Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The AMD FX 8150 is sold out everywhere. I guess that there are allot of people in denial out there.
The AMD FX 8150 is sold out everywhere. I guess that there are allot of people in denial out there.
Ok, what is going on here. Why is the FX-8150 faster than the i7 2600k in this Handbrake 0.9.5 benchmark:
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1741/9/
and yet loosing to the i7 2600k in the HardOCP Handbrake 0.9.5 benchmark?
I really want to understand situation. After reading about a dozen reviews of Bulldozer, I’m becoming increasingly convinced that something very strange is going on. Either the bios revisions have some serious tuning issues, or new Windows drivers need to be released for the Bulldozer CPU/graphics cards to work properly with Bulldozer.
Either way, I’m reserving judgement on the viability of Bulldozer until I’ve seen a couple of bios updates/patches for Windows applications. If it sucks, that's fine, but I sincerely believe there's some serious additional performance gains to be had with firmware/driver/patch updates. Bulldozer is such a completely different architecture, it's inevitable that windows isn't feeding it properly. I realize everybody is completely past the point of patience with this CPU, but every new piece of silicon requires some driver tuning/firmware tweaks in order to show it's true performance potential. I suspect the AMD Zambezei chips will require this even more than we're used to. Only a couple of bios/driver/patch updates will give us the complete picture here.
Architecture discussions and theoretical capabilities are all interesting, but outside of the academic arena, the important practical features are performance, purchase cost, and operating cost (power consumption). This consumer says, "Bah, humbug!" Bulldozer is not worth the price. It's Microsoft's fault? It's a BIOS fault? It's the fault of game coders? It's Global Foundry's fault? It's a CPU that at this time does not perform very well as compared to it's main competitor's top models and even compared to it's own manufacturer's previous generation. For me to seriously consider a new CPU, it must have x performance under y conditions, consume no more than q kWh power, and cost no more than b dollars. Cores/threads/manufacturing process - none of that matters when I compare the contents of my wallet to what I need to accomplish with a hardware component. It's performance, price, and power. Oh, someone else DOES make the CPU that meets factors x, y, q, and b.If you consider it as a Quad core with 8 treads does it look so bad?
If AMD can't make a design that accommodates current software, current manufacturing processes available to them, and current competition, that's their fault.
The AMD FX 8150 is sold out everywhere. I guess that there are allot of people in denial out there.
As now everyone thinks its a 8 core their expectations are off. If you consider it as a Quad core with 8 treads does it look so bad?
Let me elaborate. I do not disparage AMD's forward thinking and attempt to pack more into the Bulldozer design than what we can utilize today. Great! But if a new item, whether an automobile, a kitchen applicance, a computer component, or what have you, has performance problems for the time and place at which it is released, then it misses the mark. So, kudos for boldness and forward thinking; disappointment for failure to meet demands of the present market.You say that now but we will be stuck and progress has halted if it's not there, then why develop? You can only push things so far in till you can't push it anymore? Only now since Quads are more mainstream that games are now taking advantage of them with 4 threads. If your method had merit we might never of bothered with dual or quad cores and will be stuck with single core processors and the limit of technology.
Let me elaborate. I do not disparage AMD's forward thinking and attempt to pack more into the Bulldozer design than what we can utilize today. Great! But if a new item, whether an automobile, a kitchen applicance, a computer component, or what have you, has performance problems for the time and place at which it is released, then it misses the mark. So, kudos for boldness and forward thinking; disappointment for failure to meet demands of the present market.
Research, development, and risk are part of any successful tech company's endeavors, but releasing a product to buyers before the results of the R&D are not properly applied just begs for disaster. AMD can think ahead and be as bold as they wish, but they can't expect the paying public to be the last phase of their R&D. That's fine for beta software or CPU engineering samples, but not mass sales.
Sometimes paying more for less is the best choice for inner peace, perfect Zen and happiness. Just ask anyone who has bought an Apple Macintosh, they will tell you. Same thing with these new AMD FX chips. I mean, they come in nice metallic boxes and all that, so why not?
code names should be the names of every bridge thats collapsed.
Tacoma Narrows
MacArthur Maze
and my favorite
Mianus River (thats real)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bridge_failures
Not ideal but you can get an extra 20% in single treaded applications by disabling alternative cores. So windows 8 performance improvement does seem to be in line with what is said. However, it’s done differently. Windows 8 overloads as many of the first cores and modules as possible and in turn doing this will allow Bulldozer/sandy to turbo more often and for far longer. From the benches in Windows 7 the CPU never really uses turbo as it assigns work treads to each core and turbo only kicks in once CPU’s are parked/turned off. You can disable each half of the Bulldozer core and get 20% extra single threaded performance but then multi-tasking suffers somewhat as the other cores are no longer working. But this method also has merit. But disabling half of them you are reducing power consumption dramatically and allowing even higher overclocks while attaining 20% single treaded performance.http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums...ew-(4)-!exclusive!-Excuse-for-1-Threaded-Perf
DGLee is onto something. Asus has even given him a new BIOS to try out. Disabling 4 core modules, in some cases, gives +20% performance.
He also thinks that if you have Windows recognize the cores in odd and even order(cores 0,2,4,6, then 1,3,5,7) it will be faster, but in current form, the cores are read in order. 1-8.
All the reviews are using 1333/1600MHz as it is compairable to the Core I5/7 with 1600MHz. Personally i don't think the extra bandwith is going to make much of a diffrence maybe 2~5%.
Pros: went to the guru in 3D, hardware reviews, processors and got a very thorough comparison of all the BD processors as compared to the Intel X980, the 2600K and the 2500k. The 8120 beat the I5 2500k in almost all the benchmarks. For an equivalent price. Considering the features and all, I immediately ordered an FX 8120 from the Egg as this processor seems to give the most bang for the buck. Right now it is giving superior performance and as multi threaded apps become more popular, this processor will come into its own.
Cons: None yet
Other Thoughts: Bought a Gigabyte 970 motherboard with this processor.
That would be like running a i7 920 with the RAM at 800mhz speeds when comparing it to a C2Q chip on a DDR2 motherboard "so the RAM is at the same speed"
I7 isn't designed for 800 MHz speeds. BD isn't designed for DDR3-1333 speeds.
Yeah, it only may be 2% - 5% performance, but it's still not running the chip as designed.
But that's besides the point.Memory speed would only matter if the Bulldozer CPU's would be bandwidth starved. And a CPU is only then bandwidth starved when it has high IPC count (Instruction Per Clock count)m which clearly isn't the case for Bulldozer
bulldozer is bandwidth starved according to civilization 5.
assuming the test was repeatable the min fps jumped from 20 to 40fps using 2000mhz memory and proper overclocking not just multi over clocking.
thats a pretty big jump especially for min fps
bulldozer isnt starved in every application but thats a good example of what happens when a cpu is starved.
Neither is it the case for the Pentium 4 and yet it was one of the most bandwidth hungry processors to date with its high clock speeds, long pipelines, and lower IPC so i fail to see where high IPC has anything to do with it.
What's with the
"DO NOT BUY RAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
On the website? Is it that bad?
Actually the problem isn't memory bandwidth, but cache latency. Both the L2 and L3 caches have horrific latencies. Add to that the fact that because Bulldozer is built on a modular architecture the L3 cache is modular, so unlike Sandy Bridge for example where the L3 cache is a single circuit that is shared by all cores, the L3 in Bulldozer is fragmented and comes in 2MB slices that are interconnected. Why does this matter? Simply because it adds to the latency.
Conclusion: The better benchmarks are obtained with higher clocks because it compensates for the high latency of the caches. The same stuff was going on in the Pentium 4 as well, even do that was a single core architecture.
Noticed that too. Though after reading and watching several reviews Rage appears to be "just" horribly mediocre, so what gives?
Noticed that too. Though after reading and watching several reviews Rage appears to be "just" horribly mediocre, so what gives?
It looks like I will be ripping the new 990FX motherboard out of my case and going to Intel (who I hate). In the future, I will not be buying without reading benchmarks.
AMD garbage ejected yesterday. Sick of waiting, so I did not hold out for Sandy Bridge Extreme or even the i7 2700K.
Found interesting article about the inside crap going on at AMD (now confirmed by the result):
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2011/6/24/amd-insiders-speak-out-bapco-exit-is-an-excuse-for-poor-bulldozer-performance.aspx
Basically AMD marketing and management screwing AMD customers through deceit and AMD engineers not given the resources to make good high performance CPUs. Not loyality friendly actions.
If they could've done it they would have, that's just common sense. So they didn't means they can't right now, but they need to make some money so they had to release it I'm guessing. It's not dead in the water, it's just not right for everyone and it's not up to everyone's expectations. Welcome to the Internet where we all expect more than we get regularly. I mean everyone seems to think AMD did this on purpose just to piss us off. They didn't make it this time, so they'll sell what they can and try again.
Answer to Bulldozer blues maybe?
http://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/comments/ld9f8/build_ready_build_suggestion_for_amd_fans_llano/
Anyone going to test BD with the windows 8 beta?