• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD Bulldozer Finally!

Gandeh said:
All I'm interested in is great gaming performance, I'm still not sure what AMD processor that is
Click to expand...

Any :p

Its gaming, gaming always has, and always will be GPU limited, Bulldozer, Phenom 2, a dual core Intel, a quad core Intel........... in most situations most of them will do fine and you won't notice the difference.

I can guarentee you, without question that given a 3.5Ghz Intel or AMD quad core to play a game on, no one would be able to tell you what was inside as they played, but tell them the resolution, settings and framerate, they'd be able to tell you roughly what GPU was in there.

Spend big on GPU, whatevers left on CPU, that will always give you the best overall gaming experience.
 
Tuvoc said:
Give the BD benchmarks, maybe not at all !

I'm undecided at this point whether to go for an 1100T x6 or one of the Bulldozers. Plenty of time to decide, although presumably Phenom II will stop production now ? So stocks will disappear after a few weeks. If the 1100T drops £20-£30 that would be nice...
Click to expand...

£20-£30 you wish :) , It may even go up.
 
drunkenmaster i fail to see how you can possibly attempt to spin the fact that this chip is an absolute failure in almost every department. You seem to have an extremely optimistic appraisal of a very bleak reality...
 
I am in a situation where I want to
- run one app which uses 4 cores continuously
- run another app which uses 1 core continuously
- have 1 core free for web surfing, spreadsheets etc

So at sensible prices it has to be AMD for me, either 1100T or a 6 or 8 core bulldozer. Sandybridge won't do what I need. 4 core doesn't cut it. But at this point, I'm favouring the 6 true cores of the 1100T rather than BD
 
Is the 1100t not just a 1090t that amd have oc'ed slightly?

I am no expert and don't know but it just makes sense to me to buy the 1090t as they will probably oc to the same core speed?
 
Okatsu said:
drunkenmaster i fail to see how you can possibly attempt to spin the fact that this chip is an absolute failure in almost every department. You seem to have an extremely optimistic appraisal of a very bleak reality...
Click to expand...

How am I spinning, LOOK AT THE NUMBERS.

It sucks when you use a 6970 or 6990, some top end gpu, and low resolution and low settings, I haven't said it doesn't, but be honest.... who has a top end gpu and games at low settings, no one.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/7

This page is the "real world" tests, things you might use.

There are 15 benchmarks on that page, the 8150 is ahead of the 2500k in 8 of them.

Its faster than the 2500k in more than half the tests......... where am I spinning?

Now look at the ones it loses, single thread Cinebench 10 and 11.5....... no one on earth runs encoding programs single thread, no one, multithread, Bulldozer beats it...... thats not spinning thats the reality of it.

What about two more, x264 encoding, hugely important, loads of people encode on it, its an awesome codec. first pass is normally 2-3 threads, its a QUICK pass that does simple things, the 2nd pass is part of the whole test, its slower, it takes longer and it does the bulk of the work. Again Bulldozer is behind in the first pass and 30% ahead with AVX enabled(both chips can use AVX). XOP wasn't included, its a significant performance boost, only Bulldozer has it, its almost made for encoding.

The numbers mean nothing if you won't ever use a chip doing whatever it is.

Even without looking at what benchmarks the 2500k wins, Bulldozer still wins 8 out of 15 of those, more than half. When you realise that 4 of the ones the 2500k wins are utterly irrelevant...... you're now at Bulldozer winning 8 of 11 benchmarks on that page in anything anyone actually uses or cares about.

Seriously, do you want to be 30% faster in the first pass, which might take 5 minutes(so saving you 2 minutes) or 30% faster in the second pass which takes 30 minutes, thereby saving you...... 10 minutes, be honest, am I spinning or is Bulldozer faster when it matters?

I have also specifically said the following, if the 2500k had HT, it would be a no contest, if the 2600k or another HT having model was priced near, it would be a no contest. Considerint the 8120 is identical in every way to a 8150, with nothing disabled(and I said this LONG before launch) anyone would be mad to buy a 8150 over a 8120.

That leaves you with a £167 2500k, or a £167 8120, thats faster in more than half the benchmarks that are actually relevant to real world usage of the CPU......

In this situation, the 8120 is very possibly the better option, if you include Superpi, gaming in a way no one on earth games, and a few other completely pointless decade old benchmarks, the 2500k would rack up win after win.

In x264 encoding, 7zip/winrar/par 2, in gaming, in Excel and in rendering....... the 8150 is simply faster than the 2500k, those are all things many people do all the time, I never use 7zip tbh, but winrar/par 2 every single day, excel quite often, x264 encoding frequently throughout the week, etc. In things I actually do, rather than one off comparing to another chip, Bulldozer is faster than the equivilently priced Intel chip.

If I had £250 to spend, 2600k, no question, at £160ish, the 8120 is a pretty damn good option.
 
Last edited:
drunkenmaster said:
YOu do know I linked to the anandtech review, and that you can't read?

The gaming benchmarks really are irrelevant, when did you last use a top end gpu for low resolution, you simply don't, I do not care how it does in situations I don't come across, that NO ONE comes across, but the ones I do.

Do you realise the 8150 is ahead in MANY of those benchmarks, do you realise at on limit resolution gpu limited gaming bulldozer is beating the 2500k. Do you realise that pass 1/2 of rendering, pass 2 is the MUCH SLOWER one that takes much longer that does a lot more work, being 30% faster in pass 2, and 30% slower in pass 1, would make the entire encode all together take significantly less time on the CPU that is faster on pass 2...... thats Bulldozer.

Cinebench, Bulldozer loses in single thread, it matches the 2500k in multi in the OLD version and it BEATS it in the newer version........ and its still an out dated benchmark. Seriously, who would run a rendering program single threaded, no one, thats your answer, its a synthetic test, in the real world you'd run multithread, where Bulldozer is faster, again.
Click to expand...

You do realize it's from the same website. Thus more comparable. You do realize that in the vast majority of benchmarks, the 2500k annihilation the 8150.

farcry2.jpg


They compare single threads to give in indication of efficiency. Of which BD has none. Even old P2's beat it. BD is only good for heavily threaded apps and even then it only beats the 2500k by a small margin. Against the 2600k it doesn't stand a chance.

Even the 2500k at stock trumps the 8150 @ 4.5Ghz in tests. Not even the hardest of AMD fanboys can defend Bulldozer. Not to mention consuming over 500W when OC'd to 4.8Ghz.

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



Lets face it, BD fails completely.
 
Last edited:
can a moderator lock this thread and we use another thread now, there's no point having 235 pages with little info in. There is already a review thread.

EDIT: Ocuk have them on pre-order for £100-220. The 8 core is £220 yet it is slower than the 2500K which costs £167 on ocuk. AMD has failed in pricing aswell as performance!
 
So when do these go on sale?

Still thinking about getting one as a drop in upgrade from my 1090t which i need to put in another machine.

Not interested in gaming just video editing and encode,so its the 8150 or another 1090t?
 
QuackPot said:
Read and weep.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=434
Click to expand...

Sysmark is a joke, look up Bapco, who owns them(intel), who pays them(intel) who they optimise for and which companies decided to part ways with them when it got so heavily and painfully biased that, IIRC< it rated an Intel IGP ahead of an AMD one, then removed IGP testing completely was it because Intel looked really bad there.

Sysmark literally in no way can be trusted.
 
QuackPot said:
You do realize it's from the same website. Thus more comparable. You do realize that in the vast majority of benchmarks, the 2500k annihilation the 8150.

farcry2.jpg


They compare single threads to give in indication of efficiency. Of which BD has none. Even old P2's beat it. BD is only good for heavily threaded apps and even then it only beats the 2500k by a small margin. Against the 2600k it doesn't stand a chance.

Even the 2500k at stock trumps the 8150 @ 4.5Ghz in tests. Not even the hardest of AMD fanboys can defend Bulldozer. Not to mention consuming over 500W when OC'd to 4.8Ghz.



Lets face it, BD fails completely.
Click to expand...

ASides from bit-tech being rubbish, EVERY other website has phenoms, i7's, i5's and Bulldozer within a couple frames under gpu limits, where you would actually play the game.

We can do it your way though.

The 2600k, overclocked, using over 300W, was slower than the stock 8150 in BF3..... using much much much less power.

Why are bit-tech rubbish, they described Sandy bridge as really a lap top chip they bunged onto the desktop....... honestly, I've never seen something so epically ridiculous stated in a review, ever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom