Bulldozer, what to make of it.
0
AMD FX-8150 or others (Bulldozer)
I know their have been a lot of posts and recommendations for bulldozer, on fakku, previous to its release. But now that is has been released, it has become apparent that for whatever reason it was over hyped. Its vary disappointing to most people. however their is a lot of discussion to be had on if it worth getting or not...
It's stats on paper are so amazing it seems almost illogical that it does not do as well. However, this may be due to not taking enough time to work out the architecture of it? (assuming, after reading a bunch of articles, some opinion?)
In any case, the current lineup for AMD sucks at gaming and that is really really hurting Bulldozer and AMD, considering they advertised it to the gaming community and put a excessive amount of hype into it.
Ill be honest i am a AMD fanboy and have been for a while. I think that Intel's shit is overpriced out the ass. I am going to buy it even though most people think its a better deal to buy the core i5 and if i was not a fanboy i would agree. And here are the reasons why. Frist, I do a lot of muti-tasking and this will increase my ability to run lots of programs at once. Second, I can thread program and have actual applications for the use of threading. Thrid, I think its physical stats are badass, a lot of people wont get it and its well priced. Fourth, I think the quite a few of naysayers don't use computers like i do, or have not even tried it out. I am getting it next month so i will post some results when i do.
If i am mistaken about anything please reply, i have read as many articles on it as i cared to (several hours worth of reading) and please excuse my possibly awful spelling its not my forte
And please if you don't even know how to put a computer together, I strongly advise you hold your comments they are disruptive, and often misleading.
I know their have been a lot of posts and recommendations for bulldozer, on fakku, previous to its release. But now that is has been released, it has become apparent that for whatever reason it was over hyped. Its vary disappointing to most people. however their is a lot of discussion to be had on if it worth getting or not...
It's stats on paper are so amazing it seems almost illogical that it does not do as well. However, this may be due to not taking enough time to work out the architecture of it? (assuming, after reading a bunch of articles, some opinion?)
In any case, the current lineup for AMD sucks at gaming and that is really really hurting Bulldozer and AMD, considering they advertised it to the gaming community and put a excessive amount of hype into it.
Ill be honest i am a AMD fanboy and have been for a while. I think that Intel's shit is overpriced out the ass. I am going to buy it even though most people think its a better deal to buy the core i5 and if i was not a fanboy i would agree. And here are the reasons why. Frist, I do a lot of muti-tasking and this will increase my ability to run lots of programs at once. Second, I can thread program and have actual applications for the use of threading. Thrid, I think its physical stats are badass, a lot of people wont get it and its well priced. Fourth, I think the quite a few of naysayers don't use computers like i do, or have not even tried it out. I am getting it next month so i will post some results when i do.
If i am mistaken about anything please reply, i have read as many articles on it as i cared to (several hours worth of reading) and please excuse my possibly awful spelling its not my forte
And please if you don't even know how to put a computer together, I strongly advise you hold your comments they are disruptive, and often misleading.
0
animefreak_usa
Child of Samael
I never had/use/bought a amd cpu to tell you... most likey never will. Plus i don't buy wholesale... my two i7's cost me 200$ for both new.
0
Yayyy bulldozer and yeah it competes with sandy bridge when you are running solidworks, autocad or other things that make lots of threads with even workloads.
I'm more interested in how the lower end stuff performs. Im hoping that the "optimal" picture described here is more likely to happen when there are 2 modules instead of 4. I look forward to your findings
I'm more interested in how the lower end stuff performs. Im hoping that the "optimal" picture described here is more likely to happen when there are 2 modules instead of 4. I look forward to your findings
0
I'm more hyped about Ivy Bridge than bulldozer. If you couldn't tell it was over-hyped, and was going to be shit from the beginning, then you're probably closer to the side of brain dead. Also AMD has no drivers.
0
This is one of the biggest fails I have ever seen, this is actually worse clock for clock than a Phenom II. What the fuck... I hope AMD sells a shitload of APUs so they have the resources to make a real chip. Not only that, this pulls so much more power than Intel's current offerings on load, even though it pulls very little when idle.
If you are in the market for a desktop cpu right now, I would probably avoid it for now. You will probably be much more happy investing the money into an i5 or i7 and overclocking that, or even a Phenom II. I was looking forward to getting this chip but now... goddamn. I'm so disappointed and I think this really tarnishes the FX brand. More cores =/= more performance, Bulldozer's piss poor performance if proof of that. If you are looking to make a server though, this is actually a pretty good choice of a cpu, despite that it's a huge letdown on the desktop side of things.
Here's some benchmarks if you want to see the numbers yourself and make your own choice.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/10/11/amd_bulldozer_fx8150_desktop_performance_review/1
http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150-processor-review/1
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1741/1/
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/10/12/amd-fx-8150-review/1
EDIT: Now, I may have been too quick to judge Bulldozer. It appears that the problem is not that Bulldozer is too slow, but that Bulldozer is ahead of our time and current programming is not taking advantage of it. Bulldozer performs much better in newer programs and runs games better at higher resolutions. It also appears to be a champion at rendering. OpenCL also favors Bulldozer a shitload (literally over 1000% faster than Intel in some cases). Bulldozer looks like more of a long term investment if developers optimize their code for it.
EDIT2: Now that some time has passed and people actually have the chips, I'm seeing people on numerous overclocking forums getting better and better performance from the chip since they're tweaking them, I'm seeing cinebench scores jump a ton. Looks like I might still be in the market for an 8120. OP should probably get an 8120 instead of the 8150, they seem to overclock the same for the most part and it saves money.
I'd still be wary of buying it. I'd give it a month or so before I give a true final verdict considering the architecture is so unique.
If you are in the market for a desktop cpu right now, I would probably avoid it for now. You will probably be much more happy investing the money into an i5 or i7 and overclocking that, or even a Phenom II. I was looking forward to getting this chip but now... goddamn. I'm so disappointed and I think this really tarnishes the FX brand. More cores =/= more performance, Bulldozer's piss poor performance if proof of that. If you are looking to make a server though, this is actually a pretty good choice of a cpu, despite that it's a huge letdown on the desktop side of things.
Here's some benchmarks if you want to see the numbers yourself and make your own choice.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/10/11/amd_bulldozer_fx8150_desktop_performance_review/1
http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150-processor-review/1
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1741/1/
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/10/12/amd-fx-8150-review/1
EDIT: Now, I may have been too quick to judge Bulldozer. It appears that the problem is not that Bulldozer is too slow, but that Bulldozer is ahead of our time and current programming is not taking advantage of it. Bulldozer performs much better in newer programs and runs games better at higher resolutions. It also appears to be a champion at rendering. OpenCL also favors Bulldozer a shitload (literally over 1000% faster than Intel in some cases). Bulldozer looks like more of a long term investment if developers optimize their code for it.
EDIT2: Now that some time has passed and people actually have the chips, I'm seeing people on numerous overclocking forums getting better and better performance from the chip since they're tweaking them, I'm seeing cinebench scores jump a ton. Looks like I might still be in the market for an 8120. OP should probably get an 8120 instead of the 8150, they seem to overclock the same for the most part and it saves money.
I'd still be wary of buying it. I'd give it a month or so before I give a true final verdict considering the architecture is so unique.
0
with the price its running at i really really want to see duel socketing mobo's like they used to have... i mean jesus 16 cores for a total cost of $~1000 insanity op more then required, yes but totally worth it just for the badass factor?! its what i pay for a gaming rig anyway! just something i have been thinking about for a while.
POWER CONSUMPTION MEANS NOTHING TO ME, MUHAHAHAHA
POWER CONSUMPTION MEANS NOTHING TO ME, MUHAHAHAHA
0
There were some dual CPU AMD mobos a few years back, they were generally awful compared to the Intel solution. No change there then.
0
Tegumi
"im always cute"
animefreak_usa wrote...
Wow.. six ram slots... what the gb max on that one.The second mobo image has 12, not 6.
0
animefreak_usa
Child of Samael
Tegumi wrote...
animefreak_usa wrote...
Wow.. six ram slots... what the gb max on that one.The second mobo image has 12, not 6.
My screen must be fucked.. i thought the black strips were spaces or insulation.
Also now.. i just hard.
0
Flaser
OCD Hentai Collector
Raimeken wrote...
Moar corez aint betar!All that needs to be said
Since the performance of single cores can't be increased as rapidly as it had been in the past, the future of programming is in parallel computing. More cores are better at parallel computing. Hyper-threaded cores are better at parallel computing than non hyper-threaded cores.
...future programs therefore will take better advantage of multi-core processors, hence my advice is to give it a rest and see how it turns out.
Unfortunately, since game development is console centric, it may be only after a new generation of consoles are released that you see the same boost in gaming. Right now only the PS3 is a true multi-core platform.
0
Flaser wrote...
Raimeken wrote...
Moar corez aint betar!All that needs to be said
Since the performance of single cores can't be increased as rapidly as it had been in the past, the future of programming is in parallel computing. More cores are better at parallel computing. Hyper-threaded cores are better at parallel computing than non hyper-threaded cores.
...future programs therefore will take better advantage of multi-core processors, hence my advice is to give it a rest and see how it turns out.
Unfortunately, since game development is console centric, it may be only after a new generation of consoles are released that you see the same boost in gaming. Right now only the PS3 is a true multi-core platform.
My Pentium4 HT still works for me, and i will keep it as long as it does.
