AMD Bulldozer / FX-8150 Desktop Performance Review @ [H]ardOCP

The truth is this is exactly the chip I want it seems. I do tons of shit in parallel and couldn't care less about overall peak speed in one thing. My gaming just has to be smooth not amazing, and for what I do (tons of multitasking/virtual machines/multiple game clients) this seems to be the best choice. Cores, cores, cores.

Then why not get the cheapest Intel 9xx chip with 6 cores/12 threads and triple channel memory? I do not see the logic unless it's cost and then the lower priced 2600K has just as many threads?
 
Last edited:
I am about to build a machine and was considering 2600 or BD. I think I will go with BD. I play multiple accounts at once in Eve Online and WoW (8 at once in Eve, 10 at once in WoW). The fact that BD has 8 physical cores is great. I never liked assigning an instance of Eve or WoW to a hyperthreaded "core" on my i7.

I ran 8 WoWs on my p2 x6 and it handled it great. I can only surmise a BD will be even better, as such I will choose a BD over the 2600 at this point.

Yes it is disspointing and quite embarassing that my p2 x6 will outperform my (future) BD, but those are one-off scenarios I could care less about.
 
Then why not get the cheapest Intel 9xx chip with 6 cores/12 threads and triple channel memory? I do not see the logic unless it's cost and then the lower priced 2600K has just as many threads?

Well cost always matters, but this is my question. All of these benchmarks are running only one program at a time, some multi-threaded and some not. That's not how I use my desktop. I wish someone would load up a whole bunch of different apps and benchmark various ones with other things running and then publish that. That's my real world scenario. The only place BD is doing really well are in scenarios that would seem to be close to what I do. Lots of threads or in my case lots of apps.

I'd like to see some kind of equivalent of this video, since it's marketing and you can doubt its validity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdPi4GPEI74
 
Last edited:
Except for ones like this (posted by "Richbo"):

Our company makes cellular image analysis instrumentation and software that takes advantage of the multi-threading capabilities of multi-core CPUs. Since our analysis software runs hundreds of parallel image analysis algorithms that are heavily multi-threaded the CPU is generally maxed out. We’ve been looking for a low cost alternative solution for our customers to replace their current expensive dual-slot Xeon CPU workstations. In early testing with our software my current configuration of a single non-overclocked FX-8150 (ASRock 990FX Extreme 4 motherboard) running Windows 7 64-bit is outperforming our dual-quad core Xeon E5600 workstations by as much as 27%. What makes this even more impressive is that our software code is optimized to use the Intel performance primitives. The results are encouraging considering the BIOS, C++ compilers and Windows scheduler haven’t yet been optimized for the Bulldozer architecture. Once the software catches up this chip should be even more amazing.

Source: http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103960

That is impossible; repeat after me, IMPOSSIBLE.

2x4 core Westmere vs. a single 8 core FX8150.

8 full fledged Westmere cores vs. 8 half width FX cores.

INT => 24 ALUs for Westmere vs. 16 for FX.
FP => 16 FPU 128bit units vs. 8 128bit units ( same throughput as 16 if you use FMA )

The comparison doesn't take into account the fact that the Xeons have HT, thus increasing execution unit utilization, a far better cache subsystem and last but not least 2x the memory BW.

Something has to be wrong for FX to outperfom the dual 4 core Westmere system. It is simply a matter of resources. 8 mules will not pull 2 elephants.
 
That is impossible; repeat after me, IMPOSSIBLE.

2x4 core Westmere vs. a single 8 core FX8150.

8 full fledged Westmere cores vs. 8 half width FX cores.

INT => 24 ALUs for Westmere vs. 16 for FX.
FP => 16 FPU 128bit units vs. 8 128bit units ( same throughput as 16 if you use FMA )

The comparison doesn't take into account the fact that the Xeons have HT, thus increasing execution unit utilization, a far better cache subsystem and last but not least 2x the memory BW.

