PDA

View Full Version : Official AMD FX Bulldozer review thread!


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7

MUYA
10-11-11, 11:06 PM
http://guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150-processor-review/

http://vr-zone.com/articles/amd-fx-8150-cpu-overclocking-review-a-bulldozer-for-gamers-/13694.html

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/32110-amd-bulldozer-fx-8150/

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/10/12/amd-fx-8150-review/1

http://techreport.com/articles.x/21813

Roadhog
10-11-11, 11:57 PM
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=831&Itemid=63
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/10/12/amd-fx-8150-review/1
http://www.************/articles/AMD_FX-8150_CPU_Bulldozer/2125.html
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/prozessoren/2011/test-amd-bulldozer/
http://extrahardware.cnews.cz/amd-fx-8150-6100-bulldozer-zambezi-recenze-test?page=0,3
http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150-processor-review/
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/10/11/amd_bulldozer_fx8150_desktop_performance_review
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/47155-amd-bulldozer-fx-8150-processor-review.html
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/842-1/amd-fx-8150-fx-6100-bulldozer-debarque-am3.html
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1285/pg1/amd-fx-8150-black-edition-8-core-processor-vs-core-i7-2600k-review-introduction.html
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/32110-amd-bulldozer-fx-8150/
http://www.hitechlegion.com/reviews/processors/13752
http://hothardware.com/Reviews/AMD-FX8150-8Core-Processor-Review-Bulldozer-Has-Landed/
http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8150fx_8120fx_6100_and_fx_4170,1.html
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1741/1/
http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=102&Itemid=1
http://www.madshrimps.be/articles/article/1000220/AMD-FX-8150-Bulldozer-CPU-review#axzz1aKr1ZQF4
http://www.ozeros.com/2011/10/review-amd-bulldozer-fx-8150/
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-FX-8150-Processor-Review-Can-Bulldozer-Unearth-AMD-Victory
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/hardware/procesory-pameti/22227-amd-bulldozer-procesory-fx-8150-a-8120-v-testu-1-2?start=14
http://www.pureoverclock.com/article1376.html
http://www.techspot.com/review/452-amd-bulldozer-fx-cpus/
http://www.techstation.it/hardware/articoli/amd-fx-il-ritorno-al-vertice/introduzione
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043.html
http://www.vortez.net/articles_pages/amd_fx_8150_bulldozer_cpu_review,1.html
http://vr-zone.com/articles/amd-fx-8150-cpu-overclocking-review-a-bulldozer-for-gamers-/13694-12.html

Roadhog
10-12-11, 12:06 AM
http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/6627/ocpower.png

epic fail... How could AMD release something like this?

AthlonXP1800
10-12-11, 12:12 AM
Ohhhh dear what a very sad day for AMD! i7 2600K destroyed FX 8150 in all games benchmarks and i7 2600K are very energy efficiency when overclocked to 5GHz but FX 8150 are on fire when overclocked to 4.8GHz roughly doubled the power consumption of 5GHz i7 2600K. Bulldozer are crap at games performance, I would rather overclocked my Phenom II 940 to 3.5GHz to get closer to Bulldozer games performance.

It nice to know you AMD, I had decided that Socket AM2+ motherboard and Phenom II 940 will be my final AMD upgrade and will be switch to Intel in early 2012 when Ivy Bridge CPUs will be launch with 20% increase performance and 20% reduce power consumption over Sandy Bridge when Ivy Bridge used 3D tri-gate traninstors, not to mentioned 22nm process too. :)

I now realised Intel are now much better than AMD because of Intel's clever tick-tock strategy, AMD probably will stuck with 28nm through 2014 while Intel will move to 14nm and then 10nm in 2016. I had enough with AMD took forever to developed, shrinked and delayed chips, Bulldozer is a appalled joke!

Mr_LoL
10-12-11, 12:30 AM
Roflcopter. Always next time AMD...

Bah!
10-12-11, 12:32 AM
Wow, what a piece of ****. So much for the nonstop talk over the past few months about how much better Bulldozer would be than Intel's latest.

Ironically, Rollo was right...Bulldozer fails! :)

AthlonXP1800
10-12-11, 12:46 AM
Roflcopter. Always next time AMD...

I seriously doubt whether AMD will be still around in 3 years time with no money trying to fix Bulldozer on outdated manufacturing process and sell the chips to nobody want while Intel have invested tens of billions dollars profits on 14nm Broadwell, Skylake and 10nm Skymont. I dont think AMD will be around in 5 years time with new microarchitecture to replace the laugh stock Bulldozer microarchitecture AMD wasted on researched and developed in the last 5 years.

Mr_LoL
10-12-11, 12:53 AM
I seriously doubt whether AMD will be still around in 3 years time with no money trying to fix Bulldozer on outdated manufacturing process and sell the chips to nobody want while Intel have invested tens of billions dollars profits on 14nm Broadwell, Skylake and 10nm Skymont. I dont think AMD will be around in 5 years time with new microarchitecture to replace the laugh stock Bulldozer microarchitecture AMD wasted on researched and developed in the last 5 years.

I think they will. They will get bought out by someone big like IBM and maybe even Microsoft. You never know.

MUYA
10-12-11, 01:09 AM
http://techreport.com/articles.x/21813

AthlonXP1800
10-12-11, 02:09 AM
FX 4110 quad core is actually far much worse than old Phenom 9950 and Phenom II X4 clock to clock. I see no point to upgrade from Phenom II, cant believed FX lose performance up to 76%!!!

http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/mac/reviews/AMD/Bulldozer/AMD_FX-8150-18.jpg

Peoples-Agent
10-12-11, 02:40 AM
Saturated themselves with the ATI acquisition. If they just focused on what they use to be best at, this would never have happened.

AthlonXP1800
10-12-11, 03:13 AM
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested

Ninja Prime
10-12-11, 05:08 AM
Sucks. Will probably be fine in the server space, which I think must be their plan now, BD for server, Fusion products for the majority of desktop. I wonder if piledriver in 6-8 months will actually fix anything, sounds like its more the way it is designed than anything, it just doesn't fit well with desktop duties. Maybe when 8 threads becomes common for everything, but I think thats a few years off yet.

I'm curious as to what will happen with Trinity now... Will they use these cores, or something else?

PeterJensen
10-12-11, 05:40 AM
What a letdown.

Was ready to push the button and upgrading from my X6. Not now :(

CRAP"!

Rollo
10-12-11, 06:29 AM
Wow, what a piece of ****. So much for the nonstop talk over the past few months about how much better Bulldozer would be than Intel's latest.

Ironically, Rollo was right...Bulldozer fails! :)

Wonder if anyone will post a giant "Rollo bulldozes AMD" jpg in my thread in the rumor forum now to correct the giant "AMD bulldozes Rollo" jpg?

Technically "I" wasn't right, I just ran across an interview of an unnamed AMD employee that turned out to be true and I believed it was while most did not.

In any case, this is a sad day for competition in the cpu market. Who could have guessed Bulldozer would be this bad?

nekrosoft13
10-12-11, 10:31 AM
wow, what a disaster, and i wanted to get one in hopes for better x264 encoding over by X6, but there is no point in waiting money on new AM3+ board and ****dozer.

Sean_W
10-12-11, 11:06 AM
Let's not forget that it's a cheaper upgrade for current AMD owners and nothing really utilises it yet.

Dazz
10-12-11, 11:41 AM
The dreaded TLB bug is back has no one noticed?

How is bulldozer sopost to feed the L3 cache when the L2 cache is running at slower speeds then the Memory subsystem and the L3 cache is twice as fast? And the fact it is writing faster then reading!!! The L2 cache is running 8x slower then Intels. I wonder if disabling the L2 cache will help after all the L3 cache is running 2x as fast

If you compair it to my Phenom X6 the L2 cache is 2x slower then my CPU.

http://limages.vr-zone.net/body/13694/aamd-stock.png.jpeg

ViN86
10-12-11, 12:08 PM
Man, this is embarrassing for AMD...

ViN86
10-12-11, 12:13 PM
http://techreport.com/articles.x/21813

Man my 950 annihilates those things. I was really hoping for something good from AMD.

I don't know why that guy in the link in the quote above uses high graphics settings for his CPU benchmarks...

Bman212121
10-12-11, 12:24 PM
I'd have to agree the loss of clock for clock performance is a bit of a mystery. There are some workloads where bulldozer does do quite well and can almost match a i7 2600K, but it's still going to be doing it with a lot more power consumption. I'd bet my OC'ed 2600K still uses less power and would really blow away bulldozer.

I'm guessing bulldozer will be quick to fade. It's priced higher than an X6 1100T yet performs on par in light workloads. A slight price drop of Sandy Bridge will no doubt make it even less compelling to buy anything AMD.

Pile driver has it's work cut out for it to even get the numbers back on track. The per clock increase will only get it back on track with Phenom II, then they will really need a die shrink to get the power down some. Sadly it seems like AMD is having a "netburst" of their own...


I don't know why that guy in the link in the quote above uses high graphics settings for his CPU benchmarks...

I personally like they use higher graphics settings. It shows the actual effect the processor will have on your workload. The other thing that I've seen mentioned before is the workload between running 640 x 480 low settings and full resolution high settings can change significantly on the CPU side. Even though they are GPU limited some of the settings can require more cpu power to handle the added code. Using AA might be a bit much though.

stereod
10-12-11, 12:44 PM
I'm glad that I didn't wait for Bulldozer.

ViN86
10-12-11, 01:18 PM
I personally like they use higher graphics settings. It shows the actual effect the processor will have on your workload. The other thing that I've seen mentioned before is the workload between running 640 x 480 low settings and full resolution high settings can change significantly on the CPU side. Even though they are GPU limited some of the settings can require more cpu power to handle the added code. Using AA might be a bit much though.

Well they showed 3 resolutions but left AA/AF on with all high settings... lol

shilk
10-12-11, 01:58 PM
May be a bit premature of me to say, but I'm ready as hell to jump ship and just get me an i5 2500K setup with a new mobo for $350. :(

I've been kind of waiting to see what we'd see with Bulldozer, and I'm seriously underwhelmed.

So do you guys think I should switch?

Ninja Prime
10-12-11, 02:05 PM
I'm trying to figure out how this even happened. Looking at a 6 core Phenom II in terms of size/transistor count/performance, and looking at the improved version that was on the A series Fusion products(5-7% per clock faster) , this just seems impossible.

BD is almost 2 billion transistors and 315mm2 on 32nm.
Phenom II is only 907 million transistors and 346mm2 on 45nm.

If they just took the improved A series Phenom core, and put 8 of them on a chip, you'd end up with around 1.2 billion transistors and a die size of around 240mm2 on 32nm, with much better performance than this chip. They could have clocked it up faster because of the power savings. Why didn't they just do that? They've been making this thing for like 4 years, and it ends up worse than just a macro'd die shrink of their existing processor? I don't even understand how that can happen.