Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Bulldozer is not what we expected?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a c 186 à CPUs
October 12, 2011 4:22:34 AM

http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_conten...
Apparently the 2500k in certain situations still beats the 8 core bulldozer?????

More about : bulldozer expected

a c 103 à CPUs
October 12, 2011 4:37:24 AM

Looking at that its kinda grim hehe, lets see how they clock realworld :-)
Moto
m
0
l
October 12, 2011 5:00:04 AM

Its a let down... All initial reviews indicated its at par w/ i5....

Here better performance may be available from these models

http://www.cat.com/equipment
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 127 à CPUs
October 12, 2011 5:25:57 AM

Motopsychojdn said:
Looking at that its kinda grim hehe, lets see how they clock realworld :-)
Moto


THG got it to 4.5Ghz but that was pretty high in voltage. Didn't push it much further. I am sure a Overclocking review will be out in the next week or so.
m
0
l
a c 103 à CPUs
October 12, 2011 6:03:49 AM

Yup, once people have their grubbies on them, we'll start to see some practical numbers coming up
I'll be happy if mine takes 4GHz nicely, I'm not greedy hehe
**Edit, after a bit of sleep, I'm taking a 975 to tide things over, but still feeling the disappointment lol**
Moto
m
0
l
October 12, 2011 10:33:13 AM

amd bd = one huge ultra fail. I mean why would I buy the top 8 core version for £200 when I can get a better performing 2500k for £150. BD is a total let down, its like waitin 4 megan fox to take her clothes off and when she does, BOOM shes hairy. ok i failed there my bad
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 12, 2011 12:13:46 PM

People expected too much. Simple as that really. The i5-2500k was an already known outstanding performer. It was always going to be hit or miss as to if AMD would take a lead, so far, its seemingly a miss.

At least AMD and Intel are a little more "on par" now so users who do really want an AMD system, can stick with it and gain similar performance and a similar price.
m
0
l
October 12, 2011 1:38:06 PM

they are hardly on par in my opinion, the 2500k has been out ages now so amd are well behind.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 12, 2011 1:50:33 PM

i want to know why people are pitting this against an i5...this isnt intel's flagship model. the i7 is. thats what amd should have been aiming for. they are still so drastically behind intel, while intel can now sit on the IB, and their next age platform *haswell?* in the driver's seat. Maybe amd's problem is that people dont expect enough from them.

I know you people are all lovey dovey with amd, but truth of the matter is, intel is about to monopolize the cpu market. what do you think prices will be like then? we will never see a $100 cpu within reasonable performance again. and you people are saying "well i5's are a great chip...". The i7's ARE WHERE WE NEED TO BE AIMING! BD is a let down, and price to performance, intel should be even or sub-par...not better than AMD. Thats where AMD has kept their market alive. Intel was always more expensive, and was either par per dollar, or not quite as good. For the enthusiats though, this was ok, cuz top product deserved top dollar. now, we have an over priced chip, under performing our competitors 2nd place chip.

wow amd, great job. its ok your product is terrible, and way over hyped. its not your fault. its those nasty intel people with their awesome i5 chip. we shouldnt expect you to beat that.

BS!
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 12, 2011 1:51:21 PM

btw...i had a nasty night last night, so this is rather theoroputic...sorry for the ranting.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 12, 2011 1:58:41 PM

^^ Intel CAN'T monopolize the CPU market; AMD owns the AMD64 patent, which Intel needs as the world moves to X64. In a few years, AMD won't even need the X86 license anymore, as everyone will eventually move to 64-bit. Besides, AMD is still superior in servers, which [as I long predicted] will favor BD's heavily-multicored architecture more then Desktops did.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 12, 2011 2:02:58 PM

sorry about not specifying which market. I meant homebuilders market. I could care less about businesses who get write offs and discounts for server hardware. All of the people who actually count on having a home pc will soon have to pay double or triple if amd doesnt get their act together. IDK about you, but i cant afford a $300 processor. and if amd doesnt start producing better products for regular consumers, thats what we are going to start seeing for people who need to upgrade their systems to something that is barely hitting the top 5 in options coming off the line.
m
0
l
October 12, 2011 2:39:22 PM

Quote:
People expected too much.


That may be true. You could say that in a way AMD is not responsible for our decision on WAITING 6 Months on this Product and deciding to Purchase on Upgrading to a MB that can support it. But what I find so Disgusting about BD is that it requires at least DOUBLE the Voltage of an Intel i5 or i7 to even get squashed by it!! :fou:  :fou:  :fou: 

So you know what? AMD can keep there Product. I've already put my Asus CHV and My AMD Phenom II 955BE on sale on Ebay. :pfff: 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 12, 2011 2:46:26 PM

Mastervivi10 said:
Quote:
People expected too much.


That may be true. You could say that in a way AMD is not responsible for our decision on WAITING 6 Months on this Product and deciding to Purchase on Upgrading to a MB that can support it. But what I find so Disgusting about BD is that it requires at least DOUBLE the Voltage of an Intel i5 or i7 to even get squashed by it!! :fou:  :fou:  :fou: 

So you know what? AMD can keep there Product. I've already put my Asus CHV and My AMD Phenom II 955BE on sale on Ebay. :pfff: 

Hope you can find a buyer. :D 
m
0
l
October 12, 2011 2:47:58 PM

they shud put their money into developing something that can beat intel, if they cant ever do that then put all of it into GPUS which is what their good at. I had a phenom 955 machine at home and upon reading benchmarks i went home and beat the life out of it with a baseball bat. No more amd for me,ever, unless its a gpu of course :) 
m
0
l
October 12, 2011 3:11:17 PM

Its the fastest chip they could come up with and squeeze out of the 32nm process and thermal limitations im sure. They don't have space to add more cores. over all i think they've done a good job. what was it over 100GFLOPS? that's pretty amazing and it doesn't cost the earth.

But being the owner of ATI now, im kind of surprised that they haven't found a way to successfully FUSE a GPU and CPU, such as print GPU cores into the CPU floating point cores?? i know GPUS cant handle the variety of general purpose instructions but we know they can crunch floating point numbers at rates of well over TFLOP.
Why cant a CPU incorporate this???? beats me.

That would be a very exciting chip because it wouldn't need special CUDA or STREAM programming to utilize the performance. Then again there's probably technical reasons its not possible.



m
0
l
a c 87 à CPUs
October 12, 2011 3:58:21 PM

I must be missing something, how is it a dud? Does it crush SB? No. At times its faster, other times its not. Wouldn't we call that a tie? I never expected it to get close to the 990x, a 6C/12T CPU. But if you use your computer for many common tasks and want to play games, then it does pretty good.

It's biggest failing is in power and single thread performance. Power use is much to high. And they seem to be taking the Intel "P4 approach" to pipeline/clock speed. If Intel couldn't do it, why should they? Overall BD is what I expected it to be, minus the power and loss in IPC. I would have thought IPC would have stayed similar. But that's the risk with a new Arch.
m
0
l
a c 478 à CPUs
October 12, 2011 10:41:18 PM

gamerk316 said:
^^ Intel CAN'T monopolize the CPU market; AMD owns the AMD64 patent, which Intel needs as the world moves to X64.


Actually in the unfortunate event AMD should fail as a business AMD will most likely be forced to sell the patent to raise cash to payoff the bondholders. In the investment world the companies ultimately answer to the bondholders because it is the bondholders who initially provided the money to start up the business. Stockholders are screwed in the event of bankruptcy because the bondholders are first in line to reclaim their money. That includes the sale of any assets both physical and intellectual.

Perhaps Intel may invest money into AMD much like how Microsoft invested money into Apple when it was on the verge of financial collapse. Now look at Apple, it is the biggest company in the world by market value (i.e stock price * the number of shares). Hmmm.... maybe Intel won't give AMD a lifeline....
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 1:18:04 AM

jaguarskx said:
Actually in the unfortunate event AMD should fail as a business AMD will most likely be forced to sell the patent to raise cash to payoff the bondholders. In the investment world the companies ultimately answer to the bondholders because it is the bondholders who initially provided the money to start up the business. Stockholders are screwed in the event of bankruptcy because the bondholders are first in line to reclaim their money. That includes the sale of any assets both physical and intellectual.

Perhaps Intel may invest money into AMD much like how Microsoft invested money into Apple when it was on the verge of financial collapse. Now look at Apple, it is the biggest company in the world by market value (i.e stock price * the number of shares). Hmmm.... maybe Intel won't give AMD a lifeline....

But AMD doesnt have Jobs.
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 1:34:14 AM

BD is a DUD
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 1:49:55 AM

Totally it is not what I expected, being an AMD Fanboy even I am extremely disappointed, Luckily I didn't buy an AM3+ MOBO. However, It could be that by playing with the frequencies of the different cores/modules to configure it to specific tasks. I think I'll probably switch to either 2600K or 2500K. Unfortunately, AMD did not make it in this arena.
m
0
l
a c 103 à CPUs
October 13, 2011 5:56:46 AM

AsRock 890fx D5 plate here willing to test if Toms want to send me their sample?
will return it ofc afterwards, maybe we could pass it around and test a few Mobo's out
Moto
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 7:17:10 AM

Motopsychojdn said:
AsRock 890fx D5 plate here willing to test if Toms want to send me their sample?
will return it ofc afterwards, maybe we could pass it around and test a few Mobo's out
Moto


Please do..... We desperately need a fresh perspective and newer better reviews.
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 11:59:18 AM

Why is everyone saying that the entire bulldozer series sucks when only the 8-core cpu was tested? We still haven't seen the quad and hexacore processors, which are the only ones that I really cared to see.
m
0
l
a c 87 à CPUs
October 13, 2011 12:02:50 PM

And I for one don't think the 8120 "sucks" that badly. It's not a SB killer, but its a pretty good chip none the less.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 12:04:08 PM

^^ If the 8 core struggles to distance itself from the Phenom II X6, what are the odds the 4 core varient could be any better then the Phenom II X4? This is the type of situation where that 20% hit on the second core of a BD module is REALLY going to show I think...
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 12:37:52 PM

gamerk316 said:
^^ If the 8 core struggles to distance itself from the Phenom II X6, what are the odds the 4 core varient could be any better then the Phenom II X4? This is the type of situation where that 20% hit on the second core of a BD module is REALLY going to show I think...


Were the quad cores of the phenom II series not better for gaming than the hexacores?
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 3:18:51 PM

gamerk316 said:
^^ If the 8 core struggles to distance itself from the Phenom II X6, what are the odds the 4 core varient could be any better then the Phenom II X4? This is the type of situation where that 20% hit on the second core of a BD module is REALLY going to show I think...



The other variants are the same silicon( just some of the cores disabled) , i think it might be the case that the quad core versions could have the same big L3 cash available as the 8 core,, giving it a nice boost! bang for the buck.
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 6:45:26 PM

jonnyrb said:
Get real benchmarks


So in your 'real benchmarks', Bulldozer is a tiny percentage faster on games that are GPU-limited.

Just like the old days when the AMD fanboys were telling us we should buy Phenom because it was slightly faster than an Intel quad-core on GPU-limited games, and ignoring the fact that it was also only slightly faster than a dual-core so there was no point buying either if you were determined to be GPU-limited.
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 7:03:11 PM

MarkG said:
So in your 'real benchmarks', Bulldozer is a tiny percentage faster on games that are GPU-limited.

Just like the old days when the AMD fanboys were telling us we should buy Phenom because it was slightly faster than an Intel quad-core on GPU-limited games, and ignoring the fact that it was also only slightly faster than a dual-core so there was no point buying either if you were determined to be GPU-limited.


Close, I actually have an Intel CPU though. I will probably be buying a bulldozer when they aren't on back order. People jump way to fast at the very first review which can easily be misleading.


m
0
l
October 13, 2011 7:08:40 PM

jonnyrb said:
Close, I actually have an Intel CPU though. I will probably be buying a bulldozer when they aren't on back order. People jump way to fast at the very first review which can easily be misleading.


It's hardly "the very first review", its just about every review published so far.
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 7:35:46 PM

DoomsWord89 said:
It's hardly "the very first review", its just about every review published so far.


3 companies being given the same hardware to test benchmarks on is hardly different reviews. If you look at anything that wasn't on the ASUS Mother board you'll see the fx-8150 is 2600k class.
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 7:43:02 PM

20%-30% slower is not exactly in the same class, mate.
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 7:51:25 PM

jonnyrb said:
lol obvious troll, you clearly failed to look at any other benchmarks

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/315805-28-bought-bull...
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/315775-28-asus-crossh...

take a gander


Right, because its all a conspiracy.

AMD would knowingly package their band-new flagship CPU with a motherboard that bottlenecks the performance, and then send it to all major publications for review. Knowing full and well that the motherboard would effect the over-all performance in a negative way.......Makes perfect sense.

The only thing that those articles prove are that the 8150 shines in applications that rely heavily on a proper GPU, not so much a competent CPU.
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 7:54:11 PM

DoomsWord89 said:
Right, because its all a conspiracy.

AMD would knowingly package their band-new flagship CPU with a motherboard that bottlenecks the performance, and then send it to all major publications for review. Knowing full and well that the motherboard would effect the over-all performance in a negative way.......Makes perfect sense.

Nice opinion rebuttle vs proof. It's called a mistake..? better yet a bug? I won't put my heart on my sleeve for another week for more things to surface.

What would make LESS sense, is them shipping out a product clearly inferior to the 2500k for more money being a competitive pricing company..
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 8:06:19 PM

jonnyrb said:
Nice opinion rebuttle vs proof. It's called a mistake..? better yet a bug? I won't put my heart on my sleeve for another week for more things to surface.

What would make LESS sense, is them shipping out a product clearly inferior to the 2500k for more money being a competitive pricing company..


A mistake?.....A Bug?......These boards have been out for quite some time now, you would think a competent company would have noticed such an immense and "crushing" error after so many months.

Did AMD do no testing with the board they had planned to send to all major reviewers?

Also, AMD shipped Phenom in very poor shape as well and was not rectified for quite some time after. So indeed, AMD is more than capable of shipping out a product that is knowingly inferior to the competition.

You would think that there would be more talk of this if it were the case. Not just a few AMD "truthers" attempting to justify why the product is getting such bad marks.
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 8:19:37 PM

DoomsWord89 said:
A mistake?.....A Bug?......These boards have been out for quite some time now, you would think a competent company would have noticed such an immense and "crushing" error after so many months.

Did AMD do no testing with the board they had planned to send to all major reviewers?

Also, AMD shipped Phenom in very poor shape as well and was not rectified for quite some time after. So indeed, AMD is more than capable of shipping out a product that is knowingly inferior to the competition.

You would think that there would be more talk of this if it were the case. Not just a few AMD "truthers" attempting to justify why the product is getting such bad marks.

It's possible, but not probable.

I was unaware that Phenom was released in poor shape, I owned a Q6700 so I didn't care to much at the time. She still oc's at 3.8ghz like a beauty
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 8:31:44 PM

jonnyrb said:
It's possible, but not probable.

I was unaware that Phenom was released in poor shape, I owned a Q6700 so I didn't care to much at the time. She still oc's at 3.8ghz like a beauty


Indeed, and considering that the Crosshair V is the most widely used 990FX board on the market. I don't think either company would allow for such an obvious error with a product they intend to send to major review publications to remain un-rectified for nearly half a year until BD's initial launch.

Especially considering how crucial the initial reviews would be to AMD's sales.
m
0
l
!