• 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.

why do people say FX 8 core sucks?

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pcgeek09

Junior Member
I bought this processor and tbh, its working great for me. Its blazing fast and having no problems, especially when im running games and other applications.
Microsoft also updated windows so now the FX can now support it which is a plus.

So to the people who are still complaining, please explain because its working wonders for me.
 
Because Intel processors are much better for overclocking, and this is an enthusiast forum where overclocking is popular.
The IPC of the FX processors is also lower than the previous generation AMD CPUs.
They aren't terrible, they just aren't really any better for most general use tasks than Intel, while costing a similar amount of money, and being far worse when it comes to overclocking.

On a forum like this, that sort of thing is what makes a CPU bad.
 
There are alternatives that for a similar price are better and more efficient.

So when people say it sucks it is by comparison, not because "OMG it is broken and doesn't work".
 
there are numerous reviews and threads that explain in detail why Bulldozer is less than ideal compared to the competition. does all of that really need to be repeated just because you think the cpu seems fine for you?
 
Build an i5 2500k system and an AMD FX system. Put them side by side. Which one will be faster?

Neither because they can't run.


Seriously, they are not that bad of a system. I can notice the difference between the two just booting the machine up. All my applications respond faster, my minimum FPS are higher, runs cooler, uses less power. Thats how I notice it.
 
@Toyota

Yeah and you think all those reviews are THAT accurate?

Plus those reviews are from october. It doesn't even count anymore because they updated it.
 
Read the reviews.

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/100583-analyzing-bulldozers-scaling-single-thread-performance
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/bulldozer-efficiency-overclock-undervolt,3083.html

gaming review - remember, gaming is always tested at the low end and the high end. The middle ground where all the scores are the same means a GPU bottleneck, thus for a CPU benchmark it's useless. [H] did a phenomenal job of covering the high end here and showing why BD is a poor choice for a gaming CPU compared to a cheaper 2500K
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/11/03/amd_fx8150_multigpu_gameplay_performance_review/

Poor IPC, approximately -10% worse than the previous x6 Thubans.
Poor single-threaded performance when compared to SB. In some cases BD is 40-50% behind.
Consumes way too much power for its performance.
Isn't technically a 8 core system, as 2 cores share resources within a module (CMT design). Though it does sport 8 integer cores, if you're tasked with 256bit FP then you've got yourself a 4 core processor.
Finally, it was meant as a server CPU first and essentially ported to the desktop.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/11/29/hardocp_readers_ask_amd_bulldozer_questions/

It isn't all bad, though. With the Microcenter deal the 4-module BD chips are a great buy. If you find yourself needing the extra integer cores and the new instruction sets and do a lot of video editing then it's a pretty good chip.

Pcgeek09 said:
Yeah and you think all those reviews are THAT accurate?

Plus those reviews are from october. It doesn't even count anymore because they updated it.
Click to expand...

Yes, they're still accurate. The updated windows 7 scheduler only showed a very meager performance gain (1-5%) across all workloads.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-7-hotfix-bulldozer-performance,3119.html
And, at the end, we saw little to no improvement from the evolutionary changes implemented by Microsoft and some of AMD's motherboard partners to help augment performance.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Lonyo said:
They aren't terrible, they just aren't really any better for most general use tasks than Intel, while costing a similar amount of money, and being far worse when it comes to overclocking.
Click to expand...

Buy your AMD FX cpu from Microcenter, people!

It's an incredible bargain when you get your motherboard for free.

If you are gamer, use the extra $150 you save to buy a faster video card. If you aren't, buy an SSD with the extra money, or just pocket it.

Similar, sure. Like how $700 is similar to $900.
 
Pcgeek09 said:
@Toyota

Yeah and you think all those reviews are THAT accurate?

Plus those reviews are from october. It doesn't even count anymore because they updated it.
Click to expand...
some sites did an update after the patch and it made almost no difference. really if you have looked at reviews and know what they said then you are doing nothing but trolling with your thread here.
 
1. I'm not trolling

2. Please link me to a site where they have updated it. It would be appreciated.

3. Do you own an 8 core?
 
Pcgeek09 said:
1. I'm not trolling

2. Please link me to a site where they have updated it. It would be appreciated.

3. Do you own an 8 core?
Click to expand...
there is a quote button.

1. it looks like you are because all of this has been discussed to death already.

2. here is one http://www.anandtech.com/show/5448/the-bulldozer-scheduling-patch-tested

3. technically yours is not really an 8 core. and why would I want one when my 4 core cpu beats it in everything I do while using less power?
 
Pcgeek09 said:
Why because it uses 4 modules?

Module splitting is obviously performs better than hyper-threading..
Click to expand...


Umm, no


If it performed better then they wouldn't be offering a free motherboard with an FX 8120. Nor would the clock speeds be so insanely high compared to SB.
 
Pcgeek09 said:
Why because it uses 4 modules?

Module splitting is obviously performs better than hyper-threading..
Click to expand...
The benchmarks where the 2600K beats the FX-8150 would seem to disprove that assertion. 😛

Anyway FX isn't as bad as some people make it out to be, but let's not pretend that it doesn't have its share of problems either. And before you ask, I do own one, so don't even try to accuse me of bias. I just call it like I see it.
 
Pcgeek09 said:
Why because it uses 4 modules?

Module splitting is obviously performs better than hyper-threading..
Click to expand...
well please show some benchmarks of the 8150 beating the 2600k is tasks people use here. most people on here care about gaming and the 8150 is slower than the 2600k and 2500k while using more power. sure you can oc the 8150 but power consumption goes through the roof compared to the 2600k or 2500k.
 
They arent bad chips, they just suck at overclocked power consumption, the clocks are not what they were supposed to be at and the architecture is more optimized for heavy multithreaded/multitasking. Lets hope FX2 will remedy the power consumption and up the IPC and clocks.
 
Rvenger said:
Build an i5 2500k system and an AMD FX system. Put them side by side. Which one will be faster?

Neither because they can't run.


Seriously, they are not that bad of a system. I can notice the difference between the two just booting the machine up. All my applications respond faster, my minimum FPS are higher, runs cooler, uses less power. Thats how I notice it.
Click to expand...

Rvenger: How's that Asrock 970 Extreme 4 mb holding up?
 
Rvenger said:
Umm, no


If it performed better then they wouldn't be offering a free motherboard with an FX 8120. Nor would the clock speeds be so insanely high compared to SB.
Click to expand...

No really, AMD Modules do scale better than Intel hyperthreading.

The problem is that the AMD CPU's start at much lower single threaded performance, so even with the superior scaling it's not usually enough to surpass Intel's performance.

The day that AMD puts out a bulldozer with single threaded performance equal to Intel is the day that AMD wins all the multi-threaded benchmark by a large margin.

[This day may or may not ever actually occur]

toyota said:
well please show some benchmarks of the 8150 beating the 2600k is tasks people use here.
Click to expand...

7-zip. Almost

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-16.html

But if you look at the other graphs, you see intel dominate in all the single threaded benchmarks. Bulldozer only pulls ahead because it's modules do indeed scale better than intel's hyper-threading, when a multithreaded benchmark is run. It's just not quite enough...
 
Last edited:
They arent bad chips, they just suck at overclocked power consumption, the clocks are not what they were supposed to be at and the architecture is more optimized for heavy multithreaded/multitasking. Lets hope FX2 will remedy the power consumption and up the IPC and clocks.

__________________________________________________________________

Uh, the 8 core was overclocked to 8.4ghz while using liquid nitrogen.

And obviously it uses so much power because there's two cores in each of the 4 modules.
 
Rvenger said:
Umm, no


If it performed better then they wouldn't be offering a free motherboard with an FX 8120. Nor would the clock speeds be so insanely high compared to SB.
Click to expand...
AMD isn't offering the free mobo. That's retailers. And they do that with Intel CPU's too.
 
Pcgeek09 said:
They arent bad chips, they just suck at overclocked power consumption, the clocks are not what they were supposed to be at and the architecture is more optimized for heavy multithreaded/multitasking. Lets hope FX2 will remedy the power consumption and up the IPC and clocks.

__________________________________________________________________

Uh, the 8 core was overclocked to 8.4ghz while using liquid nitrogen.

And obviously it uses so much power because there's two cores in each of the 4 modules.
Click to expand...

Theres more to the cause of it. Still, overall they are not bad, they are highly capable multitaskers and crunch through thousands of threads with ease, they just suffer on high power consumption especially overclocked and performance with old/single threaded apps suffers, thats all, on virtual machines and highly threaded software they are very very capable and fast.
 
Last edited:
It uses a stupid amount of power when overclocked.

A FX-8150 at 4.8Ghz uses 80 more watts then an i7-3960x at 4.6Ghz.

42358.png


Thats downright horrid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top