• 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!

wolvers said:
Has anyone here got an 8120 to see if hits the same clocks as Gareth's 8150?
Click to expand...

The professional reviews are indicating that the 8120 and 8150 are clocking to the same levels. So, it looks like the 8120 is the one to buy, if you plan to over-clock.

Based on Gareth's results though, buying an 8150 or 8120 just doesn't offer good value for money. Its best to get a Phenom2 OR go Intel, if outright performance is important to you.
 
Freddie1980 said:
New steppings can turn very good CPU's into great ones such as the Q6600 G0 stepping but it can't turn a turd into a diamond. At the moment AMD has the it’s flagship CPU massively overpriced by about £50, until they start to retail these CPU’s below that of 2500K levels then very few enthusiasts will rush to buy these.
Click to expand...

But the price won't make up for it being lacklustre in some area's compared to its predecessor.
 
AMD will need a miracle chip to recover from this to try and appeal to it's gamers/performance orientated crown but unfortunately that will never happen I don't think.
 
If Drunkenmaster was telling the truth, my understanding is that BD was never a volume chip. This was just an interim CPU, to be succeeded very quickly by the version2 (pile driver or Trinity...I really don't know what names these CPUs are).

IF the above is correct, then the fact that BD is a little slow, isn't too big a deal. They should be able to make sales with correct marketing (ie. focus on the "8 cores...more cores than any other CPU). When they are ready to release BD2, then I'm sure they can get back on the pace. HOWEVER, they might be in danger of running into Ivybridge (which could be a major problem).

IMO, if they drop the prices of BD, they can sell good quantities of this CPU. Price, as always though, is one of the most important factors when it comes to sales. If they can lower their BD prices below 2500K, I think this would be a pretty good CPU.

My understanding is that the only Intel CPU which can beat the 8150 is their own Phenom and the 2500K (and upwards). The lower end Intel CPUs are inferior to the 8150.
 
Yes, they intended for this fail launch ;). All that marketing hype, the bringing back the FX name the "AMD unlocked" lark, all leading up to Piledriver, give me a break. I suppose Llano bad yields are also a lead up to Piledriver?
PileDriver isn't going to pull a conroe I don't think, at least given AMD's own performance increase figures which IIRC, are 20% over Zambezi. For all we know, it's all clock speed increase, or all IPC increase, probably a bit of both.

On the flipside, Ivybridge is only going to be a few percent higher clock than SB and a few percent better IPC IIRC, it's not going to be any substantial improvement.

Beating the 8150 depends on the situation.
An E5400 will wipe the floor with the FX 8150 in PS2 emulation for example.. The ever popular Rome Total War will perform better on an E5400 etc.
People have a lot of uses etc, but it's not just the 2500k that beats it, or the Phenom II's at all.

DM cares too much for theory, fair play to him, but knowing the theory is completely different to knowing the practicality. Take BD for example, the modules, I said about two threads being ran off a module would cause a performance hit, DM said I wasn't understanding it right. BD launches? Oh look, the two threads being executed from BD does give a performance loss in scaling between the module. The scheduling "patch" should improve situations in applications that utilise 2-6 threads.

Knowing/Speaking the theory like DM does, gives the advantage of being able to, I suppose, describe what you're saying, which is where I fall down, I can't tell you why something is the way it is, just that it is that way.

Although, the scaling was worse than I'd suggested.
 
Last edited:
If anything was an interim CPU it was the Phenom X6, BD was just delayed for far too long and even if it had been released 2 years ago the low IPC would have meant that it still lost to the CPU's at the time in a lot of tests.
 
mmj_uk said:
If anything was an interim CPU it was the Phenom X6, BD was just delayed for far too long and even if it had been released 2 years ago the low IPC would have meant that it still lost to the CPU's at the time in a lot of tests.
Click to expand...

Indeed.
The FX4 gets ravaged by the Q6600 at the same clock, and that CPU is edging, on over 4 years old.
I always thought that Thuban was meant to be the stop gap to Bulldozer, as Bulldozer was meant to be out a while ago.
 
Martini1991 said:
And their bizarre opinions :p.
So the FX8150 is faster than the Thuban in highly threaded things, check.
The FX6 and FX4 which actually replace current Phenom II products at the price section perform worse.
Click to expand...
not if clock for clock

anything over 4.5ghz than yes in highly threaded apps
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom