AMD FX-8150 Bulldozer finally tested

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

10-09-2011, 04:02 PM
highoctane

Quote:

Originally Posted by radaja

dont forget this video someone made right after that FX-8120 CB run was done,its mean but funny as hell
http://youtu.be/CqTU4wVvZL0

:rofl: Pretty good!
10-09-2011, 04:04 PM
Hornet331

Quote:

Originally Posted by PerryR

BTW, anyone know why the CPU is hardly strained in some of these CPU intensive benches?

because what you see is actually idle, the bench is already done. The 10% utilisation is the the teamviewer running (remote access). This of course can hamper the test quite a bit. I wouldn't take this resultt real serious without the RDT you probably see 10-20% increase in scores.
10-09-2011, 04:10 PM
Pantsu

Quote:

Originally Posted by radaja

dont forget this video someone made right after that FX-8120 CB run was done,its mean but funny as hell
http://youtu.be/CqTU4wVvZL0

After having seen the benchmark results I wasn't sure whether to laugh or cry, but after seeing this vid I was certainly laughing. :ROTF: Unfortunately I'm sure that laugh will turn into tears when we get to see Ivy Bridge price tags. What a sad time for desktop enthusiasts :(
10-09-2011, 04:13 PM
Hornet331

ACtually I doubt we see much of a price increase in the mainstream parts, the thing i can see is, that the remove the K parts and only let them live in the premium price segment.
10-09-2011, 04:23 PM
Brice MJ

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornet331

ACtually I doubt we see much of a price increase in the mainstream parts, the thing i can see is, that the remove the K parts and only let them live in the premium price segment.

They might even keep unclocked chips in the mainstream segment, but they probably wont push IB stock clocks much over what we have today if they dont need too (3.6-3.8GHz 4C/8T with 5-10% IPC boost).
10-09-2011, 04:25 PM
gosh

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornet331

With lower res benches you see what potential the cpu has, with caped max res benches it all looks the same.

You don't!
10-09-2011, 04:27 PM
jimbo75

Quote:

Originally Posted by eXa

Yes, a game wich has 3-400fps with 1024 resolution is rather pointless, since you obviously dont need much cpu performance for it to run great. But what if you get a game that runs with 100fps, or 50fps @ 1024? Thoose 300 and 400fps would tell me SOMETHING about what to expect, while those 130 gpu limited fps you want to see wouldnt tell me a daam thing about cpu performance in that game.
All that 130fps shows me is that both cpu is enough for that game(but nothing about newer/more cpu dependant games).

What games do you know that run at 50 fps @ 1024? You are using low res benchmarks as some kind of proof of lastability but it's a total fallacy. Any enthusiast who isn't gaming at his gpu's bottleneck needs to go out and buy a new gpu, not a new cpu.
10-09-2011, 04:31 PM
jjj

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pantsu

Unfortunately I'm sure that laugh will turn into tears when we get to see Ivy Bridge price tags. What a sad time for desktop enthusiasts :(

The sad part is that we won't see more than 4 cores at reasonable prices from Intel anytime soon.
10-09-2011, 05:17 PM
BababooeyHTJ

Quote:

Originally Posted by gosh

You don't!

You are talking to a guy who thinks that canned benchmarks like the small ranch loop that he posted are supposed to somehow be representative of real world performance.

There aren't too many sites out there that do a proper cpu gaming comparison. Anandtech, Techpowerup, Hardware Canucks, [H], and Guru3d all do awful cpu reviews. You can't treat a cpu review like its a video card review with a super pi bench.
10-09-2011, 05:29 PM
Sparky

Part of me still hopes it might be a Radeon 9700 pro deal, where it was released and was sucky due to some serious stability issues (my brother had one at the time and experienced this), then they realized that the card hated AGP fast writes for some reason (which they did fix with the 9800). Disable fast writes in the system BIOS and the card turned into a monster that completely caught nvidia off guard.

Not likely, but I'm still sort of hoping there is some flaw in the BIOS coding or whatever that is easily fixed, turning the CPU into a monster.

Vain hope? Probably.
10-09-2011, 05:33 PM
highoctane

Quote:

Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ

There aren't too many sites out there that do a proper cpu gaming comparison. Anandtech, Techpowerup, Hardware Canucks, [H], and Guru3d all do awful cpu reviews. You can't treat a cpu review like its a video card review with a super pi bench.

Since you're calling out some of the major players what do you consider a proper cpu gaming comparison, where are they lacking, what are you looking for in a proper cpu gaming comparison?
10-09-2011, 05:34 PM
G0ldBr1ck

It has to be better than this preview eludes. If this is all there is than $250 will never work. They would be lucky to sell any at $200 so I'm expecting there is something we are missing here.
10-09-2011, 05:38 PM
eric66

if i was amd i would quickly acquire arm license cause they can't even touch intel lol bulldozer my ass sorry must say that ...
10-09-2011, 05:38 PM
highoctane

Quote:

Originally Posted by G0ldBr1ck

It has to be better than this preview eludes. If this is all there is than $250 will never work. They would be lucky to sell any at $200 so I'm expecting there is something we are missing here.

Well considering launch prices are always the highest, unless things change after NDA lifts I'm sure we can expect some price drops soon after in retail.
10-09-2011, 05:45 PM
Pantsu

Quote:

It has to be better than this preview eludes. If this is all there is than $250 will never work. They would be lucky to sell any at $200 so I'm expecting there is something we are missing here.

You forget it's AMD's flagship. It will always be priced as high as it possibly can, like Intel does with Xtreme Edition cpus. The next lower model might be 100$ cheaper while being barely any slower.

The leaked AMD slides already showed that even in PR slides FX could only barely compete with 2500K in cherry picked tests which are supposed to justify the 245$ price for that small subset of users. Lab501 benches just reveal the flip side, that it sucks for everyone else.
10-09-2011, 05:54 PM
PerryR

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pantsu

The leaked AMD slides already showed that even in PR slides FX could only barely compete with 2500K in cherry picked tests which are supposed to justify the 245$ price for that small subset of users. Lab501 benches just reveal the flip side, that it sucks for everyone else.

Which slides are you talking about? The ones I saw recently showed it beating a 2500k pretty handily in picked benches.

http://i.imgur.com/EG4cN.jpg
10-09-2011, 05:57 PM
G0ldBr1ck

Well then Piledriver cant get here soon enough.
10-09-2011, 06:01 PM
geo

give AMD a break lol...
10-09-2011, 06:03 PM
CrazyNutz

WOW! This looks bad. Hurry get a 1100t while you still can!!!
10-09-2011, 06:09 PM
The Coolest

Quote:

Originally Posted by G0ldBr1ck

Well then Piledriver cant get here soon enough.

My thoughts exactly. Maybe that's why AMD's putting the rush on getting the new APUs, and subsequently BD II out the door ASAP?
I'm pretty disappointed at this point, especially after more than 5 years that the codename Bulldozer was floating around and all of the unofficial delays it encountered this year.
I still think that we got to give AMD the benefit of the doubt until the 12th, when all the other official reviews either confirm or refute this preview.
10-09-2011, 06:10 PM
LightSpeed

If the benches are indeed true, which i seriously hope are not, Phenom II at 32nm with some uarch improvements would easily be >20% better. I love AMD but I want what their CPU division are smoking. Now.
10-09-2011, 06:16 PM
Toysoldier

Quote:

Originally Posted by mav2000

If there are no major changes in the bios or whatever and there is no significant performance gain, I am not going to buy this chip. I will stick to my 1090T and wait for the next revision....

I was also planning on getting a BD, but like you I will stick to my 1100T.
(edit : I personally never expected BD to beat Intel's i2600K, but to be close to or on par with it)
10-09-2011, 06:18 PM
haylui

Quote:

Originally Posted by LightSpeed

If the benches are indeed true, which i seriously hope are not, Phenom II at 32nm with some uarch improvements would easily be >20% better. I love AMD but I want what their CPU division are smoking. Now.

from the design alone, BD suppose to be very good in FPU since it has 4 x 256bit FMAC units and not too much improvements on INT unit.
But the greatest disappoint here is that both INT and FPU are not better than Deneb, no?
If AMD just die shrink Deneb, they could have a lot of trouble competing in the future. Perhaps, there would be FMAC optimization after BD is launched.
10-09-2011, 06:29 PM
G0ldBr1ck

I have no doubt that Bulldozer will be useful in select niche markets but they need to go ahead and extend the life of thuban. A shrink would be great and some more Mhz to stay aimed at the mainstream and/or gamers.
10-09-2011, 07:03 PM
clayton

The prophet terrace215 is laughing somewhere.

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:56 PM.

XtremeSystems