Printable View
(boomed!)
Frankly speaking, it's performance is not that impressive (especially in terms of single-threaded environment).
...But I have an 'exclusive' justification regarding its single-core (= thread-wise) performance. I'm sure that no other HW site/lab has been dealing with it.
Coming soon!
Thanks for the benchmarks.
Bulldozer oc speed is ??
please post at what voltage is the cpu running default,at what voltage when oced and power usage.
thanks for the early review:)
Very decent results if true!
What's with the "P" at the end of FX-8150 by the way? I seem to recall that FX-8120 was misinterpreted as "FX-8130P" by some earlier version of CPU-Z and thus creating the misconception that there was actually a CPU named "FX-8130P" with a "P" at the end. Does anyone know? Is the FX-8150 actually named FX-8150P? I don't think I've ever seen that mentioned before. :shrug:
Probably a spelling error?
who cares about single threaded? We have 8 damned cores ;) At least it looks decent in MT apps :) So if this sticks, I am back in. OC the heck out of it, and enjoy :D
And yeah, OCed to what? 8Ghz?
ffs, double post :(
Compared to 2600k BD wins 2 out of 10 tests ( Winrar and Techarp x264 2nd pass )
Compared to 2500k BD wins 7 out of 10 tests ( wins are on throughput not single threadedaltough the Sandra tests on the 2500k look strange, you shouldn't have that difference vs. 2600k, HT doesn't matter )
Conclusion based on this sample test : 2500k < BD < 2600k overall, but in low threaded scenarios it doesn't hold a candle to both the 2500k and 2600k and losses even to the Thubans.
2nd conclusion : in Crysis, even with 2 6990 you're GPU bottleneck at 2560x1600. The I3 2100, 2500k, 2600k and OC FX flatten at around ~92 FPS. Obviously, their compute power is significantly different which can be seen in the lower resolution mode where GPUs aren't braking the system.
Horrible performance
i7 2600 looks better than FX-8150 in most multi-threaded benchmarks despite having 4 less cores and lower GHz
In lightly-threaded benchmarks i5 2500 completely destroy FX-8150. Actually, even Phenom II looks better in some of the single-threaded benchmarks
Better then what was expected lately ;)
It probably wont make Intel users change their system, but provided the facts that there might be potential in C revisions and later, I see light for AMD :)
Will be fun chip, though I'd like to have it at lower power consumption. Maybe Undervolting could help @ stock for 24/7 effiency?
Much regards, and many thanks for this early not-so-bad preview, will be in tomorrow to read more :)
same post removed
You posted the same comment three times in this threadQuote:
Originally Posted by muziqaz
Anyway, many people care about single-threaded performance. Many games and applications don't use all the cores. For example, PCSX2 and Dolphin emulator only use two threads, and those emulators are extremely CPU intensive
So please, oh please buy yourself a single core Duron and enjoy it instead of coming here and moaning how BD sucks in single threaded apps. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by dartaz
Who will buy BD?
OCers bored with SB
Xtreme OCers chasing cold
People who want nice multithreaded performance but cannot afford 2600K
people who use x264 for their video stuff(me).
Well I belong to all of those except xtreme clockers, as I live in UK, no snow here and I don't have SB to be bored of it, though I do have Thuban, and I am bored with it :D
I do video editing quit a lot with Cyberlink Power Director, which is AMD friendly and uses x264 as one of the filters, which soon might get some nice FMA4 speed ups. I also like to test new games which come out to see how they run on my system, and make videos about it. And more games than not started to like more cores than more ghz.
By the way, some european retailer listed 8150 for 229 euros. So that is not that bad at all for a fun CPU.
double post. WTF is happening to website? Not the first time it is so slow I loose patience to even wait for it to load?
You guys are not running it on Bulldozer are you? :D
Not impressive, but I'll guess it's enough to compete with Intel if AMD can offer a better price.
Not many hours left until NDA is lifted!
Cheers for sharing mate ;-). Any chance telling us what OC frequency and voltage have you used for BD?
Oh my God Jesus !!
:shakes::shakes:
Yeah, keep getting stupid database error and time out.Quote:
Originally Posted by dartaz
Well, a lot of people you say? Hm Dolphin emulator, this is the 1st time I have ever heard of it. I bet you a lot of people as well. And what is PCSX2?
So whoever cares about single threaded performance, shouldn't even look towards quads, same with 2600 and BD. If you need single threaded perf as I said buy some dual core or something like that and stop moaning and pretending that world is gonna end because bulldozer sucks in ST :/ Unless you think that AMD engineers one day decided to design 8/16 cores CPU for single threaded applications :D
:shakes: double post
I really don't understand how that name came to be used as a swear word. Ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tha Last Meal
So according to this, it performs ~16% better than 1100T at stock. Add to this OC capabilities from both (much higher with Bulldy). Not bad here.
considering latest leaks before this, these results are great :DQuote:
Originally Posted by PetNorth
I don't care about ST perf. just give me something between 2500k and 2600k in MT. Then put it into motherboard and tweak and tweak :D And wait for PileDriver :D
I think i will put my i7 920 in the bench table and get a bulldozer for daily use ... it seems a very capable and fun chip :)
still doesnt beat an i3 2100 in gaming...FAIL
Well it depends what you care. I don't care games at all. On the other hand, I do A LOT of x264 encoding, so to me, it would be a better option than 2600k. Faster and cheaper.
Bulldozer might not be all that bad in multithreading @ 5 Ghz.Quote:
Originally Posted by PetNorth
However single thread it will not be impressive at all. We are back near Athlon 64 IPC in single thread. ><'
You were given that with 1100T a year ago...Quote:
Originally Posted by muziqaz