Bulldozer

Jonny7

Anyone waiting for it?

I think most hopes that it was going to kill Sandy Bridge are out the window, but from all the jumble of leaked info, dodgy or not, it looks like the 8 core model could trade blows with the 2600k.

Should be out in around 10 days unless they delay it again.

If the high clocks actually help it with gaming and its close to the 2600k I think I'll grab one.. but the gaming scores will really clinch it for me.

cherryghost

Will be interested to see if there will be a price war :P

AMD are known to price aggressively so we could see processor prices fall quickly, at which point THEN I'm interested

Monotype

I'd say it would beat the 2600K in multithreaded applications. Doubtful we'll see it keep up in games. That's a lot down to games not making the best use of multiple cores.

deejer

Monotype wrote: »

I'd say it would beat the 2600K in multithreaded applications. Doubtful we'll see it keep up in games. That's a lot down to games not making the best use of multiple cores.

The gaming performance will be interesting. And the talk on price looks promising as well. If it can offer a decent gaming alternative to the sandybridge then all the delay will have been worth it. Its gas, back in April I was trying to decide if I would buy a Phenom II chip or wait for Bulldozer. Im glad now I didnt have the patience

I know E-Bridge is going to be hot on its heals before xmas but I dont think the percentage performance increase intel will offer will match their price and this will allow AMD win back some of the ground its lost in the last 6 months.

Piledriver is due then mid next year - i guess after the full catelogue of bulldozer chips have been released - and this should build on the architecture further.

deceit

The leaked benchmarks of the top end cpu puts it beating the 2600k and intels top end 990 in most things including games so if they are to be believed should be worth a purchase.
I've decided to pick up a bulldozer upgrade if these benchmarks are accurate and then when the proper bulldozer and ivybridge and both e boards come out next year I will decide on my main rig upgrade then. Also the video of the fx8150 being overclocked to 8.49ghz makes it even more tempting
Bulldozer next year when its am4 socket rather than am3+ which is the ones this month and completely new architecture should be the one to watch as will make amd able to compete fully with intel again.

deejer

Seem to have their hands on the 8120 in Ukraine!

http://forum.overclockers.ua/viewtopic.php?uid=2&f=2&t=42451

Dont ask me what they are on about but take a look at cpu-z

deconduo

From what I can gather a lot of the tech sites have had samples for a while but theres an NDA until the 12th when the official release is. While there's nothing official yet, the genereal leaked consensus is that it performs somewhere between the 2500k and 2600k in threaded tasks, and slightly worse than the 2500k in games at stock. It remains to be seen how it overclocks and what the exact pricing on it will be.

deejer

deconduo wrote: »

From what I can gather a lot of the tech sites have had samples for a while but theres an NDA until the 12th when the official release is. While there's nothing official yet, the genereal leaked consensus is that it performs somewhere between the 2500k and 2600k in threaded tasks, and slightly worse than the 2500k in games at stock. It remains to be seen how it overclocks and what the exact pricing on it will be.

Your not going to start putting together AMD builds for people just yet so

cherryghost

deejer wrote: »

Your not going to start putting together AMD builds for people just yet so

Well its supposedly aggressively priced under the 2500k so it could be an ideal candidate for budget builders. It remains to be seen though.

deceit

Is it the 8120 that is better than the 2500k and the 8150 is the better than both the 2500k and 2600k or am I wrong with that? The 8150 is the one that overclocked to 8.49ghz for the world record o/c

deejer

deceit wrote: »

Is it the 8120 that is better than the 2500k and the 8150 is the better than both the 2500k and 2600k or am I wrong with that? The 8150 is the one that overclocked to 8.49ghz for the world record o/c

They are meant be at stock speeds of 3.1ghz and 3.4ghz. They seem to be very overclockable. They are able to push out the power anyway so hopefully the frames will follow.

Avose

I was about to buy myself an i5 2500k, before this reminded me of these chips, and i was happily surprised at how soon they are released.

Which would you guys expect to perform better for games based on the info we know so far? i5 2500k or the FX-8150? Im also going to be over-clocking no matter which one i buy too, so hopefully the AMD ones have a high ceiling

Jonny7

The leaks so far (Ukraine, NL, etc) show a chip that is between the 2600k and 2500k generally, but also with some very strange poor results (slower than a 6 core deneb chip)

The real-world results will be out in a few days

These chips may be great overclockers though.

Avose

Jonny7 wrote: »

The leaks so far (Ukraine, NL, etc) show a chip that is between the 2600k and 2500k generally, but also with some very strange poor results (slower than a 6 core deneb chip)

The real-world results will be out in a few days

These chips may be great overclockers though.

I'm really really hoping for better price/performance with the 8150 compared to the 2500k with nice frame rates in games.

Sorta off topic, but would games be able to use all those cores? If a game is programmed with say 4 cores to be expected as standard, what does it do with any more? Does it just dish out the workload evenly?
Just curious if games must be programmed with 8 cores in mind, or do they go to waste?

Tea_Bag

Avose wrote: »

I'm really really hoping for better price/performance with the 8150 compared to the 2500k with nice frame rates in games.

Sorta off topic, but would games be able to use all those cores? If a game is programmed with say 4 cores to be expected as standard, what does it do with any more? Does it just dish out the workload evenly?
Just curious if games must be programmed with 8 cores in mind, or do they go to waste?

games only use as many cores as it was programmed to do. that's why everyone had a chuckle when they did a demo of bulldozer recently ... by running Dirt3.... which only uses 3 cores.

AMD has apparently got an interesting thing about it though that completely shuts down cores as fast as Intel's Turbo etc as in milliseconds. should save massive amounts of power and TDP hopefully.

ShadowHearth

So guys. Will it make cheaper builds then 2500k builds?

I know its too early, but amd was always good at showing intel a finger.

I understand that reviews will be public after 12th?

deejer

ShadowHearth wrote: »

So guys. Will it make cheaper builds then 2500k builds?

I know its too early, but amd was always good at showing intel a finger.

I understand that reviews will be public after 12th?

Well I think its supposed to be released on Wednesday.

Jonny7

ShadowHearth wrote: »

So guys. Will it make cheaper builds then 2500k builds?

I know its too early, but amd was always good at showing intel a finger.

I understand that reviews will be public after 12th?

We'll know in two days, that's when the NDA is up.

It isn't looking good, but I'm hoping for the best

ShadowHearth

So big day tomorrow?

We should see us it a big fail or big woot!

Monotype

I'm expecting reviews to say, "It's an improvement but still behind Intel. AMD are promising huge leaps in performance with Piledriver/Steamroller". :rolleyes:

Incidentally, AMD's 32nm Opterons for release in 2013 are codenamed "Dublin".

ShadowHearth

Monotype wrote: »

I'm expecting reviews to say, "It's an improvement but still behind Intel. AMD are promising huge leaps in performance with Piledriver/Steamroller". :rolleyes:

Incidentally, AMD's 32nm Opterons for release in 2013 are codenamed "Dublin".

Very negative attitude...

If it's on level with 2500k, but twice cheaper and mobo twice cheaper, then bring it on!

In the end of the day I would not be a badge snob. If it's good, I will add it in to my biuld, if not, then 2500k on the list again.

Meirleach

So, several reviews out now. Benchmarks seem pretty poor to be honest, which is very very disappointing.

HardOCP did a gaming performance review on a few more modern games and the results look somewhat promising.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/10/11/amd_bulldozer_fx8150_gameplay_performance_review/1

Really not sure if I'll bother upgrade right now, maybe with some Windows and/or Bios updates the performance(or at least the benchmarking performance) will increase.

uncle_sam_ie

Ouch, the reviews are basically saying it sucks. Looks like an i5 for me.

deejer

Im a little disappointed to be honest

Based on the reviews and If you are looking for a gaming PC you still have to choose the 2500k. No avoiding the fact!

AMD seem to emphasis the fact that this architecture is for future generations of software that will utilise its additional cores - Which I am sure that it will. But if you are an enthusiast who regulary upgrades your system you want performace now! And it just isnt cutting it with the current generation.

It does seem to be very overclockable but with a big power draw.

Interested in seeing how the below works:
Without spending a small fortune, users can combine an AMD FX CPU with an AMD 9-series chipset motherboard and AMD Radeon HD 6000 series graphics cards to create the AMD “Scorpius” platform

Meirleach

It seems to do fine in battlefield 3 at least deejer, now if only I could find some ro2 benchmarks for it.

ShadowHearth

Meirleach wrote: »

So, several reviews out now. Benchmarks seem pretty poor to be honest, which is very very disappointing.

HardOCP did a gaming performance review on a few more modern games and the results look somewhat promising.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/10/11/amd_bulldozer_fx8150_gameplay_performance_review/1

Really not sure if I'll bother upgrade right now, maybe with some Windows and/or Bios updates the performance(or at least the benchmarking performance) will increase.

How is this disappointing?

In my opinion amd did quite a good job. Dp we really need some new generation processor which will cost 5 million and it won't be used out by games and programs for few years, because developers are not arsed.

What I see here: it brings similar performance of 2500k 2600k ( which is best for gaming at this moment) for way less. Plus it will need cheaper mono too.

This is what pc gaming needs. To make it more affordable for Joe. So for example system that would cost 800eu will go down to 600 eu with this processor ( just example)

This is early stage, so drivers are not ironed out too.

I might be wrong and boards.ie guru will prove me wrong, but I am kind of happy with what it is...

Meirleach

In my opinion amd did quite a good job. Dp we really need some new generation processor which will cost 5 million and it won't be used out by games and programs for few years, because developers are not arsed.

Actually part of AMDs current excuse for the poor benchmarking is that their processor is so next gen that nothing is taking advantage of it properly, and it's a damn good excuse too. Mostly because of the interesting FPU design, there's only 4 of them but they can each handle either a 256bit thread or two 128bit threads. It's just a damn pity nothing really takes advantage of that right now.

I'll probably still end up getting one, and I do hope with bios tweaks, software and OS updates that the overall performance will improve, but I'll probably hold off on upgrading right away(Don't quote me on that though, I am fickle and like shiny things)

cherryghost

General consensus is that its pretty good for the encoding, gaming is definitely average but overclocked its slightly faster than overclocked Sandybridge, EXTREMELY slightly. :rolleyes:

Monotype

I'm surprised at how badly it performs in single threaded processes.
Idle power consumption is way down, just a little above Sandy bridge but load is ridiculous.
Good to see that they overclock well.

I think I'd get one over a 2400 and below but I'd have to go with the 2500K in a new system with a permitting budget (unless the extra cores are really needed).

Unregistered.

Shocking.

cherryghost

Prices are cropping up at 200-230 for the 8150. i5 2500k is cheaper, so AMD have priced themselves out of the market imo. Very bad times for AMD.

ShadowHearth

Enderman wrote: »

Prices are cropping up at 200-230 for the 8150. i5 2500k is cheaper, so AMD have priced themselves out of the market imo. Very bad times for AMD.

Wasn't that in dollars? Or is it usual bull**** to bend over eurozone 230eu=230dollars

Is they will be more expensive then 2500k, then they are ****ed. Totally agree.

uncle_sam_ie

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Wasn't that in dollars? Or is it usual bull**** to bend over eurozone 230eu=230dollars

Is they will be more expensive then 2500k, then they are ****ed. Totally agree.

Not cheap compared to the 2500k
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/productlist.php?groupid=701&catid=6&subid=1942

deejer

Pity they only releasing the FX-8150 today. Would be interesting to see the performance of the other CPU's in the line up with their big overclocks

FX-6100: Six cores, 3.3 GHz CPU base (3.6 GHz Turbo Core, 3.9 GHz Max Turbo), $165 suggested retail price (U.S.)

FX-4100: Four cores, 3.6 GHz CPU base (3.7 GHz Turbo Core, 3.8 GHz Max Turbo), $115 suggested retail price (U.S.)

Monotype

The price will drop down in a few weeks. They'd really want the lower 8-core (FX-8120) below the 2500K, although there's a FX-8100 coming too.

The 6 and 4 cores don't look great, judging by low thread tests of the 8150. Barely a replacement of the Phenoms, worse performance per clock but better power consumption and overclocking. The 4100 might do someone who is trying to stretch a low budget and will overclock.

ShadowHearth

uncle_sam_ie wrote: »

Not cheap compared to the 2500k
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/productlist.php?groupid=701&catid=6&subid=1942

yup, 200 pounds for 8150. 2500k is 167 pounds... AMD is ****ed.

Tea_Bag

well.... that was disappointing.

even though I already jumped ship to the 2500K, I was still looking forward to this and I do like AMD as a company.

the 8150 is €250 on HWVS. not in stock so hopefully its just a place holder.
it also falls into the AM3 heading, which could confuse some people

deceit

I'm hugely disappointed with these chips. I was hoping I could finaly justify getting an amd cpu again in my main rig as i've always liked the company . Looks like I will have to just stick with my i7's until next year and see if the new ivybridge and new bulldozer am4 are not disappointments like this.

Jonny7

Lowest EU launch prices so far

FX-8150 - 224 euros
FX-6100 - 160 euros
FX-4100 - 109 euros

Anyone into gaming is far better off getting an i5 2500k

Anyone into multithreaded can get better value with the x6 1100, which the BD fails to beat in quite a few benchmarks (pretty shocking really)

I was waiting for this one, but overall its a disappointment.

ShadowHearth

i loled at comments here:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/10/12/amd-fx-8150-review/comments

deceit

I'm curious now though from reading more would this be a good cpu for a home server that runs a vm esx server with 13 servers installed as the cores would help I think? If it is I could be tempted to pick one up to replace my x58 server with it and put 16gb ram in it?

ShadowHearth

Tea_Bag

it is interesting that the 'modules ' on the 4 and 6 core are locked down 8150/20s. potentially unlockable cores might make these worthwhile afterall if you get a cheapish 4100 and do a full unlock.

no motherboard vendors support the idea yet and AMD said it won't work but that's what they said for the last 2 generations.

Avose

I have to say its a massive dissapointment.. I love AMD as a company in the past, but its not good this time. Higher price than a 2500k AND worse performance in games??
totally confused at how a completely new generation is so underwhelming, and im gonna have to give my cash to intel... Damn...

Meirleach

Avose wrote: »

I have to say its a massive dissapointment.. I love AMD as a company in the past, but its not good this time. Higher price than a 2500k AND worse performance in games??
totally confused at how a completely new generation is so underwhelming, and im gonna have to give my cash to intel... Damn...

Just a note, the gaming performance being worse seems to depend on the game

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1285/pg10/amd-fx-8150-black-edition-8-core-processor-vs-core-i7-2600k-review-deus-ex-human-revolution.html

Interesting both the hardwareheaven and HardOCP reviews where it did okay, were not testing it in a Crosshair V, most of the lower performing reviews were using that board.

If it does turn out that the Crosshair V is bottlenecking the chip I will be so pissed, it's the board I have

Overheal

Are the performances being compared when its coupled with an HD 6800/6900 series card? Apparently it's supposed to do some Voltron ****.

DermotOH

So basically.... Stick with the 2500k

Avose

DermotOH wrote: »

So basically.... Stick with the 2500k

Yup, i just ordered my 2500k build 20 minutes ago...

uncle_sam_ie

When Bulldozer prices fall through the roof due to them not selling and, believe me this will happen quickly as the reviews have been so bad, at what price point would you consider buying one?

kev_like

uncle_sam_ie wrote: »

When Bulldozer prices fall through the roof due to them not selling and, believe me this will happen quickly as the reviews have been so bad, at what price point would you consider buying one?

All depends on how much that price drops to :P

ShadowHearth

uncle_sam_ie wrote: »

When Bulldozer prices fall through the roof due to them not selling and, believe me this will happen quickly as the reviews have been so bad, at what price point would you consider buying one?

that is the thing.

Since down of times we all knew:

INTEL - expensive, but powerfull
AMD - cheap and best bang for your money.

AMD tryed to be INTEL, and now it will pay for it. They priced it as intel, but forgot to add performance... :rolleyes:

The only thing, that can save them - baldly undercut Intel and get back in to its " bang for the money " world.

Lets play a waiting game...