Is AMD FX Bulldozer really that bad for Gaming?

[Don Karnage]

And I'll jump in with my 2500K!

Even better :thumbsup:

 

[BallaTheFeared]

I don't see the thread, not sure if it's even worth my time to drop bombs on his scores, at only 4.7GHz BD isn't really worth my i5's time.

 

[Don Karnage]

I don't see the thread, not sure if it's even worth my time to drop bombs on his scores, at only 4.7GHz BD isn't really worth my i5's time.

BD's so slow it takes him a lot of time to even create a thread :biggrin:

 

[LoneNinja]

Question:
I've seen these insane numbers - how doesn't this much current fry the socket, the board, the vrms or the CPU?

Ian Cutress was having issues with the VRMS running hot during the 990FX article and issues with the FX 8150 throttling due to heat, I don't think he got 4.5Ghz stable on any of the boards using an FX 8150.

 

[Hatisherrif]

Do you want me to create the thread for our results? I've already finished my tests (except x264)

 

[Gikaseixas]

Love AMD stuff but there's no way i'd recommend their cpu's over i3/i5/i7's. OP you won't have problems in running games on BD, problem is that Intel is currently light years away in IPC and power consumption.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

BD's so slow it takes him a lot of time to even create a thread :biggrin:

 

[AtenRa]

ok done

CPU Multithreading Topic, User runtime


lets start the fires and kick the tires

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

InTeL r0x0r!%$#

Right now, yes.

 

[richaron]

Nice job with the misquoting.

In any case, Sandy Bridge is faster. Doesn't matter how many excuses you can make up for Bulldozer, but it's a slow and inefficient architecture.

Seems you are a little slow off the mark

How many times do I have to agree Intel is better at gaming? I agree it's better in almost every situation.

But I gave you evidence that software can have dramatic effects (to show how far off your wild claims are) & you are still sticking your head in the sand.

 

[BFG10K]

So, from Bulldozer sucks we have come to "BD is more power hungry".

Bulldozer sucks because it’s slower, more expensive and burns more power than Intel’s offerings. Better?

Could you tell me what Intel CPU will have the same performance in DX-11 games with a FX6100 @ 4.5GHz ???

I’m not sure what you’re asking exactly? Where can I find an FX6100 @ 4.5 GHz? It’s not listed at any (r)etailer or at AMD’s site.

Or are you asking to compare it to a Sandy Bridge (or even Lynfield) at 4.5 GHz? Because it’s obvious Intel’s parts will be faster while using less power at the same time.

But for gaming when OCed it has the same performance as Intel CPUs costing most of the time less and having better platform characteristics at the same price point.

If you have to resort to comparing an overclocked Bulldozer just to match stock Intel performance then you’ve basically answered your own question.

Not to mention that Bulldozer will be an absolute furnace running at such an overclock.

I dont see that in my benchmarks (see link in my sig bellow).

Like I said earlier, if you’re GPU bottlenecked anyway, why pick the processor that uses more power and costs more?

 

[AtenRa]

Bulldozer sucks because it’s slower, more expensive and burns more power than Intel’s offerings. Better?

Lets see,

FX4100 is faster in multithreaded apps than any dual core 4 threads Intel SB CPU when OCed and cost less. Yes it has more power consumption. Wins in 2 out of 3

FX6100 is faster in multithreaded apps than any dual core 4 threads Intel SB CPU and when OCed it is faster and cheaper than any Core i5 up to Core i5 2400. Yes it has more power consumption. Wins in 2 out of 3

FX8120 when OC is faster and cheaper than any Core i5 in multithreaded apps. Yes it has more power consumption. Wins in 2 out of 3

Price/performance in multithreaded apps the FX series are faster and cheaper. If you dont OC and you want to save on electricity buy Intel. But at the same or less price points the FX CPUs can give you more performance in Multithreaded apps. If you only game and you can afford it, then Buy the new Intel 3570K or the 3770K. But if you are in a low budget and you are willing to OC your components the FX can be very performance/price competitive.

I’m not sure what you’re asking exactly? Where can I find an FX6100 @ 4.5 GHz? It’s not listed at any (r)etailer or at AMD’s site.

You havent seen any FX6100 @ 4.5GHz benchmarks or in-game power usage and yet you claim that FX sucks for games.

Or are you asking to compare it to a Sandy Bridge (or even Lynfield) at 4.5 GHz? Because it’s obvious Intel’s parts will be faster while using less power at the same time.

Is that SB at the same or close the same price point ?? Because a 6-core SB-E is 50%+ faster than Core i5 but cost more than double.

If you have to resort to comparing an overclocked Bulldozer just to match stock Intel performance then you’ve basically answered your own question.

A cheaper FX processor when OCed can have the same or better performance. I dont see whats the problem with that. I wished Intel would allow me to OC any Core i CPU but they dont. Now that you cant OC any Intel CPU, buying a cheaper model and OC it to have the same performance of a bigger model is not that appealing ??? Come on.

Not to mention that Bulldozer will be an absolute furnace running at such an overclock.

BDs thermals are much lower than SB and IB, not to mention that you can buy the FX6100 + after market heat-sink for the same price an Intel Core i5 2300 costs. OC both of them and compare the performance/price.

Like I said earlier, if you’re GPU bottlenecked anyway, why pick the processor that uses more power and costs more?

If you only what your PC for gaming then buy the cheapest CPU that will not bottleneck before your GPU.
You keep saying that BD cost more but that is only valid for the FX8150 vs the Core i5 2500K. In that case the FX is faster in multithreaded apps and that is why it cost more.
Core i7 2600K is faster than FX8150 and it cost more, no problem with that.

 

[ShintaiDK]

This is hillarious. The fanboy is strong with this one!

 

[boxleitnerb]

The i3-2120 costs the same as an FX4100, performance at stock clocks in CPU bound gaming situations is 25% higher than the FX. So if you OC the FX by 25% you get your 4.5 GHz, be on par with the i3 but use more than double the power. Wow, good deal!

http://ht4u.net/reviews/2011/amd_fx_6100_4100_review/index24.php

 

[Hatisherrif]

This is hillarious. The fanboy is strong with this one!

In you as well, it seems

 

[AtenRa]

The i3-2120 costs the same as an FX4100

Newegg prices,

FX4100 @ $109,99
Core i3 2120 @ $129,99

FX4100 is Cheaper and Faster when OCed

FX6100 @ $149,99
Core i5 2300 @ $179,99

FX6100 is cheaper and faster when OCed (Im counting the puny OC of the 2300)

FX8120 @ $189,99
Core i5 2500K @ $219,99

FX8120 OCed will be faster in most of the multithreaded apps. The only problem is the power usage. A lot of people dont care about the power usage. If you do care, by all means get the 3570K

FX are cheaper and faster in Multithreading when OCed. When you game in DX-11 games you will be GPU limited most of the time. Intel only have the lower power usage to brag about until you cross the $220.00 price point. After that point the Intel Core i7 CPUs are faster combined with lower power usage. Problem is, not everyone spends $300+ for the CPU alone.

performance at stock clocks in CPU bound gaming situations is 25% higher than the FX

Well, most of the new DX-11 games will not be CPU limited.

AVP 1090x1080
http://api.photoshop.com/v1.0/accou...22f95ff2/renditions/1024.jpg?md=1332694299000


BF3 1920x1080
http://api.photoshop.com/v1.0/accou...91ac49db/renditions/1024.jpg?md=1332694306000

Deus-Ex 1920x1080
http://api.photoshop.com/v1.0/accou...f6fb6c74/renditions/1024.jpg?md=1332694323000

DIRT 3 1920x1080
http://api.photoshop.com/v1.0/accou...af3eca85/renditions/1024.jpg?md=1332694331000

F1 2011 1920x1080
http://api.photoshop.com/v1.0/accou...2317df23/renditions/1024.jpg?md=1332694340000

Shogun 2 1920x1080
http://api.photoshop.com/v1.0/accou...ff881596/renditions/1024.jpg?md=1332694350000

So if you OC the FX by 25% you get your 4.5 GHz, be on par with the i3 but use more than double the power. Wow, good deal!

http://ht4u.net/reviews/2011/amd_fx_6100_4100_review/index24.php

Where are the in-game power measurements ?? for default and OC ??

 

[Don Karnage]

This thread has convinced me to build a bulldozer rig..........

 

[Makaveli]

BDs thermals are much lower than SB and IB

What????

I think you've been spending alittle too much time in the sun over there in greece =P

 

[Hypertag]

Bulldozer sucks because it’s slower, more expensive and burns more power than Intel’s offerings. Better?

Yes, its better. Just overclock it to 4.5GHz, and it owns. Also, electricity is free, so you are forbidden from mentioning that on an AMD system.

 

[boxleitnerb]

...

Difference here in Germany is 10 Euros. So basically nothing. And it will diminish further if you take into account energy costs.

And as I said, I think your benchmarks are flawed and do not cover all cases/standards. You can post them all you want, it will not change my mind.

In the link I provided, the FX4100 used more than double than the 2120 (both at stock) and under full load. Both CPUs will use less while gaming of course, but the ratio should stay roughly the same. And you know that OC adds to power consumption, so there you go.

 

[AtenRa]

What????

I think you've been spending alittle too much time in the sun over there in greece =P

The sun is getting hotter and hotter (almost ready for the beach) but i know what im talking about. I have said THERMALS not power usage.

http://translate.google.com.my/tran...tikel/prozessoren/2012/test-intel-ivy-bridge/

 

[pelov]

The sun is getting hotter and hotter (almost ready for the beach) but i know what im talking about. I have said THERMALS not power usage.

http://translate.google.com.my/tran...tikel/prozessoren/2012/test-intel-ivy-bridge/

Thermals are only measured according to the TJmax so while BD might be cooler it's only because it's got a higher TDP and lower TJmax. Intel chips might run hotter it's because they're designed to do that :/ Throw the heat issue down the gutter as it doesn't prove anything. Comparing IB here would be a different story, though, as it's heat is still noticeably higher than SB.

Did you do the DX9/DX10 comparison and writeup to accompany that DX11 test you did? It would be interesting to see how much the gains/decreases are.

 

[AtenRa]

Thermals are only measured according to the TJmax so while BD might be cooler it's only because it's got a higher TDP and lower TJmax. Intel chips might run hotter it's because they're designed to do that :/ Throw the heat issue down the gutter as it doesn't prove anything. Comparing IB here would be a different story, though, as it's heat is still noticeably higher than SB.

My response for the lower thermals was to BFG10K.

Originally Posted by BFG10K View Post
Not to mention that Bulldozer will be an absolute furnace running at such an overclock.

Did you do the DX9/DX10 comparison and writeup to accompany that DX11 test you did? It would be interesting to see how much the gains/decreases are.

No i havent benched any DX-9/10 game, most of them will produce more than 60fps even with a lower end dual core CPU. Im more interested in new DX-11 game engines.
DX-11 can utilize more CPU cores and it is much more demanding with the GPUs. DX-11 is the future and im more interested to see how DX-11 games will be used by today and future hardware.

 

[pelov]

Oh cmon! You remember the discussion we had Showing DX11 benchmarks and the benefits of DX11 is worthless unless you have something to compare them to.

Honestly, I was looking forward to that. It would really show just how much of an effect in DX11 hyperthreading has versus CMT and how certain games may favor the integer coars.

You disappoint me...

BFG, it's difficult, nigh impossible, to compare heat output of processors on different architectures. There are far too many differences -- die sizes, stock coolers, TIM versus soldering (never thought I'd see that again...) and power consumption -- to take into account when claiming processor X is a furnace compared to processor Y. It's only when you have an extreme example, like the P4, or a similar architecture with different results, like IB vs SB, that you can really draw a significant conclusion.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Wow, LOL. So wrong on some many accounts that I don't even know where to start.

First off: you're supposed to compare stock vs. stock or OC vs. OC, not stock vs. OC. With that out of the way...

The FX-4100, stock, is comparable to the Core i3-2120 in multi-threaded programs but loses massively in single-threaded, by more than 30%. Stock vs. stock, yes, it costs less: the 2120 is $125 and the 4100 is $105 or so. But then, the 2120 is overall faster and consumes a lot less power. Comparing stock vs. OC, which is something that shouldn't be done anyway, the 4100 does NOT cost more because you need an after-market cooler for overclocking and that adds a cost of $30. Oh, and let's not forget we need a 6+2 phase motherboard to handle the additional power. That means a cost of around $100, compared to a normal H61 board at $60. So now it's around $50 more expensive, and it still only matches the i3 in gaming by then. It also consumes more than twice the amount of power. Yeah, it'll be faster in MT, but you're getting that advantage at the cost of everything else, and it'll cost more for the platform needed to OC as well.

FX-6100... a very interestingly crappy CPU. Slower than the Phenom II X6 1075T, and not really having a place in the marketplace. If you want to OC it, you need to dump $30 into that. By then it's $180, the same price as an i5-2400 that can also be overclocked. Also, you need a 6+2 phase board if you're gonna OC. Stock vs. stock, it's slower than the 2400 in single and multi-threaded and consumes a ton more power while at it. OC vs OC, we still have the same situation because you can easily reach 3.8GHz on a 2400, even on the stock cooler because of the extremely low power consumption.

FX-8120, stock, is on par with the i5-2400 in multi-threaded and slower than the i5-2500K. It also gets horribly beaten by both in single-threaded, and stock it consumes 2x more power than them. Comparing overclocks, the 8120 would be faster than an overclocked 2400 in multi-threaded, but there'd still be a huge gap in single-threaded. Power consumption would also be around 3x higher, all for a small advantage in MT. Enter the 2500K, which OCed is faster than an OCed 8120 in everything.

Price/performance for the FX series is crap, BTW. Even if you're looking at MT only you have 2x higher power consumption for 15-20% performance increases comparing a 2120 and a 4100. Above that, AMD has zero advantage because the 2400 ties the 6100 whether both are stock or OCed and you get 2x lower power consumption and no need to buy an aftermarket cooler if you're gonna OC the 2400. 2500K, no chance. That's with the 8150 in MT, whether stock or OCed and it'd consume 3x less power. This is all looking only at MT, because in ST Bulldozer is a complete pile or horse crap. But you wouldn't understand that, seeing as how you have such a loving relationship with AMD who, BTW, only want your money.

Also, you don't seem to have a good understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Lower temperature does not equal lower heat output.

Lets see,

FX4100 is faster in multithreaded apps than any dual core 4 threads Intel SB CPU when OCed and cost less. Yes it has more power consumption. Wins in 2 out of 3

FX6100 is faster in multithreaded apps than any dual core 4 threads Intel SB CPU and when OCed it is faster and cheaper than any Core i5 up to Core i5 2400. Yes it has more power consumption. Wins in 2 out of 3

FX8120 when OC is faster and cheaper than any Core i5 in multithreaded apps. Yes it has more power consumption. Wins in 2 out of 3

Price/performance in multithreaded apps the FX series are faster and cheaper. If you dont OC and you want to save on electricity buy Intel. But at the same or less price points the FX CPUs can give you more performance in Multithreaded apps. If you only game and you can afford it, then Buy the new Intel 3570K or the 3770K. But if you are in a low budget and you are willing to OC your components the FX can be very performance/price competitive.




You havent seen any FX6100 @ 4.5GHz benchmarks or in-game power usage and yet you claim that FX sucks for games.



Is that SB at the same or close the same price point ?? Because a 6-core SB-E is 50%+ faster than Core i5 but cost more than double.



A cheaper FX processor when OCed can have the same or better performance. I dont see whats the problem with that. I wished Intel would allow me to OC any Core i CPU but they dont. Now that you cant OC any Intel CPU, buying a cheaper model and OC it to have the same performance of a bigger model is not that appealing ??? Come on.



BDs thermals are much lower than SB and IB, not to mention that you can buy the FX6100 + after market heat-sink for the same price an Intel Core i5 2300 costs. OC both of them and compare the performance/price.




If you only what your PC for gaming then buy the cheapest CPU that will not bottleneck before your GPU.
You keep saying that BD cost more but that is only valid for the FX8150 vs the Core i5 2500K. In that case the FX is faster in multithreaded apps and that is why it cost more.
Core i7 2600K is faster than FX8150 and it cost more, no problem with that.