• 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.

So I wnet and bought a Bulldoser

So as most of you know, I returned the Z68 stuff and got and I7 980 instead.

In Skyrim, the first core is loaded up to 80% usage, while the remaining 5 are used about 15%.

So Skyrim does use all the cores, just not by much though.

Edit - Skyrim uses 80% on the main core, and 20% of each of the rest, but none of the hyperthreads:

dsc00162ch.jpg
 
Last edited:
Interesting thread - I currently have a 990fx sabertooth with a 1055t OC'd to 3.8 for 24x7 and 4ghz when I need to. I will probably wait for the 8120 to come down in price a bit or a new version before moving to BD. As I got my mb + cpu for £175 second hand I will probably make a profit if I need to sell my CPU :)
 
bhavv said:
So as most of you know, I returned the Z68 stuff and got and I7 980 instead.

In Skyrim, the first core is loaded up to 80% usage, while the remaining 5 are used about 15%.

So Skyrim does use all the cores, just not by much though.

Edit - Skyrim uses 80% on the main core, and 20% of each of the rest, but none of the hyperthreads:

dsc00162ch.jpg
Click to expand...

Skyrim can only see and use 2 cores. The windows scheduler spreads the load out amongst the cores but skyrim will never use more than 2 because that is all the games engine is programmed for.

Only game that does multithreading well so far is battlefield 3, which actually can use 8 cores.
 
mmj_uk said:
Out of interest how come the 8150 still has yet to be in stock anywhere? are yields that bad? :confused:
Click to expand...

In a word...yes.

AMD cannot get enough of these CPUs at to retail, fast enough.
Once AMD can meet demand, I think they will definitely be reducing the price of the CPU which will make it more attractive.

While demand outstrips supply (which is currently the case), there is not need for AMD to reduce pricing.

With regards to supply, the 4 and 6 core CPUs seem to have good stocks in various e-tailors. However, its the 8 core CPUs - these things are like gold dust.
 
to get volumes in the retail channels up, AMD need to stop farting around selling a dual-module Bulldozer chip with two disabled modules, four Hyper Transport connects and various other pointless server related components! for the love of god, make them two module on a piece of silicon and sell them as that, would get much better yields and bring prices right down, the whole point of the exercise was to make a modular chip, so adding modules would be simple and straight-forward, same should apply for removing modules.

doing this is the only way this processor is going to see success, because the four 'core', dual-module variant isn't supposed to be compared to a traditional four core processor. people need to take a step back and look at the architecture what what it is, each module is simply a 'wide-core' that can execute two threads in parallel rather than just one, its not single core, its not dual-core, its more like a hybrid stop for the love of Jesus stop comparing it like its bread and butter cores vs. cores, because its just not!

also stupid when people keep saying 'your trying to polish a turd...' or whatever, but 9 times out of 10 the comparison is getting lost in translation, though AMD aren't helping themselves with the marketing strategy, the position the company wanted to be in was for the chip to be compared more like a traditional core with Hyper-Threading rather than two independent entities, sure it hasn't really succeeded as well as they would have hoped but it has improved over the previous generation in a number of areas, the only problem is they are off-setting the fact that adding the second integer cluster and streamlining them (adding about ~5% extra die-space vs. single core) by chucking a truly massive and pointless amount of cache on the chip.

also another note, what is with the shocking spelling on here sometimes? :confused: we are virtually all computer enthusiasts and system builders, makes it that much more confusing!
 
You can't tell people to stop comparing core for core when the thing is marketed as 4 core.
It's not the worst CPU in the world but compared to the previous Phenom II range, it just isn't good enough.
I don't understand why so many people defend it.
 
Has anybody, or are there any articles where they have benched the BD's against the Phenoms in real world gaming? Not interest in the bench programmes they give me no enjoyment. I am just interested in a bench between a Phenom Quad Core 965BE and a Bulldozer FX-4 Quad Core 4100 at stock.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom