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

wolfman3k5 said:
Damn right!
Click to expand...

;) and I guess the days of bang for the buck is gone now too lets charge more for a false advisement and get away from it 8150 costs 250 when you can get 2500k for about 200 and oh no all the benchmarks are against us but don't worry future os, patches, bios will bump up the benchmarks that we will provide don't worry
 
umcpgrad said:
;) and I guess the days of bang for the buck is gone now too lets charge more for a false advisement and get away from it 8150 costs 250 when you can get 2500k for about 200 and oh no all the benchmarks are against us but don't worry future os, patches, bios will bump up the benchmarks that we will provide don't worry
Click to expand...
umcpgrad said:
because also with win9 it will increase performance by 100%
Click to expand...

I completely agree. But lets be a bit more blunt and "in your face" about this, and maybe all idiots and morons wake up:
- The next guy who claims that BIOS updates will improve Bulldozer's performance deserves 150 lashes. Why? Please head over to Wikipedia and learn the basics about what a BIOS is supposed to do. Or to be more blunt: get a fucking clue - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BIOS
- The next guy who claims that a CPU driver update for Windows from AMD will "fix" Bulldozer's performance issues, deserves 125 lashes. It's a fucking CPU, not a GPU! It doesn't require translation layers (read various API's like DirectX and OpenGL) in order to function properly, so it's performance is not influenced by driver revisions. Also, the thread scheduler is in the Operating System Kernel, not in the CPU driver.
- The next guy who claims that Windows 8 will improve performance on Bulldozer deserves "only" 100 lashes. The thread scheduler is in the Operating System Kernel. Even so, it has been proven time and time again that the thread scheduler can't do miracles on the desktop. Further more, at some point this is irrelevant because the single threaded performance is horrific at best on Bulldozer. So if each individual core is shit, then how do you expect a pile of shit to shine? Get a fucking clue.
- The next guy who claims that Bulldozer is an 8 core CPU deserves "only" 50 lashes. Bulldozer is a 4 core CPU with CMT ( chip-level multithreading ).


And just so that no one can claim that I'm being mean, please check out this review at Guru 3D for the AMD FX 8150, 8120, 6100 and 4100.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150--8120-6100-and-4100-performance-review/
Looks like the rest of the line-up is *SHIT* as well.
 
Last edited:
@firas - interesting read, although it remains to be seen whether their solution will really help performance for the masses.
I wonder if anyone ever thought about disabling some cores and since disabling cores will improve overclockability, let's see how high can it go as tri-core, and how good IPC will be, I think tri-core is the minimum requirement for good gaming.
 
Yoda4561 said:
If there's one application in that whole test that should tell the tale, it's handbrake. That app has about as ideal multicore scaling as you're going to see in the real world, and it's only about 5% faster, than a PII with 75% of the cores and a 400Mhz clockspeed disadvantage.
Click to expand...

Here:

handbrake.jpg


Link: http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1741/9/

It's a very specialized app though and probably the only thing that the FX-8150P does better in.

Otherwise, it looks like an 8 core, 32nm Thuban would have done better in most other cases. :mad:

Edit:

I'm a big skeptical of the Legit Reviews review. It seems to be one of the few that views the 8150p as "competitive", when in most cases, it is inferior (and by a large margin mind you), to the 2500k.
 
wolfman3k5 said:
And just so that no one can claim that I'm being mean, please check out this review at Guru 3D for the AMD FX 8150, 8120, 6100 and 4100.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150--8120-6100-and-4100-performance-review/
Looks like the rest of the line-up is *SHIT* as well.
Click to expand...

Performance looks favorable to me with the FX-8150 outperforming the 2500k and keeping with the 2600k in the larger number of those benches. Only area where the Intel chips were favored much was in the two games they benched Far Cry 2 and Crysis 2 of which neither are a good representation of what performance will be like in upcoming games that are more heavily multithreaded.
 
burningrave101 said:
Performance looks favorable to me with the FX-8150 outperforming the 2500k and keeping with the 2600k in the larger number of those benches. Only area where the Intel chips were favored much was in the two games they benched Far Cry 2 and Crysis 2 of which neither are a good representation of what performance will be like in upcoming games that are more heavily multithreaded.
Click to expand...