Something has to be wrong for FX to outperfom the dual 4 core Westmere system. It is simply a matter of resources. 8 mules will not pull 2 elephants.

It's not entirely impossible. You seem very eager to over-analyze a Newegg comment, but if you want to do that you missed a few things.

He never said which E5600 series CPU he was using. The MAJORITY of those that I encounter out there are clocked near 2Ghz. The faster ones are just too expensive and most people don't order those as they see it as doubling the cost of the workstation or server for only a couple hundred mhz gain on each core. That poster was concerned about price, so I would doubt he's using the fastest E5600s available.

Also the dual E5600 system is a NUMA system, the FX 8150 is not. If his application is not NUMA aware and he left it on, that's going to hurt performance a good bit. The lower end E5600s all have slower QPI links which is going to hurt it even more, and they are most likely running DDR3 800 or 1033. The 8150 system does not have to worry about any of this.

Between clock speed and memory bandwidth and latency its entirely possible that his custom application does perform better on a single 8150. There are many more variables to consider than just adding up some specs and saying it's IMPOSSIBLE. It's a fucking newegg comment that says nothing more than "hey this thing worked better in our very specific application than our Xeon workstations!". No one is saying that a single Bulldozer is always better than dual Nehalems.
 
It's not entirely impossible. You seem very eager to over-analyze a Newegg comment, but if you want to do that you missed a few things.

He never said which E5600 series CPU he was using. The MAJORITY of those that I encounter out there are clocked near 2Ghz. The faster ones are just too expensive and most people don't order those as they see it as doubling the cost of the workstation or server for only a couple hundred mhz gain on each core. That poster was concerned about price, so I would doubt he's using the fastest E5600s available.

Also the dual E5600 system is a NUMA system, the FX 8150 is not. If his application is not NUMA aware and he left it on, that's going to hurt performance a good bit. The lower end E5600s all have slower QPI links which is going to hurt it even more, and they are most likely running DDR3 800 or 1033. The 8150 system does not have to worry about any of this.

Between clock speed and memory bandwidth and latency its entirely possible that his custom application does perform better on a single 8150. There are many more variables to consider than just adding up some specs and saying it's IMPOSSIBLE. It's a fucking newegg comment that says nothing more than "hey this thing worked better in our very specific application than our Xeon workstations!". No one is saying that a single Bulldozer is always better than dual Nehalems.

Finally someone with some common sense ;)
 
Primarily I am looking for the chip that could do the fastest code compiles from visual studio.

Would it be better to go with a BD and 8 cores or a higher clocked 2500k?

Haven't had much experience comparing CPUs based on compile times but figured it could be important for programmers.
 
Primarily I am looking for the chip that could do the fastest code compiles from visual studio.

Would it be better to go with a BD and 8 cores or a higher clocked 2500k?

Haven't had much experience comparing CPUs based on compile times but figured it could be important for programmers.
For compiling, it may be worth it to go up to the i7 2600K:

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4955/41699.png
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/842-15/compilation-visual-studio-mingw-gcc.html
 
@Slee

Thanks, looks like I might have to splurge for an i7. Just hope the RAM I recently picked up will behave with it.
 
Wow. Words cannot describe how disappointed I am to be seeing this.

Some 600W for that barely 5 GHz overclock. Well, if I want a new room heater at least I know where to look. Then again, I'd probably get like 2 to 4x the performance going with SB clocked at like 8 GHz and it would still probably use less energy.

Thankfully AMD has it's video card division to count on for the income, because it's pretty clear that BD won't bring in much.
 
im not sure but dont hold this on me if im wrong, but i believe that the BD is not multi-threaded, and i know the IPC is low but for an architecture that is brand new, i dont think they did too bad, i really wished they had done more work on it and release it a little later on this year, but hey IPC doesnt hinder gaming much, but i do hope in the future to see BD and its up coming bothers/sisters do way better in the bench marks,
BUT- one thing is certain, YOU DONT HAVE TO BUY A NEW MOBO IF YOU HAVE ONE THAT SUPPORTS BD! unlink intel... AMD actually have a processor that can be used on mother boards that were out BEFORE it was out. and i just saw intel launched a 6 core sandy bridge processor that is $599 AND you have to buy a NEW MOBO FOR IT... another what 300-4000 or more?! fuck that noise. id in the ned have a processor that is 300 and some change that is in a way "backwards compatable" with mother boards. than but 900$ worth of new shit. and for what 2 more cores than the first sandy bridge? thanks intel but ill pass on that. im sure intel fanboys are drooling over it and making love to thier new CPU and MOBO right now.. RIGHT IN THE DISC TRAY! lol. jk intel guys, but im not for either company , im just about rational buying choices and whats good on my wallet.
 
Finally someone with some common sense ;)

I simply can't believe all the hype and bs from these pimple faced nerds here who look at a computer as a hot-rod. I'll take machine that can do more work practically such as Photoshop, Mathematica,, run a compiler and such simultaneously in less time. That is always the REAL test in the business world not necessarily the world of finance capital , but the world in which practical people live and work.None of these jokers care a damn but about a benchmark that is artificial and their stupid violence-ridden, patriotic , fascist shoot-em-up games. Mindless drones in my book.
 
First, I'm not pimply faced. Second, you clearly missed the point of this site.
There's the door –——>
 
I simply can't believe all the hype and bs from these pimple faced nerds here who look at a computer as a hot-rod. I'll take machine that can do more work practically such as Photoshop, Mathematica,, run a compiler and such simultaneously in less time. That is always the REAL test in the business world not necessarily the world of finance capital , but the world in which practical people live and work.None of these jokers care a damn but about a benchmark that is artificial and their stupid violence-ridden, patriotic , fascist shoot-em-up games. Mindless drones in my book.

Practical everyday people live and work solely in mathematica and photoshop apparently? Also in the context you provided, "finance capital" is a meaningless mishmash of two words that you thought sounded good together.

I'd bet most business use revolves around Office, CRM, POS, proprietary business software, and HR software. Additionally, almost everything is a web app. Outside of business reporting, I imagine excel is the heaviest piece of software most business users would regard as slowing them down. Most Excel benchmarks have shown the 8150 being pretty subpar even compared to the i2500. More importantly, your business users are generally moneymakers. IT guys complaining about compile times are an expense. Also if you have a heavy solution and aren't using a build server, errr why?

Anyway, go back to raging about something for no reason and misrepresenting the "business world."
 
I really would like to see benchmarks done in parallel. Please don't make me buy this to test it!
 
I had hopes that it would perform better in a server setting, but i suppose even there it's been underwhelming.

http://arstechnica.com/business/new...chmarks-are-here-and-theyre-a-catastrophe.ars

These paragraphs pretty much sum up what AMD should have done....:

For the workloads such as SAP where the performance has scaled, Opteron 6200 still represents an reasonable upgrade for existing 6100 customers—but it leaves us wondering what might have happened if AMD had simply extended its old architecture. Another four cores in a Magny-Cours processor would show close to the same 33 percent gain, and would do so without compromising single-threaded performance.

and...

Not only will Intel be able to extend its lead in the areas that it already wins; it should be able to leapfrog AMD in those tests where it currently trails. Again, one can't help but feel that a hypothetical 16-core Magny-Cours would have been a better option.

/thread and Bulldozer debacle... Piledriver can't come soon enough...
 
AMD yeah they will never be Intel but their CPU is still good value...I have no problems playing games even on my Phenom II 965 and I heard Bulldozer actually performs much faster in Windows 8. Microsoft is still working on a patch for the bulldozer processor which should allow it to address SMT (simultaneously multithreading) support and better harness the power of 8-core processing with AMD's Bulldozer architecture, which is optimized for Windows 8. They recently pulled the windows 7 hotfix since it turned out that two patches are needed.

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/new...ulldozer_patch


AM3+ socket will also support Vishera processor with piledriver processors so AM3+ will still have some life left in it.

http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/i...nch-in-q3-2012
 
why has the review been removed?!

You're right, the link is not valid and the list of suggestions only has the Gameplay Performance review.


Should be back up today minus the text from pages one and two. We had a database failure and lost the content. Only lost the introductory pages, so nothing of any real analytical value is missing.
 
Is it ok to bring food in there? I think were gonna load up and bring our own lunch if it's allowed. More time basking in awesome that way...

AHH ok, I found where it was said there would be food availible there, that fixes that.
 
Last edited:
AMD yeah they will never be Intel but their CPU is still good value...I have no problems playing games even on my Phenom II 965 and I heard Bulldozer actually performs much faster in Windows 8. Microsoft is still working on a patch for the bulldozer processor which should allow it to address SMT (simultaneously multithreading) support and better harness the power of 8-core processing with AMD's Bulldozer architecture, which is optimized for Windows 8. They recently pulled the windows 7 hotfix since it turned out that two patches are needed.

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/new...ulldozer_patch


AM3+ socket will also support Vishera processor with piledriver processors so AM3+ will still have some life left in it.

http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/i...nch-in-q3-2012
Here's a take on the newest Windows 7 patches.
 
Hi,

Could someone tell me, what is the best seting for overclock AMD FX 8150?

Thank you in advance.
 
First, you are best to start a new thread on this subject. Second, we will need to know what your complete computer config is in order to be able to help.
 
Hi,

Thank you for your answer.

Here is the config of my machine:
Asus M5A99x EVO,
AMD FX 8150,
Club 3D GeForce GTX 550 1.5GB DDR3
Cooler Master Silent Pro 850W,
Crucial Ballistix 2x4GB DDR3 PC15000 Elite,
Western Dig Caviar 1TB SATA 3.0 64MB
 
For now, I just installed Win 7 64bit, that's all.
I have not yet changed anything, or services.
 
Until you get better cooling, I would not overclock at all. Once you are ready, ask around to those who have an 8120 or 50 to see what they use. Hope you are enjoying it.
 
I just wanted to thank the AMD team, (sarcasm) as now we all get to enjoy a stagnant market, and all of the joys lack of competition provides!, here's hoping kepler blows away the HD7XXX series!
 
I just wanted to thank the AMD team, (sarcasm) as now we all get to enjoy a stagnant market, and all of the joys lack of competition provides!, here's hoping kepler blows away the HD7XXX series!

We sincerely thank you for your useless hate post.
 
Roll on piledriver let's hope they can improve performance and power consumption a decent bit. Might be worth buying!

Until then I'll roll on with my quad core BD ready set up.
 
I just purchased the FX 8 core, but my next processor sadly, for the first time in 10+ years will be an Intel.
 
I just purchased the FX 8 core, but my next processor sadly, for the first time in 10+ years will be an Intel.

Its a good thing that you have purchased an AMD processor.
Cause it might be their last ones in high end cpus. :D
Maybe in 2013 they won't be doing high end cpus.
 
So based on Trinity 29% compute performance improvement,does that mean that we will have a 990x cpu performance in the high end segment with vishera? :D
 
I plan to use VMWARE on windows and Zen on Linux, is the BullDozer the way to go guys? Or should I jump ship and go with an I7?
 
I plan to use VMWARE on windows and Zen on Linux, is the BullDozer the way to go guys? Or should I jump ship and go with an I7?

Well depends. The I7 say 2500k or 2600 can really only effectively run 4 VM's You can run 8 on the 2600k but the other 4 are slow as piss.

So if you run more than 4 Vm's, The bulldozer makes a good fit.
 
Back
Top