AMD Bulldozer is here, oops!

[Katana1000S]

As many PC hardware enthusiasts know today is the launch of AMD Bulldozer with a rollout that has seemed to take forever, we were promised 8 cores (we got those) and up to a 50% performance increase over Sandy Bridge, sadly it does not come close, this is bad news for all of us, Intel can charge what they like now.

NDA is now lifted and it does not look good.

Anandtech:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/1

Guru3d:
http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150-processor-review/12

HardOCP:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/10/11/amd_bulldozer_fx8150_desktop_performance_review

TechSpot:
http://www.techspot.com/review/452-amd-bulldozer-fx-cpus/

VR-Zone:
http://vr-zone.com/articles/amd-fx-8150-cpu-overclocking-review-a-bulldozer-for-gamers-/13694-1.html

Hardwarecanucks:
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/47155-amd-bulldozer-fx-8150-processor-review.html

Vortez:
http://www.vortez.net/articles_pages/amd_fx_8150_bulldozer_cpu_review,1.html

Benchmark reviews:
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=831&Itemid=63

Bit-tech:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/10/12/amd-fx-8150-review/1

Legit Reviews:
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1741/1/

PureOC:
http://www.pureoverclock.com/article1376.html

Tomshardware:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043.html

[Katana1000S]

and the review we were all waiting for, Hitler is not a happy bunny with AMD Bulldozer :eek:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SArxcnpXStE

[baronWastelan]

Bulldozer? Bullsh1t.

[Ze-Jamz]

Oh Dear

[skouras]

:grin:

[Kodoss]

Wait until the programs are optimized to use the full power of the new AMD-Chips, then we can run real tests on it.

You can have a Lamborghini as a car, but when the settings of the engine (mixture/ignition time) is not correct then it's a pain in the ass.

[Pudfark]

Wait until the programs are optimized to use the full power of the new AMD-Chips, then we can run real tests on it.

You can have a Lamborghini as a car, but when the settings of the engine (mixture/ignition time) is not correct then it's a pain in the ass.

Which leads to the question?
Will COD be optimized for Bulldozer?

Thanx fer the info Kat...

[Katana1000S]

Wait until the programs are optimized to use the full power of the new AMD-Chips, then we can run real tests on it.

You can have a Lamborghini as a car, but when the settings of the engine (mixture/ignition time) is not correct then it's a pain in the ass.

You don't honestly think all software companys are going to say, aha, Bulldozer is out lets spend our profit money optimising our software that works just fine on Intel and current gen AMD CPU's for this low selling Bulldozer CPU do you ... not gonna happen mate ... bit of a cop out from AMD too that they say performance of Bulldozer wont work properly until Windows 8.

AMD have delayed and delayed and delayed this chip for what seems like forever now, and now that its here they are saying Piledriver (their next one) will be the Intel killer ... what about all those false claims of massive performance increases over equivalent Intel CPU's they made too, that's just plain dis-honest, people are going to start thinking ... fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

I'm beginning to wonder if this fiasco has anything to do with a top AMD CEO being fired recently ... they say the buck stops at the top.

Dont get me wrong, I own an SB I7 2600K and an I7 920, but I really hoped AMD would come back strong this time the way they did about years ago with the FX64 series and Thunderbird/Athlon stuff, my Nephew is wanting me to build him a new PC I asked him to wait for Bulldozer (because of the claims) but I would be doing him a disservice by building him one of these, pricing up an I5 2500K system for him as I type.

It gives me no pleasure to say, but you must be an AMD fan boy mate :) or clutching at straws.

[Katana1000S]

Which leads to the question?
Will COD be optimized for Bulldozer?

Thanx fer the info Kat...

I guess that depends on how well bulldozer CPU's sell, but I doubt it very much.

[Kodoss]

You know that the bulldozer-architecture is completely new, and that all following CPUs from AMD will use it as fundamentals for the next 5 years. So there will be optimizations in the future.

Let it run the tests with its competitors after one year again, then we can determine if it's good or not.

