Bulldozer failed to beat out Intel.

[Uggorthaholy]

Stop trolling. Nobody expected Bulldozer to roll over Intel ( You were naive if you thought that would happen ). The processor is cheaper than the i7 by ~40$, and it performs almost on par? I'll take that. I can imagine a few years down the line when programs will actually be able to utilize more cores.

Few years from now even better tech will be out. I'm far from impressed.

[The Deux]

I'll pick my processor based on what I do. If I did heavy video editing and encoding, then why shouldn't I get a Bulldozer chip? It is cheaper than the competetion, and still performs on par. If I wanted to play games, then yes, I would get Sandy / Ivy Bridge. They have faster per core speeds, and modern games aren't ready to utilize as many cores as Bulldozer can bring to the table.

Few years from now even better tech will be out. I'm far from impressed.

I can understand that. But, this is a long term play in the business world. If software design keeps on going down the path to using more cores, this is a step in the right direction for AMD. It is fairly underwhelming from a performance perspective, but to be honest, what more could AMD have down? They have nowhere near the same budget or production capabilities as intel.

[Mouri Kogorou]

I'll pick my processor based on what I do. If I did heavy video editing and encoding, then why shouldn't I get a Bulldozer chip? It is cheaper than the competetion, and still performs on par. If I wanted to play games, then yes, I would get Sandy / Ivy Bridge. They have faster per core speeds, and modern games aren't ready to utilize as many cores as Bulldozer can bring to the table.

bulldozer price + new motherboard price > upgrading to ivy bridge price

you understand what i am saying ? i am saying is that it is not worth upgrading to bulldozer price wise. unless you have a 3 yo+ system. and i doubt that an encoder working seriously is still having a 3 + years old system.

[Uggorthaholy]

bulldozer price + new motherboard price > upgrading to ivy bridge price

you understand what i am saying ? i am saying is that it is not worth upgrading to bulldozer price wise. unless you have a 3 yo+ system. and i doubt that an encoder working seriously is still having a 3 + years old system.

And he's not talking solely from an upgrading perspective. And not everyone with already have a SB system.

For a good amount of users, BD makes sense.

I'd like to officially ask everyone to stay on topic and on point with this thread. no personal attacks/battle, and no flame wars. no brand bashing.

<3

[The Deux]

I'm off to bed, sadly.

I get to administer PSAT tests to annoying children in the morning. I will, however, be back in the afternoon for some rousing discussion.

[Dizey]

I'm not sure for what users upgrading to bulldozer would make sense for at all. By those arguments, you could say that going with an 1100T makes even more sense given the current pricing.

[haxartus]

http://media.bestofmicro.com/M/J/310.../photoshop.png
http://media.bestofmicro.com/M/U/310...multimedia.png
It's crushing i7-2600k in a few areas.
However, I think the power consumption is the biggest problem. The architecture seem to be capable of extremely high frequencies, which means that with a lower power consumption we could get something ridiculous like 5Ghz turbo.
I don't like the single threading performance though. In some places it's worse than 1100T.
The good thing is that this has a lot of room for improvements. The old Phenom II architecture was pretty much dead. This one isn't.

[Dizey]

I would hardly call that crushing.

[Auralian]

i did not expect it to beat intel sandy bridge .. but i expected some competition ... u do not call this a competition

would you honestly change your mobo for this AM3+ socket so you can buy this processor ? or would you stick to your current mobo and just buy ivy bridge in Q1 2012

I would agree that it is a disappointment, slightly better at best over a 1100T but costs $55 more.. geez and the power consumption O.Ced is just stupid.



Seems to hold it's own on Dx11 and newer games but falls flat on dX10 and older crap

[haxartus]

I would hardly call that crushing.

This then:

The single threading performance is a fail, but the multithreading is pretty strong.
Edit:
Windows 8 will bring 5-10% performance increase in 2-4 threaded applications due to better thread management.

[Dizey]

Not to come off as a troll, but WINRAR? Really? I don't think anyone is going to be making a purchase based on WINRAR performance charts, especially in these forums.

Take a look at:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/t...x8150-tested/7

Of course Bulldozer rocked the house on 7-Zip, but the single to multithread application comparisons are pretty eye opening. Besides encryption/decryption, the 1100T hangs pretty close, which is why I would argue that for the money, its a better buy right now.

[DeltrusDisc]

On about page 3 of overclock3d.net's review of the 8150, I do love reading their thoughts and the whole process. It definitely seems like Bulldozer really failed on even more points than you can realize just looking at benches.

http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/c...0_cpu_review/1

---------- Post added 2011-10-12 at 07:32 AM ----------

From page 8:

"3D Mark Vantage

Moving back a generation to 3D Mark Vantage, the situation actually deteriorates for the AMD Flagship. Instead of trading punches with the rest of the setups on test, the little i5-2300 and X6 1095T both outscore the FX8150."

[Beasty]

Wow, that's dissapointing and with IB still yet to come... Plus that power usage, jeeeez.

[Deleted]

The Bulldozer results really are a little disappointing. I mean we all knew it wasn't going to be a new revelation or anything of the like but I was hoping it would be able to distance itself a little more from the previous Phenom generation.

If it weren't for the excessive power consumption I might have even been willing to look the other way. But that would be unreasonable given the current results. Maybe the FX-8100 model with a 95 Watt TDP scheduled for Q1 2012 will be a better alternative.

[DeltrusDisc]

Just finished reading the article from overclock3d.net.

[Mestofiles]

there's also the review from overclockers.com (http://www.overclockers.com/amd-fx-8...ocessor-review). To me, it looks like it's competing with i5-2500K, but for a slightly higher price. I'm not switching tbh. Not worth the hazzle.

[kailtas]

Not worth it for me, still gona stick with my Ivy-Bridge ready Gigabyte board.

[Wries]

They have 8 "cores" and can barely beat (and sometimes can't) a 4 core Intel in multithreaded performance. They fail to realize that peformance per core is the important part for most, and that you increase core count when you've hit the limit on single thread.

Single-threaded performance is so sub-par that it isn't even funny. It makes it directly bad for WoW and I wouldn't count on it in any workstation because even in the marvelous world of media editing, many things end up on a single thread and then you suffer greatly.

Though in marketing, 8 "cores", high numbers in L2/3 cache and frequency, it could become a good seller anyway, regarless of its sub-par performance.

[DeltrusDisc]

The sheep who don't do research will buy this over any other because "IT HAS MORE CORES AND BIGGER NUMBERS!!!" You said it Wries. :P

[Doylez]

Damn, I didn't expect it to destroy Intel but I didn't expect such a failure either >_>
Terrible gaming benchmarks, just terrible