FRONTPAGE AMD FX-8150 - Bulldozer - Processor Review

hokiealumnus said:

Why are we talking about apple & AMD in a review thread? It's probably time to steer this one back on topic folks.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. Anybody try OC'ing one with a Noctua NH-D14?

Im a bit dissapointed. Theyve been talking about bulldozer for years. At least 5? I had high expectations until I saw a screen cap a month or so ago, it was running at 4.6ghz wich is awsome. But looking at the numbers it put down my stock 970 rocked it. I was hopeing it was all lies, but apprently its not. Id be pissed to if I bought hardware to support this chip. Even I felt mislead by their advertiseing.. it was like they had a secret weapon, but no, it was all just smoke and mirrors, and a crazy hype machine.

I have been looking for a reason to build an AMD system since 2007 and I still don't have one. Except for some fun with the Asus PC-DL dual Xeon setups, I built almost exclusively AMD single and dual Opterons setups from late 2003 until mid 2006. But pretty much nothing AMD since Core 2 came out, and BD is an even bigger disapointment than Barcelona was a few years back. Looking at the AMD Roadmap, there is no hope that I can see for them as a serious challenger to Intel.

DaveB said:

I have been looking for a reason to build an AMD system since 2007 and I still don't have one. Except for some fun with the Asus PC-DL dual Xeon setups, I built almost exclusively AMD single and dual Opterons setups from late 2003 until mid 2006. But pretty much nothing AMD since Core 2 came out, and BD is an even bigger disapointment than Barcelona was a few years back. Looking at the AMD Roadmap, there is no hope that I can see for them as a serious challenger to Intel.

Click to expand...

Nice to see ya around, Dave.

I was pretty much in the same boat about that time frame too. Almost exclusively AMD during that time frame. But it seems like when they were owning Intel with socket 939, they sat on their butts and read the headlines instead of lighting a fire under the R&D section by giving them more funds to further develop the processors. And now instead of investing in R&D, they rather try to trash benchmarks (BAPCO) because they show how badly their newest and bestest product sucks.

I voted a 5 on the poll, but now I wish I had waited. The more I think about it, the more I am thinking I rated this processor line about 3 numbers too high. I sure am glad that I decided to just go ahead and buy a 2500k for the crunching farm last month instead of waiting for SnoozeDozer to come out.

muddocktor said:

Nice to see ya around, Dave.

I was pretty much in the same boat about that time frame too. Almost exclusively AMD during that time frame. But it seems like when they were owning Intel with socket 939, they sat on their butts and read the headlines instead of lighting a fire under the R&D section by giving them more funds to further develop the processors. And now instead of investing in R&D, they rather try to trash benchmarks (BAPCO) because they show how badly their newest and bestest product sucks.

I voted a 5 on the poll, but now I wish I had waited. The more I think about it, the more I am thinking I rated this processor line about 3 numbers too high. I sure am glad that I decided to just go ahead and buy a 2500k for the crunching farm last month instead of waiting for SnoozeDozer to come out.

Click to expand...

Not just the benchmark trashing either. The claim that Win8 will make a difference is preposterous because it adds $100 (OEM) + to the cost of a system. I mean unless you just let things sit until an OS comes out.

I honestly have noticed some degradation ever since AMD started implementing the L3 cache. Perhaps there is a read/write through issue on top of the latency and algorithm issues. I really do not understand these issues because it seems Intel does fine. Perhaps AMD needs a custom compiler and some sort of call translator.

The reason is Intel perfected the Arch. and perhaps there are coding nuances that just take better advantage of Intel.

Perhaps AMD should have a compiler for the code.

I don't understand how AMD claim that the current OS is not optimized for a newer processor? Shouldn't the newer processor be backwards compatible? Why would they release something this underwhelming so late in the day? Really puzzling decision making.

BTW, Linux benchmarks are out at Phoronix. The result overview table is at Open-benchmarking . Compare with i5 2500K

The author states the following. Take it as you will.

Phoronix said:

To much dismay, it doesn't look like AMD will be sending out any review/engineering samples of any Bulldozer processors to Phoronix. Evidently they don't care too much about Linux coverage for this less-than-stellar product launch. Scheiße! Perhaps now though it's fine to put out the AMD Trinity APU benchmarks for this next-generation Fusion hardware that's launching in 2012 and is already running Ubuntu Linux.

Click to expand...

Thet 2500k link is a SSD review? And what benchmarks are thos in the other link?

I was just digging up some Linux benchmarks (not familiar with any of them). It seems like these guys just ran the Phoronix Test suite. Definitely not an apples to apples comparison.

Im disliking AMD as a company now; just the tactics and marketing they employ lately just rubs me the wrong way.
Intel isn't making me like Intel, AMD is making me like Intel. go figure.
I'll always recommend my company buy intel servers now.

Brolloks said:

Honestly I'm not disappointed in BD, I did not expect it to beat SB at all so my expectations were not set as high as most of the people.
I was annoyed that their "BD ready" boards were not ready to run the chips.
I'm more disappointed in AMD as a company from what I've read how they have sacrificed technology and resources and put more focus on bloated marketing and the way they trying to discredit BAPCo and Sysmark after their chip performance fell by the wayside.

Then lastly I am shocked that their launch was done so poorly with the lack of CPU's at the retailers, all just seemed so poorly and haphazardly done.

I think there is a place for BD in the market at the right price point (not $280 ), people should realize that BD is not going to beat current Intel technology clock for clock unless AMD step up their leadership and put the focus and energy back where it belongs...technology and resources, whatever they do in their GPU wing should be transposed to the CPU design section.

Hopefully AMD can learn from the BD launch and get their strategy aligned with what their customers expect from them.

Click to expand...

The lack of supply at launch surely leaves much to be desired!

Super Nade said:

I don't understand how AMD claim that the current OS is not optimized for a newer processor?

Click to expand...

Step 1) Assemble engineering team, try to make awesome CPU

Step 2) Hype CPU

Step 3) Realize CPU is not coming along so delay in attempt to fix

Step 4) Steal underwear

Step 5) Delay CPU, trash leaked benchmarks, attempt to fix CPU

Step 6) Realize you can't fix it because all of your good engineers have left and the ones left are angry at the trickle of resources they are given.

Step 7) Release (terrible) massively hyped and delayed CPU to absolutely devastated and shocked public.

Step 8) Transfer all power to forward shields and claim that NOW the reason the CPU is bad is because it's ACTUALLY meant for Windows 8.

Cough "If" it proves to be false that Win 8 is better for FX, what will they say? It's meant to run on Win 9? It only works in the fifth dimension where it renders rainbows and fairy dust?

Never has the term "EPIC FAIL" had a more fitting application.

Nerd blurb:
AMD knew this CPU was crapp in May. What they should have done is release 9 series chipset, because they needed it, and called it AM3. That's it. Cancel Zambezi, pray that Piledriver will fix it. OR bail on the pure CPU game entirely and make APUs.. Which seems wise at this point because with things like SB-E around the corner, AMD truly has no chance of catching up to intel in pure CPUs any more. It just isn't going to happen IMO. We've come a long way since P4 vs FX. We hit the frequency wall six years ago. Silicon computing is very very very mature, we're approaching the point where we will literally no longer be able to shrink the process any more (somewhere around 5 to 8nm?). Heat dissipation is an ever increasing concern (look at the average size of an aftermarket heatsink from 2002 to 2011). Much like the 'they all look the same' 2 to 4 engines under the wings stuck to a metal tube airliner situation, it's almost gone as far as it will go. You can only tweak the same shape for efficiency so much. If Netburst, Barcelona, and Zambezi are good for anything, its showing us that the last decade has seen us get into a situation where the diminishing gains are so obvious and the requirements to truly innovate and excel are so great (and will continue to increase), that building 'the next' cpu becomes exponentially more difficult every time. Lately, the diminishing gains have become terrifying. Look at what we're having to do to keep up with Moore's law, and how the 'Gospel' interpretation of that law is starting to go into some kind of Bizzaro universe. Zambezi has something like 2 or 3 X the transistor count of Sandybridge and double the cache. And it's fail. Amazing.

990FX should have been nothing more than 'the ultimate AM3 chipset'. That's it.

PolRoger said:

There lack of supply at launch surely leaves much to be desired!

Click to expand...

Issue #5821 with FX was poor yields at wafer level when manufacturing. That means limited launch supply.

zitnik said:

Stock

Click to expand...

Ehm yes yes.. not to impressive.
Anyway, its not entirely true that the 2500K at stock can beat the BD in any term, in some massively multithreaded applications the BD can have the edge. Its still not any good not even to be on par with 2600K on most occasions. Sigh...
Although for gamers its not much use, because games still lack at massively multithread support, most games dont support more than 6 cores or threads, as of it is today.

I still want to add, what did people expect? AMD now being face to face with the currently best SB? That was a dream almost to big to come true. Intel made such huge advancements while AMD barely was increasing since the old days where they was building single cores (and they certainly was totaly on par with Intel at that time, but thats the past). Anyway, dont forget what AMD did for ATI and that they surely helped ATI to maintain a very strong position. The question only is if they will be able to bring the CPUs back to a true competition, where they should belong.

Without AMD/ATI we would have GPUs at the price of up to 1500$ and 90% of that cash goes directly into the funds of the monopolist company and not to the poor chinese workers... The whole Intel strategy is a total rippoff to be gentle, and its surely to much to charge 1000$ for a 6 core CPU (not server grade 10+ core), however, as long as there is no competition they can do whatever they want and i even will buy it because i hate the SB concept even more. Its just here because they can sadly afford it to act like they do. I would never buy a SB without 6+ cores, but they made it in order to make a side step between to charge more out of the milk-cow.

Anyway, yeah, cant use the BD on smaller systems... just to much TDP. Who would be able to cool that down, unless its a super sized freezer-PC.. and ofc... up to 90W more is equal to all the light bulbs i have at home because most of it is either LED or a halogen bulb using "only" 18W, finally not more than 90W.

Theocnoob said:

polite snip

Click to expand...

A tad harsh, but I essentially agree with everything you have said (i.e this series is not competitive as of now).

I think there wont be much improvements on WIN8, thats truly a fake statement. Seriously, a CPU either works or it doesnt, why would a single currently disabled option make such a huge difference? Lot of excuses.. but just never bring it down to the OS, thats something they should avoid. MS at least was sill supporting it and cant adapt for every new update in a instant. I think in that term they have to pick theyr own nose and check out responsibility inside theyr own building, thats clearly the main issue here. Not a OS or anyone else, even if the support may not be at highest grade yet.

Now all they can do for now is to be honest with theyr issues and try to please anyone supporting it with nothing but the truth.

terran2k said:

Im disliking AMD as a company now; just the tactics and marketing they employ lately just rubs me the wrong way.
Intel isn't making me like Intel, AMD is making me like Intel. go figure.
I'll always recommend my company buy intel servers now.

Click to expand...

Stuff like this is bunk. Both companies are garbage depending on where you look.

Fair market practices? Intel slashes SB prices by $70 at microcenter right at BD launch, that is a pretty obvious tactic... but nothing compared to the monopoly claims they've paid millions to settle.

Every marketing department pumps their product claims. AMD is no more guilty than Intel, except Intel products have the R&D support that they've actually been able to deliver better on many claims recently.

So to be clear - I'm not defending AMD or Intel here, but making a point that making this an AMD vs Intel thing is pointless. Stick to criticizing the products and our comments usually make more sense than when we start making arbitrary criticisms about the way the companies do business... It's big business, and its dirty in countless ways.

One thing I haven't heard in a while is "Bulldozer is really meant for servers though!"

Am I off my rocker in thinking that these will be terrible for servers due to the heat and power consumption? Was the whole server argument just another flavor of "wait for Windows 8, then Bulldozer won't stink?"

I.M.O.G. said:

Every marketing department pumps their product claims. AMD is no more guilty than Intel, except Intel products have the R&D support that they've actually been able to deliver better on many claims recently.

Click to expand...

I think that no matter how you slice it, AMD marketing has gone from inept to just plain lying. (They forgot to inform the public that FX was better than P4). Now they say that FX is the best thing since margarine.

http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/processors/amdfx/Pages/amdfx.aspx

^AMD's FX product page
Full of 'overly ambitious claims... eherm.. , in my opinion

"AMD FX Processors give you more bang for your buck with aggressive performance" (Ya if you overclock the hell out of it maybe. Bang for your buck I think not).

Intel on the other hand, has never really said its products did... anything. They tell you how many cores it has, then they say something meaningless that sounds warm and cuddly like a politician would. "Visually smart computing". What the hell is that even supposed to mean? As someone who is informed, I ignore it, and as a layperson, it sounds like its good but the exact meaning must be going over my head, so I'd better buy it.

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/core/core-i5-processor.html
^
Intel's i5 product page.
Full of gibberish and nonsense.
But nonsense is not a lie

I dont see much reason, they could aswell just get the new IBM power7 based stuff if they hate Intel and that would perform better than the AMD stuff. Face the truth.. IBM is now Intels oponnent on servers and not AMD.

I dunno how much TDP a server can handle but considering the fact that they need a huge amount of CPUs it wont be any gentle and they surely have to watch TDP. Additionally it makes a difference if a CPU is in need of 90W more or less.. on a server there are so many CPUs that you will easely reach several thousand W of additional power consume, thats just a mess in my eyes. The additional consume is so much that you could easely heat up your room with, while having 0C° surrounding your home. Well.. you could say.. at least i dont need to heat up my server room anymore, but that only works in a very cold country. So any country to the south is eliminated from the server list.

I am sorry for to much of my truthful view.

ratbuddy said:

One thing I haven't heard in a while is "Bulldozer is really meant for servers though!"

Am I off my rocker in thinking that these will be terrible for servers due to the heat and power consumption? Was the whole server argument just another flavor of "wait for Windows 8, then Bulldozer won't stink?"

Click to expand...

If it were marketed as a server CPU, Phoronix would have definitely gotten a sample as the *nix crowd has a very competitive presence in the server market. I guess, the only recourse is to give it a spin with Win 8 Alpha/Beta and see what happens?

The new AMD BD is in my view best used by main consumers who are having huge systems and are OCing. Any other might not become happy. Its aswell the only way to make it barely competitive to a cheap 2500K CPU. Although Intel made a unlocker for a reason, so they can totaly destroy theyr oponnent since, unlocked multi was a long time advantage of AMD while Intel usualy only had that option enabled on theyr 10000000000000000 $ CPU (not exactly that much but thats how it feelt like). Lets say the 2500-2600K is priced equaly such as the Gulftown, and only the 2600K is unlocked at a price of 1000$, what would happen? Yes.. we know it! AMD would be getting massive support.. that have to be avoided, and thats why they are such of a wise nerd. Now while Intel was adapting to it in such a manner, AMD is now in big trouble because they cant lower theyr price much more, no matter what they trying to do, they need at least so and so much bucks for it. So its hitting them very hard.