantly that would pin the cpu at crazy clocks.

Most of the time i' mgoing to be chilling on my desktop posting here and other places and it seems like it will use less power than my current x6 and only about 17 w more than sandy bridge.

For the same performance in premier i'd need to buy an i7 2600k for $300 + a $100 mobo. So i'm looking at $400. I might be able to wait a few days and grab bulldozer at $250. So i'm looking at $150 in savings. Its going to take alot of days rendering video or playing games to eat up that savings in power costs.
 
@eastman

If you have the mobo and PSU already that will take it, sure.

I will keep an eye out. One thing I am hopeful about is that there is something seriously wrong with GloFlos fab process (which Llano sort of shows). Also this cache thrashing issue, maybe that can be fixed with a Bios or a stepping, even a driver.

Maybe those can be fixed, but it's doubtful. I will keep an eye out at least, because I really don't care much for Intel.
 
No, i got a 1090T last month. Even if i hadn't, dropping the prices of Bulldozer would mean that the Thubans would drop even more and i wouldn't need to change mobo and RAM for a Thuban. BD simply isn't worth it to change mobo and RAM and even if you are already on AM3+ board, getting a 1090T makes more sense. You can use the spare money to buy something else.

It's probably the worst debacle of AMD till now.
 
sirmo said:
@eastman

If you have the mobo and PSU already that will take it, sure.

I will keep an eye out. One thing I am hopeful about is that there is something seriously wrong with GloFlos fab process (which Llano sort of shows). Also this cache thrashing issue, maybe that can be fixed with a Bios or a stepping, even a driver.

Maybe those can be fixed, but it's doubtful. I will keep an eye out at least, because I really don't care much for Intel.
Click to expand...

all i'm saying is that they are in a better postion than they were with Deneb and Thuban.

The fx 8150 competes in more programs than the x4 and x6 did against the sandy bridge chips .

I think the power issue is due to the process at GF and i think it will get better as they make more chips.

I might grab one because as I said , i got a buyer for my 1090t so i will only be spending about $100 on the upgrade.

I certianly wouldn't buy it if i didn't have a mobo capable of running it. I would have gone with an i7 2600 for sure.

I also bet in a week or so priceso n these will drop
 
eastmen said:
all i'm saying is that they are in a better postion than they were with Deneb and Thuban.

The fx 8150 competes in more programs than the x4 and x6 did against the sandy bridge chips .
Click to expand...

Interesting point, but at what cost? More than twice the transistor count, and less power efficiency under load than Thuban.

I really hope they fix it, I am rooting for AMD, but I can't say I am optimistic. I didn't expect it to beat the 2600k, or even 2500k but I did expect it to be more power efficient than Thuban. Even Thuban would be more power efficient if they just die shrunk it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top