AMD's Bulldozer Pushed to 8.46 GHz, Breaks Own Record

[upgrade_1977]

Hardly ? Deus EX ? ... the F1 is used by toms also. Shogun don`t know.. maybe sheer number of units on the screen . And what do you want now ? 1024X768 low details to see the CPU in games that normaly don`t fully use multicores and resolutions and details at which nobody plays ? Whit that makes you feel better that the 2600k is faster in low resolution and details when cranking up the graphics at max won`t make any fukin difference in real world scenario ? Because that`s what every gamer does first... puts everything at max.

I'm sorry... I just don't get what you are trying to argue???

Like I said, Hardware heaven used a 6950 vs. tom using a gtx 580, so I'm sure that is putting the load on the gpu instead of the cpu. As you can see below, Amd is still lagging results on a higher end Computer with higher setting, so your argument really doesn't make sense..

 

[ern88]

Processor
System Idle Power
AMD FX-8150 (Zambezi) 8C/8T, 3.6 GHz Base
107 W
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T (Thuban) 6C/6T, 3.3 GHz Base
114 W
AMD Phenom II X4 980 BE (Deneb) 4C/4T, 3.7 GHz
100 W
Intel Core i7-2600K (Sandy Bridge) 4C/8T, 3.4 GHz Base
90 W
Intel Core i5-2500K (Sandy Bridge) 4C/4T, 3.3 GHz Base
90 W
Intel Core i7-920 (Bloomfield) 4C/8T, 2.66 GHz Base
130 W

 

[verbalizer]

but to clock a fully enabled Bulldozer FX-8150 requires a nuclear reactor..

 

[upgrade_1977]

One more thing.... Just to put the nail in the coffin..

I read a lot of people saying the FX series isn't using all it's performance in windows 7, and we won't see it's true potential until windows 8 is out. I just want to say, that AMD is doing a good job looking towards the future, except when windows 8 does finally arrive on the market, if history repeats itself as it seems to do, then i'm sure intel will have a new even faster cpu out by then.

If you look at AMD gpu's, they had tessellation for a long time before DirectX 11 was out, but when Nvidia's first DirectX card was released, it's tessellation was twice as powerful as AMD's.. And thats when the first games started implementing tessellation.

Alright, now, just to say it again, i'm not really a fan boy. While I do love intel and nvidia, I would buy an amd cpu or even an amd graphics card, if I just wanted to build the cheapest fastest computer possible. Not for myself, but probably for a customer on a budget.

I'm not trying to start a flame war, i'm just saying that while amd overclocks like hell, the fx series is supposed to be a gaming processor, and I don't know any gamers who play games at 8+ ghz, and even if they did, a lower clocked intel chip will still be faster.

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]upgrade_1977[/nom]First... Do you actually read benchmark articles or are you just commenting based off of other forum post's? Intel has been, and still is, winning not just synthetic benchmarks but also real life life benchmarks.. W/ this series, a true 8 core AMD FX CPU is getting whooped by a 3 year old intel quad core CPU in REAL LIFE GAMING BENCHMARKS.... (by real life, I mean not synthetic, they are benchmarked using "ACTUAL GAMES"...Need I get more?The "FX" which was supposed to be a gaming CPU, Basically got raped by intel..... IN GAMING..Notice in the pictures, it's even higher clocked, in some, still getting beat by even it's own lower clocked CPU's..... Don't get mad at me, go read some benchmark articles...[/citation]

its not true 8 core, its realistically a different way th thread, that once the os realizes thats what it is, will beat equal intel processors

and congrats, you proved that the amd cpu in every game, plays at 60fps+ and in street fighter over 400, and the one game it lags in at less than 60fps, its off my less than 5%

you understand pictures better than anything else, thats clear.

[citation][nom]upgrade_1977[/nom]One more thing.... Just to put the nail in the coffin..I read a lot of people saying the FX series isn't using all it's performance in windows 7, and we won't see it's true potential until windows 8 is out. I just want to say, that AMD is doing a good job looking towards the future, except when windows 8 does finally arrive on the market, if history repeats itself as it seems to do, then i'm sure intel will have a new even faster cpu out by then.If you look at AMD gpu's, they had tessellation for a long time before DirectX 11 was out, but when Nvidia's first DirectX card was released, it's tessellation was twice as powerful as AMD's.. And thats when the first games started implementing tessellation.Alright, now, just to say it again, i'm not really a fan boy. While I do love intel and nvidia, I would buy an amd cpu or even an amd graphics card, if I just wanted to build the cheapest fastest computer possible. Not for myself, but probably for a customer on a budget. I'm not trying to start a flame war, i'm just saying that while amd overclocks like hell, the fx series is supposed to be a gaming processor, and I don't know any gamers who play games at 8+ ghz, and even if they did, a lower clocked intel chip will still be faster.[/citation]

from what i remember, nvidia couldn't get tessellation right, threw a fit, and microsoft pulled it form dx10

that also said, correct me if im wrong, but tessellation from nvidia and amd is done differently correct? im just guessing that has something to do with why nvidia is what, 10% better?

 

[GNCD]

[citation][nom]warezme[/nom]They should limit all these so called records to only chips that are AIR cooled. Then I would believe them.[/citation]

100% agree.

 

[verbalizer]

" that also said, correct me if im wrong, but tessellation from nvidia and amd is done differently correct?
im just guessing that has something to do with why nvidia is what, 10% better? "

+1
something like that...

 

[nikorr]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]not just threads, the things that make the bulldozer look bad is the applications that are still single core, much less thread.windows 7 was made ground up to support threads in the i processors. wait till win 8 to judge bulldozer fully there.[/citation]
[citation][nom]Stardude82[/nom]These overclocking records are lame. It's also complete hypocrisy that AMD has a whole team dedicated to achieve entirely pointless clock speeds. These were the people who fought the "Megahertz Myth" so hard. Marketing tag should be "MOAR COREZ! MOAR MEGAHURTZ! IZ BETTAR!"So, what is stopping Intel from having the same dedicated team?[/citation]
So, what is stopping Intel from having the same dedicated team?

From very happy 2600K user...

 

[nikorr]

From a very happy 2600K user...

 

[wishmaster12]

I would rather buy a bulldozer over a i5!

 

[Dark Lord of Tech]

Awesome!

 

[gnesterenko]

@upgrade_1977

I define the 'real world' as the 'real user experience'. If my computer can max my monitors capabilities, any theoretical overhead beyond that is lost on me, the user, because all I can see is the limit of the weakest link in my hardware - the monitor. 120Hz monitors 'becoming' the standard is not the same as 'being' the stanard. My argument is that you picked out 2 benchies out of many many others to specifically make BD look far worse then it actually is (not to say that its great). If I were to cherry pick data, I could put a few graphs where each of the dicussed processors has the exact same frame rates. So we are discussing different things. You are talking about some FPS number that a computer can generate. Great. I'm talking about the end user experience. It's great that there are CPUs out there that can push 120 or more FPS, but I am certainy not going to pay more money to see a higher number on a benchmark. My question is - is my game running at max graphics and settings without noticable frame drops or stutters. If the answer is Yes (which it is for all AMD offerings with the exception of a few hardware/software combination scenarios) then any discussion of "better" or "faster" is pretty moot - my experience remains the same - so why would I pay more for the same experience?

Oh, and lemme cherry pick some graphs to make BD look good. Heres the FX-8150 vs the 2600K

Lets see - HAWX:
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/4350/amd_fx_8150_bulldozer_gaming_performance_analysis/index5.html
8FPS difference at highest resolution. Lowest FPS for AMD is 141. Will never see a difference on any monitor.

MAFIA 2
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/4350/amd_fx_8150_bulldozer_gaming_performance_analysis/index6.html
1 FPS difference at highest resolution. Lowest FPS for AMD is 64 - may see a difference on the best of monitors

Lost Plane 2
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/4350/amd_fx_8150_bulldozer_gaming_performance_analysis/index7.html
1 FPS difference at highest resolution. 2FPS difference at lowest. Lowest AMD FPS is 51 - vs 52 on the 2600K. Will never see a difference on any monitor.

AVP
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/4350/amd_fx_8150_bulldozer_gaming_performance_analysis/index8.html
1 FPS difference at highest resolution. Identical at all other resolutions. Will never see a difference on any monitor.

Metro 2033
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/4350/amd_fx_8150_bulldozer_gaming_performance_analysis/index9.html
1 FPS difference at highest, 4 FPS difference at lowest resolutions. Will never see a difference on any monitor.

Dirt 3
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/4350/amd_fx_8150_bulldozer_gaming_performance_analysis/index10.html
Same as above

And here's an engeneering sample pitted against the $1000 monster from Intel, all played at highest settings at max resolution (2560x1600)
http://wccftech.com/amd-bulldozer-4ghz-es-pitted-intel-core-i7990x-gaming-benchmarks/
A few FPS here and there, with the only real difference being in HAWX - that being 168 FPS vs 190 for Intel. A difference you will never see on any monitor in existance.


My point stands. In the real world, theoretical FPS means absolutely nothing. GPU >>> CPU. Save your money, buy the previous generation AMD for $150 (or less) and use the savings to buy a GTX 580 for FAAR more performance.

If however you only want the best of the best, then you should have gotten a Nahelem 990X a few years ago and you'd still have the fastest gaming CPU on the market with absolutely no need to upgrade. If you are like the rest of the world... well, the benchmarks speak for themselves. How much is 5% gain in gaming FPS worth to you, especially when your monitor can't display them?

Posting from work, so need this disclaimer:
"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

 

[captaincharisma]

[citation][nom]rooket[/nom]I don't understand the above statement unless you are talking about the weakly pentium 4's that used RDRAM.I still use a Pentium 4 Northwood with hyperthreading. It is a very solid and stable machine. On its third motherboard too, thanks Asus (I won't buy Asus products any more mind you, pure junk company). And hence the fallout of red coming on me, I use EVGA so don't get your panties in a bunch.I'm uncertain why people are flocking to bash AMD after all a lot of people on this site build AMD systems for gaming (for god knows what reason.. I do all Intel). It doesn't make sense as much as this post.And no I don't game on a Pentium 4. It is a spare machine but it is very useful. I also still have a Pentium 3 which is one of the most solid products Intel has ever made. And no need to knock me down because I'm about to recycle the Pentium 3 as well as dismantle the Pentium 4 anyway.I also still have a 533bus P4 and it works great but there's really not much use for it.Anyway all this back talk on AMD cpu is getting old. If you aren't going to buy it, nobody is making you. Sure I won't build myself an AMD system but that doesn't mean that I have to go teasing about it. That is just silly. At least someone is trying to put out technology and sometimes AMD comes out ahead. Who knows maybe there's a bunch of people who want 8 cores right now and that is the selling point.I'm going to upgrade to Ivy Bridge next year and the sandy bridge seemed to me like a stopgap product that I do not need. I'm waiting to see what chipsets actually support the thing before buying anything. For now, Core2Duo does the job and it does it very well. Why grab an i7 when a core2 does everything one needs... Only drawback though is I am assuming that evga does 10year warranty rather than lifetime however my PC is about 2-3 years old now so the lifetime warranty isn't really serving. But at least my evga board doesn't all in the sudden totally fail on me like Asus products do. User installation error? hell no. I've been building PCs for over 10 years and use ESD precautions and put in all the screws and use good components. I think Asus is a good company but luckily they are not the only choice.[/citation]

when the pentium 4 came out it had additional instruction sets that were not supported right away which crippled the CPU's performance. flash back to today and the AMD fanbois are crying about the same thing and telling everyone you have to wait till windows 8 to see the true perfomance of it

 

[wishmaster12]

I think amd should get rid of hyper transport, its old technology, get somthing new please!

 

[verbalizer]

I would rather buy a bulldozer over a i5!

dumb..
but it depends on usage and concentrating on multi-tasking and heavy threads..

 

[buzznut]

This is news 30 Mhz higher...
ferret is very amusing but BD does do well in very threaded apps.

 

[dalauder]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]not just threads, the things that make the bulldozer look bad is the applications that are still single core, much less thread.[/citation]I think you missed his point. He was saying the single threaded (most common) apps are what makes it look bad. Not until heavily threaded apps are mainstream will Bulldozer not suck. But it will not be around at that point...hopefully Windows 8 helps make it a bit more relevant.

 

[wishmaster12]

I heard you can change the thread schudule-ing in windows some how to make bulldozer faster!

 

[wishmaster12]

You mean a serious crash when using single threads

 

[eddieroolz]

The record is nice, but not much of a consolation.

 

[upgrade_1977]

@upgrade_1977

I define the 'real world' as the 'real user experience'. If my computer can max my monitors capabilities, any theoretical overhead beyond that is lost on me, the user, because all I can see is the limit of the weakest link in my hardware - the monitor. 120Hz monitors 'becoming' the standard is not the same as 'being' the stanard. My argument is that you picked out 2 benchies out of many many others to specifically make BD look far worse then it actually is (not to say that its great). If I were to cherry pick data, I could put a few graphs where each of the dicussed processors has the exact same frame rates. So we are discussing different things. You are talking about some FPS number that a computer can generate. Great. I'm talking about the end user experience. It's great that there are CPUs out there that can push 120 or more FPS, but I am certainy not going to pay more money to see a higher number on a benchmark. My question is - is my game running at max graphics and settings without noticable frame drops or stutters. If the answer is Yes (which it is for all AMD offerings with the exception of a few hardware/software combination scenarios) then any discussion of "better" or "faster" is pretty moot - my experience remains the same - so why would I pay more for the same experience?

Oh, and lemme cherry pick some graphs to make BD look good. Heres the FX-8150 vs the 2600K

Lets see - HAWX:
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/4350/amd_fx_8150_bulldozer_gaming_performance_analysis/index5.html
8FPS difference at highest resolution. Lowest FPS for AMD is 141. Will never see a difference on any monitor.

MAFIA 2
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/4350/amd_fx_8150_bulldozer_gaming_performance_analysis/index6.html
1 FPS difference at highest resolution. Lowest FPS for AMD is 64 - may see a difference on the best of monitors

Lost Plane 2
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/4350/amd_fx_8150_bulldozer_gaming_performance_analysis/index7.html
1 FPS difference at highest resolution. 2FPS difference at lowest. Lowest AMD FPS is 51 - vs 52 on the 2600K. Will never see a difference on any monitor.

AVP
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/4350/amd_fx_8150_bulldozer_gaming_performance_analysis/index8.html
1 FPS difference at highest resolution. Identical at all other resolutions. Will never see a difference on any monitor.

Metro 2033
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/4350/amd_fx_8150_bulldozer_gaming_performance_analysis/index9.html
1 FPS difference at highest, 4 FPS difference at lowest resolutions. Will never see a difference on any monitor.

Dirt 3
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/4350/amd_fx_8150_bulldozer_gaming_performance_analysis/index10.html
Same as above

And here's an engeneering sample pitted against the $1000 monster from Intel, all played at highest settings at max resolution (2560x1600)
http://wccftech.com/amd-bulldozer-4ghz-es-pitted-intel-core-i7990x-gaming-benchmarks/
A few FPS here and there, with the only real difference being in HAWX - that being 168 FPS vs 190 for Intel. A difference you will never see on any monitor in existance.


My point stands. In the real world, theoretical FPS means absolutely nothing. GPU >>> CPU. Save your money, buy the previous generation AMD for $150 (or less) and use the savings to buy a GTX 580 for FAAR more performance.

If however you only want the best of the best, then you should have gotten a Nahelem 990X a few years ago and you'd still have the fastest gaming CPU on the market with absolutely no need to upgrade. If you are like the rest of the world... well, the benchmarks speak for themselves. How much is 5% gain in gaming FPS worth to you, especially when your monitor can't display them?

Posting from work, so need this disclaimer:
"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

This is from your link....

LOL, ok dude. Why don't you just go buy a dell... My 3 year old i7 920 is still kicking ass.

I'm not talking about the end user experience, i'm an enthusiast, just like most of the people here. This article after all is about overclocking to 8+ ghz. All i'm arguing is that at stock speeds, it's slower then a 3 year old cpu. And i'm not arguing about it, i'm clearly showing proof. I just don't get the point of them releasing an FX series CPU which is so slow. It really doesn't deserve to be called the FX series.

Again, it doesn't matter if you have 120hz monitor. A more powerful cpu is more powerful, period. I don't know anyone who plays metro 2033, crysis 2, BF3, that gets 120fps consistently. Those aren't minimums they are averages in the benchmarks. And yes there are cpu dependent games out there that will make even the most powerful cpu drop below 30fps at times. Metro 2033 being one of them. So your argument doesn't make sense.

Also, did you see the per-core performance? You can clearly see it's got bad architecture. And yes, I do look at the pictures.
What you AMD guys don't?

All i'm saying, in this whole forum, is that the FX series, doesn't stand up to the FX name, based on it's performance. Thats all, i'm not telling anyone they shouldn't buy it. I'm saying don't be mistaken by the 8+ overclock, but all you AMD guys are getting offended. For the price it is a good bargain. But for an enthusiast like me, it's confusing to label a processor FX when it clearly doesn't have FX performance. The old FX series put amd on the map, they were the fastest. And at the time, I wanted one.

So to sum up everything i've posted about in this forum, AMD designed a chip to overclock to a high mhz, so that it could win the crown. Just because it's 8+ ghz, doesn't mean it'll beat intel when intel is overclocked. I'd love to see both chips performance at there highest overclocks in a benchmark just to compare.

Again, i'm not trying to start a flame war. I'm just standing beside my point, if you don't agree, then you don't agree. Is this chip a good buy? Sure, if you want to save money, and read my other post's, i've already said that. Is it a good buy for an enthusiast (and by enthusiast, I mean a gamer who wants the most FPS from all there games)? Unless you plan on running with LN2, then No, because while it might keep up in some games, other games it lags. Who knows how it will run with games that come out in the near future.



Thats it, this is my last post. I'm at work, and now i'm going home.

 

[cobra5000]

Did someone yell, "FLAME WAR"?

 

[leon2006]

BD is a dud...its time to move on.

 

[clonazepam]

Yo I just picked up this sweet 18-wheeler for hauling... I decided to ditch the trailer and strap on a jet engine. It's so freakin' fast, omg! Same thing, more or less....

BD's a good chip that's just selling for higher than its actual value.

 

[ern88]

whatever fanboi's say. AMD just sucks at chips. Lets hope they don't screw up the GPU division.