Official AMD FX Bulldozer review thread! - Page 3

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.

**Maverick123w** · 10-12-11, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stereod

I'm glad that I didn't wait for Bulldozer.

This x100000

What a let down. I was expecting close to 2500k performance. It's not even in the same league. I can only imagine what my chip at 4.7 would do to one of these things.

Peoples-Agent · 10-12-11, 03:45 PM

I'm an Intel guy through and through right now, but I swear a small part of me died inside after reading some of these reviews this morning. I have very fond memories of the AMD K6-2s, 64s etc.

**nekrosoft13** · 10-12-11, 04:42 PM

i think it would be better if they would never release this thing.

Madpistol · 10-12-11, 04:43 PM

After reading a bunch of reviews, it's apparent that Bulldozer is ahead of it's time; in most modern applications that use multiple threads and newer extensions, the FX 8150 beats the 2500k, and some times the 2600k. That doesn't help us though. As of now, the CPU is slow compared to the competition in applications today, and for that reason, AMD really has no excuse.

I think if this CPU had come out about 3 or 4 years down the road on a smaller node and higher frequency, we would have seen it be competitive. As of now, Bulldozer has a serious identity crisis on its hands.

uOpt · 10-12-11, 05:51 PM

I am very disappointed that apparently the performance in

Single-core
not simd, not floating point
not recompiled every time you get a new CPU

has actually gone down. I mean WTF. I spend a lot of time in single-threaded non-media things, just starting from linking large C++ programs.

The only good thing I can see is that at least price/performance has been picked so that the price for the same performance if you do use all cores is still better. I still expect to have a dual socket system with registered RAM with Bulldozer as my next virtualization system. But ... meh.

uOpt · 10-12-11, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roadhog

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

To be honest this isn't surprising. A leaked and now pulled test of Intel's next socket's system had about the same power consumption when overclocked.

I think those of us who run clocks of our choice will have to change our way of thinking, namely if we want to run all cores at full power AND overclock at the same time then we'll have to get a lot of energy in and out.

Which kinda sucks since the manufacturers give us no interface to do variable overclocking by how many core's worth of CPU work I have there. They do this in their own implementations of Turbo but they don't give us the same tools.

**nekrosoft13** · 10-12-11, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Madpistol

After reading a bunch of reviews, it's apparent that Bulldozer is ahead of it's time; in most modern applications that use multiple threads and newer extensions, the FX 8150 beats the 2500k, and some times the 2600k. That doesn't help us though. As of now, the CPU is slow compared to the competition in applications today, and for that reason, AMD really has no excuse.

I think if this CPU had come out about 3 or 4 years down the road on a smaller node and higher frequency, we would have seen it be competitive. As of now, Bulldozer has a serious identity crisis on its hands.

have you seen this?

http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/im...FX-8150-18.jpg

clock for clock, core for core, the new design is horrible

Viral · 10-12-11, 07:15 PM

Yep, disappointing. I wasn't planning on buying until next year now but I kinda doubt whatever I buy will be AMD.

Johnny C · 10-12-11, 08:08 PM

What a fail.....a horrible fail....there are no words to express the depth of AMD's colossal blunder.

Won't buy it...can't see anyone else buying it.

Q · 10-12-11, 08:20 PM

Pricing is going to have be very competitive very quickly. Anandtech said that it might have a place in server land but I seriously doubt it at those power and heat levels. Also, who wants to virtualize across two platforms?

Johnny C · 10-12-11, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Q

Pricing is going to have be very competitive very quickly. Anandtech said that it might have a place in server land but I seriously doubt it at those power and heat levels. Also, who wants to virtualize across two platforms?

Like free?

10-12-11, 02:05 PM	#25
Ninja Prime Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Utah Posts: 2,263	Re: Official AMD FX Bulldozer review thread! 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.

10-12-11, 03:45 PM	#27
Peoples-Agent Vape Therapist Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Berkshire, UK Posts: 4,308	Re: Official AMD FX Bulldozer review thread! I'm an Intel guy through and through right now, but I swear a small part of me died inside after reading some of these reviews this morning. I have very fond memories of the AMD K6-2s, 64s etc. __________________ For The Fallen With proud thanksgiving, a mother for her children, England mourns for her dead across the sea. Flesh of her flesh they were, spirit of her spirit, Fallen in the cause of the free.

10-12-11, 04:42 PM	#28
nekrosoft13 I'm Geralt Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Chicagoland, once a year in Poland Posts: 24,364	Re: Official AMD FX Bulldozer review thread! i think it would be better if they would never release this thing. __________________ Windows 8 the next big failure, right after Windows ME

10-12-11, 04:43 PM	#29
Madpistol It's a wittle baby! Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: United States Posts: 4,554	Re: Official AMD FX Bulldozer review thread! After reading a bunch of reviews, it's apparent that Bulldozer is ahead of it's time; in most modern applications that use multiple threads and newer extensions, the FX 8150 beats the 2500k, and some times the 2600k. That doesn't help us though. As of now, the CPU is slow compared to the competition in applications today, and for that reason, AMD really has no excuse. I think if this CPU had come out about 3 or 4 years down the road on a smaller node and higher frequency, we would have seen it be competitive. As of now, Bulldozer has a serious identity crisis on its hands. __________________ http://bfbc2.statsverse.com/sig/deta...d%20Pistol.png MadPistol's Rig AMD Phenom II X4 965 BE (RB-C3) @ 4Ghz, 1.425 Vcore, 1.25V NB VID Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme (w/ Scythe Gentle Typhoon 120mm fan) Gigabyte UD3H AM3 790GX motherboard XFX Radeon HD 5870 PNY XLR8 2x2GB CL8 DDR3 1600 G.Skill Ripjaws 2x2GB CL8 DDR3 1600 Soundblaster X-Fi Fatality Titanium OCZ Vertex II 120GB SSD (OS drive) Western Digital 500GB Caviar (black) Western Digital 640GB Blue Samsung DVD burner Logitech MX performance mouse Logitech G15 keyboard Corsair HX 750-watt Modular PSU Antec Nine Hundred case Windows 7 Home Premium x64 ASUS MK241 24" LCD ACER X241W 24" LCD - RIP

10-12-11, 05:51 PM	#30
uOpt FreeBSD cheering section Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Boston, MA, USA Posts: 609	Re: Official AMD FX Bulldozer review thread! I am very disappointed that apparently the performance in Single-core not simd, not floating point not recompiled every time you get a new CPU has actually gone down. I mean WTF. I spend a lot of time in single-threaded non-media things, just starting from linking large C++ programs. The only good thing I can see is that at least price/performance has been picked so that the price for the same performance if you do use all cores is still better. I still expect to have a dual socket system with registered RAM with Bulldozer as my next virtualization system. But ... meh. __________________ My Unix benchmark results

10-12-11, 07:15 PM	#33
Viral Registered User of Women Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 2,523	Re: Official AMD FX Bulldozer review thread! Yep, disappointing. I wasn't planning on buying until next year now but I kinda doubt whatever I buy will be AMD. __________________ Q9550 w/ Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme \| 4GB Team Xtreme Dark 800MHz CL4 \| Gigabyte X48-DS5 ASUS Radeon 5870 \| 240GB OCZ Vertex 2 \| 1TB WD Green Power \| BenQ V2400W 24" LCD Corsair HX-1000w \| LG GGW-H20L 6x DL Blu-Ray Burner/HD-DVD Reader \| Coolermaster Cosmos S Acer TravelMate 4002WNLCi: Pentium M 725 @ 1.6GHz \| Mobility Radeon 9700/64MB \| 2GB DDR400 \| 15.4" WXGA

10-12-11, 08:08 PM	#34
Johnny C Passing you @ 192mph Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Canada, EH! Posts: 779	Re: Official AMD FX Bulldozer review thread! What a fail.....a horrible fail....there are no words to express the depth of AMD's colossal blunder. Won't buy it...can't see anyone else buying it. __________________ Phenom II 965BE @ 3.9ghz 200X19.5 1.4625 vcore 2.8ghz NB 2.4ghz HT - Asus M4A79XTD-EVO bios 0604 - 12GB Corsair DDR3 1600 @ 1600mhz CAS 9 w/1T - XFX 6970 2GB 950/1450 - Xigmatek S1283 HSF - Antec 900 - Windows 7 Ultimate x64

10-12-11, 08:20 PM	#35
Q Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 7,796	Re: Official AMD FX Bulldozer review thread! Pricing is going to have be very competitive very quickly. Anandtech said that it might have a place in server land but I seriously doubt it at those power and heat levels. Also, who wants to virtualize across two platforms?