[snwkill]

You know that the bulldozer-architecture is completely new, and that all following CPUs from AMD will use it as fundamentals for the next 5 years. So there will be optimizations in the future.

Let it run the tests with its competitors after one year again, then we can determine if it's good or not.

We can only hope... This lack-luster release not only hurts AMD but also hurts us consumers. Now Intel can justify throwing a $600 price tag on their chips...

[335th_GRAthos]

and the review we were all waiting for, Hitler is not a happy bunny with AMD Bulldozer :eek:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SArxcnpXStE

AWESOME! I could not stop laughing!!!!!


I prey that this guy will not make a new version of the COD video... :D


Pity, what Hitler said reminded me of the days my AMD 386DX40MHz was the fastest thing in the market (runing Falcon 4.0) :(

~S~

[Warhound]

Very painful when a FX-8150 OC'd to 4.8Ghz performs ~25% worse in ARMA II (CPU dependant game) then a i5 2500k at stock speeds, and about 50% worse then a OC'd 2500k...
Doesn't look like they'll do that well in the servermarket either with their high powerusage and mediocre performance.

Pity really as it would be nice to see Intel pressured so Sandy Bridge and Sandy-E/Ivy Bridge CPU's would get pricecuts.

[Katana1000S]

You know that the bulldozer-architecture is completely new, and that all following CPUs from AMD will use it as fundamentals for the next 5 years. So there will be optimizations in the future.

Let it run the tests with its competitors after one year again, then we can determine if it's good or not.

Cant fault you on that for hopeful optimism, but by that time Intel will be light years ahead again, Ivy Bridge is out 1st quarter 2012 and this time next year they will be optimized even more ... I'm really sorry to see AMD get left behind like this.

I've been building my own PC's since 1990 now and and have swung back and forth between Intel and AMD as the performance or even the price per performance (bang for buck) dictated, but Bulldozer working worse than current gen AMD high end processors is nothing but a complete embarrassment, it wouldn't be so bad if they hadnt been shouting from the rooftoops how this CPU release was going to topple Intel I7's the past year or so.

Lets face it, the multicore CPU market is hard to sell to, and AMD have messed this up royally.

Will be interesting to see some FSX benchmarks though, after FSX SP2 that sim can sort of use up to 24 CPU cores, but its the raw speed of each Bulldozer core that is the major disappointment here, its all very well having long pipe lines (as Bulldozer seems to have done) but SB shorter pipelines gets more work done per clock cycle ... its all about efficiency and in this area it looks pretty certain this Bulldozer release ... optimizing or not is a Lemon.

Sorry mate, one of my best friends is a die hard AMD guy and he sounded in shock when I spoke to him on the phone just now.


Bottom line is, we all hoped Bulldozer was gonna be the killer they claimed it would be, its been delayed enough without waiting years more for optimisations, AMD need to start from scratch IMHO ... this really does mean no price drops for Intel Sandy Bridge parts and they can charge what they like for the forthcoming SB-E and Ivy Bridge.

No competition is bad news for us consumers :mad:

[Katana1000S]

AWESOME! I could not stop laughing!!!!!




I cracked up when he said, all those who bought Sandy Bridge please get out :)

[mazex]

Pity, what Hitler said reminded me of the days my AMD 386DX40MHz was the fastest thing in the market (runing Falcon 4.0) :(

~S~

When Falcon 4.0 came out I remember having a Pentium II @ 400 Mhz so I guess you mean Falcon 3.0 ;) I remember having a 386DX 33 back when 3.0 was released but upgraded to a 486DX 50 after it was released...

Ahh, chip nostalgia...

To not end up as a complete Intel FB I did run AMD:s from the 1.33 T-bird to the Athlon 64 3000. I was the Core 2 Duo that made walk the broad path again :)

[Codex]

I think that AMD have been too ambitious with Bulldozer, especially when there's not much in the way of software that is "truly" multi-threaded. I think the Bulldozer generation chips will go the way of the PhysX card … it’s a really good design in terms of thinking ahead, but there’s very little software out there to take full advantage it now and the current Intel line of CPUs can do more.

[Katana1000S]

When Falcon 4.0 came out I remember having a Pentium II @ 400 Mhz so I guess you mean Falcon 3.0 ;) I remember having a 386DX 33 back when 3.0 was released but upgraded to a 486DX 50 after it was released...

Ahh, chip nostalgia...

To not end up as a complete Intel FB I did run AMD:s from the 1.33 T-bird to the Athlon 64 3000. I was the Core 2 Duo that made walk the broad path again :)

My first foray into flight sim was actually an Amiga 500 with half a meg of ram, it came with a basic Flight sim called Bob Dimmermans (I think) FA-18 Interceptor ... wow, all of a sudden I was defending the US and making carrier landings and shooting down Migs, I only wanted the Amiga to sort of do a data base for all my CD's an vinyl records.

This was unheard of.

After that I bought a PC from a guy in Aberdeen, Intel 33MHz with 2 MB (yes 2MB of ram) and a hard drive so small it would not hold a modern days OS swap file, but that got me into Falcon 3.0, Fleet Defender and lots of others.

Have been building my own ever since.

[Katana1000S]

I think that AMD have been too ambitious with Bulldozer, especially when there's not much in the way of software that is "truly" multi-threaded. I think the Bulldozer generation chips will go the way of the PhysX card … it’s a really good design in terms of thinking ahead, but there’s very little software out there to take full advantage it now and the current Intel line of CPUs can do more.

Quite possible, could be that AMD took a gamble with multi threading taking off, but it hasn't, (hence the firing of a CEO of theirs recently?) not even in our flight sim gaming world, right now 4 cores are more than enough and it will take years for software developers (especially Flight Sim) to catch up.

I still feel sort of sick inside for all those that put their faith in AMD's outrageous claims for Bulldozer, including the guy in this thread who had "waiting for Bulldozer 8150 in his sig" AMD has really let not just them down but all of us ... they were the only competition and now they have played their ace, we now know they have been bluffing for a long time.

[mazex]

My first foray into flight sim was actually an Amiga 500 with half a meg of ram, it came with a basic Flight sim called Bob Dimmermans (I think) FA-18 Interceptor ... wow, all of a sudden I was defending the US and making carrier landings and shooting down Migs, I only wanted the Amiga to sort of do a data base for all my CD's an vinyl records.

This was unheard of.

After that I bought a PC from a guy in Aberdeen, Intel 33MHz with 2 MB (yes 2MB of ram) and a hard drive so small it would not hold a modern days OS swap file, but that got me into Falcon 3.0, Fleet Defender and lots of others.

Have been building my own ever since.

He he, we are getting old ;) Started on the Spectrum myself with "Fighter Pilot". I have actually saved a little list of all my computers to not forget them. Home built since the P75 :)

Year CPU Memory GPU
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1982 ZX Spectrum 48kb ???
1985 286-12 512kb ???
1989 386Dx-33 1Mb 1Mb SVGA
1992 486Dx-50 2Mb Trio64 LB
1994 Pentium 75 4Mb Matrox Millenium I
1995 Pentium 120 8Mb Matrox Millenium I
1996 Pentium 166MMX 16Mb Matrox Millenium I / 3dfx Voodoo
1999 Pentium 2 400Mhz 64Mb ATI Rage Pro / 2x Voodoo 2
2001 AMD Athlon Thunderbird 1.33Ghz 512Mb Geforce 3
2003 AMD Athlon XP 2000+ 1,6 Ghz 1Gb Radeon 9800 Pro
2004 AMD Athlon XP 3000+ 2,166 Ghz 2Gb ATI X800 Pro
2006 Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 2.66 Ghz 4Gb Geforce 8800 GTX
2008 Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 3.33 Ghz 6Gb Geforce 275GTX
2011 Intel Core i7 2600k 3,4 Ghz 8Gb Geforce 580GTX

Some day I will get back to AMD I hope - but not on the first gen Bulldozer at least :)

[Katana1000S]

Adding to this, some time back I read an article from a programmer about how difficult it was to make a program truly multi threaded, without going into detail you can make a one threaded program quite (in their skill levels) easily, going to two core was double the difficulty and dual threaded, but doable, after that it became extremely hard work in a sort of Universe expanding size to keep up.

I think there is a reason Intel have stayed at 4 cores for now (apart from the 6 core XEONS for a select small market) They know the market and knew AMD could not pull this off, even their projected market of Ivy Bridge will stretch to 6 cores as a max for 2012 as well.

AMD going for the first 8 core joe smuchk CPU dirt cheap seems like a bad idea in the long run ... IMHO.

Small steps AMD, not big lunges.

[Katana1000S]

He he, we are getting old ;) Started on the Spectrum myself with "Fighter Pilot". I have actually saved a little list of all my computers to not forget them. Home built since the P75 :)

Year CPU Memory GPU
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1982 Spectrum 48kb ???
1985 286-12 512kb ???
1989 386Dx-33 1Mb 1Mb SVGA
1992 486Dx-50 2Mb Trio64 LB
1994 Pentium 75 4Mb Matrox Millenium I
1995 Pentium 120 8Mb Matrox Millenium I
1996 Pentium 166MMX 16Mb Matrox Millenium I / 3dfx Voodoo
1999 Pentium 2 400Mhz 64Mb ATI Rage Pro / 2x Voodoo 2
2001 AMD Athlon Thunderbird 1.33Ghz 512Mb Geforce 3
2003 AMD Athlon XP 2000+ 1,6 Ghz 1Gb Radeon 9800 Pro
2004 AMD Athlon XP 3000+ 2,166 Ghz 2Gb ATI X800 Pro
2006 Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 2.66 Ghz 4Gb Geforce 8800 GTX
2008 Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 3.33 Ghz 6Gb Geforce 275GTX
2011 Intel Core i7 2600k 3,4 Ghz 8Gb Geforce 580GTX

Some day I will get back to AMD I hope - but not on the first gen Bulldozer at least :)

I recognise a lot of those CPU's in my history, I've actually got a retro P200 build era built up and working (I had slower, dont worry :) ) with just DOS 6/5 working on it ... I could have retro went a PC with a DX2 66 CPU, but looking back I've got best chance of this retro idea working with a P200, its got 32 MB of ram that was absolutely massive at the time and last time I fired it up it worked.

I'll dig it out again and if their is any interest I'll do a thread about old retro PC flight sim.

I hang on to almost all my old gear, hear is a pic of my current HOTAS collection ... I've given away my Saitek X-52 pro, but in the background you will see my old Thrustmaster F22 pro and TQS for DOS purposes I hope to get working again one day :)

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w13/Hunter777_photos/Hallofshame1.jpg

[NedLynch]

Pretty disappointing from AMD.
On the other hand it's never been good to go out and buy anything right after release.

For my part I have to say if the next itteration from AMD (let's also see what happens with the new FM2 socket) is not significantly better I will most certainly go to Sandybridge/Ivybridge, depending on availability and pricing when I need a new mobo+cpu.

I have been looking forward to the Bulldozer but I won't put any money up for it or a new 990fx mobo, as of now it's not worth the price of admission and sadly, since I always valued AMD's approach to socket/cpu flexibility, an i5 2500k is starting to look really good.

Btw, my first pc after my amiga was a 486 with a whopping 4mb of ram....ahhhh pacific fighters.....:grin:

[Codex]

My first computer ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_IIc

[BaronBonBaron]

I just read the tomshardware.com review of the AMD FX-8150.
It's pretty disappointing considering it was supposed to beat Sandy Bridge :mad:

Now Intel can charge whatever $$$ they want for SB because AMD has no high end chips for competition. :-x

[mazex]

I recognise a lot of those CPU's in my history, I've actually got a retro P200 build era built up and working (I had slower, dont worry :) ) with just DOS 6/5 working on it ... I could have retro went a PC with a DX2 66 CPU, but looking back I've got best chance of this retro idea working with a P200, its got 32 MB of ram that was absolutely massive at the time and last time I fired it up it worked.

I'll dig it out again and if their is any interest I'll do a thread about old retro PC flight sim.

I hang on to almost all my old gear, hear is a pic of my current HOTAS collection ... I've given away my Saitek X-52 pro, but in the background you will see my old Thrustmaster F22 pro and TQS for DOS purposes I hope to get working again one day :)

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w13/Hunter777_photos/Hallofshame1.jpg

Wow, that's an impressive collection of former bleeding edge sticks!

Not much into throwing stuff myself either... Still have my Spectrum and 286 in the cellar. Fired them both up last year in a cloud of dust. The speccy worked nice but the image was a bit jagged on a large flat screen tv ;) The problem with getting the 286 to run was to find the 5 ¼ inch disks with something to run. The 20 Mb hard drive just had DOS 3.22 ;)



Mazex

[Rattlehead]

I haven't read the reviews yet. but this is what I was afraid of. I was really trying to hold out for Bulldozer, I wanted to believe that AMD could be competitive and maybe superior to Intel's offerings.

But the continual delays and generally bad vibe I was picking up about Bulldozer made me go with Intel, and I feel sorry for those of you who held out for Bulldozer only to find that a good old 2500k/2600k was there to be bought all along.

The problem for AMD is that Sandy Bridge-E and Ivy Bridge are on the horizon. Bulldozer really needs serious stepping to make a challenge.

On the other hand, if AMD can offer a great price/performance ratio as they have done in the past, then they can still be reasonably competitive with Intel, just not in the absolute performance stakes.

[Rattlehead]

Just to add, the problem with multithreading is that for games, four cores is as much as you'll ever need for the next two, maybe three years. Maybe even longer.
There are some games that apparently run a tad better utilising six cores, but the vast majority don't need more than four to run as smooth as silk.

Eight cores? Only if you're heavily into certain mutlithreaded applications (ie. not games) will six cores or more make a difference. For games, it''s basically a waste of time...this is especially true since more than half of PC games are mutliplatform games, meaning that they're also developed with the ancient console architecture in mind.
No developer with half a brain is going to specially bring out a special PC version of that game; it's too costly for very little return. And no game developer at present is going to optimise a game to use eight cores, much for the same reason.

In about 2014 I'll look around for a replacement for my 2500k, but for the next few years, aside from a GPU upgrade, I'm not spending another cent on my machine.

[TonyD]

My biggest disappointment with Zambezi was seeing how poor the single thread performance is, especially compared to the previous generation (Deneb/Thuban) chips. I can accept that the multi-threading capability is a bit ahead of its time, but it’s unacceptable that a new cpu will not perform as well as the ones it replaces in the majority of current (single-threaded) desktop applications. I also do not see how this can be improved without a major re-design of the architecture – the predicted 15% improvement with the next iteration (PileDriver) is still somewhat short of what it needs to be :(

[Katana1000S]

My biggest disappointment with Zambezi was seeing how poor the single thread performance is, especially compared to the previous generation (Deneb/Thuban) chips. I can accept that the multi-threading capability is a bit ahead of its time, but it’s unacceptable that a new cpu will not perform as well as the ones it replaces in the majority of current (single-threaded) desktop applications. I also do not see how this can be improved without a major re-design of the architecture – the predicted 15% improvement with the next iteration (PileDriver) is still somewhat short of what it needs to be :(


Maybe AMD will come back with their Forklifttruck chipset next?

Whoever thinks up their silly macho chipset names needs to be sacked.

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/603/dozer20fire.jpg

[adonys]

Adding to this, some time back I read an article from a programmer about how difficult it was to make a program truly multi threaded, without going into detail you can make a one threaded program quite (in their skill levels) easily, going to two core was double the difficulty and dual threaded, but doable, after that it became extremely hard work in a sort of Universe expanding size to keep up.

I think there is a reason Intel have stayed at 4 cores for now (apart from the 6 core XEONS for a select small market) They know the market and knew AMD could not pull this off, even their projected market of Ivy Bridge will stretch to 6 cores as a max for 2012 as well.

AMD going for the first 8 core joe smuchk CPU dirt cheap seems like a bad idea in the long run ... IMHO.

Small steps AMD, not big lunges.

it greatly depends on the kind of game and graphics needed.

For a game like IL2, a multithreaded/multicore approach is easily doable, as it is mainly about computing CEM, Physics and AI for a multitude of objects from game's world.

Have 4 cores? just divide the number of AI planes on three (to leave a core dedicated to main game's thread, and player's plane CEM/Pshysics computations needed), and compute each bunch on it's own core (with each airplane having it's own thread on the core doing its bunch of airplanes). And divide all render threads on all 4 cores.

[TonyD]

...

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/603/dozer20fire.jpg

:lol:

[Katana1000S]

it greatly depends on the kind of game and graphics needed.

For a game like IL2, a multithreaded/multicore approach is easily doable, as it is mainly about computing CEM, Physics and AI for a multitude of objects from game's world.

Have 4 cores? just divide the number of AI planes on three (to leave a core dedicated to main game's thread, and player's plane CEM/Pshysics computations needed), and compute each bunch on it's own core (with each airplane having it's own thread on the core doing its bunch of airplanes). And divide all render threads on all 4 cores.

Easy as that eh? please submit your CV to AMD ASAP.

[adonys]

That was about game development, not processor design..

thing is, atm graphics can't use 4 cores at 100%. yet, no developer is interested in using the remaining power on improving other parts of the gameplay experience, as long as today the difference between games regarding sales is only given by the graphics..

hopefully, all of them will achieve photorealistic graphic soon enough.. and then they'll have finally to look for other ways to make the difference between games when it come to sell them :)

Remember the old spectrum days? fitting up all the graphics and coding into only 48/64/128k of memory was a time which guaranteed similar graphics to most of the games.. and the result was that game developers were focused on making interesting gameplay in order to make their games stick out of the on-market mob..

[Katana1000S]

That was about game development, not processor design..

thing is, atm graphics can't use 4 cores at 100%. yet, no developer is interested in using the remaining power on improving other parts of the gameplay experience, as long as today the difference between games regarding sales is only given by the graphics..

hopefully, all of them will achieve photorealistic graphic soon enough.. and then they'll have finally to look for other ways to make the difference between games when it come to sell them :)

Remember the old spectrum days? fitting up all the graphics and coding into only 48/64/128k of memory was a time which guaranteed similar graphics to most of the games.. and the result was that game developers were focused on making interesting gameplay in order to make their games stick out of the on-market mob..

Photo realism?

You still make it sound easy, get your resume/CV sent off to AMD/Intel, not to mention the game studios, you will be an instant billionaire.

PS:once you have made it shortly (and i recommended you and all) will you pay off my mortgage and pay for a once in a life time holiday for me and the wife in the Caribbean, two weeks would be fine.

Cheers.

[adonys]

sure, you troll! and now go away :P

btw, I am working in game developing industry as lead designer and senior producer.. so I am supposed to know what I'm talking about.. at least marginally :)

[Katana1000S]

sure, you troll! and now go away :P

btw, I am working in game developing industry as lead designer and senior producer.. so I am supposed to know what I'm talking about.. at least marginally :)

You seem to have all the answers, all you have to do now is fix it.

[Katana1000S]

You seem to have all the answers, all you have to do now is fix it.

BTW: If you don't mind me asking, who are you lead designer and senior producer for in the game developing industry?

[mcdaniels]

Hi folks!
Will there be a chance that some device driver will "activate" the full performance in the future?

Some kind of: Assign Game to -> special Options of the CPU

[TonyD]

Hi folks!
Will there be a chance that some device driver will "activate" the full performance in the future?

Some kind of: Assign Game to -> special Options of the CPU

Yes, in terms of multi-threading, most definitely. Win8 will apparently correctly schedule tasks to suit the architecture, much like Win7 currently does with Intel’s HyperThreading. There may well be a future patch for Win7 to address this, like the DualCoreOptimizer for XP. The problem I have is it’s single thread capability – its performance in this aspect is slightly worse than my current cpu, and until games become truly multi-threaded, this issue will remain relevant. I doubt that this could be improved much by software optimisation.

[BaronBonBaron]

From the tomshardware.com review of the FX-8150.

"In the very best-case scenario, when you can throw a ton of work at the FX and fully utilize its eight integer cores, it generally falls in between Core i5-2500K and Core i7-2600K—which is where it should appear all of the time given a price tag between those two most relevant competitors."

"Sometimes FX manages to outperform the higher-end -2600K, but other times it’s embarrassingly bested by its predecessor in threaded workloads."


And that's the biggest problem for BD, it falls on it's face when the workload isn't well-threaded.
Hopefully AMD gets this fixed for next years "Piledriver".

But until then, for gaming:
Intel i5/i7 = Intense/High-End level gaming.
AMD Phenom II = Medium/high level gaming.
AMD Athlon II = Budget/Medium level gaming.
AMD Llano = Entry-level gaming.


Post Edited to clarify that in my little chart, I'm only talking about how the CPU's gaming performance; if I was talking about multitasking or something else, then the Phenom II would be higher up.

[TonyD]

...

Intel Sandy Bridge = High-End gaming.
AMD Phenom II = Medium level gaming.
AMD Athlon II = Budget level gaming.
AMD Llano = Entry-level budget desktop.

I wouldn’t agree with this, purely because ‘game stations’ due not require bleeding-edge processors to function correctly, merely adequate ones. The cpu forms only one part of a good gaming rig, and should be balanced with the other components – if your desire is quad graphics, you’ll require an overclocked 990x to get the full benefit of the all those cards; for a single or even dual cards, a Phenom-II is way fast enough. My current system is a bit quicker than my son’s i5 2500k machine because my 6970 is a bit quicker than his 5870, although the difference is hardly noticeable. There are a few games that need fast processors, but these are the exception, and even then the difference is largely academic. Most modern games don’t even require a quad-core cpu to work correctly, although more are starting to take advantage of them. (hopefully CloD in the not too distant future :))

Edit: Having recently built a Llano –based system, I can confirm that you can game on one – hardly an ‘Entry-level budget desktop’.

[He111]

Glad i didn't wait and bought a sand bridge, i bet Intel's share price jumped on this news.

.

[baronWastelan]

I'm still waiting for something worth upgrading to from my Q9650 @3600mhz, running on a almost-4-year-old Asus maximus extreme mobo. LOL

[TonyD]

I'm still waiting for something worth upgrading to from my Q9650 @3600mhz, running on a almost-4-year-old Asus maximus extreme mobo. LOL

I bet it cost you a packet at the time, but in retrospect I’m sure you’ll agree that it was money well spent. I’m also sure you’ll be disappointed at the relative minor increase in gaming performance you’d get from a more modern quad-core setup. I ‘d suggest waiting for SandyBridge-e early next year, as it would most likely give you a similar experience. High-end gaming for over 4 years on a single platform is not easily achieved – or cheap either. It’s probably only Intel hexa-core users that are currently in a similar position.

[Rattlehead]

I don't think anyone has mentioned the power draw of Bulldozer in this thread. It's staggering how much power it needs compared to Sandy Bridge.

So, even if it were as quick as Intel's best offerings overall, it is still a power hungry chip with crappy per core performance.
I hate to say it, but this is so far, a disaster. The IPC is terrible and the power draw is terrible. Overall, just totally poor from AMD.
I expected so much more than this.

[Oldschool61]

But until then:
Intel Sandy Bridge = High-End gaming.
AMD Phenom II = Medium level gaming.
AMD Athlon II = Budget level gaming.
AMD Llano = Entry-level budget desktop.

It should read

Intel Sandy Bridge and AMD Phenom II X4 or X6= High-End gaming.
Intel Core I3 & and AMD Phenom II X2 = Medium level gaming.
AMD Athlon II and AMD Llano = Budget level gaming.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Should also read about AMD's response to this. There is more than the reviews tell to this...just a tip before jumping in the flamefest bandwagon :)

[Kodoss]

Have just read an longer article about the fx8150 performance.

http://www.tweakpc.de/hardware/tests/cpu/amd_fx-8150_bulldozer/s01.php

If you compare the pages(Seiten) 7 and 12 you can see, that overclocked, it is a good CPU.

They overclocked it from 3.6GHz to 4.6GHz without watercooling and big voltage tweaking.

Does'nt look so bad at me, since i plan to go watercooled anyway. (hate the noise of fans)

It might not be a big step above the PhenomII 1100T or the SandyBridge. But for those who have older systems it becomes interresting or wait a half year for the SB-E or Ivy-Bridge. (Even Intel has some problems by changing to 22nm)

[NedLynch]

Well, Kodoss, though I was a little shocked with the reviews, I am sure that when I read your specs you'll have a top notch rig once you'll get your FX.

By "waiting for" I assume you have it ordered and coming your way soon, it would be extremely interesting to see how CoD runs with the new FX pcu, so your feedback would be, at least by me, very much appreciated.
At the moment I am very torn as to what my next upgrade is going to be, stick with AMD or switch to Intel.

What do they call the platform you are going to have again? Scorpio?

On the other side of the initial disappointment with the reviews, I am sure that this pcu is meant to be run overclocked anyways, plus performance will have to be tested in the real world, with games like this and others to see how well it runs and how happy consumers are in the end with their purchase.
Let's not forget the pricepoint in all this.

[BaronBonBaron]

I wouldn’t agree with this, purely because ‘game stations’ due not require bleeding-edge processors to function correctly, merely adequate ones. The cpu forms only one part of a good gaming rig, and should be balanced with the other components – if your desire is quad graphics, you’ll require an overclocked 990x to get the full benefit of the all those cards; for a single or even dual cards, a Phenom-II is way fast enough. My current system is a bit quicker than my son’s i5 2500k machine because my 6970 is a bit quicker than his 5870, although the difference is hardly noticeable. There are a few games that need fast processors, but these are the exception, and even then the difference is largely academic. Most modern games don’t even require a quad-core cpu to work correctly, although more are starting to take advantage of them. (hopefully CloD in the not too distant future :))

Edit: Having recently built a Llano –based system, I can confirm that you can game on one – hardly an ‘Entry-level budget desktop’.


I understand what you're saying, a good CPU is definitely only one part of a good rig, and an Phenom II is fast enough for many games.:-)

I was just making a simple CPU hierarchy chart in regrades of those CPU's gaming performance, if I was talking about multitasking then the Phenom II x4/x6 would definitely have been higher up.

You are right when you said. "‘game stations’ due not require bleeding-edge processors to function correctly, merely adequate ones."

I guess I meant to say, that if you want to play CPU demanding games at the highest settings and resolution, you'll need an i5/i7.
A phenom II is definitely "adequate" to play most games at high settings, but I was talking about playing CPU demanding games (CloD?) at the highest settings ect.

I'm sorry I didn't make that part clear in my last post.


Edit. I Edited my other post to clarify what I meant to be talking about.

[swiss]

I don't think anyone has mentioned the power draw of Bulldozer in this thread. It's staggering how much power it needs compared to Sandy Bridge.

Doesn't really matter - we 're discussing its use in a high end gaming machine, the GPU will draw twice as much.
(Ok, some OC'd 8150 draw up to 193W)