• 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.

[OFFICIAL] Bulldozer Reviews Thread - AnandTech Review Posted

Page 19 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Honestly, I think people wouldn't be so upset if the AMD marketing team didn't get their way with the whole module/cores thing.

Yeah, there are 8 "cores", but a 4m/8c CPU performs like (albeit less) than an intel 4c/8t. Really to compete with Thuban, you'd need a 6m/12c bulldozer =/ Once you think of it this way, there is a lot less "failure", though its still bad. The extra integer cores really don't do a lot for desktops.

Compared to the PII 965 BE - a 8150 does pretty well (http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=102). People considered the 965 a decent buy for budget systems so really AMD just has to reduce the price by $60-100 or so. Sad, but....yeah....
 
Deanodarlo said:
OMG, Rage3D going against the flow in a fairly positive review. Read it if you need to lessen the pain:

http://www.rage3d.com/reviews/cpu/amd_fx_8150/

😉
Click to expand...

What the heck is he smoking ?
😕
Verdict? It's tempting to be disappointed and doom'n'gloom about FX's performance. The clean kill and win isn't here against Intel's top Sandy Bridge. But, AMD hasn't priced it against the 2600K, it's head to head with the 2500K, and in that context AMD's Scorpius platform is a solid buy. AMD's FX processor is enough to challenge Intel in a lot of areas, but AMD still has work to do on improving performance while they live in an x86 and low-thread count integer based workload world. The first generation Bulldozer's have slimmed down the 'big cores' as part of their ongoing strategy for shifting to APUs, and this has obvious consequences for performance. Despite that, there is a very real and impressive boost in performance for current real world applications vs. the previous generation. Well done, AMD.
Click to expand...

:colbert: 😵
 
Munky said:
I just had a crazy idea of where AMD may be headed. What if Bulldozer is merely a transitional step towards a fully decoupled architecture? Similar to how GPUs have evolved over time, what if eventually AMD wants to have a massive unified front end decoding and scheduling instructions to many smaller, simple execution cores, and a unified Load/Store and Retire back end? I'm not a CPU designer, but from an abstract-level perspective, I can see some benefits to this kind of approach.
Click to expand...

the ultrasparc t1 basically did that already. sun is backing off from the approach a bit in the latest sparc.
 
I'd hope they would be working towards being able to combine the separate units eventually. That way it could act as multiple cores when the system has a lot of demanding threads and act as fewer more powerful cores when the system has only a few demanding threads.

Sort of a physical hyper-threading where the modules configure themselves for the workload.
 
psolord said:
AMD FX-8150 Bulldozer Gaming Performance Analysis

A 4100/70 @4.5-5.0Ghz as a decently performing budget gaming solution, is the only semi decent thing I can think of, regarding today's sadness.

I can only guess, that as per the above real life/real resolution tests, a quad FX OC could hold its ground. I do prefer low res tests for cpu benchmarks, but this could provide a solution for people on a budget. That is if quad fx drops to 100$ or something, which from today's AMD's global banishment, I hope it will.
Click to expand...

Well that's the kicker. Unless BD keeps your rig under 60 fps, which it likely will not, you'll have the same gaming experience as on a 2600K. Years down the road perhaps a new CPU-punishing game will come out that will change this, however if that game really emphasizes heavy threading it may not change.

(This forum is about benchmarks and technical bragging rights though)
 
Just can't over-emphasize timing in the industry. BD was meant to come out and compete against Nehalem. If it did, it wouldn't have nearly the cool reception it has.

That being said,was anyone else pleasantly surprised about the Thuban 1100T in all these benchmarks we're seeing?
 
cebalrai said:
Well that's the kicker. Unless BD keeps your rig under 60 fps, which it likely will not, you'll have the same gaming experience as on a 2600K. Years down the road perhaps a new CPU-punishing game will come out that will change this, however if that game really emphasizes heavy threading it may not change.

(This forum is about benchmarks and technical bragging rights though)
Click to expand...

I remember when AMD came out with 64 bit processor, same crap.

I didn't start using 64bit Win 7 until last year.

That's over 8 years LATER.

The way gaming industry is today, I doubt we will see ANY milestones in graphics until new consoles come out (probably few years later)
 
It would look a bit more favorable if it came out 1.5 years ago but it would still be misses with a few hits. It's having trouble differentiating itself from the Thuban x6s as you point out and they have a 15-20% lower OC ceiling.
 
cebalrai said:
Just can't over-emphasize timing in the industry. BD was meant to come out and compete against Nehalem. If it did, it wouldn't have nearly the cool reception it has.

That being said,was anyone else pleasantly surprised about the Thuban 1100T in all these benchmarks we're seeing?
Click to expand...

Yes.

I agree completely.

these Bulldozers are not garbage by any means. They still have potential. Hopefully AMD gets things worked out.

As for the 1100T, its a very strong CPU still.

To be fair, Gaming wise, 1080p or Higher, the High End Denabs and any Thuban make an excellent budget choice.

I'm still excited to play with the 8120. Hopefully Piledriver improves power consumption and single threaded performance.
 
ExarKun333 said:
Overpriced?

🙂
Click to expand...

Newegg.com and Newegg.ca are sold out of $279.99 FX-8150. That's an amazing deal. You get 8 cores which Turbo boost to 3.9ghz, while Intel is selling just 4 cores with 3.4ghz Turbo for $219. I am getting 2x as many cores for only $60 more! :thumbsup:

Looks like AMD hit a home-run with this one -- selling an FX-8150 for $110 above X6 1090T, $60 above 2500k and $35 above MSRP. Maybe the tin can has traces of gold or there is a free HD7950 voucher? 😎
 
Last edited:
Has anyone seen statements from AMD? Or interview from leadership within the company? I'm curios to how they would respond to questions everyone has.
 
Its sold out almost everywhere.

Just goes to show how stupid people really are.

AMD shovels a pile a dog doo in front of people and they still gobble it up because "intel is evil"

pathetic

You did see the chart where bulldozer consumes twice at much power to accomplish the same task as sandybridge? And you still went will bulldozer?
 
Lex Luger said:
Its sold out almost everywhere.

Just goes to show how stupid people really are.

AMD shovels a pile a dog doo in front of people and they still gobble it up because "intel is evil"

pathetic

You did see the chart where bulldozer consumes twice at much power to accomplish the same task as sandybridge? And you still went will bulldozer?
Click to expand...

I think it's good that people are buying/supporting AMD.

In the end competition is better for the consumer.

Personally, I wouldn't hit it with a 100ft pole...but that's just me.
 
Absolution75 said:
Honestly, I think people wouldn't be so upset if the AMD marketing team didn't get their way with the whole module/cores thing.

Yeah, there are 8 "cores", but a 4m/8c CPU performs like (albeit less) than an intel 4c/8t. .
Click to expand...

It's not even about the 8 "real" vs. 8 "half-cores" debate.

Not sure which reviews you are reading. If all you do is run 8 threaded apps such as 7-Zip, True Crypt, etc., then the FX-8150 look decent but otherwise it cannot beat a 2500k, but costs more. And, have fun overclocking that CPU to 4.8ghz. Even if FX-8150 had similar performance to the 2500k, which it doesn't, it's pretty much a failure anyway since you'd need a $60+ air cooler [I like buying top coolers just to play with them, but you can't expect the avg. person to blow $60+ on a supercooler] and a solid 650-700 Watt PSU to make it go to 4.8ghz if you run your CPU @ 100% load a lot of the time. On the other hand, the 2500k overclocks 25-30% without problems with a 400W PSU and a $30 air cooler.

And honestly, if you do render, run 7-zip and encode, etc. why wouldn't you get a $169.99 X6 1090T and overclock that to 4.0ghz? AMD's attractiveness has been price/performance. With FX-8120/8150 series, you get poor 1-4 threaded performance (most apps), insane power consumption (even at stock speeds 2x higher than SB), and higher price. Where is the bright spot? Maybe if they priced it at $169.99.
 
Last edited:
Now all we have left is Intel to compete with itself. Should at least keep this subforum a tiny bit interesting.

Boooo i7 2XXX!

Yeah i7 3XXX!

And.... begin!
 
Why on earth would AMD even spend the money on developing this? What an embarrassment. Next year maybe 10% better? What kind of goal is that? Do they have any performance goals?
 
Regs said:
Why on earth would AMD even spend the money on developing this? What an embarrassment. Next year maybe 10% better? What kind of goal is that? Do they have any performance goals?
Click to expand...

Don't worry. In 2013 or 2014 AMD might finally reach the same IPC has the convoluted Phenom II. Hey, it might even reach the Penryn Q9650's IPC by 2014 or 2015.
 
The stores are sold out because the initial shipments were probably pretty low.

I'm interested in seeing what the supply and price of 1090T's will look like in the near future. They are $169 now, if they get under $130 I might bite. Wouldn't be much of an improvement over my 955 @ 4ghz though. Especially for games.
 
Oh I just figured something out which should have been obvious to me before. The reason BD has such an enormous die is because it has 16mb of cache on it. Thats frikken huge. Its likely there to try shore up the IPC a bit. I know AMD - why dont you cut some of that L2 cache, and use the space to add extra functional units to each core? Like, maybe one issue unit, one integer unit, and one FP unit? And then call the resulting thing Phenom III and forget that BD ever existed?

You can send my payment by mail.
 
Regs said:
Why on earth would AMD even spend the money on developing this? What an embarrassment. Next year maybe 10% better? What kind of goal is that? Do they have any performance goals?
Click to expand...

Well BDII was supposed to be 1H12, now it's sounding like 4Q12 - it better be more than a 10% increase. Good reviews lead to better sales, bad reviews lead to fewer sales (even if CPU performance doesn't really matter much for 90% of users). AMD needs to up it's game allot!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top