My 8150 Bulldozer experience - so far!

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

i was able to oc my FX 4100 to 4.3GHz on stock volts and cooling with no problem with no increase in consumption or heat ? plus many others have to ?

Sure... you just defeated the law of thermodynamics, right?

Frequency increase=current increase=power consumption increase=heat increase.

I wouldn't be able to tolerate a small fan screaming away at 4000+RPM. If you're gonna overclock nowadays you need a third-party cooler.

This is all without taking into account, of course, that an FX-4100 at 4.3GHz would only just match a Core i3-2120.

I'm not seeing this so-called value proposition. You get to spend $15 less on the processor but get to spend $25 more on a decent cooler to match the performance of said processor and a more expensive motherboard that can take the increased power consumption. So it costs more both upfront and in the long run, consumes more power and generates more heat, and only matches it yet it's been hailed as a decent competitor. In what world is that actually a good proposition?

 

[alexruiz]

When Time permits, after I tweak the 8150 with a better case and cooling, I'll slap the GTX 680 in the Bulldozer rig to see how it compares to the Intel rig.

Looking forward to those.

 

[Dravic]

I think the 8120 / 8150 chips are fascinating market pieces for the number of threads they have. Most mainstream users will see no benefit in these chips.

The x6 Phenom II's shook things up when they were realsed; 6 physical cores!!!

I'm really curious how the 8120 /8150 handle multiple virtual machines with lots of RAM installed, as they are truly server type chips, kind of like the thinly disguised i7 920 when it was released.

One of the reasons I bought mine. All the PCs is my stable (gamer, linux workstation, office pc, kids pc) get upgraded from the "gamer" left overs. This will be a 16 gig 8 core vm linux workstation in a year or two for my security and development work.

The only games I even have installed after my ssd rebuild are BF3 and Diablo 3.

When i looked to 6 cores or more, it was remain on am3/3+ or go to socket 2011, at the time of purchase it was a $500 difference. I ended up spending the same amount but got a 7970 with the 8150 which replaced my 4890 CF setup.

I lose single threaded performance, but there is nothing that is slow on any 4.5 ghz modern CPU.

 

[guskline]

Dravic: Thanks for your post. After deciding whether or not to upgrade the PSU, I switched out the Antec Green 750 W for the Antec TP II 750 watt that was in the single gpu intel rig. The Antec TP is a better PSU and I'm only going to run a single 5850 to allow enough power to OC the 8150. To achieve 4.55Ghz on your 8150 what parameters did you set in your mb BIOS such as voltage etc?

 

[MentalIlness]

3570K costs a bit more

It costs alot more to me. I paid $80 for my 8120 @ Microcenter, $140 for a Sabertooth 990FX. And please take the needle off of the record, its skipping.

Love your avatar by the way. Is that a pear ?

 

[MentalIlness]

Dravic: Thanks for your post. After deciding whether or not to upgrade the PSU, I switched out the Antec Green 750 W for the Antec TP II 750 watt that was in the single gpu intel rig. The Antec TP is a better PSU and I'm only going to run a single 5850 to allow enough power to OC the 8150. To achieve 4.55Ghz on your 8150 what parameters did you set in your mb BIOS such as voltage etc?

Looking forward to your 8150 / GTX 680 results. :thumbsup:

 

[B-Riz]

It costs alot more to me. I paid $80 for my 8120 @ Microcenter, $140 for a Sabertooth 990FX. And please take the needle off of the record, its skipping.

Love your avatar by the way. Is that a pear ?

They are borrowing from a popular meme, FWIW.

A bit o history for ye.

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/lolwut

 

[MentalIlness]

They are borrowing from a popular meme, FWIW.

A bit o history for ye.

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/lolwut

At least I guessed the right fruit. :biggrin:

 

[AtenRa]

Bulldozer isn't worth it, no matter how you look at it. The Core i3-2120 obliterates the FX-4100 and is about on-par with the FX-6100 overall, and the Core i5-3470 at $200 obliterates anything AMD has.

Newegg prices

FX4100 = $109,99
FX6100 = $129,99
FX8120 = $159,99
FX8150 = $189,99

G850 = $87,99
Core i3 2120 = $124,99
Core i5 3470 = 199,99

FX4100 is faster but cost more than G850
FX6100 is faster than Core i3 2120 even at default clocks, there is no competition when you OC the FX6100 at the same price.
FX8120 at 4GHz is faster than Core i5 3470 and cost less. At maximum OC the FX8120/8150 is faster in Multithreaded apps even than Core i5 3750K.

If you overclock Bulldozer it rears its ugly head and you're stuck with a huge power consumption increase for a small to moderate performance increase. Both at 4.5GHz, a Core i5-3570K will destroy an FX-8150. They overclock about the same. Platform price/performance is better with Intel as well, too.

No they dont, FX8150 is faster in Multithreaded apps, you can find Core i5 3570K at 4.5GHz vs FX8150 at 4.7GHz bellow.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2241712&highlight=

There's really little to no reason to buy an AMD CPU right now. Intel has the budget market cornered with the Celeron G530/540, the Pentium G620 and G850; the mainstream market with the Core i3-2120 and the performance market with the Core i5-3470, 3570K, and 3770K.

You better have a look at prices again. Up to the $200 mark, AMD is very performance/price competitive against Intel.

 

[Durvelle27]

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/4237749

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/3974544

 

[Mallibu]

FX8120 at 4GHz is faster than Core i5 3470 and cost less. At maximum OC the FX8120/8150 is faster in Multithreaded apps even than Core i5 3570K.

No they dont, FX8150 is faster in Multithreaded apps, you can find Core i5 3570K at 4.5GHz vs FX8150 at 4.7GHz bellow.

Oh, god not this crap again. An i5 3570k is miles better in everything compared to FX 8150 unless someone runs those rare and cherry picked applications where FX is 5% better while consuming 500 watts. And even then, it's wise to suggest the superior all-around performance of i5, instead of 'the somewhat good in very multithreaded but crap in 99% everyday usage' performance of 8150.
You seem very desperate to find a reason for someone to consider AMD, when the reality is that there's noone. The only scenario I'd think, would be a Phenom II 955 BE @ ~90 Euros. Every other offer just isn't good enough.

 

[pcsavvy]

Please, Please no diatribe about AMD vs Intel, we have read and heard about it all before. This would make how many times?
Let's just stick to the facts and what the op is reporting.

Personally, I feel that for those who are on tight budgets who want to o/c and have a true multi-core cpu then AMD does make sense. If you have money burning a hole in your pocket and you want the most efficient and fast cpu with multi-core then Intel.
But for those of us who have limited funds and want/need to be able to stretch those dollars then an AMD system makes sense. You not only have to factor in the cost of a cpu but the cost of a new m/b too. Mid to high end Intel m/b's cost more than a comparable AMD m/b's. And for some with an AMD m/b with the right nomenclature, all they have to do is purchase a cpu and drop it in. Saving some cost there.

Wow, only 500 watts more to o/c, the way some of you yell and scream I was thinking it was more like 500 kilowatts or something.:whiste:

 

[Yuriman]

Wow, only 500 watts more to o/c, the way some of you yell and scream I was thinking it was more like 500 kilowatts or something.:whiste:

500 watts is a lot depending on your scale. An Ivy quad overclocked to 4.5Ghz running a power-virus type program (LinX for instance) draws right around 100w. 500w may well be an exaggeration (I don't actually know how much power an FX-8xxx draws when overclocked), but 600w vs 100w isn't insignificant.

 

[AtenRa]

Oh, god not this crap again. An i5 3570k is miles better in everything compared to FX 8150 unless someone runs those rare and cherry picked applications where FX is 5% better while consuming 500 watts. And even then, it's wise to suggest the superior all-around performance of i5, instead of 'the somewhat good in very multithreaded but crap in 99% everyday usage' performance of 8150.
You seem very desperate to find a reason for someone to consider AMD, when the reality is that there's noone. The only scenario I'd think, would be a Phenom II 955 BE @ ~90 Euros. Every other offer just isn't good enough.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2241712&highlight=

Posts 1 and 21

FX8150@4.7GHz vs Core i5 3750K@4.5GHz

Im sure you will find the rest of the tests very interesting.

 

[Yuriman]

Forgive me as I'm sure this has been covered (couldn't find it), but approximately how much power does the 8150 draw at that clock/voltage? What power supply do you have?

The numbers speak for themselves, it's almost 12% faster on 2nd pass x264 encoding than the highest most people can obtain on an Ivy without popping the lid - and even then, you're not likely to overclock 12% more.

 

[AtenRa]

Forgive me as I'm sure this has been covered (couldn't find it), but approximately how much power does the 8150 draw at that clock/voltage? What power supply do you have?

The numbers speak for themselves, it's almost 12% faster on 2nd pass x264 encoding than the highest most people can obtain on an Ivy without popping the lid - and even then, you're not likely to overclock 12% more.

I haven't measured power consumption yet, that system uses the ThermalTake Smart 730W 80+.

 

[AtenRa]

FX8150@4.7GHz is even faster than Core i7 2600K at 4.5GHz in x264

post 11

 

[Yuriman]

My entry:
Ivy 3570k @ 4.7ghz, ~1.35v
8GB DDR3 9/9/9/24 @ 1.25v (ulv)
Running under the watercooling loop I built 6 years ago for my Q6600.

Obviously beats Ivy clock for clock in 2nd pass. My chip seems to be one of those that really begs to have its lid taken off, I may delid and report back with my real overclocking cap.

My chip only draws around 140w at that clock and I could probably bring the voltage down once I delid it.

EDIT: Against the 2600k posted above me, my chip does ~205fps in the first pass vs the approximately 175fps of the 2600k. I can extrapolate then that a similarly clocked 3770k should get around 54.4fps in 2nd pass. We're talking about a $300+ chip vs a <$200 chip though.

 

[Mallibu]

FX8150@4.7GHz is even faster than Core i7 2600K at 4.5GHz in x264

post 11

For every application you link that Bulldozer has 3-4% advantage, there are 9 others, that it's behind by 20-30-40%, so I'm not sure what are you trying to prove over here.
Are there situations that BD is better than i5? Yes.
Are they the majority? Certainly not
Is i5 superior all-around? Yes
Then why pick up a BD? (unless I'm going to use those 4-5-6 applications that it's faster, and I absolutely want that 4-5% gain.... which is highly unlikely)

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

It costs alot more to me. I paid $80 for my 8120 @ Microcenter, $140 for a Sabertooth 990FX. And please take the needle off of the record, its skipping.

Love your avatar by the way. Is that a pear ?

MicroCenter doesn't count. Only 5-10% of the people here have access to it. $80 is a very good price for that processor, however.

Yes, this is a pear.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Let's stop it with the cherry picked benchmarks. Overall the i5-3570K is faster than the FX-8150 in multi-threaded software. That was my point and it holds true.

As for the i5-3470, I like how convenient it is to point out that you can OC an FX-8150 to 4GHz when you can OC a 3470 to the exact same frequency. If you overclock using the Turbo multiplier alone you'll get 3.8GHz on all cores and if you add a 105MHz BCLK into the equation that turns into 4GHz. What's the argument, then? It's not like you can't overclock the "locked" i5s.

 

[NostaSeronx]

Can you guys use x264 5.0?
http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=520

http://x264.nl/x264/changelog.txt

r1913 -> old 4.0
r2098 -> Bulldozer initial optimizations
^
-
V
r2200 -> new 5.0, several Bulldozer, Sandy, and Ivy optimizations with XOP, AVX, etc.

 

[AtenRa]

Let's stop it with the cherry picked benchmarks. Overall the i5-3570K is faster than the FX-8150 in multi-threaded software. That was my point and it holds true.

You haven't provided a single MT benchmark where 3750K is faster than FX8150, i have provided five(5) so far.

As for the i5-3470, I like how convenient it is to point out that you can OC an FX-8150 to 4GHz when you can OC a 3470 to the exact same frequency. If you overclock using the Turbo multiplier alone you'll get 3.8GHz on all cores and if you add a 105MHz BCLK into the equation that turns into 4GHz. What's the argument, then? It's not like you can't overclock the "locked" i5s.

The problem with the 3470 is that it cannot OC more than 4GHz, when BD will go all the way up to 4.6-4.8GHz. FX8120/8150 cost less and it is faster in MT apps at default or OC clocks than Core i5 3470.

Intel Core i5 3470 is not an overall a better choice than FX8120/8150.

 

[AtenRa]

Can you guys use x264 5.0?
http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=520

http://x264.nl/x264/changelog.txt

r1913 -> old 4.0
r2098 -> Bulldozer initial optimizations
^
-
V
r2200 -> new 5.0, several Bulldozer, Sandy, and Ivy optimizations with XOP, AVX, etc.

Thx for the update, i didnt noticed that before.
I will run it when ill have more time.

 

[guskline]

For every application you link that Bulldozer has 3-4% advantage, there are 9 others, that it's behind by 20-30-40%, so I'm not sure what are you trying to prove over here.
Are there situations that BD is better than i5? Yes.
Are they the majority? Certainly not
Is i5 superior all-around? Yes
Then why pick up a BD? (unless I'm going to use those 4-5-6 applications that it's faster, and I absolutely want that 4-5% gain.... which is highly unlikely)

Another reason to pick the Bulldozer is it FINALLY came down enough in price coupled with a 990FX box that the price point is acceptable.

As I started this thread, I made no bones about the fact that my I2500ks were faster for games etc (sorry AtenRa the truth is the truth) but that the Bulldozer didn't "feel" significantly slower.

Once my new case comes (the Corsair H100 is here) and I have a better case and cooling system, I'm going to see how high I can OC the 8150 to be stable. Since I don't want to spend more $$$ right now on a 1000W PSU I'm going to use an Antec 750W TP II PSU and only use a single 5850 GPU to allow sufficient wattage to crank up the 8150. I'll run the H100 in performance mode and see where we go. I'm a realist and know that the 4.2 Ghz previous setting could be the limit but I see that Dravic has his at 4.55 Ghz. Would love to match the I2500ks which are running at 4532 (44x203).

Anyway, when I get it assembled (tomorrow night at the earliest) and get max OC stable I'll report. For those reading this who have do NOT have an AMD 990FX mb, for the best bang for the buck, Intel is probably the smarter route. I don't golf or drink (much), have helped my wife raise our 3 daughters, now have three grandchildren and at nearly 62, still get a thrill out of playing with computers. I'm not rich but have enough disposable income to go on this AMD vs Intel comparison journey full well knowing the likely outcome is that the Bulldozer won't beat the SandyBridge. How close can it come is the challenge. BTW, as I write this I just check prices at newegg - the 8150 is $189.99 ($10 gift card no use to me) vs the 2500k at $219.99. As I mentioned I got the 8150 for pennies over $170 so that gap was nearly $50 and I jumped.

Microcenter is a hour and 10 minute drive so yes I could snag a SB cheaper but for most people the 8150 appears a little cheaper.