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

Page 18 - 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.
what happens if intel drops the price of the 2600K to compete witht he 8150 when the 2700K's come out? i cant imagine anyone would buy any of the enthusiast chips
 
Apparently there is a patch that fixes the performance issues: http://quinetiam.com/?p=2356

sceptical but who knows, a new driver/patch may actually fix this beast.

@spoofedpacket

Really? last time they took me to the F1 paddock above the Ferrari pits. Your local rep must just suck.
 
[citation][nom]draphius[/nom]what happens if intel drops the price of the 2600K to compete witht he 8150 when the 2700K's come out? i cant imagine anyone would buy any of the enthusiast chips[/citation]

The sad news there is Intel don't have to drop any prices for the foreseeable future. The backlash against AMD right now is huge. If it makes its way out of the tech bubble and into the mainstream, it will be very damaging for them. I can't read anymore about it, it's too depressing.
 
One good thing about the FX-8150 is that it seems that it can be overclocked significantly up to 4.6 GHz according to Guru of 3d tests with over clocking. I do suspect that AMD still has a few bugs to work out of this chip much like the original Phenom that had the TLB errata issue. You also need to remember that it wasn't until the combination of the 790FX northbrige with the SB750 southbrige boards appeared that the Phenom II began to really shine. Also the processor does not seem to have a cold bug so innovative cooling (liquid cooling) could allow insane overclocks on this processor. Also the Mainboards are in there infancy here and I would hope that continued Mainboard development could improve the performance of this processor. It seems that it is very competitive in highly threaded applications and it can compete at a simular level at or near where Intel's i7 2600K while sadly older 32 bit single threaded applications are much slower than the i7 and even a bit slower than the top of the line Phenom II X4's. However by slower you would not notice it at all when running it on your desktop since the majority of these tests are synthetic and do not always compare to real life applications. Over all I feel AMD needs to tweak this processor family/chipset so the up comming Piledriver release in 2012 can better compete with Intel's offerings and hopefully performance levels can be maintained between Intel's i5 and i7 processors. If not AMD could be in trouble since they have not lead in the performance arena since the end of the Pentium 4 Netburst days. Good enough (i5 performance or better) with good monetary value will allow AMD to survive since they are doing ok with the Phenom II line. Also AMD makes great GPU's so hopefully they can hold their own for a while and fix the issues with this processor. We need AMD to suceed because Intel used to have a monopolgy and with a monopoly comes high processor prices and low innovation. That is why AMD surprised Intel back in 2003 because the defacto Monopoly Intel got complacent.
 
Looks like it will improve with optimization and as more apps support 8 cores. I doubt many games are going to be able to take advantage of that so right now probably a solid quad core is still the way to go. For most this just tells me if you can do so just hold off from replacing your current gear and save your money. It wont be long till we see even faster chips and more software supporting the additional cores. Heck I still have an X26000 and a 9150E that work great. Going to SSD's for the OS makes a huge difference in overall responsiveness and app load times.
Click to expand...


True, I put an Intel x-25m 80Gb drive as my boot drive and I now have a 7.2 (Windows 7 Proffesional 64 bit) expirience, It jumped from a 5.9 to a 7.2 just by adding a SSD. My computer boots in 17 seconds. I am running an over clocked Phenom (2.8Ghz) 9850 on a Gigabyte’s MA790GP-DS4H with 4 Gig of 1066 DDR2 and ATI 4850 vid card. How much of a boost in performance would I see with a new Phenom II x4 processor?
 
[citation][nom]draphius[/nom]what happens if intel drops the price of the 2600K to compete witht he 8150 when the 2700K's come out? i cant imagine anyone would buy any of the enthusiast chips[/citation]
It looks like 2700K will be $330
 

Why would Intel drop the prices of their chips? I don't see too many peeps buying BD no matter what Intel does with their prices. People are going to buy the superior product more times than naught.

If anyone is going to drop the price, it's going to be AMD in the hopes of selling those chips.
 

Intel will drop, if AMD does first : ) No other reason, really.....
 

Although it's a possibility...they didn't drop the price of SB when it came out while AMD was dropping the price of their chips just to unload them.
 

The truth is, they had great profits in the last few years, and they also don't have to chase anybody...
 
[citation][nom]Zwan[/nom]Apparently there is a patch that fixes the performance issues: http://quinetiam.com/?p=2356sceptical but who knows, a new driver/patch may actually fix this beast.@spoofedpacketReally? last time they took me to the F1 paddock above the Ferrari pits. Your local rep must just suck.[/citation]
If that`s true then it turns out that Bulldozer might be a CPU ahead of it`s time.If the software is the only thing that`s keeping it back from being a total beast.

And seriously .. benchmarking on iTunes ???? WTF who cares about that ?
 


Keep on making up excuses. i7-2600's 8 threads are also not used fully by the existing software; yet it stomps FX-8150.

The point was to show Bulldozer in various areas of computing, including even something as [strike]stupid[/strike] simple as iTunes. No one cares much about it, you're right, but it shows how the CPU manages with this trivial task when compared to other CPUs. A CPU might be good for one thing and not good for another, the potential customer must be able to look at the benchmarks and decide whether this particular CPU suits his needs.
 
[citation][nom]amk-aka-phantom[/nom]Keep on making up excuses. i7-2600's 8 threads are also not used fully by the existing software; yet it stomps FX-8150.The point was to show Bulldozer in various areas of computing, including even something as stupid simple as iTunes. No one cares much about it, you're right, but it shows how the CPU manages with this trivial task when compared to other CPUs. A CPU might be good for one thing and not good for another, the potential customer must be able to look at the benchmarks and decide whether this particular CPU suits his needs.[/citation]Chill you intel fanboy , i don`t have a deep understanding of the new architectures of these CPUs but from what i see Intel has a different aproach on how the CPU should work, and that software modification might bring intel a boost also or not that much , i7-2600 might have 8 threads but it still has 4 physical cores. And who really cares about number of cores ? Do you compare Radeons to GTX`s based on MHz or cores ? or do you compare them price vs performance ? And it wasn`t any excuse , i just wanna see BD being an awesome CPU.
 
I almost feel bad for the AMD fanboys...especially the ones who put off a new gaming build for over a year waiting for the release of this total flop known as BD aka Big Dud. If it wasn't so expensive it might make a fashionable paper weight.

AMD = Average Mediocre Design
 
ha ha you`re so funny .... my 3 year old PII 940 still runs everything i throw at it at max details if games is what you want from a computer . so having to pay atm for a more powerfull cpu to get more fps would be logical why ? I`m looking at BD from the video editing point of view .. and guess what .. unlike games those programs are multicore aware .. at least as much as the OS lets them. And from the results on that site with the fix AMD is more impressive than intel`s offerings(that`s if that site has any truth in it) And is not about fanboys dumb dumb, you should hope for competition because that`s what drives evolution, if AMD didn`t made those athlons 64 back then so good maybe intel wouldn`t have even developed Core 2 Duo and would have stuck with those P4s. Imagine that scenario. So stop acting like idiots about fanboys and hope for better hardware no matter the maker.
 

Sandy Bridge-E and Ivy Bridge...the two nails in AMD's coffin. And although I know competition is great, AMD isn't up to it. They have failed too many times and need to be replaced by a competent competitor. Whoever does try to give Intel a run for their money...well let's hope they don't make the mistake of hiring former AMD engineers.
 
[citation][nom]fyasko[/nom]how long have you been around? in the thunderbird-athlon xp/barton days intel was getting bashed left and right by toms.[/citation]

Not the same site, or owners. You are aware that Tom's was purchased by Best of Media, right?
 


I am a fanboy of one thing: value for money. AMD doesn't really seem to deliver on that front with Bulldozer. You might say that it's great for workstations and such, but it was targeted at gamers, according to AMD.

If you would have read the articles linked above, you'd find out that FX-8150 works exactly the same way: it's not a true 8-core, it's a quad-core with an extra integer pipeline on every core.

Your argument in bold was self-contradicting; of course I compare by benchmarks... which is exactly where Bulldozer loses. To a quad core i5-2500K which is $20 cheaper and 300 MHz slower with 2MB less cache, mind you...

There's been a word about "fixes" and "patches" which will "fix" Bulldozer, and while in the beginning I really wanted Bulldozer to be good for the sake of competition (also, I like AMD), now I want it to stay exactly where it is to teach irrational AMD fanboys a lesson! In the beginning of this thread, I saw some logical comments: people cursed the wait and the Bulldozer and went for i5/i7 without a second thought. Now we have a bunch of fanboys who're again waiting for a "fix", blaming Win7/bad benchmarks/Bulldozer being "too new" for currently existing software... I agree that BD being behind Sandy Bridge is somewhat strange, but it's not THAT far behind... and next time, how about making a product that actually works well with existing software? Intel can do it, somehow... 😀

Also, apparently FX-8150's TDP on load is 100W more than i7-2600K... not exactly the most attractive feature, either.
 


SB-E not so much... it's a totally different price category and the benchmarks so far show no advantage for gamers. Ivy Bridge, however, is another story... if it will run on P67 or at least Z68, AMD fanboys who blame Intel for changing sockets will choke with rage 😀

Still, I'd like to see games to be optimized for more cores and HT more than I'd like to see Ivy Bridge... there's still unexplored gaming potential in some CPUs.
 

Ivy Bridge will run on all 1155 boards, and Sandy Bridge-E will have the market with proggy's that utilize more than 4 cores. It's a no win situation with AMD atm.
 


That sounds pretty good - the part about IB running on all LGA 1155 (would be good if you could post a source/proof for such relieving news - not that I am planning to upgrade to IB, but it'd be nice to know that I can, should I ever need more CPU power). But I don't agree about SB-E overtaking the multi-core market... FX-8150 is $240 and SB-E will be $1000; there will be a market for SB-E but not everyone will be able to afford the extra $760 for their workstation.

All AMD needs is to drop FX-8150 to $200-210...
 
[citation][nom]amk-aka-phantom[/nom]I am a fanboy of one thing: value for money. AMD doesn't really seem to deliver on that front with Bulldozer. You might say that it's great for workstations and such, but it was targeted at gamers, according to AMD.If you would have read the articles linked above, you'd find out that FX-8150 works exactly the same way: it's not a true 8-core, it's a quad-core with an extra integer pipeline on every core.Your argument in bold was self-contradicting; of course I compare by benchmarks... which is exactly where Bulldozer loses. To a quad core i5-2500K which is $20 cheaper and 300 MHz slower with 2MB less cache, mind you...There's been a word about "fixes" and "patches" which will "fix" Bulldozer, and while in the beginning I really wanted Bulldozer to be good for the sake of competition (also, I like AMD), now I want it to stay exactly where it is to teach irrational AMD fanboys a lesson! In the beginning of this thread, I saw some logical comments: people cursed the wait and the Bulldozer and went for i5/i7 without a second thought. Now we have a bunch of fanboys who're again waiting for a "fix", blaming Win7/bad benchmarks/Bulldozer being "too new" for currently existing software... I agree that BD being behind Sandy Bridge is somewhat strange, but it's not THAT far behind... and next time, how about making a product that actually works well with existing software? Intel can do it, somehow... Also, apparently FX-8150's TDP on load is 100W more than i7-2600K... not exactly the most attractive feature, either.[/citation]
I know that BD at it`s current state is a big disappointment , what you don`t understand is that i was talking about a possible fix on this matter that might or not might happen and could affect Intel CPUs or not the same way it will affect BD. And the price/performance was more than a side note that there are still ppl counting hertz per hertz or core per core and they shouldn`t.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom