![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Would you purchase a Bulldozer if the prices were $100-150?
- Thread starter ShuttleLuv
- Start date
mzs_biteme
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2001
- Messages
- 1,595
Ummm, yeeeeeaaaaaahhhhhh, that's gonna take a while:
PS, that's MC's price stickers for 8120 and 8150 respectively...
I don't see anyone "freaking out." The plain fact is that AMD's new flagship CPU is a hot mess and some of us actually care about power consumption. As a result, we wouldn't willingly buy an under-performing, power hungry CPU when there are better options to be had.
And since we are telling others how they should feel and what they should think... People need to care about power consumption and purchase the best performer per watt. That will cause CPU makers to continue to see lowering power consumption as a priority. In case you hadn't noticed, energy consumption is becoming an issue in the world.
i'm sorry but what chips do the fx 8150 under perform against ? I can't find any in the hardocp tests.
mzs_biteme
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2001
- Messages
- 1,595
Yakk
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 5,810
Unfortunately AMD have given me no reason to upgrade my i7, no matter what price point.
Answer is no.
Listen, I love competition. I do. It creates better prices for us as well as options. But there is no bloody way in hell I am going to support a shitty product for the sake of competition. They should not be rewarded for this nor should we feel obligated to do a "pity purchase" in order to keep them afloat despite their mistake. I'll buy AMD when they put something worthwhile out (I have had their processors in the past and I do have their ATI 5850s right now).
Listen, I love competition. I do. It creates better prices for us as well as options. But there is no bloody way in hell I am going to support a shitty product for the sake of competition. They should not be rewarded for this nor should we feel obligated to do a "pity purchase" in order to keep them afloat despite their mistake. I'll buy AMD when they put something worthwhile out (I have had their processors in the past and I do have their ATI 5850s right now).
evanisthecoastie
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 4,708
uhhhhhhhh...........
on topic: I would certainly purchase it in the 100-150 range. probably if it was closer to 100 than the latter though. good thing I didnt wait and purchased a 2500k, was the right decision.
Wait.....Uhmmmmm.... This is a trick question right.....???
no its not
legitreviews , anandtech , toms hardware , hardocp all show the chip comparing similar to the i5 2500k
PS, that's MC's price stickers for 8120 and 8150 respectively...
You think that's bad? You Americans are always so lucky, you get all the low prices.
You want to see bad? This is the only italian shop that has already shown up prices for BD (although stating that they are not available yet).
8150 for 233 euros (320 $)
8120 for 197 euros (271 $)
http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/5634/54867268.png
http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/2152/40292984.png
At the same time, lowest price for Intel 2500K is 176 euros.
Now THAT's bad. And if these prices stay that way, i see people running over to 2500K.
You Americans are so lucky, you shouldn't even whisper about prices being high...
I Certainly would.. I Will still be buying a BD above that..
For everyone saying its a POS, well open your fucking eyes & look at it with an open perspective. BD is not going to kill an i7.. Thats all there is to it.. The 8150 however trades with the 2500k & once prices settle they should end up close to each other. Then you buy the cheaper 8120 & OC the Snot out of it till it trades blows with a 2600k & spend the saved 100 bucks towards the next step up in video card & you will end up with a better rounded system.
For everyone saying its a POS, well open your fucking eyes & look at it with an open perspective. BD is not going to kill an i7.. Thats all there is to it.. The 8150 however trades with the 2500k & once prices settle they should end up close to each other. Then you buy the cheaper 8120 & OC the Snot out of it till it trades blows with a 2600k & spend the saved 100 bucks towards the next step up in video card & you will end up with a better rounded system.
No.
I can see why it would be beneficial for certain users, however, my rig is basically for gaming. Even the top end 8150 doesnt impress me one tiny bit. My old-ass i5-750 beats it STOCK in gaming - 2.66ghz quad spanks an 8 core 3.6. Even for less than a hundred, the BD doesnt interest me.
I can see why it would be beneficial for certain users, however, my rig is basically for gaming. Even the top end 8150 doesnt impress me one tiny bit. My old-ass i5-750 beats it STOCK in gaming - 2.66ghz quad spanks an 8 core 3.6. Even for less than a hundred, the BD doesnt interest me.
griff30
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2000
- Messages
- 7,218
No reason to kill the planet for less performance when overclocked.
AntiSocialMunky
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2006
- Messages
- 589
Its only 10 Watts more @ stock is it not?
For me under load is more important, and it is 60-70w more for equal or lower performance (90w vs lower intel).
That said, I run an overclocked i7-920 and GTX480, both of which were slammed for power consumption at release, but also had the performance benefit to forgive their abysmal thermal properties.
I can get my laptop below 10w when I turn the display brightness down, so if you are concerned with idle power consumption, it's better to use a low power laptop for light work and keep your PC off until you need it.
atoms are very low clocked and very slow.
I don't see the comparison your making the fx 8150 actually keeps up in benchmarks with the i5 2500k .
Does the atom keep up with a bulldozer in anything ? I had a 1.6ghz atom and it was slower than my 1ghz athlon
jeremyshaw
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 12,511
Yes, though he is asking, at 24cores (48 with HT), and assuming no wierd scaling issues, would the theoretical multithread performance of a 24core Atom be better than BD? Also consider, BD's IPC is less than K10...
is it lower than a k10 ?
Anyway i wouldn't select a 24core cpu unless there was a workload that benfits from 24cores. Do any applications support 24 cores ?
I run premier , handbrake and game with my pc 10% of the time , the other 90% of the time i'm surfing the web and peformance no longer matters for that with a desktop pc.
So does premier , handbrake and gaming take advantage of 24 cores ?
At that price range, I'd rather buy a 960T and take a crack at unlocking the two extra cores.
Right now, BD's prices are at the only place they can be, without overlapping those of another set of AMD chips. 1100T is ~$190, 1090T is ~$170. If you push down the prices on the X6 line to make room for BD, then X6 starts overlapping the Phenom II X4s. And so on.
So they have two choices: Keep BD at its current price and hope no one notices, or drop the prices on all of their chips to make room for the zone where BD should cost. I guess AMD is tired of the "budget alternative" look that comes with always costing less than the market leader. But that role appears to fit BD just as much as it's fit every desktop AMD chip since the arrival of Intel's Core 2 platform.
Right now, BD's prices are at the only place they can be, without overlapping those of another set of AMD chips. 1100T is ~$190, 1090T is ~$170. If you push down the prices on the X6 line to make room for BD, then X6 starts overlapping the Phenom II X4s. And so on.
So they have two choices: Keep BD at its current price and hope no one notices, or drop the prices on all of their chips to make room for the zone where BD should cost. I guess AMD is tired of the "budget alternative" look that comes with always costing less than the market leader. But that role appears to fit BD just as much as it's fit every desktop AMD chip since the arrival of Intel's Core 2 platform.
that's exactly my point.
it's a theoretical question that i think relates to the arguments FX buyers are considering.
of course the atom by itself is slow as hell. But combine 24 Atoms into one cpu for some megathread task, and assume it meets 2600k multithread performance.
would you buy it ?
sure , why wouldn't I ?
I'd buy 10,000 386 cores on a single chip if it got the job done.
Here is the thing.
The fx 8150 has a power problem. But it consumes very close to the same power amount of my pII x6 1090t . It performs like a i5 2500 or 2600k in programs i actually use (handbrake , premier , and a few others ) . There are very few things it performs slower than my old chip in and some of them Like Lame are things i never use. I haven't ripped a cd in years. I rip a bluray a week at this point however and i will convert it to diffrent formats. I use my video camera weekly trying to catch my nieces first steps or like last weekend my nephew riding his first big wheel . I like to edit this and burn it to bluray .
All of these are tasks the fx 8150 does better in than my current chip .
Now if I didn't have a am3+ mobo the i5 2500 k would be an easy choice. But i have a friend that wants the 1090t for $150 and so for $100 the fx 8150 is a good deal to me.
Trust me I'm not crazy enough to recommend this chip to anyone over the i5 2500k unless they already have a mobo capable of running it.
This is what i recommend to friends who want me to build a pc (remember i have a microcenter 5 minutes from my house and i pay 3.5% tax there vs 7% on newegg )
pII x4 965 its $120 and comes with a good mobo for $10 bucks. So $130 + 6950 will run any games they want right now.
If they need more cpu performance and have a larger budget i will recommend the i5 2500k but that itself is $180 + $80 for a good mobo and your looking at double the cost.
Once in a blue moon i will recomend a x6 if they are on a budget and use a program that the x6 performs on par or better than the intel chips in .
i just think to many people are over stating the facts here , the fx 8150 performs similar to the i5 2500 in a ton of stuff.
jeremyshaw
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 12,511
... and it doesn't in a ton of other stuff. If the FX 8150 matched the i5 2500k in almost every way, and exceeded it in some, too, then the price would definately be worthwhile. But it doesn't, and that's the problem we have in this thread (as per the title).
The title is if the chip cost $100 or $150 .
At $100 or $150 your getting a cpu that performs sometimes worse and sometimes better than the i5 2500k and your saving money doing it.
cdr_74_premium
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,577
They annouced it, spent years on it, might as well get it out of the door, even if it sucks. Now they can do another/get it better, while getting revenue from the sales. We all know most people don't read [H] or other sites. Duke Nukem Forever should've done this too.
Let's hope they can fix it. AMD fanboy or not, you want AMD around.