• 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!

Hmmm surprising, some of those benchmarks have older phenoms beating the BD in some tasks. Seems odd..

Performance can't be that bad?
 
MR.B said:
This truly is AMD's Pentium 4.

I wasn't expecting Bulldozer to match Nehalem, let alone Sandy Bridge clock for clock. But this is a truly epic fail.
2 billion transistors, more than any other CPU design from either Intel or AMD. And way more than the Phenom II X6 has... and what do all these extra trasistors and larger die size get us? Absolutely nothing. If anything the Phenom II X6 is still better, and certainly better at single threaded performance which is still overall more important than multi-threaded performance... I'm shocked at how bad BD is.

This is bad for everyone, i'm ****** off. Whether you're an immature fanboy for either company it's bad for us all and holds back computing progression. Intel will only hold clock speeds back further, and implement more restrictions on there CPU's (look at overclocking for instance) and they certainly wont be doing any price cuts. Forget seeing 8 core I7's as well. This is only going to hurt consumers.

When Ivy Bridge is out it's going to be even worse for AMD, it's actually going to be embarrassing.... i've been following CPU's and hardware since the 1990's and cant remember when there was such little performance competition between both companies. Intel are not even trying here, they're purposely not increasing clock speed or adding more cores as theres no need. Even the P4 wasn't quite this bad from a performance perspective compared to AMD's Athlon 64 at the time.
Click to expand...

+1 Mucker i am shocked
 
bastic said:
not every Enthusiast has a 1000W PSU and runs only single GPU and overclocked CPU(some people on here are like that ;p ) ...and not everyone wants to play super high bills for electricity...
Click to expand...

If you're worried about your PCs running cost I reckon you have the wrong hobby. There's many minor things you can do to save far more money than your PC could ever burn in electricity :p

Why all the frownie faces? Its not as good as the i5/i7 in games, it trades blows with it doing real work and does not cost the earth. What was anyone expecting?

I'd like to see how the 8 core parts cope with VM workloads though my X6s are doing just fine for now.
 
So the bottom line is:

8150 is a pointless chip, get an 8210 and OC it as they both hit pretty much the same wall.
It's not a great overclocker? (from what we have seen so far, maybe some fettling/BIOS changes can help this)
It sucks huge power

Buy a 8120 over a 2500k if you want to drop it into an exisiting AM3/AM3+ board. otherwise get the 2500k part?
 
It seems that the higher the resolution the better it performs. Compared from 1680x1050 to 1920x1080 but still loses out to intel.

I wonder how they are in Eyefinity setups, if they're better than intel chips at 5760x1080 or 7680x1440 that'd be nice.
 
Last edited:
Thing is I said all along that this was going to be fail, the lack of hype, the price, the delay all pointed to bag of fail.
 
Sin_Chase said:
So the bottom line is:

8150 is a pointless chip, get an 8210 and OC it as they both hit pretty much the same wall.
It's not a great overclocker? (from what we have seen so far, maybe some fettling/BIOS changes can help this)
It sucks huge power

Buy a 8120 over a 2500k if you want to drop it into an exisiting AM3/AM3+ board. otherwise get the 2500k part?
Click to expand...

That's about right.

The point of the 8150 is to suck more money from the people who must have and the people who don't want or to scared to OC.
 
Sin_Chase said:
So the bottom line is:

8150 is a pointless chip, get an 8210 and OC it as they both hit pretty much the same wall.
It's not a great overclocker? (from what we have seen so far, maybe some fettling/BIOS changes can help this)
It sucks huge power

Buy a 8120 over a 2500k if you want to drop it into an exisiting AM3/AM3+ board. otherwise get the 2500k part?
Click to expand...

I would say anyone wanting to buy a Bulldozer CPU for their AM3 rigs should wait until the FX6100 and FX4100 reviews. They probably will have slightly higher IPC meaning if they hit the same clockspeed as the FX8100 series they will be better for more normal workloads IMHO.
 
Subliminal Aura said:
Anyone else thinking of dirt cheap bulldozer setups ?

Cheapest AM3+ // FX4 // 4-8 gig of RAM for around £160-180 complete
Click to expand...

I can't even just justify this myself ! Seems like the FX4 is very poor

Sin_Chase said:
Buy a 8120 over a 2500k if you want to drop it into an exisiting AM3/AM3+ board. otherwise get the 2500k part?
Click to expand...

Yep
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
I would say anyone wanting to buy a Bulldozer CPU for their AM3 rigs should wait until the FX6100 and FX4100 reviews. They probably will have slightly higher IPC meaning if they hit the same clockspeed as the FX8100 series they will be better for more normal workloads IMHO.
Click to expand...

There were reviews, they're worse off.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
The reviews thread has no FX4100 and FX6100 series reviews.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom