AMD Launches Two Bulldozers, Reduces Price of FX-8120

Status
Not open for further replies.

azathoth

Distinguished
Jun 25, 2011
1,170
0
19,660
180
4.2Ghz Base clock? Very interesting indeed. However I have a feeling that the overclocking headroom is minimal at best.
I wonder what the pricing range will be?
 

crisan_tiberiu

Distinguished
Nov 22, 2010
1,185
0
19,660
117
Overclocking = marketing? imo, i think that AMD and Intel takes advantage of "overclockers". I meen the 2500 and 2600k averclock like hell, why not release the chips with a 4 GHZ base clock and 4,5 Ghz turbo? aha..then the overclock headroom its minimal ^^ This is the case of the FX 4170. The fx 4100 can be OCd to 4,5 GHz, so, its the same thing. The only thing here is (i think) this way the 4170 its going to come closer to intel. This is the "GHZ race" again. We cant compete on the arhitecture lets popm up the GHZ.
 
G

Guest

Guest
With Windows 8 Beta going public literally tomorrow, does Tom's Hardware have any planes to test Bulldozer on that OS? I remember reading that Windows 8 properly utilizes it during talks of a possible Windows 7 fix for the processor that didn't pan out.
 

theuniquegamer

Distinguished
Sep 7, 2011
279
0
18,790
1
4.2ghz base is very very good for overalockers to get it jump beyond 8.5 ghz record speed by previous bulldozer on LN2 . I hope they'll give proper aircooler with fx 4170 .Price will also be lower after launch of ivy bridge in june.
 

Ragnar-Kon

Distinguished
Apr 13, 2010
517
0
18,990
2
Still going to wait for 2nd Gen Bulldozer-based chips, but glad to see the price is dropping a little regardless. Something priced higher than an Intel chip and yet performs worse in 80% of the tasks is a bad thing.
 

nebun

Distinguished
Oct 20, 2008
2,841
0
20,810
19
[citation][nom]azathoth[/nom]4.2Ghz Base clock? Very interesting indeed. However I have a feeling that the overclocking headroom is minimal at best.I wonder what the pricing range will be?[/citation]
why would you want to overclock? it's at 4.2GHz....don't see the point....i guess you would have to overclock it to keep up with Intel's cpus, lol
 

kinggremlin

Distinguished
Jul 14, 2009
574
41
19,010
0
[citation][nom]theuniquegamer[/nom]4.2ghz base is very very good for overalockers to get it jump beyond 8.5 ghz record speed by previous bulldozer on LN2 . I hope they'll give proper aircooler with fx 4170 .Price will also be lower after launch of ivy bridge in june.[/citation]


You're making the assumption that these higher clocked chips are actually better than the same chips currently being sold with lower clock speeds, which is a dubious assumption to be making. Everyone knows that the 2600k can consistently be overclocked about 1.5Ghz higher than the base clock of 3.4Ghz. If Intel decided to sell a SB CPU tomorrow with a base clock of 4.4Ghz, it can pretty much be guaranteed that Intel did nothing to the current 2600k CPU except clock it higher, taking advantage of the headroom available with the current design. You're not going to be able to consistently clock them to 5.9Ghz just because the base clock speed was bumped 1Ghz.
 

SteelCity1981

Distinguished
Sep 16, 2010
1,129
0
19,310
12
These FX processors really aren't bad cpu's. People tend to want to stack them up against Intel's latest and greatest and if they aren't as good or better people want to act like they are worthless. Worthless to what, because it can't beat Sandy Bridge? So what that doesn't make them worthless by any means and then you get those that are very dissapointing. Lol Why, because Sandy Bridge is a few seconds faster than Bulldozer on avg that most people won't even notice the diff. The problem is people look at bechmarks down to seconds and come to the conclusion, instead of basing it on the overall productivity of a product itself to actually see a real diff in real world apps and not some Super PI or any of the non real world apps that no one in the real world uses let alone effects in what they will actually do in their everyday life. These FX chips are fine. Hell the vast majority of people complaining about these chips not being faster than Sandy Bridge are the same vast majority of people that these FX chips will suit their needs and then some without them noticing a diff between them and an Sandy Bridge cpu. Just be lucky AMD is still making cpu's or else Intel Core i3's would be over 200+ dollars right now let alone Core i5's or Core i7's prices none the less.
 

joytech22

Distinguished
Jun 4, 2008
1,686
0
19,810
10
[citation][nom]jdwii[/nom]The 8150 can barley beat the 6 core Phenom![/citation]
If your a video editor like me, the 8150 smashes the 6-Core Phenoms.

It really depends on the scenario.
 

muy

Honorable
Feb 26, 2012
17
0
10,510
0
and if you play the same games like me (rift, shogun 2), you have 1 core that can't cope and 7 cores that do nothing.
 

punnar

Distinguished
Aug 25, 2010
214
0
18,710
5
That's right! Not everyone play the same games and applications. What's a bad system for you may not be bad for another. That's why I thank TH and others that do these tests for us so we're better informed when making our next purchase. Save me lots of headaches and regrets. Thank you TH. I can't wait for you report on these new chips.
 

billybobser

Distinguished
Aug 25, 2011
432
0
18,790
1
I'm not excited, but I want to be impressed.

Price/performance wins would be nice for the broader consumer market instead of useful for only a few tasks.
 

whitey_rolls

Distinguished
Oct 29, 2010
135
0
18,690
3
Does frequency even matter with AMD anymore?

I guess you could answer that and say it does when deciding between two AMD chips, but you can't use it to compare to an Intel chip - AMD is so far behind.
 

oxiide

Distinguished
Nov 8, 2011
850
0
19,360
108
[citation][nom]SteelCity1981[/nom]Why, because Sandy Bridge is a few seconds faster than Bulldozer on avg that most people won't even notice the diff.[/citation]
Why the hell should I pay $240 for a hot, power-hungry FX-8150 when a Core i5-2500k outperforms it for $220 in virtually every meaningful test, often by a lot? Why pay $200 for an FX 8120 which usually falls behind a $125 Core i3? Please, explain to me why I, as a consumer, should ignore market forces and stick with AMD in this circumstance. Poor performance is excusable when the product is a better overall value; only the FX-4100 is a defensible value processor, and even then its pretty arguable.

Tom's tests a lot more than just synthetic benchmarks, by the way, but you already know that from all of the hours of research that clearly went into such an insightful post. They test a few synthetics, then usually a suite of games and real-world productivity apps.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY