AMD FX-8150 Bulldozer finally tested

**FlanK3r** · 10-09-2011, 07:06 AM

yes, as Maxforces show, this test are good for me...Hope we will see in reviews some gaming tests

**lizardmech** · 10-09-2011, 07:07 AM

The amount of synthetic and completely pointless benchmarks on review sites is getting a little annoying, If I'm buying an 8 core cpu i want to know how it performs on a variety of 3d rendering programs, media encoding, compiling in linux and programs I actually use. Instead review sites will benchmark 20 console game ports, superpi and cinema4d which isn't a widely used renderer.

**El Mano** · 10-09-2011, 07:10 AM

The fact that Lab501 didn't sign an NDA only makes things worse.
How did they get the chip? It was either provided by AMD (highly improbable) or by somebody who was under an NDA.
If this is the case, what they did then is like buying stolen goods and we should not support these unlawful practices.
I would like to hear a clarification about this.

On the other hand, HAWX? Resident Evil 5?
Why not Crysis, Metro 2033, etc?

Too many wrong things in and around this preview.

**K404** · 10-09-2011, 07:16 AM

Originally Posted by El Maño

The fact that Lab501 didn't sign an NDA only makes things worse.
How did they get the chip? It was either provided by AMD (highly improbable) or by somebody who was under an NDA.
If this is the case, what they did then is like buying stolen goods and we should not support these unlawful practices.
I would like to hear a clarification about this.

Did you post the same in the SB-E leak threads?

**STaRGaZeR** · 10-09-2011, 07:17 AM

Originally Posted by Iconyu

I'm sure I just posted this a minute ago and it never made it on screen. Anyway, I'll just leave this here.

I really can't wait to see the reaction of the main AMD BS producers (Hans, JF-AMD and other big names) when Bulldozer is finally launched. Time and reality separate fanbois and BS from the guys that used their brains since the first slides appeared and the architecture was revealed to the public. It's been funny to read all that BS for such a long time (years!), but the fun is over. Time for reality.

Welcome back Netburst.

**Alex-Ro** · 10-09-2011, 07:31 AM

2 days and a half guys,just make sure you are seated when bulldozer arrives cause it will blow you out of your chair =))

**Dimitriman** · 10-09-2011, 07:35 AM

Unless this is a B0 or B1 chip then.. Ladies and gentleman, we have a dud!

**Alex-Ro** · 10-09-2011, 07:42 AM

It's clearly not since we have screenshots of CPU-Z 1.58.7(latest and greatest) and it says B2

And there is no ES letter in that screenshot,that means it's actual a retail sample.

**Mechromancer** · 10-09-2011, 07:45 AM

Originally Posted by sholvaco

Regarding benchmark scores being lower than Thuban's:

Could this come from current benchmarking programs not properly utilizing the FPU units, only issuing a single 128bit instruction per clock since there's only 1 FP scheduler per module (feeding two FMA execution units)?

In this case it would be a comparison between 4 zambezi vs 6 thuban cores.

I'd say yes. A lot of software compiled with older compilers don't even use Phenom II advanced instruction sets. If they don't see Intel as the CPU, they default to x87 or take a very inefficient path for FPU and INT instructions. With Zambezi being such a radical design, I imagine AMD will be more dependent on optimized software than ever. Unfortunately this will likely never happen, as it never happened for the K10.

**BababooeyHTJ** · 10-09-2011, 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by -Boris-

They aren't gaming, they are measuring differences between processors. So they try to make the GPU a non limiting factor. If you only looked at benches at 1980x1200 32bit all settings maxed then an Athlon II would look as good as an i7 in many tests.

Then pick a cpu limited game like Fallout 3 where increasing the resolution actually increases the dependence on the cpu.

There are plenty of games that are cpu limited at 1920x1080 with a modern video card especially when you also show minimum framerates.

Those low resolution benchmarks are about as useful at showing real world performance as 3d mark.

Originally Posted by FlanK3r

Kuriimaho:yes, but who cares 1280x1024 in practice? Is the same as for Quadcores will be running superpi as main CPU benchmark

...Most gamers playing at 1680x1020 or higher resolutions, so if I have problem with games in higher resolution = problem. Example some strategy games etc are very hard with good CPUs and gaming resolutions.

**ice_chill** · 10-09-2011, 07:50 AM

If all this is true then shrinking and optimizing Phenon II for Phenom III would make more sense. Or maybe Phenom FX

**Lokinhow** · 10-09-2011, 07:51 AM

Originally Posted by Oliverda

IrfanView as benchmark.

This is the worst review which I've seen in the past few years.

This is the worst CPU which I've seen in the past few years.

Don't blame this nice preview just because the CPU performance is very disappointing

**Kobaltrock** · 10-09-2011, 07:56 AM

Originally Posted by El Maño

The fact that Lab501 didn't sign an NDA only makes things worse.
How did they get the chip? It was either provided by AMD (highly improbable) or by somebody who was under an NDA.
If this is the case, what they did then is like buying stolen goods and we should not support these unlawful practices.
I would like to hear a clarification about this.

On the other hand, HAWX? Resident Evil 5?
Why not Crysis, Metro 2033, etc?

Too many wrong things in and around this preview.

As you can see in the preview, they did black out the CPU serial, so you know that they have a source that either sold them the CPU, or they borrowed it.
I highly doubt we will ever know, since they most likely will protect their source.

