AMD FX-8150 Bulldozer finally tested

[BeepBeep2]

A 920 is faster then a Thuban in ST apps, Thuban catches up in really MT stuff. But thats at stock clocks with the 920 at 2.6 and the Thuabn at 3.2. With both at 4Ghz the 920 is much faster. Also, most 920s will continue on to clock higher.

Correction:
With both at 4 Ghz, the 920 is much faster in ST. In MT, Thuban is still very competitive, trailing slightly in some apps.

[Baam]

Why don't AMD just call it a quad-core with AMD's version of HT. Then it wouldn't look so bad. bad but not like it looks as a so called 8 core.

[Tha Last Meal]

so Finally We can say the Bulldozer is A big fail ?

[Chickenfeed]

For the sake of objectivity, I wouldn't make any such claims until the 12th.

[PerryR]

http://www.justin.tv/bassbench#/w/1883595104

[PerryR]

This is actually better:

https://join.me/743-658-418

[Dainas]

i take everything with a big ol' grain of salt until proper nda lifted reviews.

Amen, although the review seems more legit than most early early ones... it wouldn't be the first time for a relaunch review with completely flubbed results that were massively skewed against or for the product.

Only reason I'm not screaming right now is I do not get the vibe the reviewer is out to get AMD, at the same time I want an actual consensus from multiple reviews with far more benchmarks.

[Iconyu]

If AMD are calling people tomorrow they are probably trying to ensure this low-res gaming skullduggery isn't happening, which imo is their right as they are simply ensuring that the gaming benchmarks are representative of the cpu's while gaming. Also, if BD is strong in minimum framerates then AMD would want that message to be getting across, which is also well within their rights.

Any site using low res gaming benchmarks has an axe to grind with AMD, or an intel shill. Why do you think the unnamed blogger benchmarked Unigine at low res to "prove" his point? I've never seen anyone else do that, like ever. But even at that BD was massively better in minimum framerates.

I actually think that's a difference in PCI-E controller rather than CPU performance. When AMD bought ATI they also gained their chipset guys, while Intel have been eroding into their chipsets to place more on the CPU. So I would certainly place more faith in chipset performance causing these strange results at higher resolutions over CPU performance. It doesn't make much sense otherwise, if the CPU has proven superior in almost every way under artificially high loads that real world high loads shouldn't cause such drops unless there is a factor everyone is ignoring.

Right now I'd say AMD is definitely running a stronger PCI-E controller, it's the only logical thing I can think of, as AMD's memory controller is obviously weaker than Intel's right now.

[Hornet331]

As promised the screen caps:

3Dmark:


CinebenchR11.5:


Aida:


SPI:


Other Benches:


Games:


Ram compare:


OC:

[accord99]

In the first Bulldozer is ~20% faster than 2600K in wPrime 32M. However, in the second it's 20% slower than 2600K. Same for other graphs, e.g. in the first 2600K is faster @ Winrar 4, second shows Bulldozer being faster. How come?

For some reason, the 8150 and 2600K were switched. Whether it was accidental or incidental on the part of AMD, who knows.

[Tha Last Meal]

As promised the screen caps:

Source ?

[PerryR]

Source ?

Donanim.

[cold2010]

16801060 and 1920.1080 and aa8 lol

[Final8ty]

As promised the screen caps:

The scaling on the graphs takes the cake.

3dmark2011extreme: 1857 v 1757 but looks more than twice as much.

[Tha Last Meal]

Donanim.

thx

16801060 and 1920.1080 and aa8 lol

yeah man this Review Not professional

[eXa]

Seemes to be running into other limitations, hard to judge the gaming performance.

[Hornet331]

Well game benchmarks are fail.. they show exactly what many others and me where saying -> gpu limitation @ that high res... regardless what cpu is used all perform the same... a difference of 1-2fps is laughable... and yes the scailing in the graphs is also bad.. but well I just made the screen caps.. blame donanimhaber.

[Maxforces]

Correction:
With both at 4 Ghz, the 920 is much faster in ST. In MT, Thuban is still very competitive, trailing slightly in some apps.

for sure??
http://maxforces.com/articles.php?ar...38&rowstart=12
Comparison 4Ghz (920) vs 4.2Ghz Thurban
Use google translator Polish-English
games are the worst

[Cecil]

Correction:
With both at 4 Ghz, the 920 is much faster in ST. In MT, Thuban is still very competitive, trailing slightly in some apps.

The Thuban at 3.2 clocked to 4Ghz is a 25% increase, while clocking a 2.6 920 to 4Ghz is a 54% increase. Thuban's MT performance is not 30% faster then a 920.
Ive had many of both, i7 is just faster.

[Tha Last Meal]

Well game benchmarks are fail.. they show exactly what I and many others where saying -> gpu limitation and that high res... regardless what cpu is used all perform the same... a difference of 1-2fps is laughable...

1+

Did you know man this game benchmarks Settings Remember Me with AMD Slices

[Hornet331]

Well maybe its in the offical amd review kit guidelines how to bench games?...

[JumpingJack]

As promised the screen caps: <snip>

They commit the unpardonable sin of not starting the graphs a zero (0)....

[Tha Last Meal]

Well maybe its in the offical amd review kit guidelines how to bench games?...

lol

AMD This is wrong

[JumpingJack]

Source ?

http://www.donanimhaber.com/islemci/...o-inceleme.htm

[Frodin]

This game's benchmark settings must have a strong memory then, I would have forgotten you with AMD slices right away.