OMG AMD BULLDOZER!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are these the benchmarks?????/
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index. [...] mitstart=4

im buying a i-7 2600k. Bulldozer is a fail!!!!

quick question. why do you 2 have '18' after your posts?

And here you go with some more ;-)

http://bit.ly/nBPhwP

Best,
Chris

yeah bulldozer is a let down lol. Hmmm $260 for best 8 core cpu by amd or $190 for a 4 core cpu by intel that out performs it hmmmm hard question

so everyone has '18' in there posts... why? is this some strange html error im having or am i missing some new thing on the internert?

the benches are very disappointing, i was hoping for a real contender against intel but amd is sub par yet again... its like after core2's came out amd just stopped trying. they dont even hold the price point anymore.

OMG we are all infected with the Skynet Eighteen virus.

Sorry, don't see any 18s over here!

While i agree about this being a let down, the FX is not 260 and the 2500K is not 190. Most of the other sites are saying the 8150 is on par or better then the 2500K in new apps.(it IS brand new architecture) It should of kicked the 2600K ass but again its IS a let down. Now the 8120 is NOT a let down. Its priced right and can have just as much uph as the 8150 with a small overclock...which BTW the 8150 dominates in according to "other" sites. One got to 5.0 in 10 minutes.

The same reason you have 14 after yours! It was hapenning all day yesterday, weird

BUlldozer is FAILDOZER!@

Really disappointed with the 8150 after reading the review on here. I'm wanting to build a new PC ready for BF3 at the end of the month and have been waiting patiently for the release of Bulldozer but will be going with an i5 2500k it seems.

Thanks for the great review, has helped me decide immediately what to go for.

I may as well get a 955 ffs lol
Moto

10 + 5 + 3 =

Hahaha, epic! 2x7=

im aus i got 18

also any word on other bulldozers or will they just be as bad as the 8150

Yep, definitely did not type that 18 at the end of the sentence lol.

The 14/18 phenomenon seems to be gone now, still can't 'show the right column' though
Moto

^Admire your optimism man, I really do,

My earlier comment is easy to read as negative so I apologise for that, I'm not adding to any dissent lol
I think its a lot like folks getting wound up over christmas then getting a mediocre gift, it stings lol, but at the end of the day, you have a perfectly good pair of socks

I'm annoyed myself, I've waited a while for this and feel let down to the point of knee-jerk buying a 975, but as you said, its possible an update/tweak will bring what we wanted
I totally agree on your other point too, whilst Intels faithful are crowing loudly about BD slamming hard, their team is under no pressure to bring anything new to the table, and in fact could/will charge a higher premium 'for the better chip'
without competition, everyone suffers
as for now, I'm throwing a 975 into the new build and looking forward to real life user reports to start flowing in.
Moto

I was a huge AMD fanboy from amd k6 and on. when intel launched there core series i had a FX-60... amd never fully recovered from that and in many ways i believe they stopped trying. they gave up on the idea that they would be able to bring back the days of there 3d now tech and the launch of there AMD64 lines. they went for the price point in the market, witch is fine as many people dont want to spend thousands on a computer. the problem with this is that intel realized after there 1366 socket that they too could lower prices. The 1155/1156 boards and cpu's are only a hairs breath price difference for a mid range consumer end computer.

Sure intel still have there 1K dollar CPU's but thats beside the point because AMD cant match them so there is no reason to compare them aside from the flagship to flagship argument. the phenom chips had some serious performance issues, mostly in the range of bottle necks.

at best i see AMD bulldozer as AMD fixing the *** that was broken on there previous gen, i.e. better memory bandwidth, better memory support, there new CPU's dont seem to bottle neck video cards as bad as the phenoms did either.

at worst AMD has released a new flag ship that roughly equals that of there competitors mid range CPU. (the 2500k)

it has yet to be seen how the future will take advantage of all the cores amd has now but i was very surprised to see a non HT, quad core intel stomp a AMD 8 core on alot of the tests. the single threaded tests really surprised me as the AMD and intel cpu's are pretty damn close in clock frequencies and yet amd is half the speed...

I was really hoping for an intel killer but as far as im concerned at the moment there is no reason to buy a bull dozer right now. not performance, not future expandability, not price point...

on a side note, my 18's are gone. i spent 20 min searching the web (urban dictionary) to see if there was some strange inside joke i was missing about 18. so hard to tell if it was a legitimate issue or i was being mocked

I am Dissapoint.

Once again I look at it as a 4-core CPU that tries to do two threads really well. It's not really an 8 core CPU. They also seem to have failed with IPC even though I thought that worst case single thread performance would be on par with Deneb but in some cases it shows up a little worse. Yes it does really well in some cases, and in others it fails hard. Too much of a mixed bag for performance.

I view the i5 as a mid range chip. i currently have a i7 and that comes with a feature or two more along with HT. perhaps the i5 is the high end of the mid range with the 2400 more in the middle. the i3 bringing up the entry level of course.
considering the i5 can be put into most budget builds it seems to me that is a requirement of a mid range CPU.

just how i look at things.

On a completely unrelated note, NCC-74656 is USS Voyager, right?

I'm mostly a Galaxy fan myself, although the Sovereign-class is awesome.

Bulldozer uses over twice as many transistors, uses more power, has a bigger die, and has a higher clock speed than Sandy Bridge and the best case is that it's between the 2500k and 2600k? No matter how you look at it Bulldozer is inferior when it comes to desktop performance and there is simply no excuse. AMD would have been better off with a Phenom III, a 32nm Deneb with power optimizations and a 4th instruction decoder. It's hard to imagine they can make too much money with Bulldozer considering the large die and likely poor yeilds.

i totally agree with the Phenom III idea, I posted nearly the same argument in another thread. If they did that they would have at least have released it on time as there would be no major re-designing of the chip. and it would perform better. Bulldozer is Intels Pentium 4 disaster all over again, only AMD dont have as much public popularity and marketing to hang in there and make a come back.