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

wondering if they are changing prices ,i don't see them listed anywhere.(newegg , amazon , microcenter)
 
I got called a intel fanboy/troll/shill a few times for recommending amd fans be a little more cautious with their optimism, but I was really hoping for at least only slightly worse single threaded and noticeably better multi threaded performance, and maybe a price drop on the sandybridge line shortly after BD launch... that would have been a win for everybody IMO.

But this... everybody just loses with this. There's no reason to price drop existing chips, the i7-2700 will probably come out at a higher price point since it can, and there's no reason not to, and also no reason to rush IB to market, which means they probably get to sit around for a few weeks clearing old SB stock with their thumbs up OUR butts.
 
sirmo said:
ARM chips are nowhere near the efficiency of x86. I know that sounds strange because when someone says ARM, they are talking about power efficient chips. But hear me out.

Per performance, current gen x86 chips are years ahead of Arm designs. Basically the point is when Arm gets to the performance levels of x86 it loses all it's efficiency edge. There was a really interesting article about this but I can't find it, oh well, this one is not bad either:

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2011/02/nvidia-30-and-the-riscification-of-x86.ars/2
Click to expand...

Oh yes, on the high-end ARM has nothing yet and will take YEARS to get the performance that servers require. What I was referring to was prices on mobile processors, which is a realm where ARM is beginning to have competitive performance.

Already, A9 (2.5 dmips) has better IPC than Atom and the A15 is supposed to be %40 faster. With quad-core designs just around the corner, high-end ARM chips are looking to be nearly as-capable as Intel's latest.

Intel sells more mobile processors than any other category, so competitiveness in that market will define prices for the desktop.
 
I hope mc have some sort of great bundle deal for the next fx series or at least the old x6 series... so 8150 is lower than the i5 2400 eh but for 250 dollars vs. 150 dollars.....
 
defaultluser said:
Oh yes, on the high-end ARM has nothing yet and will take YEARS to get the performance that servers require. What I was referring to was prices on mobile processors, which is a realm where ARM is beginning to have competitive performance.

Already, A9 (2.5 dmips) has better IPC than Atom and the A15 is supposed to be %40 faster. With quad-core designs just around the corner, high-end ARM chips are looking to be nearly as-capable as Intel's latest.

Intel sells more mobile processors than any other category, so competitiveness in that market will define prices for the desktop.
Click to expand...

My point is ARM or Atom get destroyed on efficiency when you consider the processing they do. For instance if you try to encode a video on all 3 CPUs. A9, Atom and 2600k, 2600k will use like 20 times less power to complete the task.

Can't find the damn article that illustrated that really well.
 
well that sucks. i have a i5 2400 in my server and a 2600k in my gaming rig. i guess i'm gonna build a 2100T for my everyday browsing system to save on power
 
I have this to say for those of you who will buy a Bulldozer chip out of pity for AMD or to just support AMD (or because you are an avid AMD fanboy):
Supporting incompetence is like socialism (or even communism). Eventually those that are supported will sit around on their asses like dogs all day long and do nothing but lick their hairy balls...
 
I knew it. I reslly did used to have confidence for BD. As launch came closer and closer and crappy benchmarks began to surface, i seriously doubted BD would be able to compete with SB. Although it doesn't really affect me since I'm not an enthusiast, this is a sad day for all of us. Now Intel has no serious competition.
 
:(

Not really surprising to me. AMD has always been acceptable performance and lower prices, Intel has always been higher price for performance. I think anyone could have seen this coming with the early price points that were released. Only 2 things that disappoint me is the fact that Thuban is on par in some benchies / very competitive in most with bulldozer. Also very disappointing that this can only get up to 4.6ghz stable, not only reported here, but other reviews as well. mehh.
 
wolfman3k5 said:
I have this to say for those of you who will buy a Bulldozer chip out of pity for AMD or to just support AMD (or because you are an avid AMD fanboy):
Supporting incompetence is like socialism (or even communism). Eventually those that are supported will sit around on their asses like dogs all day long and do nothing but lick their hairy balls...
Click to expand...

I think most people who choose bulldozer chips will do it because prices were cut to a point where it made sense, the enthusiast crowd is lost on the high end though. This aint going in Kyles main rig, it would be like seeing paris hilton at goodwill.
 
AMD deserves a break. Now that they pulled a "Prescott" and all, they can celebrate. Good luck ever being competitive... Ever again... So Intel wins, for good? Jesus, what a sad sad day. We will be all running Intels in our boxes, for ever and ever... Jesus, what a nightmare.
 
wolfman3k5 said:
I have this to say for those of you who will buy a Bulldozer chip out of pity for AMD or to just support AMD (or because you are an avid AMD fanboy):
Supporting incompetence is like socialism (or even communism). Eventually those that are supported will sit around on their asses like dogs all day long and do nothing but lick their hairy balls...
Click to expand...

an fx chip is still cheaper than an intel chip if you have an am3+ board.
 
xorbe said:
Wowzers, the i7 920 idle power draw can't be right -- I have one @ 3.6 and idle is half that ... my OC idle is less than the chart's stock 920 draw, I'm pretty sure. Mine is an early rev too, not "d0". My 920 + 570 full load chew 540-580 at the wall ...
Click to expand...

Yeah, seemed odd to me, too. I don't think my 920 uses nearly that much power.

There was a review on some other site that also used the 920 as a comparison and their power consumption number was WAY less.
 
NewEgg doesn't even have any Bulldozers in stock, at all. Not the AMD FX 8150 or AMD FX 8120. I guess that no one is in a hurry to grab one...
 
I think I said this earlier but they probably would of been better off taking Llano's CPU core, adding back the cache lost from Phenom 2 and piling two cores up on top of it. I'd imagine the shrink would of at least allowed for some higher clocks and some crazy cpu-nb clocks. We'd of had much better single core performance...

Kind of unfortunate.
 
wolfman3k5 said:
NewEgg doesn't even have any Bulldozers in stock, at all. Not the AMD FX 8150 or AMD FX 8120. I guess that no one is in a hurry to grab one...
Click to expand...

I think amd is changing prices

Amazon has them as oos at these prices

Amazon has them for $270 , $230 , $190 , $130.


No one reading these reviews will buy the fx 8150 for $280 and no one will buy the other chips for those prices.

Hopefully amd is smart and tells these stores to drop the price of the 8150 down to at least $250 and the 8120 to $200 and so on. Its just not going to work at current prices
 
TheBlueChanell said:
I think I said this earlier but they probably would of been better off taking Llano's CPU core, adding back the cache lost from Phenom 2 and piling two cores up on top of it. I'd imagine the shrink would of at least allowed for some higher clocks and some crazy cpu-nb clocks. We'd of had much better single core performance...

Kind of unfortunate.
Click to expand...

Thuban is only 904M tranistors. Just doubling that would give you 1.808B tranistors almost 200m tranistors less than bulldozer.


So they oculd have made a 6 core cpu with a smaller die size than bulldozer on 32nm .

Deneb is 758m tranistors , so for 1.516B tranistors they could have built a true 8 core cpu.

Anyway you look at it i think it would have been a win over bulldozer
 
eastmen said:
Hopefully amd is smart and tells these stores to drop the price of the 8150 down to at least $250 and the 8120 to $200 and so on. Its just not going to work at current prices
Click to expand...

Even at $250 I don't think it would be worth it when you can get an i5 2500k for like $220.

The FX-8150 really needs to be like $200 to be competitive, but I don't see that happening.
 
I made a Tiny URL with a link to Amazon Bulldozer page:
http:///amazon-bulldozer

Looks like they are out of stock. I believe that no one has them in stock yet. This might be a short run for AMD. It might be really bad silicone and they might be able to fix it. The thing has almost 2 billion transistors. It's kind of like the GTX 480 / GTX 580 situation. The GTX 580 was a huge improvement. I bring this up because the Bulldozer is a chip with almost 2 billion transistors, something that might be very difficult to properly manufacture.:confused:
 
ninehunid said:
I'm also looking forward( :( ) to seeing how fx 4100 stacks up against i3 2100
Click to expand...

based on this chart, it's going to suck. The only benefit is that it is unlocked, and being a 95w part, will probably have lots of OC headroom...... maybe.

I say 'maybe' because the fx4100 turbo speed is terrible for something with half the cores..... as if these were the absolute reject chips.

amdfx815018.jpg
 
Lord_Exodia said:
Not what I was hoping for but definitely what I expected. Yet another dismal launch from AMD. Looking at several reviews it seems to be slower, more power hungry and dependent on multi threaded optimizations to shine. At least it's cheaper. Still I'm gonna have to say a disappointing launch again by AMD. Sigh, intel really needs more competition.
Click to expand...

Problem is, they aren't cheaper. The 8120 lists at $229 at Amazon, where the 2500K is only $210. Given the way the 8150 barely keeps up with the 2500K, I'm guessing the 8120 will get its ass handed to it.
 
MavericK96 said:
Even at $250 I don't think it would be worth it when you can get an i5 2500k for like $220.

The FX-8150 really needs to be like $200 to be competitive, but I don't see that happening.
Click to expand...

the fx 8150 did well enough that at $250 it could replace my 1090t . A few key areas its much faster and its a drop into my am3+ mobo and a friend wants my 1090t for his am3 mobo to replace his athlon x4 so he is going to give me $150 for it. So for $100 to me its a good upgrade.

$270 is pushing it , i think $200 for the fx 8120 would be a sweet spot . It seems they hit 4.5ghz or so on air , i think i might be able to get close to 5ghz with my h50 and the two fans its running on it
 
I think most people who choose bulldozer chips will do it because prices were cut to a point where it made sense
Click to expand...
Not even that. 2500K, which will overclock like crazy, use much less power than an equivalently clocked BD (well, not even equivalent) - $219.
 
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? :D
 
wolfman3k5 said:
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? :D
Click to expand...

Dude, that's off the topic, but Mac's are great computers. Besides they have great resale value and their OS upgrades are much cheaper. My sister buys a new one every 2 years and it costs her $200-300 because she sells her old one on e-bay. She spends less money on her macs than I do on my computers and she's a complete computing noob.
 
firas said:
Thanks for the review.
I’m not surprised because there were a lot of signs but ouch, I did not see this coming. I remember movieman@XS saying good things about it, I guess I’m wrong but I thought you Kyle said something good about it. this is not good for the consumer and it’s not just that Intel has better resources or did a good job with SB, AMD did something wrong here.
maybe an FX812 & Crosshair V combo can be a good deal for a non overclocked system with little more price drop.

don't mean to upset anyone :D

2vnhzra.gif
Click to expand...

100% agree, lol at the image!
 
sirmo said:
Dude, that's off the topic, but Mac's are great computers. Besides they have great resale value and their OS upgrades are much cheaper. My sister buys a new one every 2 years and it costs her $200-300 because she sells her old one on e-bay. She spends less money on her macs than I do on my computers and she's a complete computing noob.
Click to expand...
I agree. I bought a brand new iMac 20" in 2008 for $1500 and sold it for $800 a week ago. That's pretty damn good. I was referring to the Mac Pro do. The Mac Pro has shitty resale value, and is a ripoff to begin with. But I agree, I was off topic. Bulldozer still sucks do. Maybe the AMD Bendover architecture will be competitive, who knows.
 
wolfman3k5 said:
I agree. I bought a brand new iMac 20" in 2008 for $1500 and sold it for $800 a week ago. That's pretty damn good. I was referring to the Mac Pro do. The Mac Pro has shitty resale value, and is a ripoff to begin with. But I agree, I was off topic. Bulldozer still sucks do. Maybe the AMD Bendover architecture will be competitive, who knows.
Click to expand...

Yeah Mac Pros are stupid expensive, especially when you compare it to what you can build yourself. However they do use workstation/server grade components (ECC unbuffered RAM, Xeon CPUs and mobos..), not saying they are any better performance wise to what you can build, just saying they are pretty expensive.
 
The thing you guys are all forgetting these babies are 8 core CPUs, when software start to take advantage of all 8 cores where does that leave intel? if your a gamer I think your better of getting a bulldozer, since there is no gains going with SB when it comes to gaming alone. When games start to use 8 cores youll be happy to have a bulldozer, but by then Intel will be at it again with something new...I never build and Intel rig and don't know if I should now. Looks like I'll be keeping my 1090T oced to 3.8ghz NB to 2.8ghz. No reason to upgrade now...AMD needs to get their act together, I do agree with that. But I still love you AMD, you make good stuff and made me really happy over the years, even though your loosing the battle right now. Only think keeping me away from SB is that AMD chips are 8 cores, and since they been making them the past 4 years, they will prob be around for a while before anything new comes out from AMD. In that vid I watched when they were overclocking to 8ghz, I was laughing cuz it looks like AMD is tryin to make up for lack of performance with high frequency overclocks lol. I also think another reason for high power consumption is 8 cores, but its a lil nuts 500+ watts is half of my PSU. If they drop the price on these babies by like 80 bucks then they will be worth it.
 
Last edited:
This was, as always an excellent review. I know that it takes allot of work to write one, so thank you Kyle and [H].
That being said, seeing how poorly Bulldozer performs (I mean, it's slow like a damn bulldozer), my boner turned into a bummer, so no monkey business tonight. Anyway, the results have been very anticlimactic.

Good night all, and thanks for the great review.
 
AlexStenka said:
The thing you guys are all forgetting these babies are 8 core CPUs, when software start to take advantage of all 8 cores where does that leave intel? When games start to use 8 cores youll be happy to have a bulldozer, but by then Intel will be at it again with something new...
Click to expand...

The bolded part removes any advantage of the 8 "cores" if you think that there isn't software to take advantage of them today....
 
AlexStenka said:
The thing you guys are all forgetting these babies are 8 core CPUs, when software start to take advantage of all 8 cores where does that leave intel? if your a gamer I think your better of getting a bulldozer, since there is no gains going with SB when it comes to gaming alone. When games start to use 8 cores youll be happy to have a bulldozer, but by then Intel will be at it again with something new...I never build and Intel rig and don't know if I should now. Looks like I'll be keeping my 1090T oced to 3.8ghz NB to 2.8ghz. No reason to upgrade now...AMD needs to get their act together, I do agree with that. But I still love you AMD, you make good stuff and made me really happy over the years, even though your loosing the battle right now. Only think keeping me away from SB is that AMD chips are 8 cores, and since they been making them the past 4 years, they will prob be around for a while before anything new comes out from AMD.
Click to expand...
If you look at the architecture closely you will see that they are just a damn Quad Core with an extra Integer Unit per core. The problem is that the Phenom II core used to have 3 ALUs and 3 Address units per core, while Bulldozer has 2 ALUs and 2 Address units per Integer core. Basically it will be 33% slower for single threaded tasks than the Phenom II. Couple with that the huge sub 2 billion transistor count and the poor 32nm yields, and this CPU is an Epic Fail.
 
Nice review :)

Sadly not the outcome many people had hoped for , better luck next round :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top