News - Three new Bulldozer CPUs slated for Q1 2012

[Jedibeeftrix]

I separated them out as one or two people didn't think it was appropriate to have OcUK results in the main chart.

The FX8150 was just behind a Xeon E3-1270(basically a Core i7 2600), and at 4.6GHZ was around 5% slower than a 4.5GHZ Core i7 2600K.

i'm not sure i understand, i see lots of O/C'ed cpu's in the main column*, why separate out the only two 8150 result?

* not to mention a non-O/C'ed 8150 in the sub-group........

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

i'm not sure i understand, i see lots of O/C'ed cpu's in the main column*, why separate out the only two 8150 result?

* not to mention a non-O/C'ed 8150 in the sub-group........

The results were generated by OcUK forum members since I asked them. The results in the main column were generated by people who are Hexus forum members.

So far,only one Hexus forum member has contributed results for an FX CPU,ie,the FX6100 in the main column.

[Jedibeeftrix]

The results were generated by OcUK forum members since I asked them. The results in the main column were generated by people who are Hexus forum members.

So far,only one Hexus forum member has contributed results for an FX CPU,ie,the FX6100 in the main column.

gotcha, cheers.

[KeyboardDemon]

So this thread has kind of drifted off topic, but has been interesting and driven mostly by the OP, but still I want to ask a question about the original topic, if I may.

My current build was put together with Bulldozer in mind but then I was not happy with the results I was seeing when it was released so I didn't bother buying a new CPU and stuck with my 965BE. If I were to go for a new 8 or maybe 6 core CPU would I see notable gains in things like gaming performance when playing BF3, CoD:MW3, Skyrim, Crysis 2, Metro 2033, GTA IV etc...? Do you think it would be worth doing the upgrade? Or would I better off moving to the other camp?

[Biscuit]

So this thread has kind of drifted off topic, but has been interesting and driven mostly by the OP, but still I want to ask a question about the original topic, if I may.

My current build was put together with Bulldozer in mind but then I was not happy with the results I was seeing when it was released so I didn't bother buying a new CPU and stuck with my 965BE. If I were to go for a new 8 or maybe 6 core CPU would I see notable gains in things like gaming performance when playing BF3, CoD:MW3, Skyrim, Crysis 2, Metro 2033, GTA IV etc...? Do you think it would be worth doing the upgrade? Or would I better off moving to the other camp?

For gaming... do nothing. Upgrades in any direction aren't worth the money required at the moment

[tribaljet]

It can and does frequently. It frequently beats the 2500K as well, just not in gaming. Somewhere in your mind that turned it into a "trash architecture" when in fact it's pretty reasonable for the first chip on a new architecture. We're in 2012, you'd think that multi-threading would be more important than single threads. Is it AMD's fault that this so-called "trash architecture" is being let down by 1990's programming?

Like a cactus thorn, you are just making up excuses for AMD lacking single threaded performance due to "1990's programming", which is very much still a necessity, and will continue to do so for many years. It's both nice that BD has good multi-threading performance but a shame that it fares so poorly in single-threaded scenarios.

But sure, I'll give you that due to the architecture shift, the poor results can be accepted. Not everyone can follow up close fab process changes.

[Jimbo75]

But sure, I'll give you that due to the architecture shift, the poor results can be accepted. Not everyone can follow up close fab process changes.

People who can't follow it should keep quiet instead of repeating some pro-intel rubbish they read elsewhere. All they do is propagate ignorance at the expense of the facts.

[tribaljet]

People who can't follow it should keep quiet instead of repeating some pro-intel rubbish they read elsewhere. All they do is propagate ignorance at the expense of the facts.

People who fail to acknowledge lack of BD's single thread performance should avoid propagating ignorant stubborness.

[Jimbo75]

People who fail to acknowledge lack of BD's single thread performance should avoid propagating ignorant stubborness.

You said :-

The facts though, are that BD is a trash architecture which is easily proven by Phenom II X6 beating BD is basically every single scenario. And it's even made look worse when BD is actually compared to an i3, which is almost the end of the Intel barrel.

Do yourself a favour and get a clue before you repeat any more inane bull**** from anandtech forums. Or better still just go back there and leave the real tech discussion forums to people who actually know what they are talking about.

[tribaljet]

You said :-



Do yourself a favour and get a clue before you repeat any more inane bull**** from anandtech forums. Or better still just go back there and leave the real tech discussion forums to people who actually know what they are talking about.

Clearly you have issues to follow lines of thought. I haven't quoted or repeated a single line from anantech forums, but it's nice to see you making blank assumptions. I had already stated that any i3 references were due to being mentioned previously by the conflictuous user on the post earlier.

Since you mentioned anandtech and even posted a review, let's go over a few points there.
First, the reviewer (not people from comments) mentioned how midrange Sandy Bridge held an almost 50% performance improvement over BD.
Second, as good as BD might be, the fact is that it's proven by many sources that Windows 7 isn't BD's optimal playing field at all. But similar to your complaint of "1990's programming", that's a situation bound to change, yet not right now, but now is the time discussing performance, not a hypothetical future.
Going by that review, I'll correct myself regarding Phenom II X6 beating BD is every scenario, yet it still trades blows with it as if it was a competitors answer to the same gen CPU. Laughable. And for the record, any comparisons between BD and the previous architecture assume it to be the Phenom II X6 1100T, not anything lower.

So, BD is power hungry, with the lowest gaming performance of the bunch reviewed in virtually all game benchmarks (with the exception of Rage vt_benchmark), average application performance with the exception of encryption and (multi-threaded) rendering, and the highest latency values compared to either AMD's older CPUs and any Intel's. They should have pushed the architecture where it fares properly, which is the server market, while desktop usage is rather poor, or merely sufficient, which isn't enough at this point in time.

If you fail to see any of this, here are links to the review you posted earlier:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/t...x8150-tested/6
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/t...x8150-tested/7
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/t...x8150-tested/8
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/t...x8150-tested/9

And please, this is a family friendly forum, so mind your manners.

[Jimbo75]

Since you mentioned anandtech and even posted a review, let's go over a few points there.
First, the reviewer (not people from comments) mentioned how midrange Sandy Bridge held an almost 50% performance improvement over BD.

If you have extremely selective selection and a dodgy view of intels "midrange" perhaps. Just to clarify what was actually said

Single threaded performance is my biggest concern, and compared to Sandy Bridge there's a good 40-50% advantage the i5 2500K enjoys over the FX-8150.

That's quite a long way from your particular claim of...

The facts though, are that BD is a trash architecture which is easily proven by Phenom II X6 beating BD is basically every single scenario. And it's even made look worse when BD is actually compared to an i3, which is almost the end of the Intel barrel.

I'm not going to embarrass you again by quoting the fact that BD beats Thuban in the vast majority of scenarios. I'll just let your quote do the talking.

Second, as good as BD might be, the fact is that it's proven by many sources that Windows 7 isn't BD's optimal playing field at all. But similar to your complaint of "1990's programming", that's a situation bound to change, yet not right now, but now is the time discussing performance, not a hypothetical future.

Regardless, your comment of...

The facts though, are that BD is a trash architecture which is easily proven by Phenom II X6 beating BD is basically every single scenario.

Is just such poor logical reasoning. The architecture is quite fine - if it wasn't then it wouldn't be able to beat the 2600K at all. The FACT that it *can* beat the 2600K proves that the architecture is sound given proper software. If it was "trash" like you claimed then it would lose all the time.

Going by that review, I'll correct myself regarding Phenom II X6 beating BD is every scenario, yet it still trades blows with it as if it was a competitors answer to the same gen CPU. Laughable. And for the record, any comparisons between BD and the previous architecture assume it to be the Phenom II X6 1100T, not anything lower.

Sure. You'll be the first to agree that any comparison with the i7 2600K should be vs the i7 990x as well, not anything lower.

