Bulldozer
- Thread starter StrangleHold
- Start date
Maybe i should be more specific.
Does the FX8150 compare with the 2600K in OC clock range? (as far as i know, they match in GHz. Both OC air cooled at around 5GHz no?)
For multi-tasking, does the FX8150 out perform the 2600k?
Benchmarks: I know the FX8150 has been lacking, but by how much? significant difference?
The Windows scheduler is the only problem? So if a person doesn't use that, should be no problem? (i never do).
I just take a look at the price difference, if the FX8150 is close to performing as good as the 2600K, I am willing to lose a little bit. But if there is a substantial difference in performance and overclocking, then go for the 2600K.
Thanks for your help
BurningSkyline
New Member
Maybe i should be more specific.
Does the FX8150 compare with the 2600K in OC clock range? (as far as i know, they match in GHz. Both OC air cooled at around 5GHz no?)
For multi-tasking, does the FX8150 out perform the 2600k?
Benchmarks: I know the FX8150 has been lacking, but by how much? significant difference?
The Windows scheduler is the only problem? So if a person doesn't use that, should be no problem? (i never do).
I just take a look at the price difference, if the FX8150 is close to performing as good as the 2600K, I am willing to lose a little bit. But if there is a substantial difference in performance and overclocking, then go for the 2600K.
Thanks for your help
In Most circumstances the 2600k wins, But I remember seeing the 8150 come ahead of the 2600k in a few benches. But in most reviews the 8150 is slower than the 2500k. The windows scheduler isn't the only problem as far as I know, I heard the L1/L2 caches were slow as well.
jonnyp11
New Member
overall, you'd be better off with a 2500k than a 8150 or 8120, and the 2600k is better than the 2500k, so you think about that, at this point it's just sad how bad it is for something being made for 4 years, but it does show some hope for the 8170 coming q1 of 2012, since it will be running on the b3 stepping not b2 so they can address these problems.
BurningSkyline
New Member
Not exactly.
Last edited:
BurningSkyline
New Member
The number of benches isn't what is super important, its what it wins in. If you're going to be working in highly threaded software the 8120 is probably the way to go. At the moment, the 8150 is VERY overpriced for what you get, so there really isn't any point to buying it. If you are just going to game on your PC, Go for the 2500k.
BurningSkyline
New Member
No. They were about even.
http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8150fx_8120fx_6100_and_fx_4170,2.html
mx344
Active Member
Why is it that, alota time i go to a thread that your in, and I see you getting into an argument with someone
2048Megabytes
Active Member
Smart move. If you really wanted to buy another processor a six-core Thuban would be a better choice. But I think you are better off just waiting as I think you have already come to the conclusion. AMD will work the bugs out of this new technology. It may take them a year or so to do it though.
Edit: I wonder if AMD will add a "B" label to Zambezi like they did with the Phenom I series years go when they fixed it?
Last edited:
Perkomate
Active Member
Apparently there's a new stepping coming.
Also, the FX-8120 and the 6100 just got listed on my usual computer site, at AU$259 and AU$215 respectively. It's a shame, because the 2500K is $229 and out-performs both of them.
Also, the FX-8120 and the 6100 just got listed on my usual computer site, at AU$259 and AU$215 respectively. It's a shame, because the 2500K is $229 and out-performs both of them.
spynoodle
Active Member
No, just.... no. Yeah, he likes Intel, but he has his reasoning at this point. He wouldn't cheat.
Anyways, I think that we should all wait out any purchases until more news comes out on the patch. I still think that BD might have a chance.
paulcheung
Active Member
Now as i have been following along, i have been trying to grasp the opinions about the bulldozer. Hard as one topic goes off trail, then the next. Can anyone give me the short version of the cons of the FX8150? I understand that it is not a "true" eight core, as in the traditional sense of having 8 physical cores (this part doesn't bother me). As well as i am confused with the "windows 7 issue" > what is this? lol.
Maybe taking many steps back, but i'm just having a hard time following along lol.
Thanks
If I understand what I have read so far, the FX8150 actually has 8 cores in 4 modules, the problem is that 2 cores are built in one module that shared a pipeline and FPU, also the caches, I think that made a bottle neck.
It seems AMD work backward, Intel try to tell the OS it has two core instead one core using hyperthread, and AMD tell the OS one core instead two core by share the pipeline.
Please correct me if I am wrong. I wonder if I have the chance to make back my money on AMD shares in the next ten years???
Cheers.
Perkomate
Active Member
maybe, just MAYBE he like Intel because they have better performance? But no, liking a company is being a fanboy apparently.
Last edited: