AMD FX-8150 vs. Intel i7-2600k CrossFireX HD 6970 x3 Head-to-Head
Printable View
To bad they didn't had a X6 in the mix, but that just shows how cpu limited trifire is on BD... quite ironic that the top gpu solution delivers the best performance on the competeting product.. :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by kaktus1907
maybe they should unload the forceware drivers :DQuote:
Originally Posted by kaktus1907
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/43...ad/index2.html
indeed, look how great is bulldozer for a DOS gameQuote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/6...sboxscore1.png
lol they did so much article in limited time must be mixed smh copy paste errors :DQuote:
Originally Posted by bill_d
should have shown if there was any difference by increasing clocks (simply by showing a 4.5ghz setting along with the high overclocks so we can see what is or isnt cpu limited at that point)Quote:
Originally Posted by kaktus1907
also why only 4.76ghz on BD? 5.2ghz for 2600k sounds like it might be reaching the point of degrading, but an H100 that cant get BD anywhere near 5ghz sounds fishy.
also, why by 1000$ in gpus and use a cheap 1080p monitor, would have rather seen some eyefinity since they were way past the point of diminishing returns for cost and performance.
and failure on the power draw test, should have shown an average or peak, not just grab a randomly selected number during a benchmark
the one good point was that the BD setup was 155$ cheaper,
so 4 bad things and 1 good thing i have to say about that review...
i'd like to see this re-ran with one cluster on per module
Personally Im disgusted by the power draw when overclocked but at the same time I want to get into writing reviews instead of just recommending hardware to those I know. I would still get this in order to test its real world performance over a period of say 3 weeks. Im interested in Bulldozer even though it has its quirks. Its a first try shall we say and Im interested in Piledriver as well. My wall for getting a Bulldozer is that I dont have the funds.
Why? looking at the power consumption test on other sites... a 8150 @that speed needs 100W more then on stock speed.. and a 2600 at nearly the same speed consume 140W less..Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/32...d-tall/?page=5
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/p...t_overclocking
http://www.hardwareluxx.de/index.php....html?start=10
and pretty much every site that test power consumption while ocing shows the same results (and also the same oc limits). It seems people who hope that the will get a nice oc out of these will be up for a bas suprise... if you look at the hardwareluxx article they said to achive 5ghz the needed the watercooler and had 407W system load under 2D (stock load was 215W)... Every site reached between 4.6 and 4.8ghz but with the cooler on full force...
Because they weren't? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
Quote:
The only other thing we've changed here is that we've dropped 1680 x 1050 testing; instead we've just stuck to 1920 x 1200 and probably the more realistic, 2560 x 1600 which is the kind of resolution you'd be opting for with a three card setup.
It would be interesting to see a power consumption chart compared to clockrate (with minumum vlotage to achive stable conditions). Looking at the reviews it seems once you only go minimal higher then stock voltage power consumption explodes...
AMD’s FX-8150 vs. Core i7 & Phenom II – Bulldozer Arrives!
http://alienbabeltech.com/main/amds-...ldozer-arrives
Bulldozer FX-8150: Twenty Game Benchmarks with CrossFire vs. Phenom II and Core i7
http://alienbabeltech.com/main/twent...ii-and-core-i7
This gaming benchmarks are so useless.. on the single gpu configuration every test is GPU bound.. and its funny how he tries to blame cf scaling issues when he clearly sees it scales on the intel rig and even on the P2 rig and just revealves that BD has a poor gaming performance...Quote:
Originally Posted by onethreehill
[AMD Blogs] Our Take on AMD FX
http://blogs.amd.com/play/2011/10/13...ake-on-amd-fx/Quote:
This week we launched the highly anticipated AMD FX series of desktop processors. Based on initial technical reviews, there are some in our community who feel the product performance did not meet their expectations of the AMD FX and the “Bulldozer” architecture. Over the past two days we’ve been listening to you and wanted to help you make sense of the new processors. As you begin to play with the AMD FX CPU processor, I foresee a few things will register:
In our design considerations, AMD focused on applications and environments that we believe our customers use – and which we expect them to use in the future. The architecture focuses on high-frequency and resource sharing to achieve optimal throughput and speed in next generation applications and high-resolution gaming.
Here’s some example scenarios where the AMD FX processor shines:
Playing the Latest Games
A perfect example is Battlefield 3. Take a look at how our test of AMD FX CPU compared to the Core i7 2600K and AMD Phenom™ II X6 1100T processors at full settings:
Jesus, I haven't seen so many asskissers in one place since a Mac Expo.Quote:
Originally Posted by onethreehill
Looks like the biggest failure wasn't Bulldozer , it's AMD Marketing team hype too much , and they have a real mess for the R&D guys to clear things up
Alice aka Bulldozer girl recommends MSI 990FXA-GD80 and AMD Bulldozer! :D
http://www.hwbox.gr/news-motherboard...amd-990fx.html
http://www.hwbox.gr/images/imagehost...8602d92aca.jpg
http://www.hwbox.gr/images/imagehost...8602df1e3e.jpg
Ex-AMD Engineer Explains Bulldozer Fiasco: Lack of Fine Tuning
It's all starting to make sense now...Quote:
Performance that Advanced Micro Devices' eight-core processor demonstrated in real-world applications is far from impressive as the chip barely outperforms competing quad-core central processing units from Intel. The reason why performance of the long-awaited Bulldozer was below expectations is not only because it was late, but because AMD had adopted design techniques that did not allow it tweak performance, according to an ex-AMD engineer.
Cliff A. Maier, an AMD engineer who left the company several years ago, the chip designer decided to abandon practice of hand-crafting various performance-critical parts of its chips and rely completely on automatic tools. While usage of tools that automatically implement certain technologies into silicon speeds up the design process, they cannot ensure maximum performance and efficienc
The board leaks !! Poor girl, she's all dirty now...Quote:
Originally Posted by George_o/c
I don't like much the new FX....
BUT. This all is definitely hysteria. That is absolutely clear for me. For example, power draw.
FX-8150 takes in idle less that 1100T and practically same under load:
Attachment 121251
It seems, there is no point to worry about power draw, but there is no single cold-mind word on it, only whining.
Another sample:
Attachment 121252
Overclocked consumption?
yea, a whipping 489 watt at 4.6GHz...
Right. System total.
i7 2600K @ 5.2 takes 403 Watt. I would say, it is not too far, whatever you tell.
Attachment 121253
Performance wise, i agree - it is not as fast as expected. But for now it is definitely fastest AMD chip.
Did anybody notice what benchbeds were used? only few used RAM 1866, most were 1600 and 1333(!).
I'm still comparing reviews, later will post, but you can do it now yourself.
So, expect better reviews in a week or two...
P.S. Still I'm not impressed by it and not going to get one for myself. I just hate moaners...
Dont you love good hardware all around ;)
you obviously havent been to the zone:DQuote:
Originally Posted by freeloader
http://www.pcinpact.com/articles/amd-fx-8150/420-5.htm Linux performance seems a bit better than windows if these results are accurate
wow thats terrible. AMD really screwed up again, 2900xt all over again, big talk, small walk, good job amd. :down:Quote:
Originally Posted by kaktus1907
To be honest Bulldozer on the desktop segment wouldn't look half as bad if GloFo's 32nm process would be working well. Now the same model numbers have at lest two step lower clocks then in earlier leaks, and the magical +1GHz Turbo clocks are nowhere to be seen.
I was going to buy BD to get work done not as a :banana::banana::banana::banana:en toy so ya i'm really dissapointed. I'm sure extreme overclockers will keep bd's flying off the shelves though.Quote:
Originally Posted by trans am
:ROTF::rofl: The last shot of that dozer with just the back hoe pushing it is classic. That is stupendous
RussC
Quote:
Originally Posted by cold2010