Buying a product like this for future performance is stupid at best, idiotic for the most part.
 
burningrave101 said:
Performance looks favorable to me with the FX-8150 outperforming the 2500k and keeping with the 2600k in the larger number of those benches. Only area where the Intel chips were favored much was in the two games they benched Far Cry 2 and Crysis 2 of which neither are a good representation of what performance will be like in upcoming games that are more heavily multithreaded.
Click to expand...

You can get a 2500K for like $100 less than an 8150 though so who cares?
 
wolfman3k5 said:
Buying a product like this for future performance is stupid at best, idiotic for the most part.
Click to expand...

And thinking its performance in current games today isnt more than acceptable, especially when you consider the small indistinguishable beyond benchmarks difference in fps for the majority of games at the resolutions those of us actually play at it is stupid at best, idiotic for the most part to put much emphasis on current generation games.
 
Valshistixol said:
You can get a 2500K for like $100 less than an 8150 though so who cares?
Click to expand...

Because the 8120 can be had for around the same price as the 2500k and is capable of reaching 4.6-5Ghz just like the 8150. You also have to take into account that high end AMD boards are cheaper than Intel counterparts. For example the Asus Crosshair V is $229.99 while the Asus Maximus IV Extreme-Z is $349.99. I also look for AMD to lower the price of the FX line in the next few weeks.
 
burningrave101 said:
And thinking its performance in current games today isnt more than acceptable, especially when you consider the small indistinguishable beyond benchmarks difference in fps for the majority of games at the resolutions those of us actually play at it is stupid at best, idiotic for the most part to put much emphasis on current generation games.
Click to expand...

Yeah, well, realistically speaking, between spending $280 on a FX 8150 and $300 for a Core i7 2600K, I will pick the Core i7. Back in the day of the Athlon and Athlon X2 I used to buy AMD. I was waiting for Bulldozer and even had a ASUS 990FX Sabertooth ready, but I'm not buying it. If it can't perform acceptable today, it won't perform better tomorrow. If all you care about is acceptable performance, then save yourself $80 and buy a 2500K, or save yourself $130 and buy a Phenom II X6 1100T. Heck, the Phenom is a real 6 core CPU, and its performance isn't that bad considering that with a good discount or combo you can get a brand new one for $150. See, I'm not biased towards Intel, I just don't like throwing my money away. I always want to get the best bang for the buck. For most gamers, at this time the Phenom II X6 1100T and the Core i5 2500K offer the best bang for the buck.
 
FX 8120 is a very good processor, and until WE ALL see a honest review of it compared to the 2500k (since they both carry the exact same price of 219.99 on Newegg). That is where people want to spend their money this holiday season.

This GURU 3D review shows it winning in ALOT of tests compared to the 2500k.

What I mean by an honest review is a review like GURU 3D with in depth A MORE IN DPTH LOOK @ GAMING scores, I want to see each system benched with SIngle Card, SLI and Tri SLI. Everything compared, and I mean Metro 2033, BF3, Skyrim, Dirt 3, Crysis 2, Civ 5, and Total War Shogun 2 maybe even RE5, SC2 ,and TF2 for giggles. (Benchmark that shit 11/11/11 and I'll be happy [H]OCP. );)
 
@teleran8

How's guru 3d's review in-depth, it shows no Overclocking benchmarks or power consumption.

Bulldozer is actually not that bad performance wise, when compared to Sandy Bridge in most multithreaded benchmarks. It's when you look at the power efficiency especially when overclocked that you see how superior Sandy Bridge architecture is.

The problem is AMD has dumped ~2 Billion transistors into this thing to get close to Sandy Bridge which accomplishes the same with only 700-800 million transistors, offering much better efficiency.
 
and even in the guru review, its little to no better than the Phenom X6. heck its actually slower in some cases. the 2500k and 2600k can oc to 4.5 with only a relatively small increase in power consumption. Bulldozer 8 core is already using the power of almost two 2500k even when stock. overclocked to 4.5, Bulldozer 8 core power consumption is insane.
 
BD is a complete POS. I know that the 980x and 990x are five times more expensive but look at how at a stock clocked 980x completely dominates a 4.6GHz BD with only half the transistors a much less power. If Intel had to, it could probably sell the 990x for the same price as BD and still make more money since it only uses half the transistors.

