AMD FX8150 CPU Review
Introduction and Technical Specifications
Published: 12th October 2011 | Source: AMD | Price: £194.99 @ Aria |
Introduction
It seems an eternity ago now that we first heard about the Bulldozer processors from AMD.
Indeed we've been expecting them for so long that it was six months ago when we reviewed the first 990FX board that was all ready for the next generation of CPUs, but finally the wait is over and we have our hands upon the the premium, top of the range, flagship AMD Bulldozer processor, the eight core FX8150.
Yes this is the first 8 core CPU that we've had the pleasure of testing. Despite the huge amount of cores this is being priced and marketed directly at the Intel Core i5-2500K. Given our large experience with this chip and the fact that the FX8150 has twice the amount of cores and a much faster clock speed, we're expecting a slaughter.
We know you can't wait to see how it goes so let's crack on. We've a lot to get through.
Technical Specifications
Before we get to the new architecture, there is a range of CPUs coming out to fill every niche from the bargain basement to the enthusiast. You can see that our top range FX8150 not only has 8 cores to play with, but a whopping 8MB of both L3 and L2 cache, as well as a Turbo mode that puts it past 4GHz. Highly impressive numbers we are sure you'll agree.
Most Recent Comments
I fear that waiting is not rewarded.Disappointing. 
Quote
QuoteI was secretly hoping AMD could pull it out and get one over intel. Shame. This is like watching the pentium 4 all over again. On paper faster, but in reality slower and much hotter running. Oh well, Sandy Bridge E for me 
Quote
QuoteI didn't think it would be good, considering the 125W TDP instead of 140W and the low asking price of $250. SB-E all the way. I'm glad I didn't invest much into an AM3+ board (I got an AM3 board). Hopefully, we'll see some competition between the 8150 and the i5-2500K, price wise (may go 1155, IDK).Quote
Fail :/Quote
dissatisfied. Keep your Thubans folks, because this isnt worth it. Only thing that i liked was the 7-zip bench. Jeezes AMD!!!
Ordering the 2500k for my lan rig and il get the Ivy B for my main... Not going amd again lol...
"The good news is AMD has a very aggressive roadmap ahead of itself" hehe :-)Quote
Ordering the 2500k for my lan rig and il get the Ivy B for my main... Not going amd again lol...
"The good news is AMD has a very aggressive roadmap ahead of itself" hehe :-)Quote
Ouch, AMD is going to hurt from this one.Quote
If they continue this way they'll be out of buisness very soon, let's hope they don't screw over the 7xxx seriesQuote
oh dear AMD, you have really let the ball slip on this onQuote
PPD is only 13.5 to 14k as well, not that much better than my stock x6 1055t 
Quote
QuoteI am disappoint 
AMD is focusing most of their R&D for performance that servers require as opposed to the average home desktop . I guess I'm going to Intel for my next build.Quote
AMD is focusing most of their R&D for performance that servers require as opposed to the average home desktop . I guess I'm going to Intel for my next build.QuoteVery shocking results. If this is the best AMD can come up with, their is no hope for them. People who were eagerly waiting for Bulldozer would have been better off with the 2500k or even the 2300. It is still early days, so things may change.Quote
Just imagine, AMD comes out with another CPU to replace this. It's like the controversy between the time it took the 1155 to replace the 1156 chips. Definitely hope AMD is still in the game with their 7000 series video cards though. Please please please be great..... 
Quote
QuoteI dont know much about CPU's etc Iv only just built my first PC. Could it be that the developers have yet to make use of the extra core/cache.
Are these the same as the APU's and dont need Graphics cards to run games at ok settings?Quote
Are these the same as the APU's and dont need Graphics cards to run games at ok settings?Quote
I knew it!!
The i7 2600K murders the FX-8150 on another level.
With CPU's, AMD have always focused on affordability rather than performance, and the benchmarks prove it and they are comparing it to a i7 980x, rofl
Intel are deffo going win next gen CPU battle with SB-E hands down
Back to the drawing board AMDQuote
The i7 2600K murders the FX-8150 on another level.
With CPU's, AMD have always focused on affordability rather than performance, and the benchmarks prove it and they are comparing it to a i7 980x, rofl
Intel are deffo going win next gen CPU battle with SB-E hands down
Back to the drawing board AMDQuote
I'm not surprised at all to be honest i'm not an Intel fanboy or anything but I just knew AMD wouldn't come out on top. It would have been nice to see them do it but you have to admit BD has failed in almost all aspects, even price/performance which is one thing I did expect them to come out on top with. 
Quote
QuoteHot much better the the old 1090TQuote
Oh dear oh dear oh dear... Not good.
Already reading rumours (via the Chris Angelini/Tom's Hardware twitter feed) of a B3 stepping being rushed out, might explain why there's a shipping delay.
Can't really see it changing much though, unless there's a huge bug in the b2 step.Quote
Already reading rumours (via the Chris Angelini/Tom's Hardware twitter feed) of a B3 stepping being rushed out, might explain why there's a shipping delay.
Can't really see it changing much though, unless there's a huge bug in the b2 step.Quote
Well I think it's very sad and I use an AMD rig atm and now, well I guess it's back to a 2nd hand Intel rig next year.
AMD should have pulled the plug months ago knowing they underperformed agaisnt the I5's..shocking business decision to bother releasing them. WE need AMD to be competitive against Intel because as end users having only 1 GPU manufacturer would be a dissaster.
AMD need some massive support and huge financial investment for them now as I fear that on GPU's they are a spent force.Quote
AMD should have pulled the plug months ago knowing they underperformed agaisnt the I5's..shocking business decision to bother releasing them. WE need AMD to be competitive against Intel because as end users having only 1 GPU manufacturer would be a dissaster.
AMD need some massive support and huge financial investment for them now as I fear that on GPU's they are a spent force.Quote
That's exactly one of the reasons we were so disappointed, Mr Muggles. We all know how bad pricing gets if Intel are left to do their own thing. Having two companies fighting for the same money is vital to us, the end users.Quote
We might be seeing an IvyBridge price increase . I hope Intel use this as an opportunity to lower prices a bit and drive in more customers.Quote
. I hope Intel use this as an opportunity to lower prices a bit and drive in more customers.QuoteAMD, I am dissapointQuote
All talk, it's the same every time with the hype. Glad I went for 2500K now, I was considering going AM3, AMD's CPU days are over tbh. When do you ever see on adverts saying, PC powered by AMD, it's days of glory in mid 2000's are long gone. Although the GPU's are nice though, hopefully this doesn't mean an increase in the price from competitors (lol Intel does it again).Quote
To be fair, I think they had to put these out now, what with the amount of people waiting on them and EOLing the old Phenom II chips (end of the year? that's what I heard) to get the new fabrication process up and running properly (on a side note, the 6990 has also just been EOL'd).
And this "modules"/cores thing. Would we have been impressed if they'd called it a 4 core chip that replaces a 6 core? Because that's what it really is. 8 threads, but with parallel processing instead of hyper-threading. Now, when they can actually shove 8 of these "modules" on a chip, we might see some improvement.
Let's just hope this is a stumble, forced by having to start production the more scalable architecture, and that the "Bulldozer II"/"Piledriver" chips on this architecture are considerably better.Quote
And this "modules"/cores thing. Would we have been impressed if they'd called it a 4 core chip that replaces a 6 core? Because that's what it really is. 8 threads, but with parallel processing instead of hyper-threading. Now, when they can actually shove 8 of these "modules" on a chip, we might see some improvement.
Let's just hope this is a stumble, forced by having to start production the more scalable architecture, and that the "Bulldozer II"/"Piledriver" chips on this architecture are considerably better.Quote
Good review Tom, although I'm a little disappointed that in the gaming section of graphs the 2500k OC disappeard although in your write ups, you on occasion compared the 8150s OC wins to the standard 2500k results when the 2500k OC could have bridged the gap completely, thus potentially eliminating any wins for the 8150 at all.
Still, even without that I think it can be taken as a severe loss for Bulldozer.
Tis a shame really.
Perhaps the next revisions of this architecture will be a bit better.Quote
Still, even without that I think it can be taken as a severe loss for Bulldozer.
Tis a shame really.
Perhaps the next revisions of this architecture will be a bit better.Quote
Soooo glad I didn't bother waiting for this, and opted for the 2500k 3 months ago!Quote
Where is the F@H results Tom?Quote
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bungral
... Perhaps the next revisions of this architecture will be a bit better. |
The arch is new, does better in newer apps than older apps, which is ~kinda~ a good sign.
Fear I have tho is the mobos are not doing the arch justice either. Which isn't really the fault of the manufs. They can only play with the toys they have. We could be boasting 2xdual (quad) memory, amongst other things, as standard in so many months time from the Intel camp.
Competition baby.
Still - more than decent for general use. Not priced for decent general use tho.Quote
Also not sure why everyone wants to go SB-E so bad.... Still on the 32nm process.
Surely wait for the X79 22nm CPU's? If they stay on that chipset that is.
Find it odd that the SB-E top of the line CPU's are to be 32nm with Ivy Bridge mainstream being 22nm.Quote
Surely wait for the X79 22nm CPU's? If they stay on that chipset that is.
Find it odd that the SB-E top of the line CPU's are to be 32nm with Ivy Bridge mainstream being 22nm.Quote
Why oh why oh why????
Looking at the datasheets for both the i5 and the fx I noticed something that's been apparent in AMD processors for as long as I can remember and that's the apparent lack of layer 1 data cache.
Maybe they thought the clock speed could mask the half size data cache against the i5 but to then go and put 64k instruction caches on die so you can put more TLA's on your publicity may not have been the best choice.
Maybe it's a cost or tech implementation issue but there has to be some fundamental architecture issue that's holding this processor back.
Maybe it's a cost thing or a technQuote
Looking at the datasheets for both the i5 and the fx I noticed something that's been apparent in AMD processors for as long as I can remember and that's the apparent lack of layer 1 data cache.
Maybe they thought the clock speed could mask the half size data cache against the i5 but to then go and put 64k instruction caches on die so you can put more TLA's on your publicity may not have been the best choice.
Maybe it's a cost or tech implementation issue but there has to be some fundamental architecture issue that's holding this processor back.
Maybe it's a cost thing or a technQuote
I was worried this might happen; throwing a new architecture at an old platform, instead of working on ground up.
So that's a fail for Zambezi, but a win for the new lapel microphone and grey wall. The video was quite relaxing to look at and listen to, no hard lighting and echo-y audio; also the most annoying thing about the old videos was the constantly spinning logo in the bottom corner has been replaced with a static logo, but the "3D.NET" has been lost in the shadows. Bring on the 1100T vs FX6100 hex-core showdown!
So those going to Sandy Bridge, got a 1090T, 870A Power Edition or 970FXA GD70 to spare?
Joking... no selling in the main forums.Quote
So that's a fail for Zambezi, but a win for the new lapel microphone and grey wall. The video was quite relaxing to look at and listen to, no hard lighting and echo-y audio; also the most annoying thing about the old videos was the constantly spinning logo in the bottom corner has been replaced with a static logo, but the "3D.NET" has been lost in the shadows. Bring on the 1100T vs FX6100 hex-core showdown!
So those going to Sandy Bridge, got a 1090T, 870A Power Edition or 970FXA GD70 to spare?
Joking... no selling in the main forums.QuoteJust had another thought. With the reckoning that AMD will qualify alot of these benchmarks with "Windows 7 isn't suited up for predicted thread allocation like Windows 8 will be..." (words to that effect) to whit, there should be better daylight under Windows 8 (which 'most' people may not enjoy until mid-late next year, if they ever do).
How about another "AMD x2 fashion" Windows patch for Bulldozer, for Windows 7 seeing as a huge percentage may just stick with 7 ? Which may unleash.. something..
That and £30-40 off the launch price in so many months.
Bit rosier a picture ?Quote
How about another "AMD x2 fashion" Windows patch for Bulldozer, for Windows 7 seeing as a huge percentage may just stick with 7 ? Which may unleash.. something..
That and £30-40 off the launch price in so many months.
Bit rosier a picture ?Quote
Hmmm just relating to my previous post even though slightly off this topic.
I've just read the following which I found interesting:
X79 will have PCIe 2.0 for graphics and PCIe 3.0 dedicated for storage.
That's not very good.Quote
I've just read the following which I found interesting:
X79 will have PCIe 2.0 for graphics and PCIe 3.0 dedicated for storage.
That's not very good.Quote
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bungral
Hmmm just relating to my previous post even though slightly off this topic. I've just read the following which I found interesting: X79 will have PCIe 2.0 for graphics and PCIe 3.0 dedicated for storage. That's not very good. |
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2011/6/24/amd-insiders-speak-out-bapco-exit-is-an-excuse-for-poor-bulldozer-performance.aspx?pageid=1
Prophetic...
AMD better get their back together for a decent 2nd revision of the current BD CPU's...SB-E will monopolize the high end market for intel. Impending Ivy bridge will be a huge blow for AMD if they can't optimize BD soonQuote
Prophetic...
AMD better get their back together for a decent 2nd revision of the current BD CPU's...SB-E will monopolize the high end market for intel. Impending Ivy bridge will be a huge blow for AMD if they can't optimize BD soonQuote
This will teach me to build a PC around a non-released CPU..... guess i'm going to sell my 990fx mb and pick up a socket 1155.Quote
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lollipop
WTH? Link please |
The physical slot to stick stuff in will depend on the manufacurer's use of the 'toys' they have available.Quote
Well, I can't say I'm surprised but i'm certainly disappointed. I probably wouldn't have gone with Bulldozer anyway in a new build BUT it really would have helped things to see Intel have competition again.
Now i'm quietly hoping a new company comes out of nowhere and destroys intelQuote
Now i'm quietly hoping a new company comes out of nowhere and destroys intel
QuoteQuote:
|
Originally Posted by yassarikhan786
We might be seeing an IvyBridge price increase . I hope Intel use this as an opportunity to lower prices a bit and drive in more customers. |
My worry is that Intel will just hold out as there is no rush to release the new tech as there is no competition.
Another thing to remember though is that AMD don't do high end/enthusiast CPUs, it was never out to compete with SB-E, just the mainstream market.
Also another to remember these companies make most of their money out of server CPUs, maybe AMD are no longer interested in mainstream CPUs and concentrating their efforts elsewhere.Quote
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SieJoe
Also another to remember these companies make most of their money out of server CPUs, maybe AMD are no longer interested in mainstream CPUs and concentrating their efforts elsewhere. |
.QuoteWell there is no way I'm swapping my 1100t for that. What a disappointment. Enhanced needs to seriously make an impression or gg amd. Maybe a new socket will help.
I think my money is going to build towards PCI-e 3.0 for Ivy Bridge next year.Quote
I think my money is going to build towards PCI-e 3.0 for Ivy Bridge next year.Quote
Well...looks like I put my fait in AMD for f***in nothing, I guess I now concede to Sieb's logic < < Intel For Life.Quote
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DiggyDiggyHole
Well...looks like I put my fait in AMD for f***in nothing, I guess I now concede to Sieb's logic < < Intel For Life. |
AMD fanboys/girls =
Neutrals =
QuoteQuote:
|
Originally Posted by yassarikhan786
Intel fanboys/girls = AMD fanboys/girls = Neutrals = |
Hold on a minute, I never said I was an Intel fanboy I just said I didn't expect BD to beat SB.
Turns out I was right all along
If AMD did beat Intel though I would be happy about it. Fanboyism is stupid, having a preferred brand is ok but only buying one brand because you are a fanboy is stupid. Your money should be spent on what offers you the best you can afford no matter what the brand is and at the moment it's Intel and SB.
Quote
Turns out I was right all along
If AMD did beat Intel though I would be happy about it. Fanboyism is stupid, having a preferred brand is ok but only buying one brand because you are a fanboy is stupid. Your money should be spent on what offers you the best you can afford no matter what the brand is and at the moment it's Intel and SB.
QuoteQuote:
|
Originally Posted by SieB
If AMD did beat Intel though I would be happy about it. Fanboyism is stupid, having a preferred brand is ok but only buying one brand because you are a fanboy is stupid. Your money should be spent on what offers you the best you can afford no matter what the brand is and at the moment it's Intel and SB. |
.QuoteQuote:
|
Originally Posted by SieB
Hold on a minute, I never said I was an Intel fanboy I just said I didn't expect BD to beat SB. Turns out I was right all along If AMD did beat Intel though I would be happy about it. Fanboyism is stupid, having a preferred brand is ok but only buying one brand because you are a fanboy is stupid. Your money should be spent on what offers you the best you can afford no matter what the brand is and at the moment it's Intel and SB. |
Interesting thing that I've been reading up on. Bulldozer will perform better in Windows 8 than it will in Windows 7, because Windows 8 will make better use of the Bulldozer modules and assign the threads more efficiently.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...x,3043-23.html
The better allocation of threads does increase the performance by around 5-10%, which makes it more respectable, but still stamped on my Sandy Bridge.
Also Bulldozer is still in its infancy, so give it a couple of years and assuming AMD hasn't gone bust or Intel has leaped frogged them again, it might have some potential.
But for now it's an epic fail.Quote
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...x,3043-23.html
The better allocation of threads does increase the performance by around 5-10%, which makes it more respectable, but still stamped on my Sandy Bridge.
Also Bulldozer is still in its infancy, so give it a couple of years and assuming AMD hasn't gone bust or Intel has leaped frogged them again, it might have some potential.
But for now it's an epic fail.Quote
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DiggyDiggyHole
-prays for Asus ROG CPU's xD-
|
Just imagine, Black and red CPU's
Quoteoh my days.... why bother releasing something thats pretty much the same as your old cpusQuote
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by UFN
OH PLEASE LET THIS HAPPEN! Just imagine, Black and red CPU's |
OH SWEET BABY JESUS! That would be a dream! XD Then just think, I can see there lineup now.The Rog Gladius Quad Core"No HT"
The Rog Gladius Extreme Quad Core"HT"
OR
The Rog Zeus Hex Core"Locked Multiplier"
The Rog Zeus Extreme Hex Core"Unlocked Multiplier"
XD Ahhhh, a mad man can dream!Quote
I still think results are a bit premature. No, it's not what it was built up to be, but I still think this will be a nice high performance chip for the price. I for one will be picking up an 8150. Quote
QuoteQuote:
|
Originally Posted by FragTek
I still think results are a bit premature. No, it's not what it was built up to be, but I still think this will be a nice high performance chip for the price. I for one will be picking up an 8150. |
QuoteI was expecting this tbh, but Bulldozer actually was worse than what I expected. Bad times for AMD, let's hope next year will be their year. God I sound like a Liverpool fan now Quote
QuoteQuote:
|
Originally Posted by CocaCola
Just imagine, AMD comes out with another CPU to replace this. It's like the controversy between the time it took the 1155 to replace the 1156 chips. Definitely hope AMD is still in the game with their 7000 series video cards though. Please please please be great..... |
Guys, guys, guys, calm down; you do realise ASUS doesn't make or can feasibly in their production abilities to make CPUs or GPUs, let alone the chipsets. They are good at doing what they do well; creating a sensible PCB and sourcing components from people who know what they're doing.Sorwee no ROG CPU ever.Quote
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ya93sin
God I sound like a Liverpool fan now |
[/size][size="3"]looks like AMD have shot themselves in the foot, what a load of rubbish, my advice is to stayaway from AMD when it comes to processors
Quote
Quote
I noticed all reviews are made with dual channel rams.
Isnt the fx8150 supposed to run with quad channel rams ?Quote
Isnt the fx8150 supposed to run with quad channel rams ?Quote
im quiet sad :/
I jumped ship after hearing so many bad things about the performance.
Lucky escape I guess, my 2600k will do me just fine for many months to come.
you can couple a 2600k with a z68 for cheaper then the 8 core line up AMD has, death of a giant tbh.
http://www.aria.co.uk/Products/Compo...roductId=46424
and
http://www.aria.co.uk/SuperSpecials/...roductId=43214
will secure you a good 2 years of solid performance with ivy bridge coming next year.Quote
I jumped ship after hearing so many bad things about the performance.
Lucky escape I guess, my 2600k will do me just fine for many months to come.
you can couple a 2600k with a z68 for cheaper then the 8 core line up AMD has, death of a giant tbh.
http://www.aria.co.uk/Products/Compo...roductId=46424
and
http://www.aria.co.uk/SuperSpecials/...roductId=43214
will secure you a good 2 years of solid performance with ivy bridge coming next year.Quote
I've been planning an upgrade and was hoping for something with a bit more bite from AMD. Seems i'll be bowing down to the might of SB though, only the second intel build i've done in over 10 years of self builds.
Price/performance just isn't what i'd hoped for.Quote
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DiggyDiggyHole
OH SWEET BABY JESUS! That would be a dream! XD Then just think, I can see there lineup now.The Rog Gladius Quad Core"No HT" The Rog Gladius Extreme Quad Core"HT" OR The Rog Zeus Hex Core"Locked Multiplier" The Rog Zeus Extreme Hex Core"Unlocked Multiplier" XD Ahhhh, a mad man can dream! |
QuoteYou know, my expectations were that Bulldozer would enter the market at an eye-catching price-point, trade blows with Intels 2500 and 2600k, edge ahead in some tests, trail a little behind in others, all while using a little less power for the level of performance on offer.
Ok, I fully expected SB-E to come along and take the pure performance crown but, equally, Intel would have had a good scare in the lucrative mid-range market.
Now I am not quite neutral when it comes to AMD/Intel, this is because I was first so blown away by my Q6600 when new, how it performed out of the box and how it over-clocked! Really, it was a revelation after my perfectly decent AMD x2 processor. Again with my 2500k I had the same degree of bliss...both processors cost me circa £150 at the time...much bargainatiousness
I hope that this is maybe a bit of a stumble for AMD, maybe things weren't quite mature enough at release despite te delays (and the pressure that would arise from that to release ASAP I imagine) so some BIOS and windows driver updates will liberate some more performance from these chips.
Assuming there is an issue of some description and these results aren't as good as the 8150 gets, a 15-20% boost in performance along with a price-drop would potentially make the 8150 more attractive. If Windows 8 does indeed liberate more performance by making better use of multiple cores (I thought the Windows 7 scheduler was already quite an improvement over Vista and a larger one over XP personally) then that is GOOD news for the new architecture going forward, however it's not really that useful right now.
There was a time when Intel rested on its laurels & AMD beat them to 1ghz and generally offered the enthusiast so much more than Intel. This triggered Intel to start taking the "fight" seriously and with their sheer size financial muscle, set about not letting it happen again.
I really wish AMD the best, both with their CPU and GPU business as Intel and nVidia NEED to be pushed by a competitor and suffer the odd bloody nose, to force inovation and value for money for us customers if nothing else. On the GPU side AMD are doing well, I feel their 6000 series didn't move the game on quite as much as some hoped and nVidia really did (finally!) nail it with the 500 series, but generally I think you'd be happy with your purchase from either camp at the moment. For the record I'm currently and Intel/nVidia user and have been happy with my purchase. However if next upgrade time AMD/AMD are giving me more for my hard-earned then that's where my money will be going.
In summary my mood is...Disappointed. AMD, we did both hope and expect more, and you really needed to deliver more with this new architecture - even if it was pure bang for buck rather than outright performance.
Final thought...Bulldozer (specifically the 8150 reviewed of course), while disappointing, like any modern CPU gives a so much power that it's quite amazing really. Still, when your competitor gives even more and your prior generation isn't that far behind...well, something's not quite right. If Bulldozer had been slightly more competitive performance-wise and was launched at say ~£150 then I think it would have been easier to like it. I do worry though, AMD might be forced to massively revise the price of there Bulldozer range, but that will squeeze their profits - profits needed for R&D methinks.
Nice review Tom.
Scoob.Quote
Ok, I fully expected SB-E to come along and take the pure performance crown but, equally, Intel would have had a good scare in the lucrative mid-range market.
Now I am not quite neutral when it comes to AMD/Intel, this is because I was first so blown away by my Q6600 when new, how it performed out of the box and how it over-clocked! Really, it was a revelation after my perfectly decent AMD x2 processor. Again with my 2500k I had the same degree of bliss...both processors cost me circa £150 at the time...much bargainatiousness
I hope that this is maybe a bit of a stumble for AMD, maybe things weren't quite mature enough at release despite te delays (and the pressure that would arise from that to release ASAP I imagine) so some BIOS and windows driver updates will liberate some more performance from these chips.
Assuming there is an issue of some description and these results aren't as good as the 8150 gets, a 15-20% boost in performance along with a price-drop would potentially make the 8150 more attractive. If Windows 8 does indeed liberate more performance by making better use of multiple cores (I thought the Windows 7 scheduler was already quite an improvement over Vista and a larger one over XP personally) then that is GOOD news for the new architecture going forward, however it's not really that useful right now.
There was a time when Intel rested on its laurels & AMD beat them to 1ghz and generally offered the enthusiast so much more than Intel. This triggered Intel to start taking the "fight" seriously and with their sheer size financial muscle, set about not letting it happen again.
I really wish AMD the best, both with their CPU and GPU business as Intel and nVidia NEED to be pushed by a competitor and suffer the odd bloody nose, to force inovation and value for money for us customers if nothing else. On the GPU side AMD are doing well, I feel their 6000 series didn't move the game on quite as much as some hoped and nVidia really did (finally!) nail it with the 500 series, but generally I think you'd be happy with your purchase from either camp at the moment. For the record I'm currently and Intel/nVidia user and have been happy with my purchase. However if next upgrade time AMD/AMD are giving me more for my hard-earned then that's where my money will be going.
In summary my mood is...Disappointed. AMD, we did both hope and expect more, and you really needed to deliver more with this new architecture - even if it was pure bang for buck rather than outright performance.
Final thought...Bulldozer (specifically the 8150 reviewed of course), while disappointing, like any modern CPU gives a so much power that it's quite amazing really. Still, when your competitor gives even more and your prior generation isn't that far behind...well, something's not quite right. If Bulldozer had been slightly more competitive performance-wise and was launched at say ~£150 then I think it would have been easier to like it. I do worry though, AMD might be forced to massively revise the price of there Bulldozer range, but that will squeeze their profits - profits needed for R&D methinks.
Nice review Tom.
Scoob.Quote
listen guys - you have such short memories!!!
only after a month, or so, decent AM3 mobos got released!!!!
deja-vu!!!!
these BD chips' architectures are completely new, and were not designed to efficiently run on AM3 mobos.
the AM3+ FX mobos are cross-architecture 'fillers' until the full BD FM mobos come out.
the hefty price tag has come about through the hype that has surrounded them, and the sales of the 990FX boards.
highly anticipated reviews have left many dissappointed.
i warned many people months ago, that AMD would pull this stunt again, and no-one listened, and they went ahead and bought a 990FX mobo anyway
you lose
only the next FM mobos will utilise they BD's architecture fully
WAITQuote
- remember AM2?
- remember the PhenomII x6 launch... before the mobos were released?
- remember the old AM2 boards getting BIOS updates to enable them to work?
- remember pre-flashed mobos being released as AM2+?
- remember the T-series performance being strangled on the AM2+?
only after a month, or so, decent AM3 mobos got released!!!!
deja-vu!!!!
these BD chips' architectures are completely new, and were not designed to efficiently run on AM3 mobos.
the AM3+ FX mobos are cross-architecture 'fillers' until the full BD FM mobos come out.
the hefty price tag has come about through the hype that has surrounded them, and the sales of the 990FX boards.
highly anticipated reviews have left many dissappointed.
i warned many people months ago, that AMD would pull this stunt again, and no-one listened, and they went ahead and bought a 990FX mobo anyway
you lose
only the next FM mobos will utilise they BD's architecture fully
WAITQuote
Hi Dugdiamond,
Yeah, you're right of course. I'd totally forgotten that we've not really got the proper motherboards yet... I've been a little out of touch with AMD since my old x2 if I'm honest. It's GOOD to know there's hope!
Also, I'm glad it is something that can be "fixed" - ok, it's via using the correct, designed properly for the job, motherboard, which doesn't help people NOW, but it's good news for the architecture hopefully.
Still, pretty poor that ALL new new kit we would need to get the best out of these isn't available...again.
Scoob.Quote
Yeah, you're right of course. I'd totally forgotten that we've not really got the proper motherboards yet... I've been a little out of touch with AMD since my old x2 if I'm honest. It's GOOD to know there's hope!
Also, I'm glad it is something that can be "fixed" - ok, it's via using the correct, designed properly for the job, motherboard, which doesn't help people NOW, but it's good news for the architecture hopefully.
Still, pretty poor that ALL new new kit we would need to get the best out of these isn't available...again.
Scoob.Quote
There isn't really any hope tbh. I think AMD should just drop the 'dozer' part and tell us all they've just launched some new chips which are bull.Quote
It doesn't matter that they were not made to run to their full potential on 990FX boards and if that is the case then AMD shouldn't have released BD until they did. It's the performance of today that matters not tomorrow.
I don't see why they would release them knowing they wouldn't run to their full potential on 990FX boards because it doesn't make good business sense AMD are being slaughtered over this and you can guarantee this is going to affect sales, reputation and market shares hugely.
The 990FX motherboards are AM3+ and BD is a AM3+ socket CPU and these boards were brought out with BD in mind. New boards aren't going to give a massive leap in performance nothing for Intel to worry about anyway, plus by next year SB-E will be out and so will be 22nm Ivy Bridge, so even if AMD do manage to gain some performance with new boards Intel will still have the better performing CPUs and the prices of SB will be lower as well making BD even less worth it.Quote
I don't see why they would release them knowing they wouldn't run to their full potential on 990FX boards because it doesn't make good business sense AMD are being slaughtered over this and you can guarantee this is going to affect sales, reputation and market shares hugely.
The 990FX motherboards are AM3+ and BD is a AM3+ socket CPU and these boards were brought out with BD in mind. New boards aren't going to give a massive leap in performance nothing for Intel to worry about anyway, plus by next year SB-E will be out and so will be 22nm Ivy Bridge, so even if AMD do manage to gain some performance with new boards Intel will still have the better performing CPUs and the prices of SB will be lower as well making BD even less worth it.Quote
has anybody actually bothered to look at the AMD site and read it "properly" ???
the BD architecture is not specifically designed for gaming, but more for web-based ("cloud")/office-app performance, etc...
at-the-end-of-the-day... it's a real good GPU that will make the BIG difference in gaming, rendering, etc...
Cuda-based software is the way forward, and having the best components to communicate with them is a win hands-down.... BD-Fx will fail at this..... but..... server-BDs/opterons (terramar, etc.)may bring back some faith in AMD (and even then, it will not be pocket-money).
Cuda-based GDKs are being developed, as we speak, that will kill Unreal and CryTek.
if you want to render/raytrace/video-edit, get an i7 with a tesla card, and a hi-end gtx.
if you want to game, and play bejellewed blitz on faceblock, get a 2500K and and hi-end gpu.
if you want a media centre, get an APU.
sorted!Quote
the BD architecture is not specifically designed for gaming, but more for web-based ("cloud")/office-app performance, etc...
at-the-end-of-the-day... it's a real good GPU that will make the BIG difference in gaming, rendering, etc...
Cuda-based software is the way forward, and having the best components to communicate with them is a win hands-down.... BD-Fx will fail at this..... but..... server-BDs/opterons (terramar, etc.)may bring back some faith in AMD (and even then, it will not be pocket-money).
Cuda-based GDKs are being developed, as we speak, that will kill Unreal and CryTek.
if you want to render/raytrace/video-edit, get an i7 with a tesla card, and a hi-end gtx.
if you want to game, and play bejellewed blitz on faceblock, get a 2500K and and hi-end gpu.
if you want a media centre, get an APU.
sorted!Quote
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ghosthud1
im quiet sad :/ I jumped ship after hearing so many bad things about the performance. Lucky escape I guess, my 2600k will do me just fine for many months to come. you can couple a 2600k with a z68 for cheaper then the 8 core line up AMD has, death of a giant tbh. http://www.aria.co.uk/Products/Compo...roductId=46424 and http://www.aria.co.uk/SuperSpecials/...roductId=43214 will secure you a good 2 years of solid performance with ivy bridge coming next year. |
get the Z68A-GD55-G3way better !Quote
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zraupp
do NOT get a MSI Z68A-GD55-G3 ! get the ..... Z68A-GD55-G3way better ! |
It's true that the BD is aimed at servers, but it was AMD's choice to compare it to the 980X in gaming and they did mention gaming a fair bit. One thing that surprises me is the heat, the power under draw is massiveQuote
Bulldozer has failed on pretty much every level, there really is no reason to buy a 8150. It has failed on Power consumption, performance, price to performance, overclocking and single thread performance which bare in mind most things still are single thread.
Even with the full 8 cores the 2600k is still better and you can't OC the 8150 properly without disabling some of the cores. The amount of power consumption makes it bad for a server as well, you might as well just buy a 1090T.
It is bad all over for AMD at the moment not one positive review on the internet and they are being slated.Quote
Even with the full 8 cores the 2600k is still better and you can't OC the 8150 properly without disabling some of the cores. The amount of power consumption makes it bad for a server as well, you might as well just buy a 1090T.
It is bad all over for AMD at the moment not one positive review on the internet and they are being slated.Quote
I'm hoping all the bad reviews will amke AMD pull their finger out and actually produce something that can be described as good.Quote
The worst thing about this is the 990FX boards are so much better than the Z68 ones! More PCIe lanes, all SATA3 etc.
The best thing AMD could do now is confirm whether or not the next round of BD/Piledriver chips will be AM3+ or FM2, which as far as I've read is for Llano/Trinity. That or call them quad-core chips and rush out some chips with 8 "bulldozer modules" by April. Let's just hope for them this new architecture is as scalable as they say it is!
If they'd confirm that, I'd be willing to buy a 990FX board and either a 1100T or a 8100/8120, and be happy with it until Piledriver. As it is, I'll be waiting for Ivy Bridge and the Z68 replacement in April.Quote
The best thing AMD could do now is confirm whether or not the next round of BD/Piledriver chips will be AM3+ or FM2, which as far as I've read is for Llano/Trinity. That or call them quad-core chips and rush out some chips with 8 "bulldozer modules" by April. Let's just hope for them this new architecture is as scalable as they say it is!
If they'd confirm that, I'd be willing to buy a 990FX board and either a 1100T or a 8100/8120, and be happy with it until Piledriver. As it is, I'll be waiting for Ivy Bridge and the Z68 replacement in April.Quote
guess they just couldn't beat intel's huge budget..Quote
I love those Hitler vids they have me in stitches every time. The Black Ops one was one of the funniest ones though.Quote
damn... me and hitler think alike Quote
Quotethe problem here is
nobody buys AMD because they get slated
so AMD's next R&D budget is diminished from predicted
less budget = less advancement
next chips come out, considered rubbish
so amd get slated
less people buy them
less R&D budget for the next time
what we all need to do is buy from the underdog to boost their budget for the next round, then they should come up with somthing truely amazing...
you cant deny my logic here...Quote
nobody buys AMD because they get slated
so AMD's next R&D budget is diminished from predicted
less budget = less advancement
next chips come out, considered rubbish
so amd get slated
less people buy them
less R&D budget for the next time
what we all need to do is buy from the underdog to boost their budget for the next round, then they should come up with somthing truely amazing...
you cant deny my logic here...Quote
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ionicle
the problem here is nobody buys AMD because they get slated so AMD's next R&D budget is diminished from predicted less budget = less advancement next chips come out, considered rubbish so amd get slated less people buy them less R&D budget for the next time what we all need to do is buy from the underdog to boost their budget for the next round, then they should come up with somthing truely amazing... you cant deny my logic here... |
I see what you are saying though but it's not our fault AMD don't have the money for R&D many companies don't have a lot of money but it's up to them to do something about it.Quote
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ionicle
the problem here is nobody buys AMD because they get slated so AMD's next R&D budget is diminished from predicted less budget = less advancement next chips come out, considered rubbish so amd get slated less people buy them less R&D budget for the next time what we all need to do is buy from the underdog to boost their budget for the next round, then they should come up with somthing truely amazing... you cant deny my logic here... |
Why should we give them our money again?
The way I see it (best case scenario here, which admittedly was what I was hoping BD was going to do) - Intel have no competition, gets complacent, AMD scurries into the dark and researches something amazing, surprises world, surge of people buying AMD, Intel forced to be competitive again...Intel beats AMD, AMD returns to being "Those budget guys", Intel has no competition, gets complacent...etc etc etc etc.Quote
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lollipop
You changed your avatar because of this? |
From my iphone. Thank you sir jobsQuote
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jonowee
Guys, guys, guys, calm down; you do realise ASUS doesn't make or can feasibly in their production abilities to make CPUs or GPUs, let alone the chipsets. They are good at doing what they do well; creating a sensible PCB and sourcing components from people who know what they're doing.Sorwee no ROG CPU ever. |
QuoteTo say that I was disappointed with the performance (?) of AMD's "flagship" CPU, is an understatement; with all the hype AMD has been flogging onto us for months now, one would have thought (and hoped) this CPU would have kicked Intel's flagship to hell and back.
I find it a bit curious as to why AMD would send all reviewers the same ASUS 990FX motherboard, when there are so many choices on the market.
I also find it incredibly frustrating that I have to learn how to overclock a CPU; in order for it to (sort of) perform next to normal, this thing should be ready to fire on all 8 cylinders out of the box.
A sad day indeedQuote
I find it a bit curious as to why AMD would send all reviewers the same ASUS 990FX motherboard, when there are so many choices on the market.
I also find it incredibly frustrating that I have to learn how to overclock a CPU; in order for it to (sort of) perform next to normal, this thing should be ready to fire on all 8 cylinders out of the box.
A sad day indeed
QuoteThe best things I can take from this:
1).My 1090T is not woefully underpowered compared to the newest generation
2). I'm not going to get it in the neck when I helped my girlfriend choose the 2600K
3). AMD might be able to claw something back in the massively multithreaded server market
Hopefully the price of the bulldozers will go down quite a bit in the next few weeks. A monopoly is a bad thing, so if AMD can cut the price down to say £20 less than the 2500K, they might have the edge for people with SLI/Xfire rigs who need the extra PCIe bandwidth.
At the end of the day, there are a lot of AMD fans who are dissapointed, and as someone who was secretly hoping for another athlon x64 moment (my first self build had an athlon 3500 in it), I feel sad
Thanks for playing AMD, but please be realistic in your hype/pricing.Quote
1).My 1090T is not woefully underpowered compared to the newest generation
2). I'm not going to get it in the neck when I helped my girlfriend choose the 2600K
3). AMD might be able to claw something back in the massively multithreaded server market
Hopefully the price of the bulldozers will go down quite a bit in the next few weeks. A monopoly is a bad thing, so if AMD can cut the price down to say £20 less than the 2500K, they might have the edge for people with SLI/Xfire rigs who need the extra PCIe bandwidth.
At the end of the day, there are a lot of AMD fans who are dissapointed, and as someone who was secretly hoping for another athlon x64 moment (my first self build had an athlon 3500 in it), I feel sad
Thanks for playing AMD, but please be realistic in your hype/pricing.Quote
Interesting review, guess there is a lot of marketing Bull with some processors being Dozers (sleepy?)Quote
Waited a long time for this kick to the crotch. I really set my heart on a BD based Scorpious rig. Don't know what my next gaming rig will be now, maybe a PS3 ffs. Quote
QuoteI shaved my balls for this? I couldn't wait to get home and read your review. Now my excitement has vanished like a fart in the wind. Thanks AMD. *barfQuote
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ionicle
the problem here is nobody buys AMD because they get slated so AMD's next R&D budget is diminished from predicted less budget = less advancement next chips come out, considered rubbish so amd get slated less people buy them less R&D budget for the next time what we all need to do is buy from the underdog to boost their budget for the next round, then they should come up with somthing truely amazing... you cant deny my logic here... |
The mighty Intel
I mean, how do you compete with them? AMd have before but maybe they can't these days or something. I was expecting 8 cores to wipe the floor with Intel, they barely turned up to wipe Intels arse. I am SO dissapointed after the success of the 1090T if anything, people will buy a crossahir IV and 1090T if they have any sense. BD seems a waste of time and effort and this is very sad indeed. Those scientists etc need sacking in fact, sack the managers and Steve Buce lol!!!
Poor old Tom, he looked absolutely gutted
QuoteThanks for the review. Will the other bulldozers be reviewed?Quote
i have an AMD rig as my main rig too, and tbh, its been the most stable rig ive ever had
im not a fanboy, as my macs are more stable, but out of the pc side of things
intels have always overheated, fried, or just screwed up somehow
amd, plug, play, works
i had an E6300 C2D, it burnt out
i had an E6600 C2D, it was DOA
i had a P4 2.8 HT, it died after a week from new
had a celeron D 2.8 775 in my Grans Pc and thats still working, but its hardly fast, and it runs hotter than anything i can imagine...
ive had a duron 1500, perfect all of its life
i had a 2400+ athlon xp barton, worked for aslong as i owned it
i had a 2800+ athlon xp barton, perfect, still works now...
i had a 3000+ athlon 64 754, lasted, still works now in someone else's pc
i had a 3500+ athlon 64 939, it is also still working now, i sold it on
i had a 4000+ athlon 64, sold it on, idk where it is now, but i bet its still working just fine
i currently have a 4200+ DC 939 athlon 64, and its been my main processor in my main rig for ....4 years now? not a single hickup, and no sign of it burning out anytime soon..
i built a rig for someone i know, fitted a 3500+ in it, it only died because the psu blew up and sent a surge to the dfi Nforce 4 SLI-D, which fried that and the chip
so i got him an athlon II to replace it, and thats a brilliant chip it seems....
now to balance it out a bit, i have a 27" imac with an i3 processor, that doesnt seem to get too hot, and it runs plenty fast enough, however the latter may be down to the OS...
i also have a MBP with a C2D 2.4GHz in it, and again, plenty fast enough, doesnt ever get too hot, not really...
but it may be down to apple's design of the MBP...
im not a fanboy of either side, or macs, i just like macs...
but ive found that through my experience AMD are just a bit more reliable....
ive avoided intel like a rash, except in places where i cant (macs)
however ....if apple started using amd chips.......hmmmmmm....wetdream?Quote
im not a fanboy, as my macs are more stable, but out of the pc side of things
intels have always overheated, fried, or just screwed up somehow
amd, plug, play, works
i had an E6300 C2D, it burnt out
i had an E6600 C2D, it was DOA
i had a P4 2.8 HT, it died after a week from new
had a celeron D 2.8 775 in my Grans Pc and thats still working, but its hardly fast, and it runs hotter than anything i can imagine...
ive had a duron 1500, perfect all of its life
i had a 2400+ athlon xp barton, worked for aslong as i owned it
i had a 2800+ athlon xp barton, perfect, still works now...
i had a 3000+ athlon 64 754, lasted, still works now in someone else's pc
i had a 3500+ athlon 64 939, it is also still working now, i sold it on
i had a 4000+ athlon 64, sold it on, idk where it is now, but i bet its still working just fine
i currently have a 4200+ DC 939 athlon 64, and its been my main processor in my main rig for ....4 years now? not a single hickup, and no sign of it burning out anytime soon..
i built a rig for someone i know, fitted a 3500+ in it, it only died because the psu blew up and sent a surge to the dfi Nforce 4 SLI-D, which fried that and the chip
so i got him an athlon II to replace it, and thats a brilliant chip it seems....
now to balance it out a bit, i have a 27" imac with an i3 processor, that doesnt seem to get too hot, and it runs plenty fast enough, however the latter may be down to the OS...
i also have a MBP with a C2D 2.4GHz in it, and again, plenty fast enough, doesnt ever get too hot, not really...
but it may be down to apple's design of the MBP...
im not a fanboy of either side, or macs, i just like macs...
but ive found that through my experience AMD are just a bit more reliable....
ive avoided intel like a rash, except in places where i cant (macs)
however ....if apple started using amd chips.......hmmmmmm....wetdream?Quote
What would really interest me in the context of this new product is a test to determine whether 2 X16 PCIe connections really outperform the 2 X8 connections you get when you have two GPUs together. My understanding is that they don't, because both cards want the same data, and that data is broadcast over the bus with little or no additional bandwidth required. Could we see a test on this in future?Quote
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bungral
Also not sure why everyone wants to go SB-E so bad.... Still on the 32nm process. Surely wait for the X79 22nm CPU's? If they stay on that chipset that is. Find it odd that the SB-E top of the line CPU's are to be 32nm with Ivy Bridge mainstream being 22nm. |
I'd bet it has to do with the fact that early on in the development of a new fabrication technique you get a higher rate of defects. If you start out with a smaller product you don't lose as much silicon wafer. Once your yields are higher you can take it the next step.Quote
You have no idea how happy i am, it was either go sandy bridge with my build, or wait for bulldozer, the day after i finish my epic build... AMD FLOPS, all i can say is. Winning <3Quote
Great review Mate love the new mic and color on the wall hope it (the paint color) is back in the new/old place.
I saw the writing on the wall back when they first started talking about BD thats why I went with my 2600K man I look like a genius now. Best damn decision I have ever made imho yeah Chaney we look like the smart ones for a change I bet King of Sands is banging his head on his desk about thisQuote
I saw the writing on the wall back when they first started talking about BD thats why I went with my 2600K man I look like a genius now. Best damn decision I have ever made imho yeah Chaney we look like the smart ones for a change I bet King of Sands is banging his head on his desk about thisQuote
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by S_I_N
Great review Mate love the new mic and color on the wall hope it (the paint color) is back in the new/old place. I saw the writing on the wall back when they first started talking about BD thats why I went with my 2600K man I look like a genius now. Best damn decision I have ever made imho yeah Chaney we look like the smart ones for a change I bet King of Sands is banging his head on his desk about this |
, remember they are still on the Intel fanboy excuse. But im glad i went with the 2600k as well. When ivy bridge hits ill upgrade strait to that. Im sure intell will actually deliver on some performance boosts QuoteIm still not recovered from the BD results shock. For AMD's sake, and the prizing of Intel cpu's, i hope AMD fixes this by getting out a new mobo that actually gives the performance that they have promised. We need someone to force down Intels prizes.
The BD will crush the 980X? wtf AMD. Some foolish marketing, and it looks like many are ed off about this. Imoh this is pure lying and it will backfire so bad i think it might be the end of the company. Can they survive with just selling gpu's and apu's for tablets and lap tops?
More heads will roll in the AMD camp now.Quote
The BD will crush the 980X? wtf AMD. Some foolish marketing, and it looks like many are ed off about this. Imoh this is pure lying and it will backfire so bad i think it might be the end of the company. Can they survive with just selling gpu's and apu's for tablets and lap tops?
More heads will roll in the AMD camp now.Quote
Well thats balls. Before i built my last computer i built myself an AMD, it was pretty awesome. We still have it, my mum uses it as her PC.
I was hoping for a nice exciting review but this was quite a let down.Quote
I was hoping for a nice exciting review but this was quite a let down.Quote
[/size][size="3"]Now I get it why AMD named their new CPU Bulldozer because it Bulldozed all the dreams of a epic return for AMD in the minds of the AMD fans.
Quote
Quote
I still say there is something wrong with this picture.... I can't understand how they would release an FX series processor that doesn't out perform it's X6 and even some of it's X4 variants. Makes no sense at all. I am waiting for some BIOS updates and OS patches before I pass final judgement. Things just don't add up at all.Quote
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FragTek
I still say there is something wrong with this picture.... I can't understand how they would release an FX series processor that doesn't out perform it's X6 and even some of it's X4 variants. Makes no sense at all. I am waiting for some BIOS updates and OS patches before I pass final judgement. Things just don't add up at all. |
*coughs*
the 990FX chipset is comparable to the old 780a chipset, in terms: that it is a cross-over product and here is why:
this is what happened to me in the past....
i used to have a MSI K9NSLI AM2 mobo with a 6800+ cpu, with two 8800gt on it, and 4GB DDR2... this (i thought) was a top notch rig in its' day
then AM3 was launched, and i did not want to spend to much making a completely new rig, so, i bought JUST a new mobo (the ASUS M4N82 deluxe (AM2+))... it took all my old components, apart from the memory which was now DDR3. (cool savings)
i was quietly happy, knowing that the following month i could afford to make a huge leap to hexacore (1055T) with a simple BIOS update.
all was well... apart fromt the performance, as the AM2+ mobo was strangling the 1055T. i was getting about 3.1GHz (very stable), and it was a massive leap from my 2.1GHz dual-core.
unhappy with this, i went and bought 870A fuzion power edition and faster DDR3 - omfg - the difference was extreme... 4.2GHz (winter stable)... in 3months i had SIX times the speed (triple the cores and doubles their speeds)
i could easily upgrade my hexa to a 1100T, but why? i can get similar OC-ing speeds with my 1055T, and i know i will be changing again at xmas... so why waste money!!!
...so, in conclusion (and in layman terms): the 990FX is the same boat on a different sea, carrying a different cargo. it's containers will be will not be fully explored until it reaches a new port called "FM".
i am waiting for the ship to dock PROPERLYQuote
the 990FX chipset is comparable to the old 780a chipset, in terms: that it is a cross-over product and here is why:
this is what happened to me in the past....
i used to have a MSI K9NSLI AM2 mobo with a 6800+ cpu, with two 8800gt on it, and 4GB DDR2... this (i thought) was a top notch rig in its' day
then AM3 was launched, and i did not want to spend to much making a completely new rig, so, i bought JUST a new mobo (the ASUS M4N82 deluxe (AM2+))... it took all my old components, apart from the memory which was now DDR3. (cool savings)
i was quietly happy, knowing that the following month i could afford to make a huge leap to hexacore (1055T) with a simple BIOS update.
all was well... apart fromt the performance, as the AM2+ mobo was strangling the 1055T. i was getting about 3.1GHz (very stable), and it was a massive leap from my 2.1GHz dual-core.
unhappy with this, i went and bought 870A fuzion power edition and faster DDR3 - omfg - the difference was extreme... 4.2GHz (winter stable)... in 3months i had SIX times the speed (triple the cores and doubles their speeds)
i could easily upgrade my hexa to a 1100T, but why? i can get similar OC-ing speeds with my 1055T, and i know i will be changing again at xmas... so why waste money!!!
...so, in conclusion (and in layman terms): the 990FX is the same boat on a different sea, carrying a different cargo. it's containers will be will not be fully explored until it reaches a new port called "FM".
i am waiting for the ship to dock PROPERLY
QuoteQuote:
|
Originally Posted by FragTek
I still say there is something wrong with this picture.... I can't understand how they would release an FX series processor that doesn't out perform it's X6 and even some of it's X4 variants. Makes no sense at all. I am waiting for some BIOS updates and OS patches before I pass final judgement. Things just don't add up at all. |
Something in the back of my mind tells me that it has something to do with shutting down the old fab processes to get the new ones up and running. I'm certainly interested by the rumours of a B3 stepping to correct problems, due November 14th (SB-E launch date) as seen below:
QuoteQuote:
|
Originally Posted by Chaney
I would be happy if they are holding back everything with just bios updates and a new series of mobos coming. I would strait LOL if it just doubles the performance over night. I will deff be out buying one the DAY that happens. But i just dont see that happening i really dont. And i have stoped watching reviews. Some are strait lying and making it seem like its an amazing processor and people are just using the intel fanboy is bashing us excuse... im done fighting with tards over youtube comments... Its redick, get crushed by a 4 core 2600k AMD <3 |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dugdiamond
*coughs* the 990FX chipset is comparable to the old 780a chipset, in terms: that it is a cross-over product and here is why: this is what happened to me in the past.... i used to have a MSI K9NSLI AM2 mobo with a 6800+ cpu, with two 8800gt on it, and 4GB DDR2... this (i thought) was a top notch rig in its' day then AM3 was launched, and i did not want to spend to much making a completely new rig, so, i bought JUST a new mobo (the ASUS M4N82 deluxe (AM2+))... it took all my old components, apart from the memory which was now DDR3. (cool savings) i was quietly happy, knowing that the following month i could afford to make a huge leap to hexacore (1055T) with a simple BIOS update. all was well... apart fromt the performance, as the AM2+ mobo was strangling the 1055T. i was getting about 3.1GHz (very stable), and it was a massive leap from my 2.1GHz dual-core. unhappy with this, i went and bought 870A fuzion power edition and faster DDR3 - omfg - the difference was extreme... 4.2GHz (winter stable)... in 3months i had SIX times the speed (triple the cores and doubles their speeds) i could easily upgrade my hexa to a 1100T, but why? i can get similar OC-ing speeds with my 1055T, and i know i will be changing again at xmas... so why waste money!!! ...so, in conclusion (and in layman terms): the 990FX is the same boat on a different sea, carrying a different cargo. it's containers will be will not be fully explored until it reaches a new port called "FM". i am waiting for the ship to dock PROPERLY |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by S_I_N
Duggy I can see an understand alot of what ur saying. But in the words of AMD we used the Asus Crosshair V exclusively for our testing with the BD line so I cant totally swallow ur analogy True newer chipsets will improve BD but hey thats the same with all processors. If the BD line was supposed to be so damn good why not make it that way at Launch and not wait for new chipsets to bail it out. Sorry but IMHO its an epic fail for AMD cpu's and I for one am glad I went SB instead of waiting for BD's Bombing |
It doesn't make sense for them to willingly release BD knowing how much of a fail it is. It makes no sense for them to do it because it will, scrap that IS affecting their reputation, their sales and their market shares.
For them to release BD and use the excuse BD was not made work fully on 990fx boards makes no sense what so ever, why would a company do something like that when it's only going to cause them to lose money and get slated? it's like me selling someone a brand new car and saying you can't drive it strait away you will have to wait until next year for the wheels.
And all this it will get better over time doesn't really matter either, the fact is at release, in it's current state, it's and first impressions count. Even with better BIOS and OS patches there isn't going to be an enormous leap in performance.
Quote
back at ya SieB you make the points I forgot to mentionQuote
The more I think about it the more i feel like AMD released bulldozer without really, finishing it. It would be like moving into a house with no roof.Quote
good publicity
bad publicity
it's still publicity
i am not defending them for this massive fail
i am just saying that the true performance of BD hasn't been shown. it will be only when the FM chipset, and the new quad channel, mobos are released after xmas, will we all be able to see if it was a bigger fail than first noticed.
all new tech that is rushed will have flaws/bugs.
i am not going to be so quick as to write off AMD just yet!Quote
bad publicity
it's still publicity
i am not defending them for this massive fail
i am just saying that the true performance of BD hasn't been shown. it will be only when the FM chipset, and the new quad channel, mobos are released after xmas, will we all be able to see if it was a bigger fail than first noticed.
all new tech that is rushed will have flaws/bugs.
i am not going to be so quick as to write off AMD just yet!
Quotei dont think the FM2 socket will support these CPUs...unless you have a source that says it will
and quad channel RAM wont make a difference in 99.999% of thingsQuote
and quad channel RAM wont make a difference in 99.999% of thingsQuote
You have to think actually how bad do things have to be at AMD for them to release these chips in this state. AMD must be loosing millions to intel with their SB range so I guess that felt that they had to get something new out there on the market.
AMD know how fast the new Intel platforms are and would have known how far behind the BD was, and I'm sure they have been reverse engineering the out of them to try and get some good ideas to improve their own chips. But they choose the easy option of going with increased clock speeds to improve performance rather than coming up with an architecture that has a higher IPC.
They're not even particularly energy efficient even though they have moved to the new fab. I was hoping that the up with the B1 chipsets @ SB lauch would have given AMD to catch up and seize the moment given to them; but wasn't to be!Quote
AMD know how fast the new Intel platforms are and would have known how far behind the BD was, and I'm sure they have been reverse engineering the out of them to try and get some good ideas to improve their own chips. But they choose the easy option of going with increased clock speeds to improve performance rather than coming up with an architecture that has a higher IPC.
They're not even particularly energy efficient even though they have moved to the new fab. I was hoping that the up with the B1 chipsets @ SB lauch would have given AMD to catch up and seize the moment given to them; but wasn't to be!Quote
It really is such a shame things turned out this way. AMD would have known their product couldn't deliver. As Dugdiamond says, maybe the newer chipset/motherboards will unleash the true potential of BD - I really hope so! However, the chip avilable NOW, the current batch of motherboards supporting it are all that's available NOW, it's been reviewed NOW and, sadly, it disappoints NOW.
I confess, I don't really understand what AMD were expecting with this release. Intel 2500k and 2600k performance, along with the motherboards and memory they work with, have been out there for a while so AMD knew what they were up against. The "BD Ready" boards have been pimped for sometime now, maybe more by re-sellers than AMD directly, but still. So, we have two techs that were "made for each other" that don't deliver what was expected of them. I'd not be surprised if a first gen board for BD (as we're seeing now) limited overclocking etc. and shaved a few percent of performance at stock, but if it is indeed all down to the motherboards available at the moment, then they've CRIPLED it. People who were waiting to buy BD, so hoping for something better than what was already available, will doubtless pick up something from the prior AMD range or an SB now. They are unlikely to care if, in a couple of months, BD now performs on par with the (for example) 2600k they ended up buying.
It's true that AMD were on top once, I had their Athlon 900, a 2200+, 2400+, 3500+ and finally a 4200 x2 before moving to Intel. They were all great, reliable systems and did themselves proud. However, at the time Intel were complacent, releasing the same old crap with a slight clock bump and a more impressive marketing campaign...that changed when they got embarrased by AMD one time too many.
The worst bit for me is that AMD seem to be having trouble besting themselves as the current range of AMD chips offer great value for money with good performance. Ok, still pipped by Intels offering if you're talking just performance, but they still make for a fantastic PC for general home use and extreme gaming, given an appropriate GPU.
I've no doubt that the performance on offer from BD will improve with the usual BIOS updates, driver tweaks and a whole new chipset, that's true of many a release. But I have doubts that it will improve enough...though I hope to be wrong. However AMD chose to release BD NOW, and with current hardware it's...well, it's a bit rubbish really
You know, I'm well aware I waffle a bit, but really, I'm actually quite upset that AMD have almost embarassed themselves here. All that hype, all the comparisions to Intels high-end stuff, all the hopes for (at minimum) another great chip that once again hit that price/performance sweet spot and kept Intel honest with their pricing etc. *sigh*
In isolation, I'm sure a system built around a BD with plenty of ram and a good GPU would make a perfectly decent system. I'd likely do EVERYTHING you needed it to and do it well, that's a given really. However it's not quite as simple as that when other kit offers so much more by comparison. Plus only those on low-end last-gen or much older gen kit would see any significant increase in performance.
If I wasn't interested in tech generally, like most of us here are, I could see myself simply dismissing BD from this point forward as a fail. AMD had their chance to impress me at launch, they failed. Of course I AM interested in tech and DO want to see AMD's CPU business be a success and continue to offer that perfect (for many) price / performance balance...but I'm a little worried at the moment.
Ok, waffle over, sorry guys lol.
Scoob.Quote
I confess, I don't really understand what AMD were expecting with this release. Intel 2500k and 2600k performance, along with the motherboards and memory they work with, have been out there for a while so AMD knew what they were up against. The "BD Ready" boards have been pimped for sometime now, maybe more by re-sellers than AMD directly, but still. So, we have two techs that were "made for each other" that don't deliver what was expected of them. I'd not be surprised if a first gen board for BD (as we're seeing now) limited overclocking etc. and shaved a few percent of performance at stock, but if it is indeed all down to the motherboards available at the moment, then they've CRIPLED it. People who were waiting to buy BD, so hoping for something better than what was already available, will doubtless pick up something from the prior AMD range or an SB now. They are unlikely to care if, in a couple of months, BD now performs on par with the (for example) 2600k they ended up buying.
It's true that AMD were on top once, I had their Athlon 900, a 2200+, 2400+, 3500+ and finally a 4200 x2 before moving to Intel. They were all great, reliable systems and did themselves proud. However, at the time Intel were complacent, releasing the same old crap with a slight clock bump and a more impressive marketing campaign...that changed when they got embarrased by AMD one time too many.
The worst bit for me is that AMD seem to be having trouble besting themselves as the current range of AMD chips offer great value for money with good performance. Ok, still pipped by Intels offering if you're talking just performance, but they still make for a fantastic PC for general home use and extreme gaming, given an appropriate GPU.
I've no doubt that the performance on offer from BD will improve with the usual BIOS updates, driver tweaks and a whole new chipset, that's true of many a release. But I have doubts that it will improve enough...though I hope to be wrong. However AMD chose to release BD NOW, and with current hardware it's...well, it's a bit rubbish really
You know, I'm well aware I waffle a bit, but really, I'm actually quite upset that AMD have almost embarassed themselves here. All that hype, all the comparisions to Intels high-end stuff, all the hopes for (at minimum) another great chip that once again hit that price/performance sweet spot and kept Intel honest with their pricing etc. *sigh*
In isolation, I'm sure a system built around a BD with plenty of ram and a good GPU would make a perfectly decent system. I'd likely do EVERYTHING you needed it to and do it well, that's a given really. However it's not quite as simple as that when other kit offers so much more by comparison. Plus only those on low-end last-gen or much older gen kit would see any significant increase in performance.
If I wasn't interested in tech generally, like most of us here are, I could see myself simply dismissing BD from this point forward as a fail. AMD had their chance to impress me at launch, they failed. Of course I AM interested in tech and DO want to see AMD's CPU business be a success and continue to offer that perfect (for many) price / performance balance...but I'm a little worried at the moment.
Ok, waffle over, sorry guys lol.
Scoob.Quote
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Scoob
It really is such a shame things turned out this way. AMD would have known their product couldn't deliver. As Dugdiamond says, maybe the newer chipset/motherboards will unleash the true potential of BD - I really hope so! However, the chip avilable NOW, the current batch of motherboards supporting it are all that's available NOW, it's been reviewed NOW and, sadly, it disappoints NOW. I confess, I don't really understand what AMD were expecting with this release. Intel 2500k and 2600k performance, along with the motherboards and memory they work with, have been out there for a while so AMD knew what they were up against. The "BD Ready" boards have been pimped for sometime now, maybe more by re-sellers than AMD directly, but still. So, we have two techs that were "made for each other" that don't deliver what was expected of them. I'd not be surprised if a first gen board for BD (as we're seeing now) limited overclocking etc. and shaved a few percent of performance at stock, but if it is indeed all down to the motherboards available at the moment, then they've CRIPLED it. People who were waiting to buy BD, so hoping for something better than what was already available, will doubtless pick up something from the prior AMD range or an SB now. They are unlikely to care if, in a couple of months, BD now performs on par with the (for example) 2600k they ended up buying. It's true that AMD were on top once, I had their Athlon 900, a 2200+, 2400+, 3500+ and finally a 4200 x2 before moving to Intel. They were all great, reliable systems and did themselves proud. However, at the time Intel were complacent, releasing the same old crap with a slight clock bump and a more impressive marketing campaign...that changed when they got embarrased by AMD one time too many. The worst bit for me is that AMD seem to be having trouble besting themselves as the current range of AMD chips offer great value for money with good performance. Ok, still pipped by Intels offering if you're talking just performance, but they still make for a fantastic PC for general home use and extreme gaming, given an appropriate GPU. I've no doubt that the performance on offer from BD will improve with the usual BIOS updates, driver tweaks and a whole new chipset, that's true of many a release. But I have doubts that it will improve enough...though I hope to be wrong. However AMD chose to release BD NOW, and with current hardware it's...well, it's a bit rubbish really You know, I'm well aware I waffle a bit, but really, I'm actually quite upset that AMD have almost embarassed themselves here. All that hype, all the comparisions to Intels high-end stuff, all the hopes for (at minimum) another great chip that once again hit that price/performance sweet spot and kept Intel honest with their pricing etc. *sigh* In isolation, I'm sure a system built around a BD with plenty of ram and a good GPU would make a perfectly decent system. I'd likely do EVERYTHING you needed it to and do it well, that's a given really. However it's not quite as simple as that when other kit offers so much more by comparison. Plus only those on low-end last-gen or much older gen kit would see any significant increase in performance. If I wasn't interested in tech generally, like most of us here are, I could see myself simply dismissing BD from this point forward as a fail. AMD had their chance to impress me at launch, they failed. Of course I AM interested in tech and DO want to see AMD's CPU business be a success and continue to offer that perfect (for many) price / performance balance...but I'm a little worried at the moment. Ok, waffle over, sorry guys lol. Scoob. |
Would anyone on here know if its true that the 8150 is faster than the 2600k in battlefield 3 and f1 2011? If this is true I might pick one up as was planning on building a rig just for battlefield and every frame will help with eyefinity. If its true I think it would also show that maybe when future games take advantage of the cpu's they will perform better.
Just in case anyone is wondering, i'm not an amd fanboy. I havent built an amd machine for myself since core2duo came out.Quote
Just in case anyone is wondering, i'm not an amd fanboy. I havent built an amd machine for myself since core2duo came out.Quote
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mark26
Would anyone on here know if its true that the 8150 is faster than the 2600k in battlefield 3 and f1 2011? If this is true I might pick one up as was planning on building a rig just for battlefield and every frame will help with eyefinity. If its true I think it would also show that maybe when future games take advantage of the cpu's they will perform better. Just in case anyone is wondering, i'm not an amd fanboy. I havent built an amd machine for myself since core2duo came out. |
The important bottom line in the article is "Whether the CPU was running at stock settings, overclocked, or if it was AMD FX-8150 or Intel Core i7 2500K or 2600K, they all let us play BF3 with the same performance and image quality." Meaning that you should pick whichever option is cheapest, bearing in mind that the cheapest of the three (CPU only, the rest of your costs depend on your current platform) is the 2500k which is as good as or better than the 8150 in most other tasks. Then you can throw your saved money into the GPU - A far more important part of your system for modern games.Quote
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mark26
Would anyone on here know if its true that the 8150 is faster than the 2600k in battlefield 3 and f1 2011? If this is true I might pick one up as was planning on building a rig just for battlefield and every frame will help with eyefinity. If its true I think it would also show that maybe when future games take advantage of the cpu's they will perform better. Just in case anyone is wondering, i'm not an amd fanboy. I havent built an amd machine for myself since core2duo came out. |
QuoteQuote:
|
Originally Posted by FragTek
Considering neither BF3 nor the 8150 are readily available yet, it's hard to say.... |
I have found this http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/10/11/amd_bulldozer_fx8150_gameplay_performance_review/5Quote
Yet another interesting nugget of information.
http://www.techpowerup.com/153567/AMD-to-Turn-to-TSMC-for-Bulldozer-Manufacturing.html
Seems the problem could be Global Foundries and the fab process after all. Else why would they swich to TSMC? Could also back up the B3 stepping and shipping delay...Quote
http://www.techpowerup.com/153567/AMD-to-Turn-to-TSMC-for-Bulldozer-Manufacturing.html
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by name="TechPowerUp"
AMD to Turn to TSMC for ''Bulldozer'' Manufacturing AMD is rumored to be seeking ties with TSMC, Taiwan's premier semiconductor manufacturing foundry, for future manufacturing of its "Bulldozer" architecture processors, according to a report by DonanimHaber. This has two very distinct implications: first, AMD could be facing issues with GlobalFoundries 32 nm HKMG node, its de facto foundry for CPU manufacturing, and second, this could just be an obvious development of future low-power APUs based on the new x86 architecture being manufactured at TSMC, much like how current E-series and C-series APUs are. Then again, AMD doesn't exactly have any APUs in works that use "Bulldozer" architecture for the x86 cores, rather, its successor codenamed "Piledriver". Another couple of important things to note here are that TSMC does not have a 32 nm bulk node (it was scrapped with the transition to 28 nm bulk), and its HKMG (high-K metal gate transistor) manufacturing technology is deployed rather recently. It would be interesting to follow this development. |
I'm guessing that will be for future chips. Different stepping revisions and other chips.
Anyway the problem with the current BD is not a fab issue if it was it would have been addressed already. Its the architecture thats the prob it wont matter who makes them. Better fabrication process will just make it possible for them to be clocked higher.Quote
Anyway the problem with the current BD is not a fab issue if it was it would have been addressed already. Its the architecture thats the prob it wont matter who makes them. Better fabrication process will just make it possible for them to be clocked higher.Quote
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SieJoe
I'm guessing that will be for future chips. Different stepping revisions and other chips. Anyway the problem with the current BD is not a fab issue if it was it would have been addressed already. Its the architecture thats the prob it wont matter who makes them. Better fabrication process will just make it possible for them to be clocked higher. |
It's possible that changes to the microcode in the form of a new revision might bring some gains, but that doesn't help with the launch unfortunately.
After all if we think about things, the FX8150 has the following:
. A decent clock speed
. Generous levels of Cache
. Four modules with two "cores" each - sounds like a recipe for Hyper-threading on steroids.
We also know that the prior gen of chips were damned good, so I cannot understand why performance would be so...mediocre on their new architecture. I mean, the peeps at AMD are BRIGHT bunnies, they're not going to design a chip that performs worse than the prior generation are they? Ok, something could well have gone wrong, a bug in the microcode, some obsure driver or BIOS related issue that's strangling the chips potential. We only need to look back at cougar point to know that things CAN go wrong. Saying that, these chips would have been extensively tested, though I've no experience of how that works for CPUs.
The more I think about it the more confused I get really, something just isn't right with the FX8150 both performing WORSE than a 2600k (and 2500k in many instances) being more power-hungry, not overclocking as well yet AMD still asking what I would consider a premium price for a less than perfect part.
IF the FX8150 had come to market far cheaper, I mean under-cutting the 2500k here, then we'd all be saying AMD had gone for the price/performance sweet-spot once again, while building an architecture that will come into its own with the heavily threaded applications of the future. Additionally, I can't remember who mentioned it without checking, if Windows 8 is even better at threading and load balancing than 7 then the architecture might begin to prove its self. However I don't think it will in gaming applications so much.
I think it was DugDiamond who said that this was a chip more aimed at the server market, that would make a lot of sense. Lots of threads, none of them particularly demanding, should LIKE more "cores", though games tend to have one or two (or more sometimes) rather heavy threads in my experience. However, maybe I'm wrong, but I took these chips to be marketed at the home/enthusiast PC builder.
Time will tell I guess but I can't help but feel that the FX8150, and the range in general, should be perfoming better than we're seeing. If BIOS updates, new windows drivers, new chipsets or even stepping revision sees this chip trading blows (that HURT!) with the 2600k then that's great news for AMD and anyone who wants to see a competitive market. I just hope AMD can do something quickly.
I'm looking forward to re-visiting Bulldozer in a few months, after the dust has settled and we have the proper motherboard chipsets available to test, a few BIOS updates have been made available for the older boards and whatever drivers needed have been sorted etc. A bit more performance and a cheaper price might see BD based systems back on peoples wish lists.
I rambled again didn't I? lol
Scoob.Quote
Again.. /thread Scoob did it again!Quote
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Scoob
. Four modules with two "cores" each - sounds like a recipe for Hyper-threading on steroids. |
Tom, can you make the first vid when you're back up and running the Gigabyte 990FXA-UD7? I'm hearing some rumours there's a problem with the CHV, with some saying as much as a 30% hit in performance. Seems very unfortunate for AMD if this is true.Quote
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by nothingspecial
Tom, can you make the first vid when you're back up and running the Gigabyte 990FXA-UD7? I'm hearing some rumours there's a problem with the CHV, with some saying as much as a 30% hit in performance. Seems very unfortunate for AMD if this is true. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ruthless
doubt it amd wouldnt have sent it out as the testing mobo... they are stupid but not that stupid |
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/315775-10-asus-crosshair-giving-biased-results-bulldozer
Edit: A frequent mention of an L1 Cache bug on there. Tells me there's definately problems with all the test kits in some shape or form.Quote
Amd Fail
Quote
QuoteQuote:
|
Originally Posted by nothingspecial
Tom, can you make the first vid when you're back up and running the Gigabyte 990FXA-UD7? I'm hearing some rumours there's a problem with the CHV, with some saying as much as a 30% hit in performance. Seems very unfortunate for AMD if this is true. |
It certainly appears to have better performance running on the 990FXA-UD7, not sure about other boards though. If it is a motherboard issue, than the AMD marketing department just did an epic fail.
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1285/pg16/amd-fx-8150-black-edition-8-core-processor-vs-core-i7-2600k-review-conclusion.html
Hardware Heaven using an ASRock 990FX-Extreme 4 also showed significantly better performance, keeping in mind these motherboards are also a fair bit cheaper than the ASUS CHV, there appears to be a serious BIOS issue,Quote
there are quite a few reviews about now... and after all has been said TTL was correct.
AMD's claims were highly exaggerated and over the hype over-anticpated
the top-of-the-current-range of BDs are only on par with a sb2500K.
intel's ivyBridge/2700K with SR-3 now seems to be the way forward for myself.
unlucky AMD, you have just lost another user.
BTW: i have also been given a quote for a dual-Opteron server... what a rip off - lol
EVGA SR-3 (when released) all the way FTWQuote
AMD's claims were highly exaggerated and over the hype over-anticpated
the top-of-the-current-range of BDs are only on par with a sb2500K.
intel's ivyBridge/2700K with SR-3 now seems to be the way forward for myself.
unlucky AMD, you have just lost another user.
BTW: i have also been given a quote for a dual-Opteron server... what a rip off - lol
EVGA SR-3 (when released) all the way FTW
QuoteSingle threaded performance may be crap. But it does beat the 2500K and 2600K in some heavily threaded benches so you have to give it some praise. Just not alot
TBH I never thought it'd be close to the SBs but I would have thought it would be a big improvement over the 1100T. But amazingly its not.Quote
TBH I never thought it'd be close to the SBs but I would have thought it would be a big improvement over the 1100T. But amazingly its not.Quote
I think i'm going to chance my arm and pick up a gigabyte 990fx board and a 8150 cpu as even if it turns out to be crap, could just use it as a server as 8 cores would help there. I think with the reviews without the asus board showing completely different results than the ones like toms, for me at least I think its worth trying it. (Maybe its just wishful thinking on my part that amd can compete with intel for better choice). Would be cool if tom had another board and would show a review of the cpu on another motherboard that is not an asus one just to see.Quote
i wont be building for another 9 months and im deffo not touching a intel chip so will see what AMD do.... if anything
Just seen a couple of benchmarks where they are not using the crosshair v and the bulldozer cpu looks alot better
here : http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1285/pg11/amd-fx-8150-black-edition-8-core-processor-vs-core-i7-2600k-review-f1-2011.html
http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/zardon/amd-fx-8150-black-edition-8-core-review-with-gigabyte-990fxa-ud7/7/Quote
Just seen a couple of benchmarks where they are not using the crosshair v and the bulldozer cpu looks alot better
here : http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1285/pg11/amd-fx-8150-black-edition-8-core-processor-vs-core-i7-2600k-review-f1-2011.html
http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/zardon/amd-fx-8150-black-edition-8-core-review-with-gigabyte-990fxa-ud7/7/Quote
Hey, Tom did you talk with AMD at all? Does AMD think it's supposed to be funny? Because it ain't!Quote
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Steenie
Soooo glad I didn't bother waiting for this, and opted for the 2500k 3 months ago! |
CSS Valid
Continue ReadingQuote