why do people say FX 8 core sucks?

[Rvenger]

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.

The 8 core only had 1 module enabled for the 8.4ghz OC.

 

[gmaster456]

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.

Thats downright horrid.

That's at 100% load. Do you run your PC's at 100% load constantly?

 

[Pcgeek09]

I dont even OC to that much, theres no reason to..

 

[Pcgeek09]

That's at 100% load. Do you run your PC's at 100% load constantly?

No I don't, that's ridiculous..i don't OC that much....

 

[TakeNoPrisoners]

That's at 100% load. Do you run your PC's at 100% load constantly?

Thanks for missing the point.

I don't need to explain it, it speaks for itself.

 

[Ferzerp]

Brand new reg, defends BD. Where have we seen this before? :sigh:

 

[Idontcare]

why do people say FX 8 core sucks?

It doesn't suck. In fact it does so well that AMD has no plans to improve on it, you can't beat perfection after all.

All these rumors of piledriver and beyond, its actually propaganda by Intel loyalists to make it seem like AMD has a performance issue on their hands with bulldozer.

Performance. Power Consumption. Price. AMD hit the hat-trick with bulldozer.

That's why Intel is rushing in a panic to get its 22nm out the door. It needs 22nm and Ivy Bridge to have any hope of competing with bulldozer, sandy bridge was buried by bulldozer and Intel knows it.

It will take Ivy Bridge just to be competitive with the microarchitectural prowess of all that is "FX 8 core", and it will take 22nm to get power under control and at least be on-par with GLoFo's fabulous gate-first HKMG SOI 32nm.

But, I digress, I know I'm preaching to the choir, you've got all this figured out already.

 

[frostedflakes]

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.

Thats downright horrid.

To be fair, Phenom II didn't exactly sip power either, although Bulldozer definitely took it to a new level. Power consumption actually doesn't get too crazy up to about 4.5GHz, but beyond that it just seems to increase exponentially.

Chalk it up to BD being on a new 32nm process vs Phenom II being on a refined and very mature 45nm process I guess. Remember that when Phenom II came out it had a 140W TDP (edit: My bad, X4 940 launched with 125W TDP, think it was the X4 965 that was 140W) and the fastest model (X4 940) was only clocked at 3.0GHz. Eventually they were able to reduce TDP to 125W while at the same time raising clock speed to 3.7GHz on quad cores and releasing hex cores clocked at up to 3.3GHz. With technologies like the resonant clock mesh announced recently and process improvements, hopefully they can get power consumption at mid/high 4GHz closer to Phenom II levels at their max overclocks.

 

[gmaster456]

Thanks for missing the point.

I understand that BD consumes more power than SB when overclocked if that's what your saying.

 

[fixbsod]

I love all this arguing when there are numbers backing everything up --

The AMD FX chip, while still a fast chip in its own is slow and uses more power than the competition. For that tradeoff the cost is slightly less. Is it worth it? You decide, but there is really no arguing the fact that the chip is slower and powerhungry.

It reminds me of some of the slower i7-9xx models that intel had, still fast but lots of power draw. However that's AMD's problem, who wants an i7-9xx now? Who would bring an i7-920 to market RIGHT now against an i7-2600k?? Intel has had SB out for over a year and has the die shrink IB coming in just a few months. Who would buy an i7-9xx against SB...IB??

 

[Olikan]

I understand that BD consumes more power than SB when overclocked if that's what your saying.

not just overcloked... it's actually global

 

[Edgemeal]

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.

I don't like how bad it does in single threaded apps, been running an AMD X2-550 as an X4 @ 3.5GHz for over two years and when FX came out I was expecting the FX 4 core to be much better, and I really have no use for 8 cores.

If it does what you want then thats cool, your money, I've built plenty of AMDs over the years.

Someone mentioned FX eating more watts. If a Bulldozer PC eats 80 watts more for 8 hours a day and your elec rate is 16 cents per kWh you'd be looking at paying around $37 more per year to run it. (Not counting or subtracting for heating/cooling effect it may have on a room).

kWh Cost   PC Watts   Hours  Per Year  Per Month   Per Week  Per Day
0.16        80         24     $112.13     $9.22     $2.15     $0.31
0.16        80         16     $74.75      $6.14     $1.43     $0.20
0.16        80         12     $56.06      $4.61     $1.08     $0.15
0.16        80         8      $37.38      $3.07     $0.72     $0.10
0.16        80         4      $18.69      $1.54     $0.36     $0.05

Hawaii elec rates are close to $0.25 per kWh, tho some US states are less then 10 cents, factor 8 hours and some watts...

