AMD8 core processor

O

OptiEng

New Member
Hi does anyone have an 8 core AMD bulldozer, just wondering how well they perform and how they compare to the intel's. Thanks.
 
From my basic understanding it isn't a true 8 core.
It is 4 modules that are like hyper-threading on steroids.
It only has 4 FPU's.
 
Last edited:
I have a FX-4100 and I can't complain about it for what I use it for.
I have that same MB M5A87 with a Phenom 970 in it.
Seems like a decent board but I haven't played with it yet to see how well it will overclock.

I would gladly try the FX-8120 in a heartbeat if I wasn't tight on money.
 
I got an FX-8120. Still haven't put it in a machine, so can't tell you how good it is.. :p
Depending on what you do with your computer and what other parts you get in it, it might be completely useless or it might be the wisest spending of money ever.
 
One thing I see missing from your list is a heatsink/fan.
I would recommend you get a good aftermarket one.
I have read that the FX-8xxx series run a little hot for the stock cooler.
 
Thanks everyone for your comments and feedback. Yes good point MyCattMaxx. Anyone have any recommendations on a good cooler?
 
Nice! Which power supply are you using? Also, do you think this motherboard would work well with the FX8120 based on your experiences with it?
 
one of our members here bought a 6100 and ran benches against his 965 i think it was and in the end he got nearly identical performance, but the 6100 overclocked better so it had better capabilities. but if you compare it to an intel processor for the same or a little more the intel one will beat it at stock, but they dont overclock at all really so once you overclock it past 4.5ghz the 6100 would at least tie with it.
 
OptiEng said:
Nice! Which power supply are you using? Also, do you think this motherboard would work well with the FX8120 based on your experiences with it?
Click to expand...
On the FX-4100 I have a OCZ 550 watt but it was on a cheap Gigabyte MB I do not recommend.
The Asus MB with the Phenom is fed with a Thermaltake 700 watt.
Like I said, I haven't had time to play with the Asus, I haven't had it all that long yet.

JLuchinski can give you better feedback about the Asus as I bought it from him.
 
jonnyp11 said:
one of our members here bought a 6100 and ran benches against his 965 i think it was and in the end he got nearly identical performance, but the 6100 overclocked better so it had better capabilities. but if you compare it to an intel processor for the same or a little more the intel one will beat it at stock, but they dont overclock at all really so once you overclock it past 4.5ghz the 6100 would at least tie with it.
Click to expand...

960T. ;)

And the bulldozer does have 4 true cores, with 8 pipelines coming from them. Each "core" is the same as the next one, so it isn't an extra thread. The OS sees it as a core. Just doesn't see it as well.
 
Like said the 4000 series has 4 sets of pipelines, so the OS sees it as a 4 core. They (module) just share some upperend and the L2 cache. Alot dfferent the Intels HT, which runs 2 threads on the same pipelines. The OS just sees it as a 4 core, not as a dual core module.

Its better with the patch, but not just right. Like say if your running 2 threads. If they dont share any cache, its better to run each thread on one core of different modules. If they share cache, it better to run both threads on the same module since each core on a module share L2 cache. In other words Windows is have a hard time understanding what thread to run on what core.

The 6000 and 8000 series will run 4 threaded games and so on (slightly) better then the 4000 series at the same ghz. For the reason above, the 6000 and 800 can spread the threads out on modules/cores. Unlike the 4000 that has to bunch all them up on 4 cores/2 modules.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top