Phenom or Bulldozer

M

mhoksch

n00b
Joined
Nov 15, 2011
Messages
9
Working on finishing my new build, I'm debating between the Phenom 1100T or the Bulldozer FX-6100. They're both the same price on the egg right now. I'll be using this pc for a little bit of eveything, school, AutoCAD, gaming (skyrim) and watching movies.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

My build is:
Case- Rowewill Ranger
Motherboard- Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3
CPU Cooler- Zalman CNPS9900max-r
Video- HD6870 (not purchased yet)
Ram- 16gb Gskill Ripjaws X
 
I would do the 1100T over a 6100. Should be a bit more consistent than the bulldozer and certainly isn't slow.
 
Phenom all the way. They both have multiple cores, which will benefit applications like AutoCAD. While the 6100 **might** be a slight tad better than the 1100T in multi threaded applications, the Phenom will blow the bulldozer out of the water in everything else.

Phenom 1100T for sure. (its sad that we have to recommend a 1.5 year old cpu over a brand new one.)
 
Thanks for the input. I was already leaning towards the Phenom but just needed some reassurance. Ordered it this morning so I should have my new rig up and running soon.

Anyone know if my MB is capable of x-fire? I thought no, but then I read something this morning which got me all confused...
 
I was wondering: Isn't a Phenom II 980 a better choice? I mean, which software really does fully take advantage of 6 cores*? The 980 is clocked @3,7GHz, compared to 3,3GHz of the 1100T, which has a Turbomode(3,7GHz) but only when it uses 3 or less cores. And the 980 is cheaper.

* AutoCAD probably does:D
 
AutoCAD 2011 does have multiple-core support. So I'm thinking that it should be beneficial to have the 6-core cpu. I'm also thinking of playing around w/ SolidWorks a bit too (I get incredibly cheap software thru school)
 
Phenom. I think Newegg was selling the 1090T for 119.99 for Black Friday
 
The 8120 wouldn't be a bad choice. It was $199 last time I looked which is only about $20 more than a 1100 so could be worth it to play with for overclocking.

Core for core, the Phenom is faster so I wouldn't opt for a 6 core Bulldozer over a 6 core Phenom.
 
Last edited:
I have an FX-8150 in my workstation, and the only gain I have personally seen with it over my Phenom II X4 965BE is in vray render times. It's faster than the top tier I7's, no competition.
 
Pyrex238 said:
I have an FX-8150 in my workstation, and the only gain I have personally seen with it over my Phenom II X4 965BE is in vray render times. It's faster than the top tier I7's, no competition.
Click to expand...

I'd be curious to see legit benchmarks showing bulldozer beating the i7-2600 "no competition" doing much of anything. Boiling water for mac n cheese doesn't count.
 
bigddybn said:
I'd be curious to see legit benchmarks showing bulldozer beating the i7-2600 "no competition" doing much of anything. Boiling water for mac n cheese doesn't count.
Click to expand...

c-rayir38.png


Does that satisfy you?
 
WC.Eend said:
I was wondering: Isn't a Phenom II 980 a better choice? I mean, which software really does fully take advantage of 6 cores*? The 980 is clocked @3,7GHz, compared to 3,3GHz of the 1100T, which has a Turbomode(3,7GHz) but only when it uses 3 or less cores. And the 980 is cheaper.

* AutoCAD probably does:D
Click to expand...

I don't know how Turbo is officially supposed to be, but by default my 1100T goes to 3.7GHz sustained on all cores. It might be my board though, not sure.
 
The FX doesn't make much sense at stock speeds.

If you don't mind doing a bit of overclocking (and have/buy a better heatsink) it's an upgrade. All the FX builds (four 8120s) I've worked with so far will do 4.2 GHz at stock voltage, and they'll go a lot further than that.
 
Last edited:
the bulldozer wouldn't be a bad choice, you might get a massive overclock, and if you believe AMD you will see a performance boost with windows 8.


don't listen to anyone who makes fun of the processor in their comments, they let the media outlets taint their objectivity and most likely have no experience with the processor.
 
Reus said:
I don't know how Turbo is officially supposed to be, but by default my 1100T goes to 3.7GHz sustained on all cores. It might be my board though, not sure.
Click to expand...

I think you might be mistaken. Here is a quote from the official AMD website:

New AMD Turbo CORE Technology
Both the AMD Phenom™ II X6 1055T and 1090T come equipped with AMD's new Turbo CORE technology. AMD Turbo CORE technology is a performance boosting technology that automatically switches from six cores to three turbocharged core for applications that just need raw speed over multiple cores. While in Turbo CORE mode, the AMD Phenom™ II X6 1090T shifts frequency speed from 3.2GHz on six cores, to 3.6GHz on three cores, making it the fastest processor AMD has ever created.
Click to expand...
 
s3rvb0t said:
lol, this.
Click to expand...

I have an FX-8150 in my workstation, and the only gain I have personally seen with it over my Phenom II X4 965BE is in vray render times. It's faster than the top tier I7's, no competition.
Click to expand...

Contradicts the graph he posted if everything is logically coherent.

Thought the 8150 does for all intents and purposes ~matches the i7 in the bench and beat it if you have something compiled for the 8150.
 
Actually the original statement is kind of incoherent. The second sentence could be interpreted to say the 8150 is faster than intel's top tiere I7's, but in the first sentence, he basically said the Phenom II is practically equivalent to the 8150 (with one exception). That essentially means both the Phenom II and the 8150 are faster than top tier I7's. Given my understanding of the english language however, he actually seems to be referring to the Phenom II as being faster than Intel's top tier I7's.

Perhaps he meant to say the Phenom II is slower than the top tier I7's, because the graph clearly supports that. ;)
 
Benny Blanco said:
Perhaps he meant to say the Phenom II is slower than the top tier I7's, because the graph clearly supports that. ;)
Click to expand...

He meant that his 8150FX is faster than the 4-core i7 Sandybridge chips when using AVX/FMA accelerated code for the rendering he's doing. That's not entirely hard to understand. The new 6 core (12 thread) i7s, of course, are now out and probably faster, but they also cost about double to quadrouple the price of the 8150FX.
 
I'd wait for a refresh on them(Like how the Original Phenom had the x4 9600 then AMD did a respin and released the x4 9650). I went through 2 bad 8120's in a row (first one had 2 bad cores, and the second one had one bad core), in combination with the reported poor compatibility with Steam games, I'd go with a Phenom II right now. If you don't mind waiting for the refresh, I'd go with an x4 as a place holder. I'll say that when I had the 8120 stable (took an unreasonable amount of voltage to get it running at stock speeds across all cores) games seemed to run smoother than my 1090t @ stock.

The 6100 may have less chance of being defectives, but in my mind the FX series modules are comparable to real cores. So the 6100 is more like an x3 with hyper-threading and an 81xx is more like an x4 with hyper-threading. If AMD marketed them like this, the hate would have been less.

I will give the FX series another shot down the road if AMD respins them (ie 42xx, 62xx, 82xx) as I really wanted to have some OC fun with them

Long Story Short, get the 1100t, the x6's are fantastic processors and my 1090t has served me quite well and OC's nicely (I'd imagine the 1100t may have more legroom in that department)
 
I think it will. From the reviews and stuff that Ive read, the 1100's do seem to hit 4+GHz pretty regular and without a lot of hassle. Most 1090's are stuck at 3.9 or thereabouts. Mine will hit 4GHz and remain stable during several hours of gaming but wont last more than a few minutes of Prime95 so I keep it at 3.8 instead. Figure my problem is likely my midrange motherboard that 3 years old and in need of retirement. Would like to toss a Sabertooth in there and see what I can get out of this thing.
 
I would have purchased the 1100 for a little better OC maybe. But my 1090 is stable at 1.42 V and 3.7ghz. Any more, and I have to jack up the volts which is kinda silly for 24/7. I would gain 300mhz at 1.52 volts for 4ghz. No thanks.
 
Bulldozer is a huge sack of fail, anyone buying one is either misinformed or off their rocker.
 
anubis44 said:
He meant that his 8150FX is faster than the 4-core i7 Sandybridge chips when using AVX/FMA accelerated code for the rendering he's doing. That's not entirely hard to understand. The new 6 core (12 thread) i7s, of course, are now out and probably faster, but they also cost about double to quadrouple the price of the 8150FX.
Click to expand...

That is what I was saying. My BD on my workstation is faster than top tier i7's in vray. There is no competition as the graph clearly shows.
 
gurusan said:
Bulldozer is a huge sack of fail, anyone buying one is either misinformed or off their rocker.
Click to expand...

In some professional applications (like raytracing) Bulldozer will save the industry thousands of dollars in workstation processors compared to the standard.
 
Pyrex238 said:
That is what I was saying. My BD on my workstation is faster than top tier i7's in vray. There is no competition as the graph clearly shows.
Click to expand...

You still don't get it, do you?

The fail was so strong in this thread it called me from across the internet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top