• 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!

Well...so AMD has basically drove the Bulldozer down the lake and sinked it :mad:

If anyone MUST go AMD, they'd better off just grab a Phenom II X4/X6 and overclock them, considering they are faster on the same clock speed...
 
drunkenmaster said:
How am I spinning, LOOK AT THE NUMBERS.

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


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.
Click to expand...

This is where you are spinning, taking out some of the tests to make it 8 out of 11 is spinning :p
 
Marine-RX179 said:
If anyone MUST go AMD, they'd better off just grab a Phenom II X4/X6 and overclock them, considering they are faster on the same clock speed...
Click to expand...

And do it fast, as AMD have EOL the Phenom II's... which is looking to be a terrible idea.

They could have saved themselves a ton of development costs and just brought out a 32nm high clocked Phenom II and it'd have been better than Bulldozer :rolleyes:
 
gilljoy said:
From what I've been reading the top of the line bulldozer CPU isnt even as good as a i5 2500k. Not really suprised, looks like my brothers new system will be intel based
Click to expand...

Not even as good as previous AMD chips, it has twice as many transistors, it's twice as hot and runs on-par or slower, it's a complete and utter fail of a chip, that is all.
 
Still trundling along on the 955BE on AM2+, doesn't look like any reason for me to upgrade yet.
Found the Anandtech end bit showing the performance boost in Windows 8 Quite interesting.
Looks like this could be a good CPU for some folks, not for Joe Average though.

Can we start a Piledriver thread now so we can still have a comedy thread in CPUs filled with nothing but speculation and OT stuff? The BD thread is actually relevant now that NDA is up. :D

Quite disappointed with the gaming performance but I suppose they did warn us...
 
Metalface Mark said:
This is where you are spinning, taking out some of the tests to make it 8 out of 11 is spinning :p
Click to expand...

I completly agree with drunkenmaster on this.

Why on earth would you ever run Cinenama4D or any other renderer on a single core? Frankly speaking this single thread rendering is pointless from the start but it's left there so you can feel nice when you see how much improvement there is if you run it in multi scenario.

Either way, I still haven't decided as my usage is a mix of workstation and gaming (mainly low res - 1680x1050 or 1920x1080 later on)...

I'd love to see a proper benchmark of a standard office usage, with PS, Excel, multi-tab web browsing, email etc in one go between 2500K and FX 8150.
Add to this a 3d modelling software rendering something in the bg and it would seem like 2500K is going to lag behind...
 
HeX said:
They could have saved themselves a ton of development costs and just brought out a 32nm high clocked Phenom II and it'd have been better than Bulldozer :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

No it's an architecture win for AMD as ....

AMD has just proved that it can win at threading but at the same time fail at single core performance.

The ball is now in Intel's court for them to prove that they can also scale horizontally
 
The Single Thread benchmarks are for enthusiast interpretation and are a decent way to speculate on how the architecture might scale as/if more cores are added. It's not exactly great news.

Can the chip handle a day-to-day workload? Sure. I do not think anyone is debating that, does it make it a good chip and a good socket to invest in now? No.

Also, BD as a server chip? Not with that power draw.
 
HeX said:
There are, the one linked above has a 4.2 FX4XXX, and it's terrible.

Phenom II 980 trounces it in everything. So snag an £85 955BE, slap it at 3.8GHz, and you will thrash a FX4100 OC'd @ 4.2.
Click to expand...

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.
 
...and can you believe, there are some people who actually took days off work to usher in the arrival of the BullDozer CPU.

Never before in my life have I seen such high anticipation of a CPU (judging by the length of this thread).

Even Sandybridge (2500k/2600k), which is basically the best CPU that has ever been released, in terms of performance and value for money, wasn't subject to this much anticipation.
 
And a quick side note regarding power usage at home and care of.

I do not care all that much for power draw as long as it does not mean I need to invest £££ in bigger PSUs. I ran a Q6600 overclocked with no SpeedStep for years and years.

The fact is Intel proved with Sandybridge that you can have a killer chip which absolutely flies with a huge overclock but also retain all of the power saving features and have a decent full load Wattage draw.

I have had that now, and if I can retain it in the future I will. Why would anyone say no to power savings with zero drawbacks?
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom