My 8150 Bulldozer experience - so far!

[AtenRa]

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.

I have never said that the FX is better in every game, there are games that need more CPU performance and games that are GPU limited. But at current prices the FX is performance/price competitive vs Intel either people like it or not.

 

[eternalone]

Atenra makes me want to buy a Bulldozer is that good or bad??

 

[pcsavvy]

What I am waiting for is someone willing to test out the power utilization curve. Take an Intel and a Bulldozer comparable systems side by side and run some everyday kind of stuff while they are o/c'ed and see how much power is pulled from the wall and how long it actually took. I bet in real world everyday kind of tasks the differences in performance would not be that great.
Benchmarks, shmenchmarks, these just give you stats which can be manipulated. I would like to see some objective testing using real world tasks.
Oh wait, then the diatribe will begin again.

Sorry

 

[guskline]

pcsavvy: I own a Kill-o-meter device. Once I get the Bulldozer to its highest stable OC, I'll give your suggestion a go. It's not the most accurate device but close enough that I can measure the wattage between my SB rig at 4.5Ghz and the 8150 rig. What benchies do you want me to run?

During IntelBurnTest 2.54 the 2500k @ 4.53 peaked at 230watts, the 8150 @ 4.5 peaked at 435W.

 

[exar333]

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



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.

Based on the BD review, the 2500K and the 8150 were pretty competitive. If you add-in the clock-speed and small IPC improvements of IB, I don't think it changes a whole lot.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/7

I agree with AtenRa that the 8150, if you plan to OC to the maximum @ 4.5ghz+, it WILL be faster in many tasks over the 3470 (heavily favoring MT areas). That said, if you took any Intel 'K' processor and OCd it to ~4.5ghz, it would be hands-down better in 95%+ of all applications, MT or not, than an equally OCd BD.

 

[Yuriman]

Based on the BD review, the 2500K and the 8150 were pretty competitive. If you add-in the clock-speed and small IPC improvements of IB, I don't think it changes a whole lot.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/7

I agree with AtenRa that the 8150, if you plan to OC to the maximum @ 4.5ghz+, it WILL be faster in many tasks over the 3470 (heavily favoring MT areas). That said, if you took any Intel 'K' processor and OCd it to ~4.5ghz, it would be hands-down better in 95%+ of all applications, MT or not, than an equally OCd BD.

Bear in mind the 3470 can turbo up to 4ghz so it's a little muddier.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

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



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.

So it's not only slower in what it was designed to do best at, but even at stock settings it gulps down a good amount of power. Overclock it, and power consumption turns straight into laughable.

The thing sucks more power than a nuclear reactor while being slower, yet you're recommending it as being a better option? Let's also not forget that this is looking ONLY at heavily multi-threaded programs. Throw anything that doesn't fully execute on Bulldozer's ''eight'' cores and it struggles to beat a Core i3.

 

[Hatisherrif]

The thing sucks more power than a nuclear reactor while being slower, yet you're recommending it as being a better option? Let's also not forget that this is looking ONLY at heavily multi-threaded programs. Throw anything that doesn't fully execute on Bulldozer's ''eight'' cores and it struggles to beat a Core i3.

Ouch. I am waiting for an answer to this, AtenRa!

*grabs popcorn*

 

[RussianSensation]

In a lot of multi-threaded apps, a 4.7-4.8ghz FX8120/8150 would beat a 4.5ghz non-hyper threaded Core i5 2500k/3570K. Considering FX8120 should soon dip to $150 or below and AMD motherboards with similar features and 6x SATA III ports cost less, there is some value proposition that can be made from a performance/$ perspective for multi-taskers (rendering, video encoding, encryption, virtual machines, etc.). However, the vast majority of users do not fall into this category.

Overclocked, i5-non K would have no chance whatsoever against an OCed 8120/8150 CPU in many multi-threaded apps:

It would take a 4.5ghz+ 2600k/3770K to actually beat this, and those CPUs push > $300. $155 for the FX8120 is starting to sound like a bargain for multi-taskers.

The problem is it's going to cost you immensely in power consumption.

However, claiming that i5-3470 OC would beat an FX8120/8150 in multi-threaded apps once Bullzoder is overclocked is plain wrong. And even in some games like BF3, the 2500K struggles to beat an FX8150 @ 4.5ghz. Let's not get all biased here. Intel processors are good, but sometimes you cannot overcome lack of raw performance, which is where $300-500 i7 CPUs come in, but that's a little bit absurd to start comparing an i7 to a $155-160 FX8120.

 

[Yuriman]

Total system power consumption in the bit-tech review shows that you could probably get away with a 400w PSU if you wanted to overclock an Ivy to 5ghz (which I'll admit is an exceptional overclock, but I wouldn't rule it out with water and lidless) and probably even less if you're just aiming for 4.4-4.6, which can be done on the stock cooler.

The Bulldozer system is drawing close to 600w (vs 300w) so you're likely looking at a 750w+ PSU for a 4.8ghz overclock.

What's the cost difference between a decent 400w and 750w PSU?

Also, consider the increased amount of heat put out (better cooling needed), which must then be removed by your central AC, and the costs associated with both direct and indirect power use. How much cheaper is an FX-8150 really?

EDIT: One of the things I'm liking most right now about my Ivy vs my old Q6600 rig is that my bedroom (which is where I'm forced to keep my PC due to communal living) no longer gets unbearably hot. I can't imagine running a Bulldozer chip with my living situation.

 

[Mallibu]

So much for the supposed "better" multitasking of FX8150 :

From the same review:

"The FX processors again fare poorly, relatively speaking. If you covet glassy smoothness, where the system pumps out frames consistently at low latencies close to your display's refresh rate, then you'll want a newer Intel processor. In this scenario, no entry in the FX lineup comes as close to delivering that experience as a Phenom II X4 980 or a Core i5-655K."

 

[Durvelle27]

Total system power consumption in the bit-tech review shows that you could probably get away with a 400w PSU if you wanted to overclock an Ivy to 5ghz (which I'll admit is an exceptional overclock, but I wouldn't rule it out with water and lidless) and probably even less if you're just aiming for 4.4-4.6, which can be done on the stock cooler.

The Bulldozer system is drawing close to 600w (vs 300w) so you're likely looking at a 750w+ PSU for a 4.8ghz overclock.

What's the cost difference between a decent 400w and 750w PSU?

Also, consider the increased amount of heat put out (better cooling needed), which must then be removed by your central AC, and the costs associated with both direct and indirect power use. How much cheaper is an FX-8150 really?

EDIT: One of the things I'm liking most right now about my Ivy vs my old Q6600 rig is that my bedroom (which is where I'm forced to keep my PC due to communal living) no longer gets unbearably hot. I can't imagine running a Bulldozer chip with my living situation.

at least i don't have to worry about a heater in the winter lol

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

@RussianSensation

The problem with that argument is that you're not taking into account that you need a power supply that is a good amount more powerful than what one would need with Ivy Bridge to overclock. You would also need a motherboard with a better power delivery system, and obviously better ventilation. Add those in and the FX-8120 is not cheaper than an i5-3570K. Here's what you'd be looking at if you want to get a 4.7GHz OC out of each:

3570K: $230
ASRock Z77 Pro3: $95
Rosewill RG-430: $42
8GB DDR3-1333: $35
Cooler Master Hyper 212+/Corsair A50: $30
Total: $432

FX-8120: $160
ASUS M5A97: $100
Antec EarthWatts 650W: $80
8GB DDR3-1333: $35
Scythe Mugen 3: $50
Total: $425

Oh, suddenly it's not that great of a value proposition, is it? You'd make up the difference in a month with a lower power bill and still have something faster.

 

[guskline]

Well the case came in today along with the H100 and a new fan controller. I bought a CM 912 because I liked it so much. However, if I was to do it again I would buy the larger case. There wasn't enough headroom to install both the radiator and the 2 120mm fans inside the case. I installed the 2 120 mm Corsair fans outside the case on top of the radiator with the fans blowing cool air into the radiator. I have a Zalman 120mm 1800 rpm fan exhausting and 2 120 mm 1200rpm CM intake fans in the front drawing in cool air. Finally I have a 140 mm Antec fan mounted on the side panel and running at mid speed to keep the video card and ram cool.

I was able to get a rock solid 8150 system at 21.5 x 210 with 1.425V for the CPU and an increased NB. My Gskill ram is rated at 1866 and is running fine with the OC at @1949. This sucker uses @435W per my Kill A Watt meter when running IntelBurn Test, which by the way in my opinion puts alot more stress on your system than Prime95. I won't run a system 24/7/365 unless it passes IntelBurnTest on a 10 pass run. The Intel rigs at 4.53Ghz use 230W for IntelBurnTest.

I am now using an Antec TP II 750W PSU and only running a single 5850. The CPU power draw during IntelBurn test is too much in my opinion to be running 2 5850s in CF and the Bulldozer at 4.5Ghz. I would recommend a quality 1,000W PSU if you CF or SLI.

Now to updated benchmarks for the "Dozer" at 4.53 Ghz. Interestingly the Intel rigs are also clocked at this speed 4.53Ghz so I'll post both AMD and Intel results at this speed.
Here goes A=Bulldozer at 4.53Ghz and I= 2500k sb at 4.53 Ghz
Aida64 Benchies:
Mem read: A 14,517 I 19883
Men write: A 10350 I 22414
Mem Copy A 13861 I 22075
Mem Latency A 51.4 I 44.1
CPU Queen A 38864 I 42920
CPU Photoworx A 33295 I 64458
CPU ZLib A 329.2 I 266
AES A 201203 I 445909
Hash A 4614 I 3187
VP8 A 3563 I 4208
Julia A 14669 I 22317
Mandel A 7499 I 12387
SinJulia A 3150 I 3999

On Cinebench 11.5 the A scored CPU of 7.37 with Open GL of 69.03 while the I scored CPU of 7.14 and Open GL of 62.88 (The AMD has a Radeon 5850 while the Intel has a GTX 680)

I'll post more benchies as I have time to run them. Let me say that to get the Bulldozer to a point that it runs at the same clock speed as my SB chips took a serious liquid cooler. My SB have a bit more head room but the thermal keep this Bulldozer from going much further. I'll let you know about my feelings on game play as I play around with this. Later.

 

[beginner99]

@RussianSensation

The problem with that argument is that you're not taking into account that you need a power supply that is a good amount more powerful than what one would need with Ivy Bridge to overclock. You would also need a motherboard with a better power delivery system, and obviously better ventilation. Add those in and the FX-8120 is not cheaper than an i5-3570K. Here's what you'd be looking at if you want to get a 4.7GHz OC out of each:

3570K: $230
ASRock Z77 Pro3: $95
Rosewill RG-430: $42
8GB DDR3-1333: $35
Cooler Master Hyper 212+/Corsair A50: $30
Total: $432

FX-8120: $160
ASUS M5A97: $100
Antec EarthWatts 650W: $80
8GB DDR3-1333: $35
Scythe Mugen 3: $50
Total: $425

Oh, suddenly it's not that great of a value proposition, is it? You'd make up the difference in a month with a lower power bill and still have something faster.

not to mention that for people who actually are "only" rendering or encoding, chances are high they use it for professional use. And once you factor in additional profit that can be made with faster rendering, the 1000$ intel chip will mostly win if you look at it over like 1 year time span.

 

[AtenRa]

Ouch. I am waiting for an answer to this, AtenRa!

*grabs popcorn*

RS answered that very nicely

 

[AtenRa]

@RussianSensation

The problem with that argument is that you're not taking into account that you need a power supply that is a good amount more powerful than what one would need with Ivy Bridge to overclock. You would also need a motherboard with a better power delivery system, and obviously better ventilation. Add those in and the FX-8120 is not cheaper than an i5-3570K. Here's what you'd be looking at if you want to get a 4.7GHz OC out of each:

3570K: $230
ASRock Z77 Pro3: $95
Rosewill RG-430: $42
8GB DDR3-1333: $35
Cooler Master Hyper 212+/Corsair A50: $30
Total: $432

FX-8120: $160
ASUS M5A97: $100
Antec EarthWatts 650W: $80
8GB DDR3-1333: $35
Scythe Mugen 3: $50
Total: $425

Oh, suddenly it's not that great of a value proposition, is it? You'd make up the difference in a month with a lower power bill and still have something faster.

Newegg prices,

FX-8120: $159,99
GIGABYTE GA-970A-DS3: $69,99 AR
OCZ ModXStream Pro 600W Modular: $44,99 AR
8GB DDR3-1333: $35
XIGMATEK Gaia SD1283: $29,99

Total: $339,96

Hmm, $92 less than the 3570K system, that is enough for a better GPU

 

[Mallibu]

Newegg prices,

FX-8120: $159,99
GIGABYTE GA-970A-DS3: $69,99 AR
OCZ ModXStream Pro 600W Modular: $44,99 AR
8GB DDR3-1333: $35
XIGMATEK Gaia SD1283: $29,99

Total: $339,96

Hmm, $92 less than the 3570K system, that is enough for a better GPU

Yah, because putting 600 watts PSU in a system that consumes ~600 when overclocked is reaaally wise...
Plus, I wouldn't trust an el cheapo $70 mobo to handle a CPU with ~350 watt consumption when overclocked.
So, instead of buying that I'd get a 3470 for a comparable price, and have a very good CPU to go alongside a very good GPU, instead of a crap CPU with a great GPU and rely on GPU bottlenecks to cover it's weak ass.

 

[AtenRa]

Yah, because putting 600 watts PSU in a system that consumes ~600 when overclocked is reaaally wise...
Plus, I wouldn't trust an el cheapo $70 mobo to handle a CPU with ~350 watt consumption when overclocked.

You have no idea what you talking about,

FX8150 @ 4.68GHz (1.425v) 240MHz NB
WaterCooling AMD Kit 2x fans
ASUS Crosshair V Formula
RAM 2x 4GB DDR-3 1600MHz
GPU: ASUS HD6950 1GB
HDD : Seagate 750GB
2x 120mm case fans
DVD-RW
ThermalTake 730W 80+ PSU

Idle = 117W Manually Vcore selected at 1,425v

x264 HD v3.0 = Max 300W

DIRT 3 at Ultra, 4x MSAA 1920x1200 = MAX 356W

Wattage measured at the wall by a Kill a Watt (Total System)

For a single GPU, 600W PSU is more than enough. I have even used 2x HD6950 1GB in CF without any probs with the 730W PSU.

So, instead of buying that I'd get a 3470 for a comparable price, and have a very good CPU to go alongside a very good GPU, instead of a crap CPU with a great GPU and rely on GPU bottlenecks to cover it's weak ass.

So now Intel CPUs are enough no matter if they cost more and under-perform ???

 

[Mallibu]

You have no idea what you talking about,

FX8150 @ 4.68GHz (1.425v) 240MHz NB
WaterCooling AMD Kit 2x fans
ASUS Crosshair V Formula
RAM 2x 4GB DDR-3 1600MHz
GPU: ASUS HD6970 1GB
HDD : Seagate 750GB
2x 120mm case fans
DVD-RW
ThermalTake 730W 80+ PSU

x264 HD v3.0 = Max 300W


So now Intel CPUs are enough no matter if they cost more and under-perform ???

If you managed to keep a straight face, while writing that "Intel CPUs are more expensive and perform worse" you Sir, deserve a medal.

 

[AtenRa]

If you managed to keep a straight face, while writing that "Intel CPUs are more expensive and perform worse" you Sir, deserve a medal.

Newegg prices

FX8120 = $159,99
FX8150 = $189,99

Core i5 3470 = $199,99

FX8120/8150 at 4.7GHz is way faster and cheaper than Core i5 3470 at 4GHz in MT apps.

So yes, Intel is more expensive and perform worse than AMD at the same Price points.

Do i get the medal now ??? :biggrin:

 

[MentalIlness]

Do i get the medal now ??? :biggrin:

guskline

Seriously though, does Bulldozer "without looking at benchmarks" seem as slow as its made out to be ? Would you be able to tell a difference between it and your 2500k if you didn't know which machine you were running ?

Basically, Does it feel faster than you expected or slower than you expected, based on your honest opinion ?

Reason I am asking is because I came into a little dough, and may do the opposite of what you did. I may get a 2500k system to compare to the FX-8120 in my sig.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Newegg prices,

FX-8120: $159,99
GIGABYTE GA-970A-DS3: $69,99 AR
OCZ ModXStream Pro 600W Modular: $44,99 AR
8GB DDR3-1333: $35
XIGMATEK Gaia SD1283: $29,99

Total: $339,96

Hmm, $92 less than the 3570K system, that is enough for a better GPU

Having the CPU overheat, the motherboard VRMs burn and the power supply blow=priceless.

And it would be enough for a better GPU for which you couldn't take advantage of because Bulldozer's single-threaded performance is terrible. This is also without taking into account that I was honest and used the real, upfront price for all the components while all you did was skimp on components and try to push AR prices when we all know that's not what you're gonna be paying when you hit the "checkout" button.

There you're seeing the reality of it. An overclocked FX 8-core consumes 2-3x more power than an overclocked i5 or i7 while being slower and when taking the additional cost of components to deal with that heat it's not even cheaper.

 

[AtenRa]

Having the CPU overheat, the motherboard VRMs burn and the power supply blow=priceless.

You havent even used an 970 AM3+ motherboard, you havent even touched an AMD FX CPU in your hands not to mention used one and you know how they behave and that the VRMs will burn and the PSU will blow ???

You must be the next Hardware Nostradamus

 

[B-Riz]

Everyone throwing OC results of 8150 up against OC Ivy Bridge results is making an argument that is not there nor meant to be made.

8150 stock against 2500, 2600, or 2700 stock is very competitive and makes buying sense depending on the users needs.

You can resume shouting, finger pointing and pissing in oatmeal when revision 2 of Bulldozer is out to compare it against Ivy Bridge.