AMD FX-8150 Bulldozer finally tested

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by generics_user

just one question as a regular reader:

WHAT IS THE POINT IN SHOWING NON-REAL WORLD PERFORMANCE?

i don't by some magic numbers from some stupid synthetic tests, i want real world numbers in real world tests (application tests in wide spread settings) - almost all hardware sites are completely useless because they don't put their focus on real world performance and user experience and yours is one of them - you show a completely wrong picture of what users can expect from the reviewed hardware by doing such completely useless junk tests

---

Because those synthetic tests are easy to compare to other processors.
And putting this CPU in "real world tests" because it loses in benchmarks pretty bad wont magically make the new FX into some monster CPU. Synthetic tests indicate performance in different situations using different parts of the CPU, so if it runs really slow in all benchmarks (hmm, ever wonder why they are called the benchmark?) they are going to run slow in other applications as well. You will only find 1 or two situations in very specific environments that will go against this, but that isnt the real world either now is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pantsu

There was a slide about win 8 performance, it was 10% in best case. Most likely it's due to offloading lightly threaded application to single module -> turn off other modules -> increase Turbo Core clock speeds. Win 7 wouldn't know how to do that with BD modules, unless it gets patched. But that's not a BD only benefit, SB can benefit from the same scheduling improvement.

---

Here the benefit for AMD will not only be improvements seen in performance, but also efficiency. Right now i'd assume that the OS is loading up cores randomly on various modules, hence resulting in poor idle power consumption compared to best case scenario (theoretical maximum). Anyone with BD should ideally also test idle power consumption on both Win7 & 8, to give us a clearer picture on the same. However, from what i understand, HT wouldn't see much improvements, if any at all, as in Intel's case there are no dedicated execution resources, but merely virtual extensions to improve execution efficiency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by generics_user

just one question as a regular reader:

WHAT IS THE POINT IN SHOWING NON-REAL WORLD PERFORMANCE?

i don't by some magic numbers from some stupid synthetic tests, i want real world numbers in real world tests (application tests in wide spread settings) - almost all hardware sites are completely useless because they don't put their focus on real world performance and user experience and yours is one of them - you show a completely wrong picture of what users can expect from the reviewed hardware by doing such completely useless junk tests

---

i dont think you read his whole post. how is hawx a synthetic test??? i guess you prefer to see amds tests where the games are at ridiculous high res where the cpu plays almost no role in fps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aintz

i dont think you read his whole post. how is hawx a synthetic test??? i guess you prefer to see amds tests where the games are at ridiculous high res where the cpu plays almost no role in fps.

---

Well not really. What we all would like to know as paying customers is that whether spending $300-400 on a GPU is better or spending $500-600 on upgrading cpu-mobo combo. Not all upgrade everything, every time a new piece of hardware comes out. What when you show a low res test happens is, it shows an entirely useless scenario in your day to day usage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tifosi

Well not really. What we all would like to know as paying customers is that whether spending $300-400 on a GPU is better or spending $500-600 on upgrading cpu-mobo combo. Not all upgrade everything, every time a new piece of hardware comes out. What when you show a low res test happens is, it shows an entirely useless scenario in your day to day usage.

---

Check out [H] tomorrow with their performance graphs, I doubt anyone needs more than an unlocked X2 550 for most games and bulldozer won't change that, but can prove to be a worthy upgrade for those who have compatible mobos, well when the time comes. I will skip it for my gaming rig for this reason, and wait to see what they offer next year. Of course if it rips apart my 920 then I would get it for my main rig, but doesn't seem like it will happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kuroimaho

Check out [H] tomorrow with their performance graphs, I doubt anyone needs more than an unlocked X2 550 for most games and bulldozer won't change that, but can prove to be a worthy upgrade for those who have compatible mobos, well when the time comes. I will skip it for my gaming rig for this reason, and wait to see what they offer next year. Of course if it rips apart my 920 then I would get it for my main rig, but doesn't seem like it will happen.

---

There's definitely an improvement in gaming when you move to a quad, but little after. I think if you have a 920, then you're set till next year. IB's going to bring in only 10% odd on cpu side. However if you want to save on power consumption, Trinity seems potent. Or for more power the next FX replacement chip. Haswell is also a good bet, but that is 2013 when AMD is also supposed to come up with Steam-Roller. Oh, all this is only valid if you don't do rendering etc. If you render, then consider BD in opteron form. They'll be cheap and you could have like 16-cores running on a G34 mobo under $1000.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kuroimaho

Check out [H] tomorrow with their performance graphs, I doubt anyone needs more than an unlocked X2 550 for most games and bulldozer won't change that, but can prove to be a worthy upgrade for those who have compatible mobos, well when the time comes. I will skip it for my gaming rig for this reason, and wait to see what they offer next year. Of course if it rips apart my 920 then I would get it for my main rig, but doesn't seem like it will happen.

---

you are wrong there, i noticed some improvements after switching from an X6 1055T @4.0ghz to my i72600k @ 4ghz ;)

i converted my x6 into an x3 so i can push the MHz as high as possible. it can handle the same clocks running at x6, but it also can burn up the MB since it likes to throttle at my voltages. and i do notice a few games that still like more CPU power than 3x 4.2ghz, and my gpu is a 4850, so clearly that should be the bottle neck, but isnt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kuroimaho

I doubt anyone needs more than an unlocked X2 550 for most games and bulldozer won't change that.

---

640K ought to be enough for anybody
- Bill Gates

There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home.
- Ken Olsen

I can name at LEAST five current games that perform like junk unless a high speed 4 core (or preferably higher) processor is used:

- Shogun 2
- Dirt 3 / F1 2011 with more than 5 cars racing
- Battlefield 3
- Civilization V

There are plenty more out there and the trend for better AI processing is more cores + higher speed = better.

Sky, you just gave me a great idea. a game where if you overclock your cpu, you get access to the super smart AI hardcore mode, lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

640K ought to be enough for anybody
- Bill Gates

There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home.
- Ken Olsen

I can name at LEAST five current games that perform like junk unless a high speed 4 core (or preferably higher) processor is used:

- Shogun 2
- Dirt 3 / F1 2011 with more than 5 cars racing
- Battlefield 3
- Civilization V

There are plenty more out there and the trend for better AI processing is more cores + higher speed = better.

---

BF3?It works like a charm with my CPU, but don't know with other games mentioned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SubZero.it

BF3?It works like a charm with my CPU, but don't know with other games mentioned.

---

you have an overclocked quad core like he was referring to. His point however that if you are looking for a future proof system you can't really say something is "good enough" games and programs are always evolving and using more processing power than the previous versions. so the idea that any particular CPU is "good enough" doesn't really hold much water.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

640K ought to be enough for anybody
- Bill Gates

There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home.
- Ken Olsen

I can name at LEAST five current games that perform like junk unless a high speed 4 core (or preferably higher) processor is used:

- Shogun 2
- Dirt 3 / F1 2011 with more than 5 cars racing
- Battlefield 3
- Civilization V

There are plenty more out there and the trend for better AI processing is more cores + higher speed = better.

---

I think he was referring to unlocked x2 to x4, but i could be wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

640K ought to be enough for anybody
- Bill Gates

---

To bad he never said that. :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

To bad he never said that. :p:

---

++
thank you, geez when will that quote die?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

640K ought to be enough for anybody
- Bill Gates

There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home.
- Ken Olsen

I can name at LEAST five current games that perform like junk unless a high speed 4 core (or preferably higher) processor is used:

- Shogun 2
- Dirt 3 / F1 2011 with more than 5 cars racing
- Battlefield 3
- Civilization V

There are plenty more out there and the trend for better AI processing is more cores + higher speed = better.

---

Bill Gates never said that. Maybe you misunderstood that I mean a dualcore 550, by unlocked I meant a 550 with 4 working cores, I could have said 960 or whatever, the 550 is just cheaper.

I said for most games, granted, I haven't played any of those except for CIV 5 which didn't impress me much, those very well might need more processing power but I wonder if those games really fall into unplayable category with a deneb. Even if you managed to pick 5 games out of the ones which came out this year I think this still wouldn't invalidate what I wrote.

Anyway I will check tomorrow hopefully will find some benches with Deneb, Thuban and BD ocd to 4G and witness all those unplayable games on deneb which run well on the other ones, if I run into one which I really want to play and deneb can't handle, my I7 920 will have to suffice until next years offering is out as so far there is nothing what seems to worth my money, and I really doubt BD or Sandy-Se will change that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] hipno650

you have an overclocked quad core like he was referring to. His point however that if you are looking for a future proof system you can't really say something is "good enough" games and programs are always evolving and using more processing power than the previous versions. so the idea that any particular CPU is "good enough" doesn't really hold much water.

