Is AMD FX Bulldozer really that bad for Gaming?

[Hypertag]

Intel chips are "hotter" because they have a core temperature measurement. AMD chips do not have this. This is a blatant apples and oranges comparison.

The heat dissipated through the heatsink is going to be effectively equal to power usage. Chips are basically fancy electric heaters. The heat is dissipated by the heatsink and fan. The amount of heat available to be dissipated is effectively equal to the power usage of the chip, since it is essentially acting as a near 100% efficiency electric heater for the purposes of this pointless discussion. Ivy bridge is hotter because the somewhat reduced heat generated by the processor isn't being dissipated to the heat sink and fan as efficiently, and because the slightly smaller amount of heat is concentrated in a smaller area of space.

Note how we are now discussing why bulldozer "owns" because its temperature measuring system reports a "smaller number" compared to Intel's completely different temperature measuring system instead of discussing how a bulldozer at 4.5GHz is still easily bottlenecked in games.

 

[Don Karnage]

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.

Just to add. You can get brand new boxed I3 2130's for 119.99 on Ebay

http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-Intel-C...9445?pt=CPUs&hash=item3f165a5915#ht_720wt_932

 

[AtenRa]

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.

You will allow me to quote myself

http://atenra.blog.com/2012/03/27/amd-fx4100-dx-11-budget-gaming-evaluation-a-gamers-perspective/

Overclocking

Because of our low budget, our overclocking endeavors were limited by the low end motherboard and the luck of a better CPU heat-sink. None the less, we have managed to easily overclock the AMD FX-4100 at 4.08GHz with the default voltage and a raised FSB of 220MHs. That raised the NB at 2200 but lowered the Ram speed at 1453MHz. We managed to overclock the FX4100 up to 4.4GHz with added voltage but we choose to settle for the default voltage overclock.

As for the Core i3 2100, unfortunately Intel has completely shut off any way of overclocking the Core i3 especially with the low end H61 chipset so we left it at the default operational frequency of 3100MHz.

Actually, it is the other way around. You need a higher cost P67,Z68 and Z77 motherboard to OC the Intel CPUs. That will add to the cost.

On the other hand, you can OC the FX CPUs with a low end motherboard.
Every BD FX CPU will be able to OC up to 4.2GHz with default voltage and default Heat-sink.

The rest of your post is wrong.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

I'd rather have a i5-750 for gaming than any current or past AMD cpu. Heck, Q9xxx is faster than Phenom II, which is in turn faster than Bulldozer...

 

[Don Karnage]

Actually, it is the other way around. You need a higher cost P67,Z68 and Z77 motherboard to OC the Intel CPUs. That will add to the cost.

On the other hand, you can OC the FX CPUs with a low end motherboard.
Every BD FX CPU will be able to OC up to 4.2GHz with default voltage and default Heat-sink.

The rest of your post is wrong.

You really want to push Bulldozer with a lowely board with 4 phase power and no VRM cooling? Ballsy

If you're comparing Amd to Intel you have to compare Z77/Z68 vs 990FX

 

[AtenRa]

You really want to push Bulldozer with a lowely board with 4 phase power and no VRM cooling? Ballsy

With stock voltage i dont see the problem. Im not talking about 5GHz, but it is doable at 4.2 to 4.5GHz.

If you're comparing Amd to Intel you have to compare Z77/Z68 vs 990FX

Why is that ?? Actually 990FX has more features than P68/Z68 (more PCI-e Lanes). Z77 and PCI-e Gen3 will only give you more bandwidth with Gen 3 GPUs.

For a single GPU setup, it is better to chose a motherboard with 970 chipset than 990FX. It will lower the power consumption of the entire system too. 990FX has 15W more TDP than 970 chipset. You only loose the 2x 16x PCI-e lanes.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

More PCIe lanes on bulldozer isn't a feature, it's a cruel joke played by AMD when their cpu's can't even push one decent VC.

 

[pelov]

More PCIe lanes on bulldozer isn't a feature, it's a cruel joke played by AMD when their cpu's can't even push one decent VC.

Bulldozers have a serious lack of CPU power and can't push crossfired/SLid 7970s/680s respectively, but the multi-GPU scaling issues aside it still doesn't explain why Intel hampered PCIe lanes in their 6-series chipsets. I can only assume they thought we wouldn't get to a point where x8 PCIE 2.x would be bottlenecked, and though for the most part that's true, there is still the rare occasion where you want an x16/x16 setup because it shows a small improvement.

Z77 PCIE 3.0 isn't exactly necessary unless you're firing up 3 or 4 $450+ GPUs. Intel screwed up by limiting bandwidth on their 6-series chipsets because more PCIE 2.x lanes would have netted you the same exact performance.

So yea, AMD chips can't push high end multi-GPU setups that would require the x16/x16 PCIE 2.x lanes but then again Intel royally fucked up with their Cougar Point chips too. Twice, actually

 

[Don Karnage]

Bulldozers have a serious lack of CPU power and can't push crossfired/SLid 7970s/680s respectively, but the multi-GPU scaling issues aside it still doesn't explain why Intel hampered PCIe lanes in their 6-series chipsets. I can only assume they thought we wouldn't get to a point where x8 PCIE 2.x would be bottlenecked, and though for the most part that's true, there is still the rare occasion where you want an x16/x16 setup because it shows a small improvement.

Z77 PCIE 3.0 isn't exactly necessary unless you're firing up 3 or 4 $450+ GPUs. Intel screwed up by limiting bandwidth on their 6-series chipsets because more PCIE 2.x lanes would have netted you the same exact performance.

So yea, AMD chips can't push high end multi-GPU setups that would require the x16/x16 PCIE 2.x lanes but then again Intel royally fucked up with their Cougar Point chips too. Twice, actually

No current cards could max 2.0 X8 so 3.0 X8 is perfectly fine with Z77. I'm not sure why everyone always brings up the lanes.

 

[Hypertag]

Now PIC-E bandwidth is the reason bulldozer "doesn't suck"? Okay.

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article/2011/11/03/amd_fx8150_multigpu_gameplay_performance_review/2


Yeah, that "bottleneck" from 8x PCI-E 2.0 / 3.0 will be so devastating.

Note that the 4.6GHz processor is clearly bottle necking the system. Even though the entire premise of this argument is "4.5GHz bulldozer can bottleneck nothing, it is 4.5 GHz after all"

 

[BallaTheFeared]

1155 is the mainstream platform, that is your reason.

Intel is trying to separate their top end 2011 socket from the cheaper offerings of 1155, hex core vs quad is pointless in almost every game, so you need to hamper something else to make 2011 look better to enthusiasts.

The answer is to cut PCIe bandwidth, because offering two more cores than they actually need at a huge price increase wouldn't win anyone over, neither would the additional USB/SATA ports.

 

[Don Karnage]

Now PIC-E bandwidth is the reason bulldozer "doesn't suck"? Okay.

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article/2011/11/03/amd_fx8150_multigpu_gameplay_performance_review/2


Yeah, that bottleneck from 8x PCI-E 2.0 / 3.0 will be so devastating.

Note that the 4.6GHz processor is clearly bottle necking the system. Even though the entire premise of this argument is "4.5GHz bulldozer can bottleneck nothing, it is 4.5 GHz after all"

Ouch...

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

You will allow me to quote myself

http://atenra.blog.com/2012/03/27/amd-fx4100-dx-11-budget-gaming-evaluation-a-gamers-perspective/



Actually, it is the other way around. You need a higher cost P67,Z68 and Z77 motherboard to OC the Intel CPUs. That will add to the cost.

On the other hand, you can OC the FX CPUs with a low end motherboard.
Every BD FX CPU will be able to OC up to 4.2GHz with default voltage and default Heat-sink.

The rest of your post is wrong.

LOL, LOL, LOL. I love people with irrational love for companies.

One: if you go for an i3, you can't overclock. That means a $60 H61 motherboard will do. You can also get a comparable motherboard for the 4100 if you're not gonna overclock, but then the 2120 is faster then, negating your argument about price/performance. If you DO want to overclock the 4100, you WILL need a better motherboard than one with a 4+2 power phase because you run a very high risk of blowing up the VRMs. Those will run you around $100 for a 970 model, so that's $40 additional.

You also need an aftermarket CPU cooler, worth $30. And before you make an argument regarding overclocking on stock voltage, let me remind you most people don't want a small fan screaming at thousands of RPMs so it can cope with the heat. If you want to overclock an FX processor, you need an aftermarket cooler unless you're able to stand a screeching fan, period. Also, not "every" FX CPU will do 4.2GHz on stock voltage. Some only make it to 4GHz on stock voltage because of silicon lottery. Like I also mentioned before, you don't need an aftermarket cooler for OCing a 2400 because the power consumption is so low. If you OC to 3.8GHz you'll basically be at the same power consumption as a stock 2600(K).

 

[pelov]

No current cards could max 2.0 X8 so 3.0 X8 is perfectly fine with Z77. I'm not sure why everyone always brings up the lanes.

It's not about the cards so much as it is the games. The difference is often minimal and only represents itself in certain titles but it's still there and something people still bitch about.

These titles show no difference between PCIE 2.x and 3.x at x8 and x4 respectively. Remember that PCIE 3.0 at x4 = PCIE 2.x at x8.

Here, though, there's a slight difference. It's not something that's necessary but people will still bring it up.

Ouch...

Yea, it's really bad. That's also Civ 5, a heavily multi-threaded DX11 title that generally favors Bulldozer at lower resolutions but gets bogged down by BD at multi-GPU rigs. That's also with a GTX580, with a GTX680/7970 it would only get worse.

For high end rigs there's no reason at all to buy BD. As far as gaming is concerned the AMD 990FX series chipsets might be very very slightly better due to the x16/x16 but now that Z77 is out that claim too is gone (if it ever existed. Like I just showed it's only on a select handful of titles that it makes a difference and it's often minimal). The 2500K is Intel's best selling CPU for a reason and for a gaming rig it should be the primary choice, quickly followed by the 2600K. Outside of certain integer heavy multi-threaded workloads BD just doesn't make any sense. For the cheaper rigs you're better off buying a 955 or 960T than you are a FX6100 or FX4100. Bulldozer doesn't scale down well at all as it's an architecture meant to scale up

 

[AtenRa]

LOL, LOL, LOL. I love people with irrational love for companies.

One: if you go for an i3, you can't overclock. That means a $60 H61 motherboard will do. You can also get a comparable motherboard for the 4100 if you're not gonna overclock, but then the 2120 is faster then, negating your argument about price/performance. If you DO want to overclock the 4100, you WILL need a better motherboard than one with a 4+2 power phase because you run a very high risk of blowing up the VRMs. Those will run you around $100 for a 970 model, so that's $40 additional.

You also need an aftermarket CPU cooler, worth $30. And before you make an argument regarding overclocking on stock voltage, let me remind you most people don't want a small fan screaming at thousands of RPMs so it can cope with the heat. If you want to overclock an FX processor, you need an aftermarket cooler unless you're able to stand a screeching fan, period. Also, not "every" FX CPU will do 4.2GHz on stock voltage. Some only make it to 4GHz on stock voltage because of silicon lottery. Like I also mentioned before, you don't need an aftermarket cooler for OCing a 2400 because the power consumption is so low. If you OC to 3.8GHz you'll basically be at the same power consumption as a stock 2600(K).

I believe you havent even touched an FX retail BOX before but you give me an advice about what an FX4100 can do with a lower end motherboard and default heat-sink.

Using the default heatsink you can OC the FX4100 up to 4.4GHz. With default voltage (1.425v) turbo Off every FX4100 with default heatsink will OC to 4.2GHz and beyond. The fan speed will remain almost the same.

So for the last time, you dont need a high end motherboard or after market heatsink in order to OC the FX4100 or any other FX CPU. Any FX CPU rated with 124W TDP has a better heat-pipe heatsink making it possible to OC too.

In order for the Core i5/i7 to be OCed you need to pair it with a P67/Z68 or Z77 motherboard. Those cost more than any H61 motherboard.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

I believe I've gone through several ASUS and MSI 4+1 phase power boards with a 965, does that count?

Needs Moar PCIe Lanes!!!!!!!!

 

[pelov]

I believe I've gone through several ASUS and MSI 4+1 phase power boards with a 965, does that count?

Asus did this too? I know MSI caused a shitstorm for putting poor VRMs in their mATX AM3 boards but I didn't know Asus was cutting corners as well. Not that it's surprising as their quality has steadily been decreasing.

 

[blckgrffn]

Asus did this too? I know MSI caused a shitstorm for putting poor VRMs in their mATX AM3 boards but I didn't know Asus was cutting corners as well. Not that it's surprising as their quality has steadily been decreasing.

Pretty sure that they are all doing this. 3+1 is the new value board. Bleh.

Having decent luck with a number of these value boards that have basically active cooling of that portion of the board, though. We'll see. (and compared to Balla, VERY modest OC's...)

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Yep, I killed two ASUS and three MSI boards with 4+1 phase power, switched to a Gigabyte UD4 8+2 design for a bit more money and came out at 4.4GHz on my 965 and 4.5Ghz on my 1090T, that board never popped the vrms.

 

[blckgrffn]

Yep, I killed two ASUS and three MSI boards with 4+1 phase power, switched to a Gigabyte UD4 8+2 design for a bit more money and came out at 4.4GHz on my 965 and 4.5Ghz on my 1090T, that board never popped the vrms.

LOL @ Those Clocks and dead motherboards! What kind of power were you pulling through them? Glad to hear the UD4 held up for you, my wifes comp is running what is likely the same board with her stock clocked 95W 945

8120 + Gigabyte UD3 8+2 mobo is $200 again at MC, if anyone cares. I had to check on it since I mentioned it earlier, looks like a pre-emptive price cut.

 

[Don Karnage]

Yep, I killed two ASUS and three MSI boards with 4+1 phase power, switched to a Gigabyte UD4 8+2 design for a bit more money and came out at 4.4GHz on my 965 and 4.5Ghz on my 1090T, that board never popped the vrms.

Highest on water i ever got with ,my 955 C3 was 4.3Ghz and that was pushing 1.6v on a 790FX MSI board. Surprised it never blew up.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

To be fair I could only get 4GHz out of the cheaper AMD boards and they were still dying.

When the first board died I went out and bought $16 worth of little copper vrm heatsinks, coupled with an active 80mm I thought for sure I was good... Denied.

 

[pelov]

The Denebs pull quite a bit of power. I have a 955 at 3.6ghz that I've been able to get up to 4ghz on a 770 ASrock board but no further. They absolutely suck at FSB overclocks

I don't think we need to vilify AMD any further for BD. It sucks for almost everything and we all know it Hell, even AMD's new executives seem to agree considering they're taking a completely different approach with Steamroller. The chase for clock speeds at the cost of IPC and pipeline length is like the search for the fountain of youth. You'll only end up with malaria and die along the way.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

I have, actually. It was for putting it back in the crystal shelf where we put the CPUs. As I was putting back the 4100 where it belongs, I got a 955 out. Unfortune as it may be for you, that was a rare occasion in which the customer already had an ASUS AM3+ board. In many of these incidents its customers that are making either a new system or upgrading platforms, and so the remaining Phenom IIs remain in their shelves too. Electricity costs 4x more here than in the US, so I can't recommend these AMD mainstream CPUs to folks that don't have a ton of money. Especially since most are looking to game and the i3 is faster there.

Also, at least it won't be in my conscience when someone misinformed reads your posts and goes out and buys a $60 AM3+ board and leaves the stock cooler on and runs the CPU at 4GHz+ to then find one day a small pop or that the system won't turn on because the VRMs gave out.

But hey, keep preaching AMD. More power to ya'.

I believe you havent even touched an FX retail BOX before but you give me an advice about what an FX4100 can do with a lower end motherboard and default heat-sink.

Using the default heatsink you can OC the FX4100 up to 4.4GHz. With default voltage (1.425v) turbo Off every FX4100 with default heatsink will OC to 4.2GHz and beyond. The fan speed will remain almost the same.

So for the last time, you dont need a high end motherboard or after market heatsink in order to OC the FX4100 or any other FX CPU. Any FX CPU rated with 124W TDP has a better heat-pipe heatsink making it possible to OC too.

In order for the Core i5/i7 to be OCed you need to pair it with a P67/Z68 or Z77 motherboard. Those cost more than any H61 motherboard.

 

[Meghan54]

I believe you havent even touched an FX retail BOX before but you give me an advice about what an FX4100 can do with a lower end motherboard and default heat-sink.

I know you aren't referring to me with that statement, but I've built a computer lately with an FX-4100 (photo proof of the last 4 cpus I've built with below) and it was a bitch to sell. Sitting next to a computer built with a lowly Intel Pentium G620, the Intel system sold in hours while it took over two weeks to sell that damned AMD system. I guess my mistake was putting an Intel system next to the AMD system. Almost without exception, after using both, the Intel system would be the one that sold while the AMD system was ignored.


I moved two Intel G620 based systems while sitting on the AMD system. And about the on board gpu....they were wholly irrelevant to the sales of the systems. Both systems (or all three once you count the two G620 systems I sold while I had the FX-4100) were comparably priced, outfitted as identically as possible (4GB DDR3-1333 Crucial Ballistix RAM, 500GB SATA Samsung Spinpoint hd's, 22X Samsung dual layer DVD/RW optical drives, Win 7 Pro 64-bit OS's on all of them).....and the AMD system was almost universally rejected as most felt the Intel systems were described as being "snappier", "smoother", "quieter", among other adjectives used.


Sorry, but the continued bolstering AMD's sub-par cpu line by you, AthenRa, despite overwhelming evidence that they don't perform on par with less costly Intel choices, almost makes the point that there are AMD shills on this board.....not that you are one. But you seem to be a fanboi with blind allegiance to a company, no matter how poor the product. Sad, really.






Oh, my RETAIL BOX pic of my two Intel G620's, an FX-4100, and an X6 1055T.

(Guess I have handled a retail box FX-4100, eh? Takes that speculation right away.)