Bulldozer
- Thread starter StrangleHold
- Start date
jonnyp11
New Member
so overall, depending on the specific test, it either rivals the 2500k and sometimes the 2600k, or it can actually fall behind the x4 980, but also on one of the pages i looked at, not sure if i or you posted it or if its posted at all, but they were saying it was priced at 245 or 22% less than the 2600k and offered 20% less performance, making it a little better technically, and also since the 8120 is according to them the same chip with a lower clock and a price of 205, the 8120 was a pretty dang good one, but it makes me ask why in several benches it had really low scores compared to the 8150
Perkomate
Active Member
If it's the 8150 or whatever, then that's an 8 core. An 8 core rivals a quad core. That's not what I would call stunning performance.
claptonman
New Member
If programs were to actually utilize 8 cores, it would be the clear winner. But since most programs use much less than that, the higher clocked and different designs will win.
Okedokey
Well-Known Member
Well I saw this coming to be honest, and as much as a few members might think im happy about this im not. Its not good for the competitive market nor for AMDs crashing share price.
At the end of the day this is a mediocre release, which may get better with optimised bios and motherboard configurations, and possible software that can utilise the architecture (read Windows 8). In addition most users wont see the difference between a i5 and a BD, however if you are building a new system, an i5 is mid range with an upgrade path (Ivy Bridge included), whereas the BD top level chip is the end of the line.
Ive said it before and ill say it again, the SB range is a better option.
At the end of the day this is a mediocre release, which may get better with optimised bios and motherboard configurations, and possible software that can utilise the architecture (read Windows 8). In addition most users wont see the difference between a i5 and a BD, however if you are building a new system, an i5 is mid range with an upgrade path (Ivy Bridge included), whereas the BD top level chip is the end of the line.
Source
Ive said it before and ill say it again, the SB range is a better option.
linkin
VIP Member
Yep.
Except if you bought a board back when they were released and switching platforms costs more.
I think that was AMD's plan from the start. Get everyone on the new boards/chipset/socket and when BD finally drops it's more expensive to switch over to Intel.
SuperDuperMe
New Member
Not sure if its up already but us brits have prices and preorders up on ARIA
https://www.aria.co.uk/Products/Components/CPUs+/+Processors/AMD+Bulldozer+FX/
https://www.aria.co.uk/Products/Components/CPUs+/+Processors/AMD+Bulldozer+FX/
maroon1
New Member
There are already many reviews for Bulldozer
What I can tell you that FX-8150 is slower than i7 2600 in most multi-threaded benchmarks. I'm really surprised because FX-8150 not only have more cores but also has higher clock speed than a stock i7 2600
Single-threaded performance is horrible. Bulldozer can't match SB. Actually in some cases it is slower than Phenom II.
Not to mention that power consumption of Bulldozer is quite high.
EDIT: Here are more reviews from anandtech, techreport and xbitlab
http://techreport.com/articles.x/21813
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/1
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-8150_10.html#sect0
What I can tell you that FX-8150 is slower than i7 2600 in most multi-threaded benchmarks. I'm really surprised because FX-8150 not only have more cores but also has higher clock speed than a stock i7 2600
Single-threaded performance is horrible. Bulldozer can't match SB. Actually in some cases it is slower than Phenom II.
Not to mention that power consumption of Bulldozer is quite high.
EDIT: Here are more reviews from anandtech, techreport and xbitlab
http://techreport.com/articles.x/21813
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/1
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-8150_10.html#sect0
Last edited:
linkin
VIP Member
That's for an entire system, not the CPU alone.
More lies spread by butthurt people thinking that BD was supposed to smash SB.
Okedokey
Well-Known Member
It was aimed squarely at SB. It has just been a complete and utter fail. Behold, the Athlon III X8!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CqTU4wVvZL0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CqTU4wVvZL0
Last edited:
Pig with Lipstick. Should have dropped Phenom II to 32nm. and cranked up the ghz. Probably would have performed better and saved them a bunch of money. If they cant get more IPC, then they need to change the name back to ATI and stop making processors.
Last edited:
wolfeking
banned
Overkill. Its just AMDs Netburst. They will come back around soon.
spynoodle
Active Member
Of course, without Intel's kind of money, can they recover?