• 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!

Sin_Chase said:
Also, BD as a server chip? Not with that power draw.
Click to expand...

??? It has already being used by Cray and supercomputing centres are changing over to Interlagos.

One of them Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

If you have not realised by now,the 32NM process used seems to suck shedloads of power at higher frequencies and it is the same issue which has plagued Llano. This why AMD has a 2.5GHZ 8 core Interlagos running at 32W ACP(around 35W TDP).
 
Last edited:
drunkenmaster said:
at £160ish, the 8120 is a pretty damn good option.
Click to expand...

Is the 8120 just a lower clocked 8150 and would it be safe to assume it would hit the same max clocks?

I just don't know what to make of a lot of the reviews tbh. It doesn't look great but I keep seeing stuff being benched that is just barmy IMO, like games benched at 1024x768 or with 2x6990 at 1080p and some of those odd cinebench single threaded tests. Then I look at the multi-threaded performance and the hardocp gaming review and it looks OK, and those are much more useful tests. But still I think it should be faster compared to the 1100T and the power consumption when overclocked is really disappointing.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
I just saw it. OTH,how far can an FX4100 overclock? The FX4170 in the gaming tests was not always behind at 1920X1080 for gaming. In half the games tested it was actually ahead of the Phenom II X4 980.
Click to expand...

Yes, but remember the 980 is at 3.7GHz, and the 4170 @ 4.2GHz.

That's a 500MHz advantage, and it only just creeps ahead of the 980 in those tests it wins.

Not to mention the only FX4 you can buy atm is the 4100, which is clocked considerably lower.

So assume you are going to need 500MHz advantage over a Phenom II to score the same.

A 955BE will hit 4GHz more oft than not, so you are going to need a 4.5GHz FX4XXX minimum to keep up with an £85 almost 3 year old tech Phenom II.

That's hardly a resounding success...

The FX4XXX are going to need to be able to clock to ~5GHz on air to be worth it over the good ol' 955BE. =/
 
Comes across as AMD's pentium 4. It certainly seems like they planned it that way from anands review. How did that work out for intel again?

I hope amd can pull a core 2 duo/athlon 64, they need to do it again.
 
Good God, just had a look at this:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/8

Looks like an utter failure, even more so with the amount of time it took to launch. I'm glad i'll be saving myself money but I would have thought that AMD would have stepped their game up after all this time and they haven't.

If I do upgrade it'll be to a 2500K sometime in the future.
 
HeX said:
Yes, but remember the 980 is at 3.7GHz, and the 4170 @ 4.2GHz.

That's a 500MHz advantage, and it only just creeps ahead of the 980 in those tests it wins.

Not to mention the only FX4 you can buy atm is the 4100, which is clocked considerably lower.

So assume you are going to need 500MHz advantage over a Phenom II to score the same.

A 955BE will hit 4GHz more oft than not, so you are going to need a 4.5GHz FX4XXX minimum to keep up with an £85 almost 3 year old tech Phenom II.

That's hardly a resounding success...

The FX4XXX are going to need to be able to clock to ~5GHz on air to be worth it over the good ol' 955BE. =/
Click to expand...

This is why I want to see how well it overclocks. The FX4100 is priced closely to the Phenom II X4 965BE ATM too,so how well it overclocks will determine its worth IMHO. However,one thing I did notice is that the FX4170 does consume 20W less at load and idle than a Phenom II X4 980BE. The thing is the Phenom II X4 is being retired this year meaning the FX4100 is going to end up being the direct replacement too! :(
 
Last edited:
LeJosh said:
lol 2x6990s should be powering 3 monitors!
Click to expand...

Yeah, exactly. I guess they are trying to run a test that relies more on the CPU but it's not really the kind of test I want to see tbh. I'm interested in how it will perform when in the ways that I am likely to use it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom