Why I bought a Bulldozer inside

[jonnyrb]

Somebody on these forums pointed out that Toms and a few other sites used the same benchmarking kit with an nVidia 580 gpu and the same mobo ASUS Crosshair V. This these tests are using a different benchmarking kit and an AMD gpu... *cough* as intended

Nobody can argue with pictures

 

[icracked]

The reason why I bought is because it is competitive and will probably get better with age as OS's mature and develop better support for more cores.

#18 All time
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html


Also some other stuff.
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/AMD-FX-8150-vs-Core-i5-2500K-and-Core-i7-2600K-CPU-Review/1402/1

 

[bucknutty]

The problem with benchmarks is we don’t know what the authors or testers true intentions are. Are they really looking for the best data to help people make a good buying decision? Are they fan boys compelled by some sense of loyalty to make their company look better?

I wonder why the Dues and Dirt tests are run at a high res like 1920x1080, with AF cranked, but with the graphic settings on low and AA off? Especially when they are getting average FPS in the 70s.

No one would play at that res with settings on low and AA off, but AF on full. A more realistic setting would be AF, AA, on half like 8x and graphics on medium or High for an average FPS of 50-60.

Perhaps when set to a more balanced and realistic setting the i7 pulls away?

Anyway it is good to see AMD back in the fight again. I still remember the day I got my AMD k6-2 550mhz and smoked all my LAN party friends P2s. And then when I got an Ahtlon x2 and ran all over every one else’s P4s. Hopefully Bulldozer will turn out the same way.

 

[jonnyrb]

The problem with benchmarks is we don’t know what the authors or testers true intentions are. Are they really looking for the best data to help people make a good buying decision? Are they fan boys compelled by some sense of loyalty to make their company look better?

I wonder why the Dues and Dirt tests are run at a high res like 1920x1080, with AF cranked, but with the graphic settings on low and AA off? Especially when they are getting average FPS in the 70s.

No one would play at that res with settings on low and AA off, but AF on full. A more realistic setting would be AF, AA, on half like 8x and graphics on medium or High for an average FPS of 50-60.

Perhaps when set to a more balanced and realistic setting the i7 pulls away?

Anyway it is good to see AMD back in the fight again. I still remember the day I got my AMD k6-2 550mhz and smoked all my LAN party friends P2s. And then when I got an Ahtlon x2 and ran all over every one else’s P4s. Hopefully Bulldozer will turn out the same way.

There are two Deus Ex Benchies, 1 of which is 16 AF in which the Bulldozer still triumphs. As for the Dirt, not sure, it's just what was posted :O It's no secret that bulldozer excels with more resolution.

 

[y2k]

Why I bought a Bulldozer inside?

- Because i didn't have Intel inside

 

[beenthere]

When people get over the shock that Bulldozer didn't humiliate Intel's best CPUs, they will come to understand that BD is a fine CPU for most consumers and businesses. Buy what makes you happy. Few people need or will pay for bleeding edge CPUs other than for bragging rights.

 

[wolfram23]

It's no secret that bulldozer excels with more resolution.

It's a secret to me... more resolution = more GPU bottlenecking. Therefore CPUs are less dependant on the framerate. Low res, low settings, low AA, etc, take the GPU out of the equation and the CPU and mobo become the bottleneck. If a CPU/mobo is really better, it will show it off at these modest settings.

You can verify this yourself with FurMark. Just set it to low res and then run it at 0xAA and 8xAA and I bet you'll see no difference. Then change the CPU clock and you'll see a big difference.

EDIT: Or just look at the HAWK bench results

 

[jdw_swb]

You are right....pictures don't lie. Using ASROCK and Gigabyte boards and both nvidia and AMD graphics cards.

 

[jonnyrb]

You are right....pictures don't lie. Using ASROCK and Gigabyte boards and both nvidia and AMD graphics cards.


http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/452/bench/Gaming_01.png

http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/452/bench/Gaming_02.png

http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/452/bench/Gaming_03.png

http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/452/bench/Gaming_04.png

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

I support posts like this, their real. Keep more benchies comming as you see them.

 

[bucknutty]

I think the fx-8150 is an amazing piece of tech, and it could really put AMD back in the fight, how ever I feel it needs to be under $200. To compete with the i5 2500 it needs to cost less, simple as that.

 

[sinfulpotato]

Bulldozer was over-hyped... it was intended to complete with Sandy Bridge and for the most part it does. However, I think all these benchmarks only prove we hit a wall with CPU's. I can't help but notice on MOST benches even the PII is keeping up with Sandy-bridge and Bulldozer.

Why would someone want to upgrade from a PII or a first gen i7?? You would get nearly zero noticeable gain unless you happen to be a media junkie, and if that's the case you'll want Bulldozer for the eight cores.

 

[iam2thecrowe]

I think the fx-8150 is an amazing piece of tech, and it could really put AMD back in the fight, how ever I feel it needs to be under $200. To compete with the i5 2500 it needs to cost less, simple as that.

how is it an amazng piece of tech, please explain? lets see, its 8 cores gets beaten by 4 intel cores in 95% of situations, its power consumption is through the roof, it has lower per-core performance than their old phenom II core, its priced to match CPU's it cant compete with....... where is the amazing part?

 

[megamanx00]

how is it an amazng piece of tech, please explain? lets see, its 8 cores gets beaten by 4 intel cores in 95% of situations, its power consumption is through the roof, it has lower per-core performance than their old phenom II core, its priced to match CPU's it cant compete with....... where is the amazing part?

I agree that the idea behind the design and the fact that it works is amazing. There are a few cases where a Bulldozer Module handles two threads really well and the sharing of the FPU make sense, though apparently not the implementation.

Even so it's like saying an average triathlete has an amazing left arm. That's nice, but it's not gonna get them first place. So too do Bulldozers finer qualities not mean much in the overall picture. The overall picture says Bulldozer disappoints and should end up priced less than the 2500k. The FX badge is for top preforming CPUs gamers are willing to pay a premium for and Bulldozer fails at that.

 

[jonnyrb]

how is it an amazng piece of tech, please explain? lets see, its 8 cores gets beaten by 4 intel cores in 95% of situations, its power consumption is through the roof, it has lower per-core performance than their old phenom II core, its priced to match CPU's it cant compete with....... where is the amazing part?

95% of situations didn't look at OP.. orr?

 

[bucknutty]

how is it an amazng piece of tech, please explain? lets see, its 8 cores gets beaten by 4 intel cores in 95% of situations, its power consumption is through the roof, it has lower per-core performance than their old phenom II core, its priced to match CPU's it cant compete with....... where is the amazing part?

What other 8 core cpu can you get for under $300 to throw in a consumer board? I understand it is not perfect and I by no means think it's a good value at $250 or more, but give a little credit where credit is due. This new architecture has potential.

 

[jimmysmitty]

What other 8 core cpu can you get for under $300 to throw in a consumer board? I understand it is not perfect and I by no means think it's a good value at $250 or more, but give a little credit where credit is due. This new architecture has potential.

What good is potential that could be 1-2 years away now? Especially when in 1-2 years Intel will push out 2-3 new archs.

AMD priced it wrong. AMD hid the performance while hyping it.

Meh. BD is not worth it over a 2500K.

 

[wh3resmycar]

What good is potential that could be 1-2 years away now? Especially when in 1-2 years Intel will push out 2-3 new archs.

AMD priced it wrong. AMD hid the performance while hyping it.

Meh. BD is not worth it over a 2500K.

not only that, people keep thinking "amd will get better once software matures", and intel wont?

 

[alikum]

not only that, people keep thinking "amd will get better once software matures", and intel wont?

You're correct.

But I do think that if they were to turn BD into an APU which would be out next yr, known as Trinity, there's potential for growth. APU is being held back by Stars arch, especially when you do hybrid crossfire. BD should change the game a little.

Also, current BD is actually good for software development where you run compilers and VMs.

 

[jdwii]

You're correct.

But I do think that if they were to turn BD into an APU which would be out next yr, known as Trinity, there's potential for growth. APU is being held back by Stars arch, especially when you do hybrid crossfire. BD should change the game a little.

Also, current BD is actually good for software development where you run compilers and VMs.

IMO i think that Bulldozer will not add much performance in trinity their is a lot of talk about W8 improving it though and PD might solve a lot of issues. AKA IPC

 

[radium69]

Thing is, since 2007 they we're mentioning bulldozer and it's awesome performance.
But it was so hyped and anticipated, even I expected more.

I agree that it is a very capable processor for every daily task or gaming. But so do the i3 and pentium series...

The thing is, price performance isn't great. Also the performance perr Watt has gone backwards! Instead of forward...

That is the reason I'm dissapointed, If I really need to make a budget build I choose AMD. But they just aren't ready to compete in price, performance and performance per watt.

They are still catching up though, but it's been for so long...
The i5 2500k and i7 2600k was released like what, 10 months ago?
Price hasn't come down, which means there is still a good margin left to save on.

 

[cats_Paw]

Bulldozer is simply 2 early in the world. If todays OS and software could use 8 cores it would beat the competition easy.
But we are still mostly running 2 cores in most scenarios, and in that, Intel has the upper hand.

 

[Outlander_04]

I support posts like this, their real. Keep more benchies comming as you see them.

who builds a top end gaming computer to play at low resolution ?

this might make sense to people who buy intel cpu's ,

 

[iam2thecrowe]

What other 8 core cpu can you get for under $300 to throw in a consumer board? I understand it is not perfect and I by no means think it's a good value at $250 or more, but give a little credit where credit is due. This new architecture has potential.

but WTF is the point of an 8 core CPU to any consumer that is not running a server?????? and when a 4 core cpu can do the same work........while using less power......i mean, if intel wanted to waste silicon on an 8 core consumer model CPU, im sure they could. but they arent that silly.

Look, dont get me wrong everyone, i am an AMD fan from way back. From the k5/k6/k6-2/athlon/duron/athlonxp/athlon64 days. I loved AMD. the core 2 duo is the first Intel CPU i have purchased EVER, and it was well worth it. and since the core 2 duo, AMD has failed to impress, and this 8 core disaster that is slower than Phenom (and the core 2 architecture) is a joke. so it has more cores, so what. you could make a "Core 2 8 core" and it would be faster. that many cores is useless for the average consumer or gamer

 

[Katsushiro]

who builds a top end gaming computer to play at low resolution ?

this might make sense to people who buy intel cpu's ,

Its not about actually playing at those resolutions. Its about ensuring that you are not CPU limited in your frames per second.

The benchmarks show that the FX hits a performance wall quite a bit before the i5 or i7 will. And without a big pricing advantage no gamer would be right to consider the FX.

 

[ghnader hsmithot]

Glad most people bought AM3+ boards.It helps AMD.Maybe we should setup AMD charity base.