AMD FX-8150 Review: From Bulldozer To Zambezi To FX

Page 14 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]peroludiarom[/nom]i would say, that after finding the PROBLEM with intel compiler, i would not trust at any of these benches for arithmetic and memory:http://www.theinquirer.net/inquire [...] -via-chips[/citation]
... so amd needs to make a driver to solve this...
 


All new Intel CPUs are 64-bit capable. Apple, which you mentioned has "native 64-bit", uses Intel CPUs. And there WILL be 32-bit Windows 8, thanks to an "average user" who doesn't want to upgrade his Pentium or Celeron.

i would say, that after finding the PROBLEM with intel compiler, i would not trust at any of these benches for arithmetic and memory
Click to expand...

I guess you won't trust the game benchmarks, either, because these games didn't prepare for - surely! - superior Bulldozer architecture. They didn't really prepare for Sandy Bridge, either, but Intel, unlike AMD (as much as it saddens me), is capable of producing architectures that can excel in currently existing software.
 
amk-aka-phantom quote: All new Intel CPUs are 64-bit capable. Apple, which you mentioned has "native 64-bit", uses Intel CPUs. And there WILL be 32-bit Windows 8, thanks to an "average user" who doesn't want to upgrade his Pentium or Celeron.

... ok... agree, but don't produce any new 32Bit CPU's and software... let them old use old ones... and sorry for the 32bit celeron users... any AMD sempron sins soc. 754 is x64... and the NEW semprons are dirt cheap, cool, quiet, OC able... combine with AMD880G and you will have a awesome cheep computer even with GPGPU, OpenCL...
 
[citation][nom]amk-aka-phantom[/nom]All new Intel CPUs are 64-bit capable. Apple, which you mentioned has "native 64-bit", uses Intel CPUs. And there WILL be 32-bit Windows 8, thanks to an "average user" who doesn't want to upgrade his Pentium or Celeron.I guess you won't trust the game benchmarks, either, because these games didn't prepare for - surely! - superior Bulldozer architecture. They didn't really prepare for Sandy Bridge, either, but Intel, unlike AMD (as much as it saddens me), is capable of producing architectures that can excel in currently existing software.[/citation]

When i think about this, and overall situation, i will say that Intel has cross the borders of normality with this issue.. So what if games uses same think on their compiler, because of interests with Intel? And i see here only three games benched, and two of them i will never play (and ITS KNOWN that this 2 is intel-lovers).
 
hooray another reviewer that uses software that terribly benchmarks a 8 core cpu. Great a love how you put down at the end how it performs worse, perhaps get different benchmarking software to fully bench mark the 8 cores...
 
That so called Bulldozer should be released 3 years back. Even it could not compete well against old Core i7 920!!!!

Too late, AMD..... many rumors... at last dissapointing performance....

I am AMD loyal.... and I was waiting for a long time with PhenomII X4 940 for Bulldozer.... Now I know its safe buying a Corei7 920 instead AMD's new FX......

 
People, wait next-gen Bulldozer :) Coming 2012..
If you are having an Athlon/Phenom x4 3Ghz and higher no upgrade is needed, really. I compared scores of CPUs on my practice,
and I understood that it's better to buy a 100$ more expensive GPU that buying a 100$ more CPU.
 
Basically the same fizzle as the Phenom and Phenom II. There's no market for the Bulldozer right now. Not at the current prices. If the 8 core was 159.00 it would make sense. Who knows, maybe in a few months it will be at that price.

Ugh..the performance numbers are brutal.
 
Am I expected too much for Bulldozer and getting disappointed? Yes, it is. From Athlon 1GHz, Athlon64 4200+ & lately Phoenom 955, it is really sad to left AMD in this round, I am decided to choose i7-2600K. Sorry AMD!
 



you obviously can't read. I said it would be better then the X4 series cpu and no where did I say it would achieve similar performance gains... just that it would be better then the existing x4 platform which most people are going to buy as they don't need 8 cores anyway... understand?
 
@amk-aka-phantom

"i would say, that after finding the PROBLEM with intel compiler, i would not trust at any of these benches for arithmetic and memory"

"I guess you won't trust the game benchmarks, either, because these games didn't prepare for - surely! - superior Bulldozer architecture. They didn't really prepare for Sandy Bridge, either, but Intel, unlike AMD (as much as it saddens me), is capable of producing architectures that can excel in currently existing software."

oh dear god you complete fail in comprehension with the compiler thing, this becomes very important when it comes to branch prediction and thread optimization, most coders just dont have the will power to thread optimize their stuff, intel released a compile that will automatically do thread optimization for you (and unfortunately used industry wide due to intel's funding), except it's a dirty little compiler, the codes generated by this compiler will automatically demote any chips not supporting an intel ID into the most slowest thread execution path possible, peroludiarom has a very good point, it could well be that the chip ID presented is not recognized or simply there is no comparable thread execution path for this CPU and as such the chip is automatically being demoted to the slowest execution path, a good way to test this would be to fake the chip's ID to an i2600 and see how it performs in the benchmark (stability notwithstanding), this actually may go some way to explaining why BD performance is all over the board
 
While I object to this term fanboy with its negative connotations, I have been a fan of AMD since my first PC CPU, an AMD K6-2 300, which gave me a whopping 300mhz over my Amiga which was running at 40mhz. The price was right and while I knew there was faster stuff out there, I liked the combination of a great price and a decent speed. I've bought AMD since then as year on they've come up with a good price/performance balance that's either meant I could keep the same motherboard or buy into a lower end CPU that's still faster than my last CPU. Now having said all that and shown I'm no Intel follower, this whole thread of compilers not being optimised for AMD just sounds like desperate noise to cover up what has been an absolutely sham of a processor launch for AMD. Lets not forget that this new Bulldozer FX-8150, running on a top of the range motherboard hasn't even been able to beat an old 1100T, not even while overclocked, something Bulldozer was supposed to be amazing at, and by beaten, I mean something significant, not just a few per cent faster. So lets not get tied up name calling or blaming anyone but AMD. The architecture is a failure, just look at the awful cherry picked benchmarks showing Bulldozer going up against Intels best in gaming benchmarks where the CPU isn't even a big issue. It all smacks of desperate measures to cover up what is right now, a big flop of a CPU. I still rate the six core AMD chips, the 1090T and 1100T. Great processors at a great price that run on cheap motherboards. It's hard not to love them even though Intel has so much better for a good chunk more in money. The 1100T is actually good enough for me and Intel has nothing for that price that gives me such a great Cinebench score, which is really all I care about as that's my main use for my PC. So Bulldozer is a flop, its projected growth of 10-15% clock speed per year is enough to inform me that Intel will be my next processor after the 1100T. As to what others choose, well that's up to them but there isn't a single use case scenario where I'd recommend any Bulldozer CPU right now, knowing you need a top of the range 990FX AM3+ motherboard when you can just drop in a 1100T that's so much cheaper on a much cheaper motherboard and get almost, within a few percent, the same performance. As that's now a dead end chipset, it's even harder to recommend now. I think overall whether its gaming, general use, heavily multi threaded or a combination of all those that you need, Intel has the best answer for you right now on price / performance / upgrade path. And I can't tell you how much that bothers me to say that after being so happy with AMD stuff for all these years.
 


You've got to be kidding! Wait ANOTHER year? What, 3 years was not enough?

So, now AMD fanboys are finding all kinds of excuses for Bulldozer underperforming... Intel compiler conspiracy, huh? Well, BD was supposed to be a gaming beast, and i5-2500K beat it in all games, ESPECIALLY CPU-heavy (WoW). Say what you will, but Bulldozer failed miserably for its intended audience, I hope it will be worth it for a worstation; I'll wait for some more benchmarks - maybe it'll be good for something else than gaming... can't imagine what, though, since it lost to 2500/2600K in nearly all tests.

Before you whine about how all these programs are Intel-biased, let me remind you that Mr. Angelini here tested Bulldozer in many, many popular applications and benchmarks... he was probably shocked and was desperately trying to find at least SOMETHING where BD would excel, but failed. I don't blame him, hell no, great review - I'd be shocked, too! I imagine how he was going through the benchmarks, each time the same thing... Core i5/i7 on top... and Phenom X6 beating BD must've caused him to either crack with laughter or triple-check all components. Mr. Angelini, am I right? 😉

TL;DR: you might say that the benchmarks and games used here are Intel-biased, but that was the most popular and widespread software. If AMD can't make their CPU work with them...

Next AMD fan excuse prediction: Tom's got a faulty chip for testing, aka Bulldozer w/o a shovel.

Oh, and before you flame me and call me an AMD hater, I love their graphics cards... somehow AMD is great on that market, no matter how evil Intel and nVidia conspire against them 😉 Why is that? :ange:
 
This is sad, the individual cores in the FX-8150 have about half the IPC as the i7-2600.
It would have been far better to shrink the X6 to 32nm, speed up the memory interface and increase the memory cache size. Also anything to improve the IPC rate would have been icing on the cake.
This would have resulted in a part with half the die size and cost, and performance at least as good as the i7-2600.
I have been waiting for the FX-8500 parts, but I simply can't justify using them with this kind of backward step in performance, with this kind of price increase.
 
@amk-aka-phantom

dude, you tripping a little there. I'll admit that BD gets beat hands down in most the benches, but then in some strange benches where it gives the i2500 and even the i2600 a good spanking, a poor performing CPU should not be able to do that, it should fail all round and for sure it should not be able to spank the i2600, the damn thing is all over the place, in some places it trails the i2500 in others it somewhere between i2500 and i2600 and other times it tops them other times it even loses out to an older phenom

im pretty sure Mr Angelini did crack a laughter, cause thats one hell of a schizo chip

and the intel compiler thing is no conspiracy, it's fact, the FTC slapped them over the hand and told them to fix it, which to this day they have failed to do so, what if i told you that if you faked the chip's ID it would give your chip a boost in performance irrespective of architecture, doesn't matter how hard AMD works hard to get their chips to work with the software if they are getting artificially crippled then they wont ever reach full potential (VIA got a 47% boost to their chip's performance just by pretending to be an intel chip), again you fail to understand what the compiler issue is, it's not a compatibility issue, it's intel purposely crippling performance on a non intel chip even though the chip maybe capable of more

let me put it into layman terms, it's like your Car refusing to go faster then 30mph cause you wont put Shell gas in the tank therefore the other brands of gas must be inferior right
 
Strange really, in tests intel are always faster..

But actually using an intel involves stalling when browsing, games have micro studder, and I just can't get my intel based systems 100% stable.

Or they break motherboards like it's cheese and crackers.

AMD has always been smoother when using them, instead of a stall where nothing happens, it will churn a little more slowly for a while instead.

A lot less annoying than Windows greying out a window for 30 seconds.

I never had an AMD that was unstable at stock settings either, they've always worked.

Feels like intel is the Ferrari of the PC world, fast as hell - as long as you don't want to carry your family along.

AMD is more a Volvo, doesn't matter how many are in the car, or how much your mobile home weighs - It'll still do 180 km/h.

Might just be me?
 
I'm a bit disappointed, i thought AMD might make significant gains, but it doesnt even beat the i5 in alot of games This is bad news because intel now has almost no competition in the high end market. 🙁
 
I just ordered an i5-2500k for my gaming rig (shame I waited this long for Bulldozer), but Bulldozer isn't such a bad design.

With the right software it considerably outperforms the i5-2500k and comes very close to the more expensive i7-2600k.
Single thread performance will become less and less relevant now that even phones and tablets are about to use quad core processors. DirectX11 supports multithreaded rendering, etc.
 


Yeah, that's just you. Thought, Intel mobos DO suck.
 
[citation][nom]psyxix[/nom]Ya I agree, seems like intel is gaining more and more ground in the processor market. Soon, they'll have the monopol of the chip industry =/ Bad bad thing, even for intel fans. There is nothing better than competition to push technologies forward.[/citation]

" Invention is driven primarily by need" and without competition from AMD, Intel's pace can be dramatically slower. Their pricing might become much worse also

[citation][nom]pull[/nom]I wonder if they will be able to sell even a single piece[/citation]

Oh they will. This company has a unique way of surviving almost anything

[citation][nom]Humble Dexter[/nom]FX-8150 is one year too late to be priced above 220$[citation][nom]pull[/nom]I wonder if they will be able to sell even a single piece[/citation][/citation]

Damn right it is. The AMD tradition continues of being one generation behind Intel. I have a PII 955BE and will be upgrading it next year. If AMD doesn't shape up and do something by next July, I'm afraid I'll be using a Intel CPU. This is bad since, I really like AMD because they're trying to compete with a company that's many times their size.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom