FRONTPAGE AMD FX-8150 - Bulldozer - Processor Review

Archer0915 · Oct 15, 2011

hokiealumnus said:
I do just want to clear this up for everyone that sees my post - absolutely none of my rant was aimed at Archer. He's just the messenger and has nothing at all to do with the guy that posted that. Please don't misconstrue my post as having anything at all to do with Archer, it was all to the dude that wrote that nonsensical post.

Better?

Cool! I knew it was not aimed at me but I did not want anyone who did not click the link thinking it was me

Archer0915 · Oct 16, 2011

buffalowings said:
guns you say?.. hmm...any bows?

Fiberglass and Al

Grass hoppers, field, blunt, bullet and broad heads all the way up to 275gr. Also do gigs, swords, spears and splosives

Yall come, ya hea? We gona gits dem zombees :rofl:

Apht3rThawt · Oct 16, 2011

Archer0915 said:
Fiberglass and Al Grass hoppers, field, blunt, bullet and broad heads all the way up to 275gr. Also do gigs, swords, spears and splosives Yall come, ya hea? We gona gits dem zombees

Archer, you crack me up, buddy. Ben der, dun dat, got da wife-beater. Bring em on! :sn:

Seriously folks, think AMD64. First to the gate with 64 bit instruction sets, Intel had to follow suit. This may be more of the same. Looks goofy, but may kick butt. AMD says they are working with MS on the Win8 implementation. Could be they are just ahead of the curve. The compilers have to push threads through both cores in a module to use 256 bit processing, only 128 bits per core. As a consumer cpu it may not be the cat's meow or it may get better as software catches up. Only time will tell. I would say, stick with the BD if you have one, otherwise may be best to wait and see.

I was curious. Anybody gaming with the new Zambezis? How are they on games?

dihartnell · Oct 16, 2011

bmwbaxter said:
I think that the APU market is where AMD is better suited. since they already have the GPU know how they might as well capitalize on it. I think the APU was a far better product than the BD.

Totally agree. Scrapped my plans to upgrade to Bulldozer. Gonna build an HTPC around the 3850 APU and socket FM1 instead.

Might go ahead anad get a 980BE as a holding CPU until bulldozer sorts itself out or pile driver turns up

neo668 · Oct 16, 2011

bmwbaxter said:
well if the thubans beat an 8150 then they should easily beat a 6100.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. Reading Hokie's review I had the impression that the 1100T was slightly slower than the 8150, ie. the 8150 is the superior cpu though only marginally. Somebody please put me straight. Thank you.

dihartnell · Oct 16, 2011

neo668 said:
Please correct me if I'm wrong. Reading Hokie's review I had the impression that the 1100T was slightly slower than the 8150, ie. the 8150 is the superior cpu though only marginally. Somebody please put me straight. Thank you.

Most of the time it appeared it didnt. Even if it was marginally better why droip extra money for it.

neo668 · Oct 16, 2011

I've already given up on BD. I'll be getting the 1100T instead to replace the 840 I am using now. I won't need to get a new mobo and therefore save a bit. So if the comment that the 1100T is better than BD is true I'd be very very happy.

bmwbaxter · Oct 16, 2011

I went through your article again, I couldn't find where or if you had mentioned which bios you had used for the testing.

if you could let me know which one that would be great :thup:

hokiealumnus · Oct 16, 2011

neo668 said:
Please correct me if I'm wrong. Reading Hokie's review I had the impression that the 1100T was slightly slower than the 8150, ie. the 8150 is the superior cpu though only marginally. Somebody please put me straight. Thank you.

neo668 said:
I've already given up on BD. I'll be getting the 1100T instead to replace the 840 I am using now. I won't need to get a new mobo and therefore save a bit. So if the comment that the 1100T is better than BD is true I'd be very very happy.

You had the correct takeaway. When benchmarking (in, say, SuperPi or WPrime), the 1100T scores better because it has two more floating point cores, but when you actually use the CPU (rendering/encoding/compresion), the FX-8150 is absolutely superior. At stock it scored as well as the 2600K and gave it a good whoopin' overclocked.

So if I were buying to upgrade from a dual- or quad-core chip, I'd go with the FX over the 1100T. If I already had a 1090T or 1100T I'd stick with what I had. It's worth it if the upgrade is a jump (but NOT at $280...it's worth it at $245), but not if the upgrade is only from a Thuban. That just wouldn't be a strong enough difference to justify the upgrade.

bmwbaxter said:
I went through your article again, I couldn't find where or if you had mentioned which bios you had used for the testing.

if you could let me know which one that would be great

0813 - It was the most recent available from ASUS & AMD at the time. I think it's the most recent on their site now too.

Theocnoob · Oct 16, 2011

bmwbaxter said:
stock core clock is basically it. but since the 8150 is clocked higher it is 'probably' binned a bit higher. but you might get a 8120 that will overclock higher than a 8150. it is mostly luck of the draw.

EDIT: @ ocnoob - they have the same amount of cache. both have 8MB L2 and 8MB L3

Really?

So they're charging SIXTY BUCKS for one bin higher? Should be 30 max.
This just gets worse...

neo668 · Oct 16, 2011

Thank you Hokie. Great to hear from the Master himself.

I think an upgrade to the 1100T from the 840 should be a bit of a jump. As I won't be moving to a new platform my only cost would be the price of the 1100T. I don't feel the whole move to the new BD platform would be worth it at the present moment.

Theocnoob · Oct 16, 2011

neo668 said:
Thank you Hokie. Great to hear from the Master himself.

I think an upgrade to the 1100T from the 840 should be a bit of a jump. As I won't be moving to a new platform my only cost would be the price of the 1100T. I don't feel the whole move to the new BD platform would be worth it at the present moment.

I agree. The 840 is a (Rana?) core rather than a Deneb right? It's too bad they don't have FX working on 8XX like they said they would.

Super Nade · Oct 16, 2011

bmwbaxter said:
the 8150 was always priced above 2500k for a reason. it is a "better" chip... if you have programming coded for more cores and an operating system that fixes AMD's screw up.

I would have to disagree with your assessment. The 8150 is an inferior chip to the 2500K, no matter how you dice it. You (AMD) don't create a problem and then propose a mythical solution that allegedly alleviates it.

neo668 · Oct 16, 2011

Theocnoob said:
I agree. The 840 is a (Rana?) core rather than a Deneb right? It's too bad they don't have FX working on 8XX like they said they would.

The 840 is a Propus. If BD would work on the 8xx chipset I would get the 6100 at least.

vdgamer · Oct 16, 2011

bmwbaxter said:
well if the thubans beat an 8150 then they should easily beat a 6100.

But if we take the overclockability of 6100 into account and say that realistic 24/7 oc for it would be 4.5-4.8Ghz and around 4Ghz for 1100/1090, which one would be a better performer at those clocks? 6100 is 32nm so it runs cooler and more power efficient also

bmwbaxter · Oct 16, 2011

hokiealumnus said:
0813 - It was the most recent available from ASUS & AMD at the time. I think it's the most recent on their site now too.

thanks

Asus just doesn't show FX as a supported cpu yet on their website for the CHVF

hooflung · Oct 16, 2011

Super Nade said:
I would have to disagree with your assessment. The 8150 is an inferior chip to the 2500K, no matter how you dice it. You (AMD) don't create a problem and then propose a mythical solution that allegedly alleviates it.

Does the 2500k or any K series have more than 4 real cores and Vt-d (IOMMU)? No. So for certain things the K's are not, and cannot, be superior CPUs.

For developers like me, only the normal 2500 or 2600 fit the bill and they loose out to the x6's and BD chips every time. Not everyone is looking for the fastest gaming machine or video encoder.

Archer0915 · Oct 16, 2011

hooflung said:
Does the 2500k or any K series have more than 4 real cores and Vt-d (IOMMU)? No. So for certain things the K's are not, and cannot, be superior CPUs.

For developers like me, only the normal 2500 or 2600 fit the bill and they loose out to the x6's and BD chips every time. Not everyone is looking for the fastest gaming machine or video encoder.

Though it is an 8 core cpu those cores have much less compute power than the iX w/HT processors. Yes highly threaded software can take advantage of it and those extra threads should be stronger than HT but let us not forget that HT is a diffrent scheme on intel with one powerful core running 2 threads instead of 2 meh cores running 1 thread each.

Theocnoob · Oct 16, 2011

vdgamer said:
But if we take the overclockability of 6100 into account and say that realistic 24/7 oc for it would be 4.5-4.8Ghz and around 4Ghz for 1100/1090, which one would be a better performer at those clocks? 6100 is 32nm so it runs cooler and more power efficient also

I think the take away on BD at the moment is that if anything, the 8 core, once (very) overclocked is a good performer, despite it being overpriced and a power hog. But only if the app uses 8 threads effectively.

The 6 core is a bit of a debacle. I'd say if you wanted six cores, stick with the devil you know and get a 1055 or a 1090. I've seen 1055s at 140-145 lots of times that's a good price for that cpu. Beyond that I'd say it's 8120P.

Just being 32nm doesn't make things run cooler. Bulldozer may be 32nm but it is far from power efficient and far from cool running. The whole thing is still kind of 'tripping me out'.

Super Nade · Oct 16, 2011

hooflung said:
Does the 2500k or any K series have more than 4 real cores and Vt-d (IOMMU)? No. So for certain things the K's are not, and cannot, be superior CPUs.

For developers like me, only the normal 2500 or 2600 fit the bill and they loose out to the x6's and BD chips every time. Not everyone is looking for the fastest gaming machine or video encoder.

Why limit comparisons of performance (or extrapolations) to either cores or clocks? Architectural nuances are completely irrelevant if there is no performance advantage to be garnered. This sounds eerily similar to Intel's Itanium argument, on how those chips were vastly superior to AMD's offering if a strict set of criteria were met. Itanium was a flop.

What kind of developing/coding do you do? Just curious. My work is mainly with scientific simulations (ODEs and FFT), which more often than not are limited by memory, before the CPU.

FRONTPAGE AMD FX-8150 - Bulldozer - Processor Review

How happy are you with AMD FX-8150 price/performance?

1 (What a disappointment)

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 (Everything I hoped for)

"The Expert"

"The Expert"

Member

Registered

Member

Registered

Member

Member

Water Cooled Moderator

Member

Member

Member

† SU(3) Moderator †

Member

Member

Member

Member

"The Expert"

Member

† SU(3) Moderator †

Similar threads