First look at Piledriver, how does it compare.

[Hicksimus]

I dunno, $253 puts the 8350 between the IB 3570k and 3770 vanilla. That's not a horrible place to be and it may come down a bit after settling in.

I do get that point, I'm just assuming that it will have the same undesirable characteristics as the last generation. I will elaborate coming straight from what I did not like about my FX-6100.

Single Core performance was much too low though I have myself argued about cumulative performance being more relevant nowadays, it would still be nice if it wasn't getting stomped by the Phenom II's. At least until you hit a very high overclock at which point the power draw is nothing short of silly

Having the power draw you'd expect from 6/8 cores but the cumulative performance of 5 or ~7 cores

So assuming they haven't pulled off a miracle my point is that they are charging a price premium for something that may match up in raw power to processors costing a similar amount but is so lacking in other areas that it should not be the same price. Simple example: You can buy the new GT500 and be nearly as fast as a new Lamborghini.....but nobody at Ford would stop there and slap a $500000 price tag on a Mustang.

I enjoyed my FX-6100 in some aspects but in hindsight that thing was a $100 processor all day long.

Edit: I feel badly that I ignored the reviews and spent my money on an AMD product in good faith, I'm waiting for them to restore that faith now.

 

[Frakk]

I don't have anything nice to say about the 8350 being $260 though.

No, i don't. But trust me that's temporary, if it's not it will be about 2 hours after launch

 

[TimoneX]

I do get that point, I'm just assuming that it will have the same undesirable characteristics as the last generation. I will elaborate coming straight from what I did not like about my FX-6100.

Single Core performance was much too low though I have myself argued about cumulative performance being more relevant nowadays, it would still be nice if it wasn't getting stomped by the Phenom II's. At least until you hit a very high overclock at which point the power draw is nothing short of silly

Having the power draw you'd expect from 6/8 cores but the cumulative performance of 5 or ~7 cores

So assuming they haven't pulled off a miracle my point is that they are charging a price premium for something that may match up in raw power to processors costing a similar amount but is so lacking in other areas that it should not be the same price. Simple example: You can buy the new GT500 and be nearly as fast as a new Lamborghini.....but nobody at Ford would stop there and slap a $500000 price tag on a Mustang.

I enjoyed my FX-6100 in some aspects but in hindsight that thing was a $100 processor all day long.

Edit: I feel badly that I ignored the reviews and spent my money on an AMD product in good faith, I'm waiting for them to restore that faith now.

I hear ya. I'd definitely like to see a better product this go round. They seem to be running into some of the same problems Intel is with the heat and power consumption sky rocketing beyond a certain point. You make the parts smaller and more densely populated and there's less mass to dissipate heat. This is true with both the IB and SB-E platform. I'm still waiting for a compelling reason to leave s1366 behind. Don't care if it's green or blue.

 

[LiquidHard]

I do get that point, I'm just assuming that it will have the same undesirable characteristics as the last generation. I will elaborate coming straight from what I did not like about my FX-6100.

Single Core performance was much too low though I have myself argued about cumulative performance being more relevant nowadays, it would still be nice if it wasn't getting stomped by the Phenom II's. At least until you hit a very high overclock at which point the power draw is nothing short of silly

Having the power draw you'd expect from 6/8 cores but the cumulative performance of 5 or ~7 cores

So assuming they haven't pulled off a miracle my point is that they are charging a price premium for something that may match up in raw power to processors costing a similar amount but is so lacking in other areas that it should not be the same price. Simple example: You can buy the new GT500 and be nearly as fast as a new Lamborghini.....but nobody at Ford would stop there and slap a $500000 price tag on a Mustang.

I enjoyed my FX-6100 in some aspects but in hindsight that thing was a $100 processor all day long.

Edit: I feel badly that I ignored the reviews and spent my money on an AMD product in good faith, I'm waiting for them to restore that faith now.

I see Hicks point too.

 

[Hits9Nine]

I do get that point, I'm just assuming that it will have the same undesirable characteristics as the last generation. I will elaborate coming straight from what I did not like about my FX-6100.

Single Core performance was much too low though I have myself argued about cumulative performance being more relevant nowadays, it would still be nice if it wasn't getting stomped by the Phenom II's. At least until you hit a very high overclock at which point the power draw is nothing short of silly

Having the power draw you'd expect from 6/8 cores but the cumulative performance of 5 or ~7 cores

So assuming they haven't pulled off a miracle my point is that they are charging a price premium for something that may match up in raw power to processors costing a similar amount but is so lacking in other areas that it should not be the same price. Simple example: You can buy the new GT500 and be nearly as fast as a new Lamborghini.....but nobody at Ford would stop there and slap a $500000 price tag on a Mustang.

I enjoyed my FX-6100 in some aspects but in hindsight that thing was a $100 processor all day long.

Edit: I feel badly that I ignored the reviews and spent my money on an AMD product in good faith, I'm waiting for them to restore that faith now.

It was a $100.00 CPU right, what else could you have asked for? Were you looking for the same results that a $250.00 Intel CPU gave?

 

[Hits9Nine]

I personally can't wait for this CPU (Piledriver FX83##) to arrive even if its only 10-15% better than the Bulldozer FX81##. I have had no issues with Bulldozer, except at the beginning. The CPUs FX81##/FX6###/FX41## is very cost friendly and overclocks like a dream. Playing games with my FX8120 oced to 4.6ghz at 1920*1080 and 5770*1080 res seemes to = my LGA2011 BigBang2 with I7 3820. Also Video editing, internet, MS Office watching movies never seemed to be any different on my FX8120 than my i7 3820. I never got why people were bitching so much about the FX81##? You know if your looking for a CPU that rocked the mic in every bench, maybe the 200.00 price should have been the first stop sign in your purchasing decision!

 

[hokiealumnus]

It was a $100.00 CPU right, what else could you have asked for? Were you looking for the same results that a $250.00 Intel CPU gave?

I think the implication was that he paid more than $100 for it. On release the FX-6100 was $165 (reference).

 

[Hits9Nine]

I do get that point, I'm just assuming that it will have the same undesirable characteristics as the last generation. I will elaborate coming straight from what I did not like about my FX-6100.

Single Core performance was much too low though I have myself argued about cumulative performance being more relevant nowadays, it would still be nice if it wasn't getting stomped by the Phenom II's. At least until you hit a very high overclock at which point the power draw is nothing short of silly

Having the power draw you'd expect from 6/8 cores but the cumulative performance of 5 or ~7 cores

So assuming they haven't pulled off a miracle my point is that they are charging a price premium for something that may match up in raw power to processors costing a similar amount but is so lacking in other areas that it should not be the same price. Simple example: You can buy the new GT500 and be nearly as fast as a new Lamborghini.....but nobody at Ford would stop there and slap a $500000 price tag on a Mustang.

I enjoyed my FX-6100 in some aspects but in hindsight that thing was a $100 processor all day long.

Edit: I feel badly that I ignored the reviews and spent my money on an AMD product in good faith, I'm waiting for them to restore that faith now.

I think the implication was that he paid more than $100 for it. On release the FX-6100 was $165 (reference).

$165.00 even still! What more could/would you expect from it. My first AMD FX cost me $795.99 FX55, and my 2nd FX cost 899.99 FX62 (939), not $165.00-240.00. It acts just like a 165.00 CPU would and maybe a little better.

 

[hokiealumnus]

$165.00 even still! What more could/would you expect from it. My first AMD FX cost me $795.99 FX55, and my 2nd FX cost 899.99 FX62 (939), not $165.00-240.00. It acts just like a 165.00 CPU would and maybe a little better.

Heh, apples & cauliflower. FX of yesteryear was to its market what Sandy Bridge-E is to today's. That's the big problem people had with FX; they were expecting the second coming and got...well, we all see what they got.

I'm glad it wasn't a thousand dollar CPU. As long as their price is consummate with the performance, I think they're just fine.

 

[Hits9Nine]

Heh, apples & cauliflower. FX of yesteryear was to its market what Sandy Bridge-E is to today's. That's the big problem people had with FX; they were expecting the second coming and got...well, we all see what they got.

I'm glad it wasn't a thousand dollar CPU. As long as their price is consummate with the performance, I think they're just fine.

 

[Hicksimus]

Hits9Nine are you considering my options back then or are you just making statements of convenience?

I could have bought a Phenom II x4 for much less than $165 and I could have bought a Phenom II x6 for the same price(it was actually cheaper...stupid me). I'm just going to go by cinebench and say that....the X4 was close in multithread performance while beating my fx-6100 on single core performance. The stock X6 beat my stock FX-6100 with no competition from the FX-6100. To compete with the stock 1055t x6 I'd have to run my FX-6100 up in the 4.5ghz range and then it was drawing much more power than the X6.

Now I'll admit that the X4 can only hit about 4.7 in cinebench with about a 1.22 single core score while overclocked but the FX-6100 only weighs in at about 5.5 and <1.1 if you aren't going to use more expensive cooling methods. I seem to remember getting something like 5.72 out of mine by letting the winter cool my room a fair bit. So I got roughly 17% more cumulative performance and roughly 10% less single core performance for about $60 more. 60% price jump for 17% performance increase ignoring power draw issues....that's a rough diminishing marginal return.

Now let's do the X6 1055T. The single core score at its stock 2.8Ghz speed easily beats the single core score of the FX-6100 at 3.3Ghz...and it comes within 10% of the 4.5Ghz FX-6100 single core score. Things don't get better. The cumulative stock score of the 1055T is a little over 5, the FX-6100 is 4. Yeah, but what about that awesome overclocking? Too bad clock for clock bulldozer gets stomped all over(even by my Core 2 Duo E6750). The 1055T pegs about 7.2@~4-4.2GHz while overclocked....blowing the doors off even a 5Ghz 6100 which barely puts in a 6. Power draw of these processors heavily overclocked? Quite similar...performance per watt failure.

It wasn't a good product, it wasn't a step forward in most respects and most importantly it was a horrible value. The new 6-core coming in at about $175 doesn't seem likely to compete with the 1055T either. Bad is bad.

For those suggesting if I wanted more I should have paid more....if I wanted more I could have paid less don't be ignorant. (yeah, I was ignorant when I bought the FX-6100)

Edit: Notice I didn't say Intel anywhere in here. The 2500k was on for $199 when I got the FX-6100 I could have easily had it but I've preferred AMD for years, I saw the bad reviews and thought the FX-6100 must have some redeeming qualities and I bought it. I also could have had the 8150 but wanted to limit my possible losses, good thing I did that.

 

[LiquidHard]

You make the parts smaller and more densely populated and there's less mass to dissipate heat. This is true with both the IB and SB-E platform. I'm still waiting for a compelling reason to leave s1366 behind. Don't care if it's green or blue.

+1. For Intel prices, they could do better than thermal paste the IBs.
At least flux solder the K series, since these were made and marketed to be OCed.

IBs are great processors, but its hard to believe the Intel folks not pre-empt the heat issue on 22nm. Add that to choosing the thermal paste option..

 

[Hits9Nine]

Hits9Nine are you considering my options back then or are you just making statements of convenience?

I could have bought a Phenom II x4 for much less than $165 and I could have bought a Phenom II x6 for the same price(it was actually cheaper...stupid me). I'm just going to go by cinebench and say that....the X4 was close in multithread performance while beating my fx-6100 on single core performance. The stock X6 beat my stock FX-6100 with no competition from the FX-6100. To compete with the stock 1055t x6 I'd have to run my FX-6100 up in the 4.5ghz range and then it was drawing much more power than the X6.

Now I'll admit that the X4 can only hit about 4.7 in cinebench with about a 1.22 single core score while overclocked but the FX-6100 only weighs in at about 5.5 and <1.1 if you aren't going to use more expensive cooling methods. I seem to remember getting something like 5.72 out of mine by letting the winter cool my room a fair bit. So I got roughly 17% more cumulative performance and roughly 10% less single core performance for about $60 more. 60% price jump for 17% performance increase ignoring power draw issues....that's a rough diminishing marginal return.

Now let's do the X6 1055T. The single core score at its stock 2.8Ghz speed easily beats the single core score of the FX-6100 at 3.3Ghz...and it comes within 10% of the 4.5Ghz FX-6100 single core score. Things don't get better. The cumulative stock score of the 1055T is a little over 5, the FX-6100 is 4. Yeah, but what about that awesome overclocking? Too bad clock for clock bulldozer gets stomped all over(even by my Core 2 Duo E6750). The 1055T pegs about 7.2@~4-4.2GHz while overclocked....blowing the doors off even a 5Ghz 6100 which barely puts in a 6. Power draw of these processors heavily overclocked? Quite similar...performance per watt failure.

It wasn't a good product, it wasn't a step forward in most respects and most importantly it was a horrible value. The new 6-core coming in at about $175 doesn't seem likely to compete with the 1055T either. Bad is bad.

For those suggesting if I wanted more I should have paid more....if I wanted more I could have paid less don't be ignorant. (yeah, I was ignorant when I bought the FX-6100)

Edit: Notice I didn't say Intel anywhere in here. The 2500k was on for $199 when I got the FX-6100 I could have easily had it but I've preferred AMD for years, I saw the bad reviews and thought the FX-6100 must have some redeeming qualities and I bought it. I also could have had the 8150 but wanted to limit my possible losses, good thing I did that.

Bulldozer is a step forward for AMD IMO. If you look at all new CPU's the first gens are usually a little step sideways at first. Look at AthlonXP, Phenom 1, and now Bulldozer. Look what AthlonXP turned into, look what Phenom turned into, look what Bulldozer will evolve to, all progression have its side steps. Also Benchmarks are not the end all be all! If you are happy with what the CPU does, who cares what a benchmark says. If you can get all your work done that was needed with no lag and play your games at a setting you want with no lag, then there is no fail.

With AM3+ boards you get 6 Sata3 connectors USB3 support, ddr3 speeds up to 2133 , 3-4 way sli compatibility, seems more of an upgrade then a downgrade right.

I was not trying to make fun of your purchase, I own is an FX6100 and like it a lot, mind you I only paid 109.99. When comparing the FX6100 to my 965 BE, and my 1090t I see no real differences between the 3 CPU's unless I benchmark them. I was just trying to make a point about prices when it comes to CPU's.

Also the key to the Bulldozer is overclocking it. Not just increasing the multiplier (noob oc), you need to change the cpu freq. If you don't have a board with LLC you will never know the true speed of a Bulldozer

 

[txus.palacios]

I won't use one of the Trinity APUs for my own systems, but will surely use them when someone asks me to build one. They look nice for the casual Facebooker.

 

[EarthDog]

Bulldozer is a step forward for AMD IMO. If you look at all new CPU's the first gens are usually a little step sideways at first. Look at AthlonXP, Phenom 1, and now Bulldozer. Look what AthlonXP turned into, look what Phenom turned into, look what Bulldozer will evolve to, all progression have its side steps. Also Benchmarks are not the end all be all! If you are happy with what the CPU does, who cares what a benchmark says. If you can get all your work done that was needed with no lag and play your games at a setting you want with no lag, then there is no fail.

With AM3+ boards you get 6 Sata3 connectors USB3 support, ddr3 speeds up to 2133 , 3-4 way sli compatibility, seems more of an upgrade then a downgrade right.

I was not trying to make fun of your purchase, I own is an FX6100 and like it a lot, mind you I only paid 109.99. When comparing the FX6100 to my 965 BE, and my 1090t I see no real differences between the 3 CPU's unless I benchmark them. I was just trying to make a point about prices when it comes to CPU's.

Also the key to the Bulldozer is overclocking it. Not just increasing the multiplier (noob oc), you need to change the cpu freq. If you don't have a board with LLC you will never know the true speed of a Bulldozer

What does LLC have to do with the true speed of BD? I mean its to prevent vdroop...

 

[Hits9Nine]

What does LLC have to do with the true speed of BD? I mean its to prevent vdroop...

Vdroop is the killer when ocing the Bulldozer, if you have a board with LLC vdroop is eliminated and you can oc the crap out of it making the Bulldozers true value shine

 

[EarthDog]

Ehh.. ok.

 

[Hits9Nine]

Ehh.. ok.

you never oced a BD chip?

 

[EarthDog]

Well, I know that Vdroop enabled prevents voltage from sagging upon load. You can reach the same clocks without it by just adding vcore. LLC does not have anything to do with reaching the 'true value' of a chip AFAIK.

For example say 4.5Ghz 1.45v load is stable and you have .03 vdroop on load. You can:

1. Set bios to 1.48v with NO LLC and it will droop to your load voltage.
2. Set bios to 1.45v with LLC and it will stay at 1.45v.

6 of one, half dozen of the other there at the same clocks... doesnt matter what clockspeed though.

The point is LLC doesnt unleash anything but more stable voltages upon load. I don't imagine this to be different on BD as it was on all Intel chips I have overclocked. This is the first time I heard of it increasing potential of a CPU and I'm having trouble believing it I must admit (because that isnt true truth be told).

 

[hokiealumnus]

you never oced a BD chip?

I have, several times. All LLC does is keep voltage at a different level than default Vdroop, just like it does with all chips. It helps you get farther per the Vcore set in BIOS, but if you didn't have LLC on and simply raised the set Vcore it would have the same effect. As long as the loaded Vcore is the same value, LLC doesn't matter. It just makes it easier on you to keep Vcore down at idle.