[tribaljet]

Nice, so you have to insult others to prove points. Very mature.

So you can't deny how an i5 2500K has 40-50% more performance over a FX-8150. And you're being absolutely ridiculous due to not being able to see past a single sentence or anything after that, but moronical thought processes do that.

Ah, now it can beat an i7 2600K in every scenario? LOL. And before you start spouting more nonsense, read what you wrote before writing further. If you don't understand context, that's your problem.

So now that I've stopped laughing at your total lack of a single shred of refutal, please amuse me further.

[tribaljet]

To add a bit more humor to this : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SArxcnpXStE (warning, some mature language used)

[Biscuit]

Nice, so you have to insult others to prove points. Very mature.

So you can't deny how an i5 2500K has 40-50% more performance over a FX-8150. And you're being absolutely ridiculous due to not being able to see past a single sentence or anything after that, but moronical thought processes do that.

Ah, now it can beat an i7 2600K in every scenario? LOL. And before you start spouting more nonsense, read what you wrote before writing further. If you don't understand context, that's your problem.

So now that I've stopped laughing at your total lack of a single shred of refutal, please amuse me further.

i think he is picking a problem with the blanket statement that the architecture is trash. Its not trash per say, we are just not currently reaping the benefits due a lack of software optimisation.
Personally i do think BD is extremely disappointing, i think they made some really good advances and important changes that could have made some serious movement however it was at the expense of power efficiency and single core performance. Some of this is due to GF but it cant be ignored that AMD made some bad compromises.
The architecture and the ideas behind it are very good, the execution of it so far has been pretty bad.

[tribaljet]

i think he is picking a problem with the blanket statement that the architecture is trash. Its not trash per say, we are just not currently reaping the benefits due a lack of software optimisation.
Personally i do think BD is extremely disappointing, i think they made some really good advances and important changes that could have made some serious movement however it was at the expense of power efficiency and single core performance. Some of this is due to GF but it cant be ignored that AMD made some bad compromises.
The architecture and the ideas behind it are very good, the execution of it so far has been pretty bad.

Ah I see. Well, perhaps I might have been too harsh, but when there are limited improvements from the new architecture compared to the older one, especially when both new and old flagships are pitted against each other, it's disappointing to say the least. And it's on those grounds that I find BD underperforming. Obviously it's better than generations older than the last one, but that's not really the gap AMD should be aiming for.

The architecture shift by itself was significant, but the way it ended up made its usability rather limited to specific scenarios, desktop usage not being one of them.
I find it most unfortunate that AMD has all the fab issues it had to endure, but it's really more likely that the second revision of BD will actually prove to be a true upgrade from previous architectures. Because, let's face it, we are more and more in need for serious competition in the CPU market, because if market shares keep getting even more unbalanced, we will be all in Intel's hands.

[Jimbo75]

Nice, so you have to insult others to prove points. Very mature.

You insult yourself with your constant barrage of nonsensical posts and back-tracking.

So you can't deny how an i5 2500K has 40-50% more performance over a FX-8150. And you're being absolutely ridiculous due to not being able to see past a single sentence or anything after that, but moronical thought processes do that.

I see a benchmark where the i5 2500K has a 40-50% performance lead over an FX-8150.



Now I see a benchmark where the FX-8150 has a 40-50% performance lead over an i5 2500K.

I can find more. Do I have to look or are you finally gonna get this into your head? PS you might want to look at the benchmark again - notice how it's also beating the X6.

Ah, now it can beat an i7 2600K in every scenario? LOL. And before you start spouting more nonsense, read what you wrote before writing further. If you don't understand context, that's your problem.

I fail to see where I said it can beat an i7 2600K in every scenario. What I do see is one of us continuing to make wrong blanket statements like "it loses to the X6 every time" or "it's 50% slower than the 2500K". That person isn't me.

So now that I've stopped laughing at your total lack of a single shred of refutal, please amuse me further.

I've made a complete and utter mockery of every single point you've made and you must be blind as a bat if you can't see that.