---

What you mean is really obvious especially to us here, I never imagined someone would interpret what I wrote that it will be good forver.
I didn' t write anything about future proofing just that right now most games can be played really well with a cheap deneb. Actually, your system would be more future proof if you update only when your system really reaches it's limits so sticking to a deneb until next year grants me a more future proof system when I upgarde as this one doesn't have any I am well aware of that, that's why I said it will be replaced next year, but I see no reason for that right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

640K ought to be enough for anybody
- Bill Gates

There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home.
- Ken Olsen

I can name at LEAST five current games that perform like junk unless a high speed 4 core (or preferably higher) processor is used:

- Shogun 2
- Dirt 3 / F1 2011 with more than 5 cars racing
- Battlefield 3
- Civilization V

There are plenty more out there and the trend for better AI processing is more cores + higher speed = better.

---

Lets not forget the big daddy of em all; world of warcraft:

http://media.bestofmicro.com/1/M/269...%20Scaling.png

You forget TF2... but it profits the most from 2 cores but need insane high performance on those...

Okay i have been following this forum for ages, sometimes i completely loose track of what is going on and im not all the good with the specifics of CPUs.

however i would like to ask one thing:

I am currently building a Gaming / Rendering / Modeling / Level design PC for uni, buildlog = Liquid cooling/Worklogs/ Define R3 Hydr0 :)

I have been holding out for bulldozer but reading this forum (and others) has lead me to re-consider my CPU choice.
This is my current PC spec:

Mainboard: MSI 990FXA-GD65
RAM: Crucial Ballistix 8GB 1600mhx (upgrading to 16GB when rendering starts next year)
GPU: Radeon HD 6870
SSD: OCZ Sata II 64GB
HDD: WD Scorpio Blue 750GB
PSU: OCZ 80+ Modular 750w

All watercooled, please see build log for more info :)

What CPU would you recommend?

Phenom II x6 (1100T or 1090T)
FX4xxx Series (black edition)
FX6xxx Series (black edition)
*FX8150 - (this one i would like, but i think i would like to buy something cheaper and wait for piledriver)*

little help please :)

P.S been reading "The ultimate history of video games - Steven Kent" and bill gates did say that ^^

Also Steve Jobs (RIP) worked for Atari and was an evil little bugger but a ledgend none the less :D

recommend that book to anyone, its a right laugh.

Now we're splitting hairs over what Bill Gates said or not? Come on. For your information, there is no proof he DIDN'T say it....

With that being said, the progression of this thread is pathetic.

Lab501 posts results they claim are indicative of Bulldozer performance and the responses go....

1) That SUCKS

2) Oh wait, those can't be right!

3) Where did the processor come from? Was it paid for by Intel?

4) There must be something wrong with the benchmarks since they aren't properly loading the CPU!

5) Wait a sec, there is a BIOS setting that will somehow improve performance

6) Forget about the BIOS setting....there's a PATCH!

7) No no! The current way of benchmarking processors just can't show the true power of Bulldozer

8) You're holding it wrong


And prepare for this all to get rehashed in the thread holding launch day reviews in under 12 hours... At least at that point we'll see whether any of those hold water or if they're all just meaningless excuses to justify the poor results of a highly anticipated architecture. :)

One hint: at least TWO of the above statements are correct. ;)

Double post -_-

also so as not to fill this thread up with CPU choices, i have Added a poll to my build log :)
please come take a look Define R3 Hydr0
hx.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sentential

Lets not forget the big daddy of em all; world of warcraft:

http://media.bestofmicro.com/1/M/269...%20Scaling.png

---

that game is held back ALOT by AMD chips, so id hope there is a major improvement here with BD, especially since alot of people who play that game are on PCs with crap gpu and midrange cpus. this is a perfect game to use llano or trinity on.

also WoW is using only 2 threads, with the third being very lightly touched.

this site sure is double posting alot these days...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

640K ought to be enough for anybody
- Bill Gates

There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home.
- Ken Olsen

I can name at LEAST five current games that perform like junk unless a high speed 4 core (or preferably higher) processor is used:

- Shogun 2
- Dirt 3 / F1 2011 with more than 5 cars racing
- Battlefield 3
- Civilization V

There are plenty more out there and the trend for better AI processing is more cores + higher speed = better.

---

You are wrong about BF3.
i2100 is just enough and only few % difference against 2600k. BF3 uses HT very well on i3 and usage is round 70-80% per thread, 35 - 50% on 2600k. But in general you are right. There are few good games that need 4 cores or even 4 1156 cores at least to go like they suppose to. SB is superior gaming CPU and BD will have hard task in gaming against SBs for sure, even in high resolutions and aa and stuff.

Lab501 thank you for preview. I like it very much and choice of benchmarks is very good for my taste. Dont see much of overclocking haven in BD expect very high clock but i dont care because 4.5ghz 2600k is still faster in many things than 7ghz fx or 8 and 5.6ghz will probably destroy it everywhere..