AMD has a LONG way to go in CPUs, I'm starting to get the feeling that they are now pretty much out of top-end x86 performance for good. However that may not be a really bad thing with the emphasis on lower power chips for tablets and even laptops these days.
 
burningrave101 said:
Because the 8120 can be had for around the same price as the 2500k and is capable of reaching 4.6-5Ghz just like the 8150. You also have to take into account that high end AMD boards are cheaper than Intel counterparts. For example the Asus Crosshair V is $229.99 while the Asus Maximus IV Extreme-Z is $349.99. I also look for AMD to lower the price of the FX line in the next few weeks.
Click to expand...

LOL You think you need to spend over $200 on a mobo for a good overclock? Enjoy wasting all your money. You also ignore the fact that you can easily get a 2500K for $180 and spend all that money you saved on other shit or a better mobo. You should also take into account that AMD south bridges are garbage compared to intel's.
 
Valshistixol said:
LOL You think you need to spend over $200 on a mobo for a good overclock? Enjoy wasting all your money. You also ignore the fact that you can easily get a 2500K for $180 and spend all that money you saved on other shit or a better mobo. You should also take into account that AMD south bridges are garbage compared to intel's.
Click to expand...

This just underscores the problem with BD. It has no real competitive advantage at any level, not price, not performance, uses more power and costs more to make than anything Intel has out now. It's a complete and utter failure in every way.
 
burningrave101 said:
Performance looks favorable to me with the FX-8150 outperforming the 2500k and keeping with the 2600k in the larger number of those benches. Only area where the Intel chips were favored much was in the two games they benched Far Cry 2 and Crysis 2 of which neither are a good representation of what performance will be like in upcoming games that are more heavily multithreaded.
Click to expand...

lol
 
Valshistixol said:
LOL You think you need to spend over $200 on a mobo for a good overclock? Enjoy wasting all your money. You also ignore the fact that you can easily get a 2500K for $180 and spend all that money you saved on other shit or a better mobo. You should also take into account that AMD south bridges are garbage compared to intel's.
Click to expand...

No actually i said nothing about how much i think you need to spend on a motherboard to get a decent overclock but the fact that AMD's high end boards are the same price as the more mainstream for Intel is a valid point when comparing performance and features for the price. And without a local Microcenter the online price for a 2500k is $205-$220 so no you can't easily get one for $180. I'm sure as soon as prices settle and availability increases that you'll find the FX-8120 for around the same $180 or less at Microcenter.
 
Last edited:
burningrave101 said:
No actually i said nothing about how much i think you need to spend on a motherboard to get a decent overclock but the fact that AMD's high end boards are the same price as the more mainstream for Intel is a valid point when comparing performance and features for the price. And without a local Microcenter the online price for a 2500k is $205-$220 so no you can't easily get one for $180. I'm sure as soon as prices settle and availability increases that you'll find the FX-8120 for around the same $180 or less at a Microcenter near you.
Click to expand...

And the 8120 is slower than the 2500K too.
 
not sure how many people will be left reading this thread. found it pretty hard to wade thru all 28 pages myself. there is a limit to how much anger/resentment/whinging one can read it one sitting without taking a break to 'walk it off'.

think everyone agrees BD is disappointing. personally i wasn't expecting it to 'conquer' SB, tho was expecting performance better than thuban across the board and at less power usage.

a couple of things did get my interest tho.
firstly the quotes of MC prices. wish people would stop quoting these under-inflated prices. MC are the exception not the rule. most people don't live anywhere near these outlets. those that do, congratulations, but the rest of us have to pay closer to full retail.

the second thing, people need to stop espousing the benefits win8 will bring to BD single/multi-threaded performance & reduced power consumption. those improvements are no use to everyone on win7 and will probably remain on win7 for the next few years. despite its reduced hardware requirements, at this stage it's designed for fat fingers on tablet devices.
these specific performance & power usage benefits need to be brought to win7 now.
if MS won't cooperate, AMD need to come to the party with a patch/driver.

personally i bought a Asus AM3+ (CHV) several months ago with a PII555 in as a placeholder. luckily it unlocked (4 cores)and OC'ed to 4GHz stable. unfortunately at this speed it was only on par with my old x38/q6600 rig @ 3.7Ghz.
i've already kicked myself over jumping the gun on AM3+ MB purchase. now i'm in the uncomfortable situation of deciding what to do next.

do i sell up the AMD gear and wait on SB-E/x79 or hang onto the AM3+ MB and wait on a revision or two on the BD core (FX8170? or piledriver which is rumoured to slot into AM3+). i'm really leaning towards dumping my stock as intel is rumoured to have un-gimped the next processor for 2011 socket (no igpu and reintroduced bclk oc'ing).
i'd really like to hang onto my Asus CHV (it is a nice full featured MB after all), but hoping AMD un-fucks themselves with better chip revisions on the 32nm node might be a bit naive.
 
AMD wanted to build a CPU that they could easily scale and modify over time, and that's what they got: modular design, high clock speed, etc.
Guess what? Intel wanted the same thing with the Pentium 4. Intel also got what they wanted but it was a piece of shit and then the Athlon and Athlon X2 happened.

Bottom line: you can't make a CPU that scales on everything from a server to a laptop. Not even from a server to a desktop. AMD made their bones with the enthusiast crowd, and they should have staid with it. There is really no advantage in buying an AMD platform over an Intel platform, except brand loyalty.

And those that claim that you need to spend more for Intel, well it's all crap. Any decent motherboard will run you ~$200. Granted that for Intel there are higher end solution, but any $200 motherboard will do. The FX 8150 os $280 and the 2600K is $315. If $35 justifies the purchase of an AMD chip, along with the pain of having the lesser CPU of the two, then I'm sorry, but it's stupid. Maybe I'm wrong, even do I doubt it, but I fail to see the advantage of buying AMD right now.

AMD could have given us a nice CPU toy to play with, but they didn't. Oh, and has anyone asked the question how they gonna sell this piece of shit to OEMs? Who's gonna want to put this in their sub $1000 box and sell? What OEM will be dumb enough to install a more expensive mobo and power supply just to keep a power hungry CPU running? I guess no one. AMD, you're fucked...
 
wolfman3k5 said:
Bottom line: you can't make a CPU that scales on everything from a server to a laptop. Not even from a server to a desktop.
Click to expand...

What? Both AMD and Intel have used one CPU arch that has scaled from Server to Mobile... Where have you been for the last 6-7 years?

wolfman3k5 said:
AMD made their bones with the enthusiast crowd, and they should have staid with it. There is really no advantage in buying an AMD platform over an Intel platform, except brand loyalty.
Click to expand...

If AMD only catered to the enthusiast segment, they would be back in the red. OEM CPU sales make tons more money than retail. Remember, no enthusiast buys chips in 1K lots.

wolfman3k5 said:
And those that claim that you need to spend more for Intel, well it's all crap. Any decent motherboard will run you ~$200. Granted that for Intel there are higher end solution, but any $200 motherboard will do. The FX 8150 os $280 and the 2600K is $315. If $35 justifies the purchase of an AMD chip, along with the pain of having the lesser CPU of the two, then I'm sorry, but it's stupid. Maybe I'm wrong, even do I doubt it, but I fail to see the advantage of buying AMD right now.

AMD could have given us a nice CPU toy to play with, but they didn't. Oh, and has anyone asked the question how they gonna sell this piece of shit to OEMs? Who's gonna want to put this in their sub $1000 box and sell? What OEM will be dumb enough to install a more expensive mobo and power supply just to keep a power hungry CPU running? I guess no one. AMD, you're fucked...
Click to expand...

No one will put a FX into a system you say? Apparently, CyberPower will... http://www.techpowerup.com/153466/CyberpowerPC-Unveils-Gamer-Scorpius-Gaming-PCs.html
 
JMccovery said:
What? Both AMD and Intel have used one CPU arch that has scaled from Server to Mobile... Where have you been for the last 6-7 years?



If AMD only catered to the enthusiast segment, they would be back in the red. OEM CPU sales make tons more money than retail. Remember, no enthusiast buys chips in 1K lots.



No one will put a FX into a system you say? Apparently, CyberPower will... http://www.techpowerup.com/153466/CyberpowerPC-Unveils-Gamer-Scorpius-Gaming-PCs.html
Click to expand...

You're just taking everything that I've said out of context. Let's do this one more time:
- Intel might use the same names for Desktop and Laptop CPUs, but they are not the exact same CPUs by a long shot. For example Sandy Bridge for laptop, or what they call Core i7 for the laptop has less cache. The i5 for laptop is dual core and has hyper threading.
- AMD wants to scale Bulldozer up and down without effort: no cache size manipulation, no transistor count change, nothing, nada, niet! All they want to do is change the number of modules. That's not gonna happen. That's what I meant. So no, you can't use the exact same CPUs from Server to Laptop.

The bottom line is hat that you knew what I meant but you just wanted the attention. Now that you got the attention, go cry somewhere else that AMD fucked up, and go to bed, you gotta go to work in a couple of hours.

PS: Really? Cyber Power? Since when is Cyber Power an OEM? They claim that they are a Boutique PC Maker, not an OEM. I've specifically said OEM, the kind of PC that you can buy at BestBuy. Like I've said, you just wanted some attention...
 
I have nothing to add constructively to this thread except a line of humour...

Reading the thread reminds me of 'Blast Processing!' for those that remember the term

:D
 
What I'm curious to know is how many more CPU version they have lineup for the AM3+ motherboard before they will upgrade to another version.
 
ASIA911 said:
What I'm curious to know is how many more CPU version they have lineup for the AM3+ motherboard before they will upgrade to another version.
Click to expand...

Supposedly none. As I recall the rumor is that AMD will transition the desktop to the FM1 socket that their APU's use.
 
wolfman3k5 said:
You're just taking everything that I've said out of context. Let's do this one more time:
- Intel might use the same names for Desktop and Laptop CPUs, but they are not the exact same CPUs by a long shot. For example Sandy Bridge for laptop, or what they call Core i7 for the laptop has less cache. The i5 for laptop is dual core and has hyper threading.
Click to expand...

So, besides ancillary features and cache, which are used to determine market positioning, or branding, what is the actual difference?

wolfman3k5 said:
- AMD wants to scale Bulldozer up and down without effort: no cache size manipulation, no transistor count change, nothing, nada, niet! All they want to do is change the number of modules. That's not gonna happen. That's what I meant. So no, you can't use the exact same CPUs from Server to Laptop.
Click to expand...

How do you know that AMD will not change the size of the caches or the number of modules? Currently, they have only ONE Bulldozer design, Orochi, because they don't have the capacity to offer concurrent native dual, quad and hexa core designs along side the octa-core Orochi. Just because they CAN'T currently, doesn't mean they WON'T.

Didn't K10.5 (Stars II) start out as a quad core chip? Guess what happened? Eventually, AMD lopped off two cores and the L3 and increased the L2 to make Regor, a dual-core K10.5 chip.

Tell me where AMD is using the "exact same CPUs from Server to Laptop"? Show me a AM3+ or C32 or G34 laptop, or a AM3+ server

wolfman3k5 said:
PS: Really? Cyber Power? Since when is Cyber Power an OEM? They claim that they are a Boutique PC Maker, not an OEM. I've specifically said OEM, the kind of PC that you can buy at BestBuy. Like I've said, you just wanted some attention...
Click to expand...

The same OEMs that offered Phenom II and Athlon II processors while AMD was getting its head kicked in by Nehalem, Westmere and Sandy Bridge, will also offer FX chips in their machines. OEMs don't really care about performance nor power, as long as they can stock places like Best Buy with their machines and they sell, they will keep buying chips from AMD.

wolfman3k5 said:
The bottom line is hat that you knew what I meant but you just wanted the attention. Now that you got the attention, go cry somewhere else that AMD fucked up, and go to bed, you gotta go to work in a couple of hours.
Click to expand...

Just looking for attention? Really? Nice one... :rolleyes:

I know AMD blew it, they blew it big time, really, besides K7 and K8, when haven't they messed up?

I am disappointed in Bulldozer also, but I've seen AMD at a much worse period of time, and I'm not going to go around all pissed that AMD has somehow 'let down the enthusiast community'.

Some people take things like this a bit too seriously.
 
Dan_D said:
Supposedly none. As I recall the rumor is that AMD will transition the desktop to the FM1 socket that their APU's use.
Click to expand...

Well if that's true that will piss a hell lot of AMD users into another round. This reason I upgraded to this motherboard because I was hoping that it will at least give it another CPU life after my 1090T. As a first time AMD user this is not a good way to start off and AMD just screw themselves over.
 
drescherjm said:
I thought that was going to happen at FM2.
Click to expand...

That might be true. I may be remembering it wrong. I read that some weeks ago I believe.

ASIA911 said:
Well if that's true that will piss a hell lot of AMD users into another round. This reason I upgraded to this motherboard because I was hoping that it will at least give it another CPU life after my 1090T. As a first time AMD user this is not a good way to start off and AMD just screw themselves over.
Click to expand...

Well they can whine about it all they want to but at some point you've got to upgrade your motherboard. You can't keep expecting to retain the same board for 2 or 3 processor generations every time. The way technology changes and given power savings, features, overclockability, etc. I don't see why you'd even want to do so. Though FM1 doesn't do away with AM3+'s flaws so AMD screwed the pooch yet again.

JMccovery said:
I think it was, but then a rumor surfaced that AMD decided to drop the FM2 Piledriver CPU for an AM3+ version, Vishera.
Click to expand...

Could be.
 
Numan said:
I have nothing to add constructively to this thread except a line of humour...

Reading the thread reminds me of 'Blast Processing!' for those that remember the term

:D
Click to expand...

I have tried to add some constructive criticism, combined with some humor.
On a more serious note, in my very first PC I had a top of the line Pentium 166MHz CPU. That was the very CPU before Intel released the Pentium Pro 200MHz.
But my next CPU upgrade was a AMD K6 266KHz with 3DNow!. I didn't want to spend money on a new motherboard and RAM and Pentium II CPU. What I'm trying to say is that AMD delivered most of the time a consistent product, no nonsense upgrade paths, and they came up with the simplest and most straight forward innovations in the late 90's and the beginnings of the 2000's. The x86_64 architecture was a breakthrough, because they basically allowed the average Joe to use more than 4GB of RAM in a desktop computer without spending an arm and a leg. Then the Integrated Memory Controller. Then the marriage of the GPU and CPU in one package. All great ideas that Intel took and implemented more efficiently.

I do want to see AMD succeed. But it's hard to vote with my wallet for a mediocre product. Or, if I wanted to do charity, I could donate to one of the many charities out there who actually deserve my money. Problems started at AMD after the merger with ATI. Someone, or maybe it is more than one person, has a huge ego complex over there. AMD used to have, and maybe still does have, tremendous engineering talent. Those folks used to understand the meaning of "do more with less". They used to be so good that one could actually use AMD as an example for a company that does amazing things with less. AMD used to be the embodiment of "do more with less". Now they finally get 32nm manufacturing working, and they pig out on transistor count, and build a CPU with incredible leakage, allot like the Pentium 4 used to be. I don't believe that Bulldozer is beyond fixing, and even more, I think that in 6 to 8 months from now AMD will have fixed Bulldozer's problems. The question is, where will Intel be by then? I know, I know: miles ahead of AMD in terms of performance and efficiency. AMD needs to drop their perfectionist on obsessive attitude, and build products that work, even if they are not "perfect". That's how they fucked up their Quad Core release as well, because instead of gluing together two Athlon 64 X2 cores on one DIE and create a Quad Core CPU, they decided to pick on Intel for not releasing true quad core CPUs. Oh, look at Intel, they put together two Core 2 Duos and made a Quad, and that's less than "perfect". We will bring you a true quad core called the Phenom. Well, it worked miracles for Intel, not so much for AMD. I wonder if anyone else sees my point?
 
anyone know where i can get the beta bios for the CHV so i can disable indevidual cores? the 0813 bios update ont he asus site only lets you disable cores 2 at a time.
 
Wildace said:
anyone know where i can get the beta bios for the CHV so i can disable indevidual cores? the 0813 bios update ont he asus site only lets you disable cores 2 at a time.
Click to expand...

I was wondering the same thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top