kWh Cost   PC Watts   Hours  Per Year  Per Month   Per Week  Per Day
0.07        200        8      $40.88      $3.36     $0.78     $0.11
0.10        200        8      $58.40      $4.80     $1.12     $0.16
0.13        200        8      $75.92      $6.24     $1.46     $0.21
0.16        200        8      $93.44      $7.68     $1.79     $0.26
0.19        200        8      $110.96     $9.12     $2.13     $0.30
0.22        200        8      $128.48     $10.56    $2.46     $0.35
0.25        200        8      $146.00     $12.00    $2.80     $0.40

kWh Cost   PC Watts   Hours  Per Year  Per Month   Per Week  Per Day
0.07        240        8      $49.06      $4.03     $0.94     $0.13
0.10        240        8      $70.08      $5.76     $1.34     $0.19
0.13        240        8      $91.10      $7.49     $1.75     $0.25
0.16        240        8      $112.13     $9.22     $2.15     $0.31
0.19        240        8      $133.15     $10.94    $2.55     $0.36
0.22        240        8      $154.18     $12.67    $2.96     $0.42
0.25        240        8      $175.20     $14.40    $3.36     $0.48

kWh Cost   PC Watts   Hours  Per Year  Per Month   Per Week  Per Day
0.07        280        8      $57.23      $4.70     $1.10     $0.16
0.10        280        8      $81.76      $6.72     $1.57     $0.22
0.13        280        8      $106.29     $8.74     $2.04     $0.29
0.16        280        8      $130.82     $10.75    $2.51     $0.36
0.19        280        8      $155.34     $12.77    $2.98     $0.43
0.22        280        8      $179.87     $14.78    $3.45     $0.49
0.25        280        8      $204.40     $16.80    $3.92     $0.56

kWh Cost   PC Watts   Hours  Per Year  Per Month   Per Week  Per Day
0.07        300        8      $61.32      $5.04     $1.18     $0.17
0.10        300        8      $87.60      $7.20     $1.68     $0.24
0.13        300        8      $113.88     $9.36     $2.18     $0.31
0.16        300        8      $140.16     $11.52    $2.69     $0.38
0.19        300        8      $166.44     $13.68    $3.19     $0.46
0.22        300        8      $192.72     $15.84    $3.70     $0.53
0.25        300        8      $219.00     $18.00    $4.20     $0.60

kWh Cost   PC Watts   Hours  Per Year  Per Month   Per Week  Per Day
0.07        340        8      $69.50      $5.71     $1.33     $0.19
0.10        340        8      $99.28      $8.16     $1.90     $0.27
0.13        340        8      $129.06     $10.61    $2.48     $0.35
0.16        340        8      $158.85     $13.06    $3.05     $0.44
0.19        340        8      $188.63     $15.50    $3.62     $0.52
0.22        340        8      $218.42     $17.95    $4.19     $0.60
0.25        340        8      $248.20     $20.40    $4.76     $0.68

kWh Cost   PC Watts   Hours  Per Year  Per Month   Per Week  Per Day
0.07        380        8      $77.67      $6.38     $1.49     $0.21
0.10        380        8      $110.96     $9.12     $2.13     $0.30
0.13        380        8      $144.25     $11.86    $2.77     $0.40
0.16        380        8      $177.54     $14.59    $3.40     $0.49
0.19        380        8      $210.82     $17.33    $4.04     $0.58
0.22        380        8      $244.11     $20.06    $4.68     $0.67
0.25        380        8      $277.40     $22.80    $5.32     $0.76

 

[StrangerGuy]

GTX 480 : Late, hotter, but slightly faster than 5870. Verdict = sucks

BD : Late, hotter, and slower than SB. Verdict = still arguing about it after 4 months

 

[chimaxi83]

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.

You mean using your computer?

Microsoft also updated windows so now the FX can now support it which is a plus.

FX was already working and supported under windows, the patch was to improve the scheduling to take advantage of FX specific architecture. After testing, the gains were shown to be in the single digits.

So to the people who are still complaining, please explain because its working wonders for me.

Nobody is complaining, but if you ask questions here, you may not like the answers. Compared to Sandy Bridge, yes, Bulldozer is a dud.

Well, at least you can 7zip the hell outta some files.

 

[Chiropteran]

GTX 480 : Late, hotter, but slightly faster than 5870. Verdict = sucks

BD : Late, hotter, and slower than SB. Verdict = still arguing about it after 4 months

GTX 480- Cost more than any other video card.

BD- Dirt cheap if you can find a deal.

BD is fine for it's price range. $199 FX-8120 with a free motherboard? Decent preforming cheap machine.

 

[SithSolo1]

BD is fine for it's price range. $199 FX-8120 with a free motherboard? Decent preforming cheap machine.

No doubt thats a great start to a nice machine, but if MC is also running a deal where you can buy the 2500k and mobo for $20-30 more why wouldn't you spend the extra cash?

 

[Smoblikat]

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.

I could overclock a rock to 8.4ghz if i was using liquid nitrogen. How often do you see people running 24/7 LN2 loops? HINT: Never, who cares if for one time it was at 8.4 People here are running air or water.

 

[Smoblikat]

That's at 100% load. Do you run your PC's at 100% load constantly?

Does it matter/ that test ahd EVERY processor running at 100%, so its an accurate representation. Dont think im an intel fanboy, im just trying to defend the truth. Im looking into an FX08120 myself to replace this 2500K.

 

[Smoblikat]

GTX 480 : Late, hotter, but slightly faster than 5870. Verdict = sucks

BD : Late, hotter, and slower than SB. Verdict = still arguing about it after 4 months

Because its not as cut and dry as a graphics card. It performs better for heavily multithreaded tasks.

 

[Joseph F]

It doesn't suck. In fact it does so well that AMD has no plans to improve on it, you can't beat perfection after all.

All these rumors of piledriver and beyond, its actually propaganda by Intel loyalists to make it seem like AMD has a performance issue on their hands with bulldozer.

Performance. Power Consumption. Price. AMD hit the hat-trick with bulldozer.

That's why Intel is rushing in a panic to get its 22nm out the door. It needs 22nm and Ivy Bridge to have any hope of competing with bulldozer, sandy bridge was buried by bulldozer and Intel knows it.

It will take Ivy Bridge just to be competitive with the microarchitectural prowess of all that is "FX 8 core", and it will take 22nm to get power under control and at least be on-par with GLoFo's fabulous gate-first HKMG SOI 32nm.

But, I digress, I know I'm preaching to the choir, you've got all this figured out already.

:thumbsup:

GTX 480 : Late, hotter, but slightly faster than 5870. Verdict = sucks

BD : Late, hotter, and slower than SB. Verdict = still arguing about it after 4 months

No, I'm pretty sure that we can unanimously say that BD sucks.
(Not including the trolls, of course)

 

[MustangSVT]

obvious troll is an obvious troll.

 

[Obsoleet]

No doubt thats a great start to a nice machine, but if MC is also running a deal where you can buy the 2500k and mobo for $20-30 more why wouldn't you spend the extra cash?

GTX 480- Cost more than any other video card.

BD- Dirt cheap if you can find a deal.

BD is fine for it's price range. $199 FX-8120 with a free motherboard? Decent preforming cheap machine.

Can either of you link me to said deals? I find $199 for mobo + FX8120 a worthy purchase to my ears. Also, a 2500k + mobo for $219 sounds pretty amazing too.
Maybe those are the prices going today for both, but they sound great to me right now.

 

[dma0991]

Nobody said that BD sucked to a point where it is beyond usable. It is definitely capable of doing most tasks but you would have to do it with a blindfold. If for day to day use, I could say the same for BD and a G620. Both of them does the same thing and both of them perform superbly for normal tasks. The only difference is that the latter is way cheaper and we're comparing based on 'real world' use.

 

[Obsoleet]

Ok I did some searching and found there was a deal at one time for a 2500K + mobo for $220 at MC, but I can't find a 8150 + mobo for $199 or anywhere near that.
2500k+mobo deal here http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/16efa968#/16efa968/27 back in November. Not bad.
I'm not pleased that the combo had a gigabyte mobo though, would prefer Asus but at that price who's complaining.

With Intel probably making larger strides forward in their CPUs soon with IB/Haswell, I think it'd be better to get BD for $199 and have the "best AMD has" for a lot longer than I would with a 2500k, which will be obsolete in the Intel world much sooner.

 

[toyota]

Ok I did some searching and found there was a deal at one time for a 2500K + mobo for $220 at MC, but I can't find a 8150 + mobo for $199 or anywhere near that.
2500k+mobo deal here http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/16efa968#/16efa968/27 back in November. Not bad.
I'm not pleased that the combo had a gigabyte mobo though, would prefer Asus but at that price who's complaining.

With Intel probably making larger strides forward in their CPUs soon with IB/Haswell, I think it'd be better to get BD for $199 and have the "best AMD has" for a lot longer than I would with a 2500k, which will be obsolete in the Intel world much sooner.