• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Do you own a Bulldozer CPU?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Broheim said:
yeah I'm cherry picking the only software development bench anand does... wait how can you cherry pick something when there's only one choice 😕

erm, since when is 150 half of 180? but you can just as easily save $20 and go with the 1090T since there really isn't any difference other than you might have better luck in the silicon lottery with the 1100T.
Click to expand...

$109 is a lot less than $180. Where are you even getting the 1100T for $180? The only place I have seen with that price is Microcenter. It's also a in-store only price. It's cool if you live near one, but they won't ship it to you. I guess if your time has no value than you can drive out to microcenter to "save" $15, just hope your car is efficient on the gas. Really, the 1100T is $195+ shipped online, which is nearly double the cost of an FX-4100.

The anandtech review of FX was pretty limited to begin with, so if you refuse to look at results from other websites there isn't really much hope for you.
 
Chiropteran said:
Good point Broheim,

If your most common task in using your computer involves compiling chromium with VS 2008, FX-8150 is not the best CPU.

On the other hand, I can also cherry pick a benchmark:


Or, you could just look at a full comparison like I linked early, which shows that the 8150 is faster than the 1100T in most applications- without the extra 10-20% performance gained by the infamous patch. Once you account for the patch, 8150 isn't just clearly better, it's clearly a lot better.

In short, if you are telling someone to buy a 1100T over an 8150 you are doing them a disfavor, unless you know for a fact that person is only going to be running one of the few edge case applications where the 1100T wins.
Click to expand...

How about a link for these claims of 10-20% performance gain? As far as I can tell it's been nothing but AMD fanboy rumor, the only actual testing I've seen done with Win8 was in Tomshardware.com when they reviewed the 8150. This patch effects thread scheduling allowing better utilization of turbo core, if turbo core is shut off by an overclocker, or if all 8 threads are loaded so the processor won't turbo, there is no performance gain. Where there was a performance gain, it wasn't much if anything to brag about.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-23.html
 
Last edited:
Moving to Intel platform is completely ruled out -- I am not considering Intel at all. I already have AMD motherboard(s) and it is easier for me to deal with AMD than Intel. Personally I never felt Intel to be any faster than AMD and in fact my experience was the opposite except for my latest i7-2600 at work. But I don't have any of the newer AMD CPUs to compare with that.

I was trying to pick one of the following Bulldozers

FX-4100 (4 x 3.6 GHz 95W) 3.8 Turbo - $100 ($120 - $20 promo)
FX-6100 (6 x 3.3 GHz 95W) ??? - $145 ($160 - $15 promo)

or

1100T (6 x 3.3 GHz 125W) 3.7 Turbo - $180 + free mobo

(Or forget about these and wait for the next Bulldozer stepping 🙂

I would like to hear first hand experience with any of these. I know it is mostly subjective, but still.

I don't care about benchmarks because whenever I tried (earlier) the benchmarks never jive with my results or my benchmark figures. I do not use my machine for gaming at all so all the 3D benchmarks may not make any sense to me. As a matter of fact, I use motherboard's built-in DVI/HDMI. I do need faster memory bandwidth as well as minimum heat dissipation.
 
Chiropteran said:
$109 is a lot less than $180. Where are you even getting the 1100T for $180? The only place I have seen with that price is Microcenter. It's also a in-store only price. It's cool if you live near one, but they won't ship it to you. I guess if your time has no value than you can drive out to microcenter to "save" $15, just hope your car is efficient on the gas. Really, the 1100T is $195+ shipped online, which is nearly double the cost of an FX-4100.

The anandtech review of FX was pretty limited to begin with, so if you refuse to look at results from other websites there isn't really much hope for you.
Click to expand...

the OP said:
hasu said:
I was actually thinking of 1100T (from Microcenter), but that is 125W.
Click to expand...
so clearly he was ready to drive down to the nearest microcenter, making your point completely moot.

how many sites does extensive software development benches on cpus and lets me compare bulldozer to the 1100T? I don't really care how much hope you think there is for me.
 
Broheim said:
so clearly he was ready to drive down to the nearest microcenter, making your point completely moot.
Click to expand...

Maybe you missed this fact, but there is more discussion than just the OP's situation. The OP is looking at 6100 and 4100 FX CPUs, and then there is the entirely hypothetical argument about whether a 1100T or a 8150 is a better CPU. As a hypothetical argument, it's not exactly grounded to the OP's situation.


Broheim said:
how many sites does extensive software development benches on cpus and lets me compare bulldozer to the 1100T? I don't really care how much hope you think there is for me.
Click to expand...

Look, I'm not doing your homework for you. If you can't find a website that proves your argument, then that is just too bad for you. Perhaps you should just concede my point.

You can't just pull up an irrelevant unrelated benchmark and claim "well it's the closest thing, so it proves I'm right". No. Visual Studio 8 and gcc compile completely differently, and just because a given CPU is better at VS 8 doesn't mean it will do better at gcc, no matter how often you try to repeat it.
 
<3 these bulldozer defenders, vigorously defending a lousy product with their "I am right until you prove me wrong!!" attitude 🙄
 
I have an FX 6100, but only because I got it for $100 at Fry's with an ASUS M5A97 motherboard for $80. It was a pretty awesome Black Friday deal!

Currently have it overclocked to 4.3GHz, though it does require quite a bit of voltage to reach that in my case.
 
Chiropteran said:
Also despite being 3 years old, the i7 920 still costs more than the FX-8150.

You said it was faster than the 8150, and we proved you wrong. Now you are trying to hide your error by bringing up irrelevant information. If you really think an OCed 920 is faster than an OCed 8150, go ahead and do those tests and let us know.

After all that work, you might be able to show that a $300 overclocked CPU can be faster than an overclocked $240 CPU.
Click to expand...

lol

First of all your lil cock fight is with the other guy not me.

I paid $300 for my D0 chip in oct 2009 the Cdn price for the 8150 is currently $ 279.99.
The reason it cost more is because its still a better chip 🙂
I'm not trying to hide any fact if I had to rebuild my current system right now or build a BD rig I would rebuild my rig with a 3 year old processor.

I don't consider the overclocked comparison irrelevant because no one runs a 920 stock.

You build a BD rig and i'll be happy to do a comparison for you with my rig.

This review shows the 8150 at 4.8ghz vs the 920 @ 4ghz also has numbers for the PhII.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/10/12/amd-fx-8150-review/6
 
Last edited:
Chiropteran said:
Maybe you missed this fact, but there is more discussion than just the OP's situation. The OP is looking at 6100 and 4100 FX CPUs, and then there is the entirely hypothetical argument about whether a 1100T or a 8150 is a better CPU. As a hypothetical argument, it's not exactly grounded to the OP's situation.




Look, I'm not doing your homework for you. If you can't find a website that proves your argument, then that is just too bad for you. Perhaps you should just concede my point.

You can't just pull up an irrelevant unrelated benchmark and claim "well it's the closest thing, so it proves I'm right". No. Visual Studio 8 and gcc compile completely differently, and just because a given CPU is better at VS 8 doesn't mean it will do better at gcc, no matter how often you try to repeat it.
Click to expand...

this thread is about a question asked by the OP, there's a gazillion bulldozer threads dedicated to the performance of the FX-8150, but this isn't one of them, so go find another one to be hypothetical in.

you are constantly assuming all kinds of crap, where did the OP say he compiles with gcc, where did the OP say he didn't use VS, where did the OP say linux is the only OS he develops on, where did he even say he's even developing on linux and so on and so on ... I provided a software development benchmark for the OP to interpret whether or not is pertinent to his situation, you haven't provided any benchmarks or evidence relevant to the OP's question, all you have done is come in here and picked a fight over a CPU that isn't even relevant to the thread.
 
Broheim said:
this thread is about a question asked by the OP, there's a gazillion bulldozer threads dedicated to the performance of the FX-8150, but this isn't one of them, so go find another one to be hypothetical in.

you are constantly assuming all kinds of crap, where did the OP say he compiles with gcc, where did the OP say he didn't use VS, where did the OP say linux is the only OS he develops on, where did he even say he's even developing on linux and so on and so on ... I provided a software development benchmark for the OP to interpret whether or not is pertinent to his situation, you haven't provided any benchmarks or evidence relevant to the OP's question, all you have done is come in here and picked a fight over a CPU that isn't even relevant to the thread.
Click to expand...

This thread isn't the thread you think it is.

The OP asked "do you own a bulldozer CPU?" He didn't ask "should I buy a bulldozer?" and he certainly didn't ask "can intel fanboi trolls please post some garbage logic that makes bulldozer look bad?".

I responded to the thread because while I do not have a bulldozer yet, I have a compatable board and system just waiting for a CPU, and I assume that if the OP is looking at buying a bulldozer CPU he is basically in the exact same situation as me, so I shared my view.

I'm not really sure why you responded to the thread at all, since you obviously don't own a bulldozer CPU, don't plan to buy one, and you really just want to parrot the popular sentiment that bulldozer sucks.

As far as the story you are telling now about the benchmark, even if the OP uses VS 8 ( I doubt it), the benchmark you post doesn't have the 4100 or 6100 CPU listed, so again based on your logic it is even worse than useless.

I just find it laughable how at the start of the post you complain that this isn't the thread to compare the 8150 in, and then later in the same post you defend the benchmark you post from the 8150 review. Yeah, okay that is a smart way to argue :/
 
1100T is back in stock in Microcenter (MN). They only have 6 left

Still I am leaning towards FX-4100 because it has got 4 cores and runs at 3.6 GHz @ 95W. For my purpose 4 cores should be sufficient. I would love to buy both and try them but that is a little too much of a desire from my part!

Even if FX-4200 is not as fast as Phenom, 3.6 GHz FX won't be slower than 3.3 GHz Phenom will it? At 95W I think that is still a winner.
 
hasu said:
1100T is back in stock in Microcenter (MN). They only have 6 left

Still I am leaning towards FX-4100 because it has got 4 cores and runs at 3.6 GHz @ 95W. For my purpose 4 cores should be sufficient. I would love to buy both and try them but that is a little too much of a desire from my part!

Even if FX-4200 is not as fast as Phenom, 3.6 GHz FX won't be slower than 3.3 GHz Phenom will it? At 95W I think that is still a winner.
Click to expand...
Your problem is equating clock speed with performance. 3.3GHz Phenom II very possibly would be faster than a 3.6GHz Bulldozer. Also remember that the FX-4100 isn't four full cores, I know some people hate it when this comparison is made, but it really is more like a dual core with HT than a true quad core. So all else being equal, quad core Phenom II is faster than a "quad core" Bulldozer.

FX-4100 really is a terrible buy IMO, not sure why you're still considering it. It would literally be a downgrade from your Phenom II X4s in almost every way. It's not like the FX-6100 or FX-8120 or 8150 where it might be a slight downgrade in single/lightly threaded performance but an upgrade in heavily threaded performance. It would be a downgrade in pretty much every task, both lightly threaded workloads and heavily threaded stuff.
 
frostedflakes said:
Your problem is equating clock speed with performance. 3.3GHz Phenom II very possibly would be faster than a 3.6GHz Bulldozer. Also remember that the FX-4100 isn't four full cores, I know some people hate it when this comparison is made, but it really is more like a dual core with HT than a true quad core. So all else being equal, quad core Phenom II is faster than a "quad core" Bulldozer.

FX-4100 really is a terrible buy IMO, not sure why you're still considering it. It would literally be a downgrade from your Phenom II X4s in almost every way. It's not like the FX-6100 or FX-8120 or 8150 where it might be a slight downgrade in single/lightly threaded performance but an upgrade in heavily threaded performance. It would be a downgrade in pretty much every task, both lightly threaded workloads and heavily threaded stuff.
Click to expand...

Agreed!
 
hasu said:
I guess I might use it for two to three years. But why should that make any difference?
Click to expand...

Just curious.

If the phenom II chip is cheaper and you intended on doing a rebuild in a year I would go that route.

Since you plan to keep it for a few more years they may be alittle more legs in the BD chip depending on your workload.
 
hasu said:
1100T is back in stock in Microcenter (MN). They only have 6 left

Still I am leaning towards FX-4100 because it has got 4 cores and runs at 3.6 GHz @ 95W. For my purpose 4 cores should be sufficient. I would love to buy both and try them but that is a little too much of a desire from my part!

Even if FX-4200 is not as fast as Phenom, 3.6 GHz FX won't be slower than 3.3 GHz Phenom will it? At 95W I think that is still a winner.
Click to expand...

It is not really "4 cores" though. More like 2 in terms of performance - maybe 2.5-3.
 
hasu said:
1100T is back in stock in Microcenter (MN). They only have 6 left

Still I am leaning towards FX-4100 because it has got 4 cores and runs at 3.6 GHz @ 95W. For my purpose 4 cores should be sufficient. I would love to buy both and try them but that is a little too much of a desire from my part!

Even if FX-4200 is not as fast as Phenom, 3.6 GHz FX won't be slower than 3.3 GHz Phenom will it? At 95W I think that is still a winner.
Click to expand...
That depends on what benchmark you're looking at. 4100 is a pretty poor choice, imo. If you really care about power consumption so much... get an A8-3850 instead, similar performance but lower power consumption, especially w/ onboard gpu. Idle power is what you need to be looking for.


 
Last edited:
OP - These benchmarks are why i decided to try a 6100. My usage is highly tied to Excel so this is a good match for me - if you look at the rest of the review you will see that BD doesn't look so good in the other benches.

It is almost blasphemy to say anything positive about BD, but it does have a few areas that it does fine in.

link to benches .. http://www.techspot.com/review/452-amd-bulldozer-fx-cpus/page8.html

Encoding benches .. http://www.techspot.com/review/452-amd-bulldozer-fx-cpus/page9.html
 
Last edited:
hasu said:
1100T is back in stock in Microcenter (MN). They only have 6 left

Still I am leaning towards FX-4100 because it has got 4 cores and runs at 3.6 GHz @ 95W. For my purpose 4 cores should be sufficient. I would love to buy both and try them but that is a little too much of a desire from my part!

Even if FX-4200 is not as fast as Phenom, 3.6 GHz FX won't be slower than 3.3 GHz Phenom will it? At 95W I think that is still a winner.
Click to expand...

It really depends on work load. Some tasks a 3.2Ghz Phenom II 955 is faster than the 3.6Ghz FX 4100, some the FX 4100 is faster. As to power consumption, there is a load difference of 17W, and idle difference of 5W. I just can't see any FX processor as an upgrade over Phenom II unless you're getting more cores and have real use for the added cores.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-8120-6100-4100_8.html#sect0
 
I just bought a Phenom-II 1100T from Microcenter. Main reason was that the stock at Microcenter is going out too fast. FX will still be available if I decide to go with that in the future.

Thanks for all the help!
 
Having been underwhelmed by Bulldozer, I'd still like to see Anandtech revisit it when the MS patch is finalized and with refined drivers.
 
hasu said:
1100T is back in stock in Microcenter (MN). They only have 6 left

Still I am leaning towards FX-4100 because it has got 4 cores and runs at 3.6 GHz @ 95W. For my purpose 4 cores should be sufficient. I would love to buy both and try them but that is a little too much of a desire from my part!

Even if FX-4200 is not as fast as Phenom, 3.6 GHz FX won't be slower than 3.3 GHz Phenom will it? At 95W I think that is still a winner.
Click to expand...

If I was in your situation, I would save my money and wait. You've already stated that your computers are plenty fast for your needs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top