Bulldozer failed to beat out Intel.

[DeltrusDisc]

Show me no more! It hurts too much! =/

[Deleted]

Wished there was a proper BF3 benchmark. Saw one somewhere from the beta. But i will prob just pick up an i5 or i7 depending on how much money i wanna spend :P

Also Crysis 2 doesnt seem to be the best benchmark, seeing as its clearly GPU limited

But overall, i expected a bit more from bulldozer.

[Yisile]

Here's to AMD's Prescott. This thing's die is huge compared to anything that's on the market and puts out an obscene amount of heat. At least it's good at encoding, but pretty much blows on any lightly threaded app.

[DeltrusDisc]

Ya know what I just thought of and am really interested in hearing about... the profits reports of AMD in early 2012 for Q3 and Q4 of this year.. we'll have to see how well BD sells.

[Wries]

Wished there was a proper BF3 benchmark. Saw one somewhere from the beta. But i will prob just pick up an i5 or i7 depending on how much money i wanna spend :P

Also Crysis 2 doesnt seem to be the best benchmark, seeing as its clearly GPU limited

But overall, i expected a bit more from bulldozer.

BF3 will also in all likeliness be GPU limited since it's very good at utilizing multiple cores.

[BicycleMafioso]

Even though we didn't expect it to be better than Sandy Bridge..
I thought it'd be better for the price.

But from the benchmarks I've been looking at, it falls short of an i7-2600 and an i7-980x (both at stock-clocks) in, well, everything, while overclocked to 4.77GHz.
More expensive, consumes more watt, performs worse in single-thread, and is not close enough in multi-thread.

[Mouri Kogorou]

Wished there was a proper BF3 benchmark. Saw one somewhere from the beta. But i will prob just pick up an i5 or i7 depending on how much money i wanna spend :P

Also Crysis 2 doesnt seem to be the best benchmark, seeing as its clearly GPU limited

But overall, i expected a bit more from bulldozer.

i would suggest that you take a IB ready mobo and get a cheap SB processor and then upgrade to IB processor.

[vesseblah]

Not really surprised.

It was pretty obvious from the first 'leaked' marketing hype and Cinebench to compare with Intel that AMD is still betting on multiple cores just like with x6, and will fail in real world use because there just aren't enough properly multithreaded games.

[Riff]

One thing AMD always gets right is the price and I'll be able to drop on of these straight into my Sabertooth without batting an eyelid.

There are a lot of pretty graphs and numbers up there, but where are the results that show you actual performance? The kind of difference one can actually notice when playing - if your games run well and look fab (as mine do), what's the difference between a good and great processor?

(And I'm running a Phenom II 1090t)

[Deleted]

i would suggest that you take a IB ready mobo and get a cheap SB processor and then upgrade to IB processor.

Nah, getting either 2500k/2600k (most likely 2500k). And i prob wont see the need to upgrade to an IB when it launches. But thats for another topic etc
Altho, the 8120 could do the job. Altho i dislike the 200 extra watt for overclocking. Which is just stupid.

[vesseblah]

One thing AMD always gets right is the price and I'll be able to drop on of these straight into my Sabertooth without batting an eyelid.

There are a lot of pretty graphs and numbers up there, but where are the results that show you actual performance? The kind of difference one can actually notice when playing - if your games run well and look fab (as mine do), what's the difference between a good and great processor?

(And I'm running a Phenom II 1090t)

All those pretty graphs and numbers say there's no notable difference from high end Phenoms to the FX 8150 in games that aren't well multithreaded. Such as WoW. It means your 2 years old x6 1090T will run WoW just as bad/good as the FX8150, while i5-2500K will run laps around it. Quality of THG is often disappointing, but the chart in the last post of second page is pretty much identical to what Anandtech measured. That 50% speed difference between AMD and Intel is very painfully obvious when you're doing 25-man progress raiding and dont like to see 5-10fps numbers during adds phases.

[Simca]

One thing AMD always gets right is the price and I'll be able to drop on of these straight into my Sabertooth without batting an eyelid.

There are a lot of pretty graphs and numbers up there, but where are the results that show you actual performance? The kind of difference one can actually notice when playing - if your games run well and look fab (as mine do), what's the difference between a good and great processor?

(And I'm running a Phenom II 1090t)

Right now it's $40 more than an i5-2500k which is better for gaming, so yeah the price is not really that right.

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

If that is accurate, then that is huge.

A few more generations of this and Intel will be in a spot where they simply cannot be beat.

[Deleo]

I don't really understand the "give it few years, it'll outperform intel" argument. It is not like intel will be sitting on its ass after IB and I'm pretty sure they already know that more cores is the way to go.

From a marketing perspective releasing something that 1- Can't answer the current need of users (single core performance) 2- The side technology for it is not around yet (AKA softwares that utilize more cores) is fail by its own. I really hope AMD gets back on the game as a good competition is always good for customers, but it doesn't look good atm. This was a bad move by AMD imo.

[Riff]

Right now it's $40 more than an i5-2500k which is better for gaming, so yeah the price is not really that right.

This is current of course, but if you're right and this trend continues up to general release, then I will put my hand up and say disappointed - although I'll assume there will be entry-level, mid-range and best-in-slot versions as with previous AMD chips.

[DeltrusDisc]

This is current of course, but if you're right and this trend continues up to general release, then I will put my hand up and say disappointed - although I'll assume there will be entry-level, mid-range and best-in-slot versions as with previous AMD chips.

The 8150 IS the best in slot one.... and it could not compare to the medium-range 2500K. The 8150 is really a CPU that should be compared to the 2600K, based on that both of them are essentially Intel/AMD's own versions of 8 cores without being true 8 core processors (AMD having modules and Intel having HT) and the fact that AMD's closer-to-true 8 core 8150 gets completely stomped by Intel's true 4 virtual 4 = 8 2600K is what really is shocking too.

Of course, the 8150 is priced closer to the 2500K but in between that and the 2600K, one has to weigh the differences in FPS/seconds for rendering and decide, is this worth the extra $$$?

[Deleted]

Anyone happen to have come across a Linux based Bulldozer test?

Seeing as Bulldozer does not properly identify the nature of the processor cores to Windows; I wonder if Linux (currently) has the same problem, or if this issue was corrected a few Kernel releases prior to release (wouldn't be the first time). If it does have the same issue, I do at least expect that to be resolved far sooner than having to await a consumer release of a NT6.2 system (or NT6.1 service pack).

Nevertheless, its clear Bulldozer is not quite what was hoped for. That power requirement puts a nasty hidden cost on the system that is almost certain to outweigh any savings on the processor+motherboard.


Of course for people thinking about the value of Windows 8 - I think in light of the above (10% difference in some CPU bound cases!) these results alone could be enough to switch some people over once it hits release.

[haxartus]

The 8150 IS the best in slot one.... and it could not compare to the medium-range 2500K.

It's faster than i5-2500k. Not for games but it's still faster. And it has a higher overclocking potential which is currently stopped by the enormous power consumption. Something that will surely be fixed in the next few major revisions of the architecture.
It's still mostly a marketing fail because FX-8150 is in reality a quad core CPU.
And the CPU is unfinished with a lot of engineering problems which will probably be fixed later. They just couldn't wait any longer to release it.

[BicycleMafioso]

It's faster than i5-2500k. Not for games but it's still faster. And it has a higher overclocking potential which is currently stopped by the enormous power consumption. Something that will surely be fixed in the next few major revisions of the architecture.
It's still mostly a marketing fail because FX-8150 is in reality a quad core CPU.
And the CPU is unfinished with a lot of engineering problems which will probably be fixed later. They just couldn't wait any longer to release it.

It is slower than the i7-2600K though, and costs more.
Even overclocked, it barely competes with a stock i7-2600 in multithreaded rendering.

But this revision will be quickly outphased. They only release them because they want something to be released. By Q1 2012, it'll be phased out completely, iirc.

[Deleted]

It is slower than the i7-2600K though, and costs more.

As does the 100-300W more powerful powersupply it requires. That cost simply cannot be ignored. We're talking upwards a 800W PSU requirement for a 5ghz OC with a standard solo GPU. SB with the same numbers makes do with just 500W.

[haxartus]

Something interesting:

This and the second gen Bulldozer will give us a minimum of another 10-15% performance increase plus a better overclocking capabilities. You see where I'm going...