AMD Bulldozer is here, oops!

[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]

Originally Posted by BaronBonBaron

...

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by BaronBonBaron

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...ldozer/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.