Is the ASUS crosshair V+580 giving biased results for the Bulldozer?

[mailpranshu]

Hi Guys,

I have stumbled upon something rather strange. Like any other builder I had been waiting for the FX with bated breath. It has been a disappointment and all sites across the net have thrashed it. Let me summarize some of the obvious pitfalls detailed on Toms, Anands, X bit etc.

1. Performs lower than the 2500k.
2. Power consumption is high.
3. Single core performance is dismal. Worse than even the 1100T in some cases!!!!
4. Gaming performance is downright bad.

I am from an engineering background(electronics) and have an additional finance background as well(MBA finance). I know how companies work and the pricing made no sense to me in any scenario. Let me summarize again.

1. Why Had AMD prices something so high when it knows it will not perform from day 1?
2. Whats the point of making a sure shot loss from day 1?
3. Why is the gaming performance so dismal? Wasn't ultra high resolution gaming its USP?
4. Where is the overclocking? 4.5ish GHz???? That's it???!!!!!!!!
5. Was there any testing done? Even a simple die shrink would have improved heating and efficiency.

So I wanted to have a further look. This was a mystery that needed looking into. I also noticed something else. All the testing on all the sites has been done on this kit. Link below.

http://morethanchessagame.forumotion.com/t1987-amd-fx-bulldozer-press-kit-pictured-stuffed-with-fx-8150-cpu-asus-crosshair-v-formula-and-scorpius-platform-badge

Now, all big sites have been given this kit including Toms. It makes sense because I am guessing Asus has an agreement with AMD to make its mother boards the "official" ones for testing. Also all these sites have used a 580 GTX quoting minimal graphics bottleneck. I agree its a sound rationale.

I confirmed at some other sites as well. The Asus + 580GTX has been used pretty much everywhere.

Its then that I went over to hardwareheaven and had a look. They have stayed away from the press kit and used an Asrock board. Here is the review link.

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1285/pg1/amd-fx-8150-black-edition-8-core-processor-vs-core-i7-2600k-review-introduction.html

Now, Toms has come up with results exactly the same as all other sites that used the press kit. Lets have a look at some big changes on the benches.

Also, all sites except hardwareheaven has used a 580Gtx. Lets have a look at some gaming benches. That's what matters to us right?

3DMark 11

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1285/pg9/amd-fx-8150-black-edition-8-core-processor-vs-core-i7-2600k-review-3dmark-11.html

Win

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-13.html

Massive loss!!!!!

F1 2011


http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1285/pg11/amd-fx-8150-black-edition-8-core-processor-vs-core-i7-2600k-review-f1-2011.html

Win

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-19.html

Massive loss!!!!!

Also when I go through the whole hardware heaven review it gives it a good rating placing it close to the 2600K and above the 2500K. Which in turn is in line with their strategy. It does lose in some benches but is still very very close to the 2500K.

This is extremely strange. Please go through the site yourself.

So to conclude:
1. Can Toms and others please do a test with other 990 boards?
2. Can we please have a comparison with more AMD and Nvidia cards?
3. Who do we trust? Isn't a biased review completely anti against AMD from day 1?
4. Can some one else independently run benches with the 2500K, 2600K and 8150 using different cards and mother boards?
5. Is there a Nvidia Intel nexus to make sure 8150 looks bad? Was the BFBC3 patch doctored for more than just RAGE???( remember Hawx 2 tessellation)

Please post links here. And don't post links for other sites as there is a strong anti AMD bias/ vibe. I think we users need to take things in our own hands and check this out. Can some one use their own personal hardware and run benches?

I am not an AMD fan or a conspiracy nut. I use both builds and use Nvidia as well. So lets keep this discussion open and friendly. No trolling please.

And can the seniors moderators and testers at Toms please step in and explain? Can a new test be done?

 

[jdw_swb]

Here is a review - FX 8150 review using Gigabyte 990FXA-UD5 and HD6970.

Gaming benchmarks from that review -

 

[dontqqnub]

i approve this message

 

[cats_Paw]

I think you guys should notice: Sites have a diffrent way of testing their products. This gives diffrent scores.
Example: FPS, are those minimal, average, max? In many sites they dont specify.
Example: specify what is High, very high settings (all maxed on very high?).
Example: Are you playing an open area to test ? are you playing a 1v1 or a 4v4 (starcraft 2).
Its easy to modify the parameters to get the results "you" want to get. Finally note that there are many diffrent games beeing tested. But i think its safe to asume that the bulldozer will have a hard time since cpu intensive games (like starcraft 2) seem to be running better on Intel.

 

[cats_Paw]

Also... Using Nvidia? Probably to use physx on GPU....

 

[AMD X6850]

Wow this is really interesting.
As someone who regards AMD as awesome, I feel like I have betrayed them after quickly judging Bulldozer as a failure =/

I hope this all works out well for AMD, nobody deserves to have something that is great be judged different because of biased results.

 

[jet-21]

I am quite happy in finding this thread.

 

[cats_Paw]

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150-processor-review/21

Check this out. makes a lot of more sense to me than the other reviews.
Also i dont know how usefull the extra cores are. I guess it deneonds on the software (EPIC GAMES said that the future of software was to make multi core aplications but we will see).

 

[FunSurfer]

Why almost all the CPU gaming benchmarks are performed on a resolution higher than 1440x900 + AA where GPUs become the bottleneck?
There should be a review with lower resolution with no AA and only then we REALLY be able to see who is better for games: BD or SB

 

[AMD X6850]

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150-processor-review/21

Check this out. makes a lot of more sense to me than the other reviews.
Also i dont know how usefull the extra cores are. I guess it deneonds on the software (EPIC GAMES said that the future of software was to make multi core aplications but we will see).

It makes it seem as if Bulldozer came too early
Which might be the case with most applications not utilising all of the cores but we would have had more raging peeps if it was delayed any longer

 

[dontqqnub]

What i would like to see is the same tests tomshardware has done but with different GPU(AMD).

 

[cats_Paw]

Perhaps. All i know is im getting soon a Laptop for gaming, and im going with an i5-2430M before the i7-2630 Due to better performance in games of a dual core higher clocked and cooler than a quad.
This is the sort of information that im guessing Intel Does not want out there.

Im still on a Q6600 since i belive even this processor is not yet fully utilized .

 

[joaompp]

Could it be that nVidia's drivers created a conflict with bulldozer's processes in order to yield negative results? I mean if we start to doubt AMD now, we will definitely be more skeptical of Southern Islands GPU, which nVidia stands to lose from significantly since it'll be out many months before Kepler's new iteration.

To be honest I doubt it would be ASUS, they stand to lose a significant business client by screwing them over. Afterall, they do make AMD GPUs and MoBos.

 

[joaompp]

By the way Pass Mark lists FX 8150 at 8600 (1 Sample), i5 2500k at 7300 (3.5k Samples), and i7 2600 (5.2k Samples). But I would take that with a heavy grain of salt.

 

[mailpranshu]

What i would like to see is the same tests tomshardware has done but with different GPU(AMD).

+1

 

[mailpranshu]

I think you guys should notice: Sites have a diffrent way of testing their products. This gives diffrent scores.
Example: FPS, are those minimal, average, max? In many sites they dont specify.
Example: specify what is High, very high settings (all maxed on very high?).
Example: Are you playing an open area to test ? are you playing a 1v1 or a 4v4 (starcraft 2).
Its easy to modify the parameters to get the results "you" want to get. Finally note that there are many diffrent games beeing tested. But i think its safe to asume that the bulldozer will have a hard time since cpu intensive games (like starcraft 2) seem to be running better on Intel.

Exactly. I would prefer to see some of our readers coming up with real benchmarks with multiple settings. And you are right. CPU intensive games will bomb here. The Metro results are very suspect ( PhysX??? was a nvidia card used?)

The test config clearly shows that a 6970 was used. So was a nvidia card also used with hacked drivers? ( similar to a 5870+460gtx). Also AMD does not do Physx. Its frame rates tank. Was a second card used for some tests?

 

[ghnader hsmithot]

Exactly. I would prefer to see some of our readers coming up with real benchmarks with multiple settings. And you are right. CPU intensive games will bomb here. The Metro results are very suspect ( PhysX??? was a nvidia card used?)

The test config clearly shows that a 6970 was used. So was a nvidia card also used with hacked drivers? ( similar to a 5870+460gtx). Also AMD does not do Physx. Its frame rates tank. Was a second card used for some tests?

Have you got an AM3+ mobo?

 

[mailpranshu]

Have you got an AM3+ mobo?

Sadly I don't. Using an old AM2 mo bo!!!!!! This was supposed to be my upgrade. Frankly no one picked up a AM3+ mo bo here at all.

Have a friend who is using a Thuban with a AM3 (890) board. He was using his 5870 with a 8800GT and then a 460 GT later. No idea how effective it was. Arkham looked cool though.

 

[ghnader hsmithot]

Sadly I don't. Using an old AM2 mo bo!!!!!! This was supposed to be my upgrade. Frankly no one picked up a AM3+ mo bo here at all.

Whats with all the excitement then.I mean you have been posting here and there about how benches are incorrect.

 

[mailpranshu]

Whats with all the excitement then.I mean you have been posting here and there about how benches are incorrect.

Well sorry if I gave that impression. Did not mean incorrect in anyway. I am 100% sure which ever site has published results has run its test diligently. What does bother me is that only the standard press kit has been used in most places. And as quoted above, a different mo bo and card has made a massive difference repeatedly.

The goal here is to find the best possible combination. And kill negativism instead of denouncing something from day 1. We need more benches on different rigs and combinations. Maybe a bios update for the Asus cross hair will fix this? Who knows? This week will tend to be rocky.

Do you by any chance have your hands on the 8150? If you do...... shed some light on this topic.

Peace.

 

[Uther39]

So are you chaps telling me that i should not maybe just yet jump ship to intel and buy a 2500k set up with the £1000 id saved for my Bulldozer set up?

 

[mailpranshu]

I think its best to wait this period out mate...... No point jumping in and buying something after being influenced with public sentiment. We need a rerun of benches first.

This thread is not about which is better. Its about isolating the best possible combination and hopefully isolating the reason for the extremely varied multi site benchmarks.... If the reason is found we can isolate it and avoid it. Think in the lines of H67 and P67 threads...

 

[Uther39]

Yes im thinking i may wait 1 more month to see how things pan out after other mobo reviews and even mobo BIOS updates that may need doing to fully enable the FXs full potential.

 

[mailpranshu]

Here is a review - FX 8150 review using Gigabyte 990FXA-UD5 and HD6970.

Gaming benchmarks from that review -

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/amd-fx-8150/farcry.png

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/amd-fx-8150/hardreset.png

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/amd-fx-8150/crysis.png

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/amd-fx-8150/metro.png

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/amd-fx-8150/dirt.png

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/amd-fx-8150/starcraft.png

Case in point...... Different rig but crappy benches..

 

[jdw_swb]

Well sorry if I gave that impression. Did not mean incorrect in anyway. I am 100% sure which ever site has published results has run its test diligently. What does bother me is that only the standard press kit has been used in most places. And as quoted above, a different mo bo and card has made a massive difference repeatedly.

The goal here is to find the best possible combination. And kill negativism instead of denouncing something from day 1. We need more benches on different rigs and combinations. Maybe a bios update for the Asus cross hair will fix this? Who knows? This week will tend to be rocky.

Do you by any chance have your hands on the 8150? If you do...... shed some light on this topic.

Peace.

Ok....but reviews have been posted with different setups, using different boards and graphic cards.

Gigabyte + AMD cards perform just as badly as ASUS + Nvidia setups. The subpar benchies are not exclusive to ASUS/nvidia builds.

Straws......clutching.......denial.......desperation.......

 

[AdrianPerry]

Straws......clutching.......denial.......desperation.......

While this is likely to be true, its worth waiting it out before making a decision to spend (or not to spend) hard earned money.