**Dimitriman** · 10-09-2011, 07:58 AM

If I were AMD, I would cancel the launch, urgently die shrink Thuban, add 2 more cores and call that their new 8 core FX chip!

Lol just kidding, what a dissapointment, I think more heads will roll at AMD for this fiasco, this is truly worse than Phenom I, clearly a horrible choice to ignore IPC (at this point it almost seems like Amd HAD to be different than Intel and try to innovate rather than copying) and AMD should really go out in the market and try to hire engineers from new successful companies like ARM. But that's not easy ofc.

One tip for AMD regarding hyperthreading, high IPC, enthusiast segment and everything good Intel has done: Don't be afraid to copy a technology... If something is worth copying, then it is worth something!

**gosh** · 10-09-2011, 07:58 AM

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost...&postcount=233

Another person that used bios 9905 (same as Lab501) but the turbo didn't seem to work

**Ivan N.** · 10-09-2011, 07:59 AM

There are too many weird things about this.
Why there is no NDA signed? Where did they get the cpu then? Why it’s slower than thuban? Why MM said they had a winner if it is slower than thuban?
Honestly, anyone thinks that AMD or Intel would release a cpu that performs worse than the previous cpu generation in overall performance? Would AMD dare to bring back de FX if they knew the cpu sucked and that they’ll get burnt?

**BababooeyHTJ** · 10-09-2011, 07:59 AM

Originally Posted by FlanK3r

yes, as Maxforces show, this test are good for me...Hope we will see in reviews some gaming tests

Thats the whole thing there really weren't any good gaming tests in the Sandy bridge reviews either. Anand and Hardware Canucks used a single almost three year old GTX280 for most of their reviews. Anand took games like Fallout 3 and ran them at medium settings, as we all know increasing the settings like draw distance only increase the cpu dependence with that engine. Then used Far Cry 2 in DX9 with medium settings and Warhead at mainstream settings. Crysis is one of those games where in a custom run I saw a nice difference that I could show and repeat with fraps when moving from Lynnfield to sandy.

Typical cpu gaming comparisons on the sites that have gotten way too comfortable are just awful. Anandtech is one of the worst offenders and it looks like Lab501 ripped a page out of Anandtech's cpu review book.

**god_43** · 10-09-2011, 08:04 AM

Originally Posted by Ivan N.

There are too many weird things about this.
Why there is no NDA signed? Where did they get the cpu then? Why it’s slower than thuban? Why MM said they had a winner if it is slower than thuban?
Honestly, anyone thinks that AMD or Intel would release a cpu that performs worse than the previous cpu generation in overall performance? Would AMD dare to bring back de FX if they knew the cpu sucked and that they’ll get burnt?

...marketing, if they knew they had a dud on their hands, then fooling consumers with "fx" might be their only way to sell these at the current (known) prices. i am a bit puzzled though, i thought that bd retail stepping was c0? this shows b2?

**Tha Last Meal** · 10-09-2011, 08:05 AM

disappointed

This is what I expected, unfortunately. After all this time Now I will buy intel 2600k
8 cores vs 4 cores = 4 cores win.....this is Ridiculous

**generics_user** · 10-09-2011, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by Ivan N.

There are too many weird things about this.
Why there is no NDA signed? Where did they get the cpu then? Why it’s slower than thuban? Why MM said they had a winner if it is slower than thuban?
Honestly, anyone thinks that AMD or Intel would release a cpu that performs worse than the previous cpu generation in overall performance? Would AMD dare to bring back de FX if they knew the cpu sucked and that they’ll get burnt?

QFT

even the complete dud called K10 Barcelona had higher Performance than its predecessor - and a new CPU on a SMALLER node with a bigger die should perform worse than the 1 1/2 year old Thuban?
this makes no sense at all, they could've cancelled it several times by now and use the shrinked Llano Stars core instead

**Madidas** · 10-09-2011, 08:11 AM

Originally Posted by god_43

...marketing, if they knew they had a dud on their hands, then fooling consumers with "fx" might be their only way to sell these at the current (known) prices. i am a bit puzzled though, i thought that bd retail stepping was c0? this shows b2?

Me too... It looks like stepping in that processor is 2 (

) and revision is OR-B2 (even more

)...

**cesariuth** · 10-09-2011, 08:20 AM

new BIOS AGESA 1.1.0.0 from gigabyte!

http://www.gigabyte.com/products/pro...?pid=3880#bios

**demonkevy666** · 10-09-2011, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by K404

It looks like a BIOS problem to me.

When the first SB-E numbers came out and the performance was worse than SB and the power consumption was unmanageable.... there weren't 4 pages of "OMG boo-hoo i'm gonna buy AMD"

pft they'll all denie it unless you find the proof.

**Oliverda** · 10-09-2011, 08:27 AM

Originally Posted by gosh

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost...&postcount=233

Another person that used bios 9905 (same as Lab501) but the turbo didn't seem to work

asus_ver.png

9905 is not a fully tested version. It's just an optional update. 0083 is recommended for non-OC benchmarking.

By the way there is an updated CPUID package here.

**Tha Last Meal** · 10-09-2011, 08:36 AM

new BIOS AGESA 1.1.0.0 from gigabyte!

This means that there is an increase in performance?

Thread: AMD FX-8150 Bulldozer finally tested

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Rate This Thread

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions