Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is the ASUS crosshair V+580 giving biased results for the Bulldozer?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 13, 2011 2:55:25 AM

Hi Guys,

I have stumbled upon something rather strange. Like any other builder I had been waiting for the FX with bated breath. It has been a disappointment and all sites across the net have thrashed it. Let me summarize some of the obvious pitfalls detailed on Toms, Anands, X bit etc.

1. Performs lower than the 2500k.
2. Power consumption is high.
3. Single core performance is dismal. Worse than even the 1100T in some cases!!!!
4. Gaming performance is downright bad.

I am from an engineering background(electronics) and have an additional finance background as well(MBA finance). I know how companies work and the pricing made no sense to me in any scenario. Let me summarize again.

1. Why Had AMD prices something so high when it knows it will not perform from day 1?
2. Whats the point of making a sure shot loss from day 1?
3. Why is the gaming performance so dismal? Wasn't ultra high resolution gaming its USP?
4. Where is the overclocking? 4.5ish GHz???? That's it???!!!!!!!!
5. Was there any testing done? Even a simple die shrink would have improved heating and efficiency.

So I wanted to have a further look. This was a mystery that needed looking into. I also noticed something else. All the testing on all the sites has been done on this kit. Link below.

http://morethanchessagame.forumotion.com/t1987-amd-fx-b...

Now, all big sites have been given this kit including Toms. It makes sense because I am guessing Asus has an agreement with AMD to make its mother boards the "official" ones for testing. Also all these sites have used a 580 GTX quoting minimal graphics bottleneck. I agree its a sound rationale.

I confirmed at some other sites as well. The Asus + 580GTX has been used pretty much everywhere.

Its then that I went over to hardwareheaven and had a look. They have stayed away from the press kit and used an Asrock board. Here is the review link.

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1285/pg1/amd-fx-8...

Now, Toms has come up with results exactly the same as all other sites that used the press kit. Lets have a look at some big changes on the benches.

Also, all sites except hardwareheaven has used a 580Gtx. Lets have a look at some gaming benches. That's what matters to us right?

3DMark 11

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1285/pg9/amd-fx-8...

Win

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bul...

Massive loss!!!!!

F1 2011


http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1285/pg11/amd-fx-...

Win

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bul...

Massive loss!!!!!

Also when I go through the whole hardware heaven review it gives it a good rating placing it close to the 2600K and above the 2500K. Which in turn is in line with their strategy. It does lose in some benches but is still very very close to the 2500K.

This is extremely strange. Please go through the site yourself.

So to conclude:
1. Can Toms and others please do a test with other 990 boards?
2. Can we please have a comparison with more AMD and Nvidia cards?
3. Who do we trust? Isn't a biased review completely anti against AMD from day 1?
4. Can some one else independently run benches with the 2500K, 2600K and 8150 using different cards and mother boards?
5. Is there a Nvidia Intel nexus to make sure 8150 looks bad? Was the BFBC3 patch doctored for more than just RAGE???( remember Hawx 2 tessellation)

Please post links here. And don't post links for other sites as there is a strong anti AMD bias/ vibe. I think we users need to take things in our own hands and check this out. Can some one use their own personal hardware and run benches?

I am not an AMD fan or a conspiracy nut. I use both builds and use Nvidia as well. So lets keep this discussion open and friendly. No trolling please.

And can the seniors moderators and testers at Toms please step in and explain? Can a new test be done?
October 13, 2011 3:20:30 AM

That is a very good point you know!
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 3:25:16 AM

tacobravo said:
That is a very good point you know!


Its pretty strange mate. is that I am based out of Bangalore, India. And we wont get Bulldozer supplies for the next 15 days!!!! Can some of our our USA and Canada friends step in with results and benches?

Frankly the reviews have caused a lot of shock in the gaming community here. We are very upset with this fiasco.
m
0
l
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
October 13, 2011 3:30:07 AM

You have a very good point, all the test sites did use the one kit and not the actual retail chip so I have been hearing though only few reviews have even bothered to mention it, not surprising. In the next week we'll see what is really going on with the chip. BIOS revisions, Windows 7 updates and maybe even perhaps other stuff. I wouldn't worry about it too much.

There is obviously something wrong with the benchmarks and I think a lot of people would agree. Not much you can do if it's a physical defect or architecture defect; here's hoping it's just a BIOS, OS, program problem. I have been looking at all the review sites myself and have been waiting for some reviews to go up from a fresh retail chip and haven't seen any yet.

If anyone sees any retail, store bought chip benchmarks going up please link them! Can't wait to see what the next two weeks brings. It does seem like the tested motherboard is pretty fail though, glad I picked up the MSI. I'm sure a BIOS update can fix whatever problem it has though.
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 3:31:43 AM

When the 6970 was launched I remember very specifically that AMD placed it below the 580 and a direct competitor to the 570. That's exactly what it was. AMD knows where to place its products. They had placed the 8150 midway between the 2500K and 2600K. So why the colossal failure in logic here?

Business sense???? Or other influences?
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 3:35:02 AM

Erusidhion said:
You have a very good point, all the test sites did use the one kit and not the actual retail chip so I have been hearing though only few reviews have even bothered to mention it, not surprising. In the next week we'll see what is really going on with the chip. BIOS revisions, Windows 7 updates and maybe even perhaps other stuff. I wouldn't worry about it too much.

There is obviously something wrong with the benchmarks and I think a lot of people would agree. Not much you can do if it's a physical defect or architecture defect; here's hoping it's just a BIOS, OS, program problem. I have been looking at all the review sites myself and have been waiting for some reviews to go up from a fresh retail chip and haven't seen any yet.

If anyone sees any retail, store bought chip benchmarks going up please link them! Can't wait to see what the next two weeks brings. It does seem like the tested motherboard is pretty fail though, glad I picked up the MSI. I'm sure a BIOS update can fix whatever problem it has though.


I agree mate. But take any other review for example. The 580GTX was on the top in its first ever review. So was the 2500K. Why the massive difference here. And isn't day 1 reviews what really matters? These reviews are what people will look at when buying next for the next whole year!!!!!
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 3:40:02 AM

I hope we can see some am3+ motherboard reviews soon and see if that makes a difference
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 4:01:02 AM

mailpranshu said:
I agree mate. But take any other review for example. The 580GTX was on the top in its first ever review. So was the 2500K. Why the massive difference here. And isn't day 1 reviews what really matters? These reviews are what people will look at when buying next for the next whole year!!!!!


Well I agree with all your points. The only counter argument I'm going to throw out there is, it is a new architecture, new motherboard etc. So it's possible that there is a bottleneck in the motherboard, BIOS, chip itself. Hopefully all these kinks will be worked out. Regardless that benchmark looks pretty sweet and I want to say it's 100% factual because they didn't use the same motherboard as all the other reviewers.

I am curious if a lot of reviewers are under some kind of clause NOT to use other motherboards. I'm not sure how the review process works. I'm just awaiting the flood of youtube videos within the next week with real-time benchmarks with the retail chips and then we'll see what happens.

I think AMD was successful with this architecture, albeit a little drawn out. At least it isn't even close to being a failure. Have to give AMD credit where it's due for taking this risk with Bulldozer.

I hope all the bad reviews will get revisited. I think all the people that visit these sites and are loyal fans and contributors deserve a revisit with a different setup after maybe a month or so. I guess let's just see what happens in the next 30 days. :-P
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 4:14:08 AM

What I feel sad about is that this always ends up happening with AMD. I am guessing 90% of people are already turned off, have labeled it a failure and moved on.
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 4:15:48 AM

wow, im glad you found this out. i been reading reviews all over and bulldozer has been a disappointment, but with this review BD is actually good!!! please more reviews with different setups!!!
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 4:22:36 AM

Can toms please re do their numbers with multiple cards and mo-bo's? Lets face it. We are on a cusp. If AMD fails here they will fail over all. And I for one don't want to exist in an Intel monopoly.

I think old users like us end up suffering the most. A monopoly is always bad. Look at graphics now. Its so damn competitive.

I think its unfair to label something a failure without a couple of checks and thorough testing first.
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 4:48:21 AM

c_h1132 said:
wow, im glad you found this out. i been reading reviews all over and bulldozer has been a disappointment, but with this review BD is actually good!!! please more reviews with different setups!!!


Its almost as if people were just waiting for the FX to fail....pretty damn sad....
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 4:48:25 AM

mailpranshu said:
Can toms please re do their numbers with multiple cards and mo-bo's? Lets face it. We are on a cusp. If AMD fails here they will fail over all. And I for one don't want to exist in an Intel monopoly.

I think old users like us end up suffering the most. A monopoly is always bad. Look at graphics now. Its so damn competitive.

I think its unfair to label something a failure without a couple of checks and thorough testing first.


+1. I'm about ready to make a purchase but am wondering which CPU (i7 2600K vs 8 core AMD) would perform better for the next 2-3 years. I have dual 6950s and will be moving to Windows 8 and right now the 2600K looks a lot more tempting after reading reviews of the 8150. But if the 8150 might do better on Windows 8 and future apps within this time span along with dual GPUs it could make all the difference. Also would be interesting to know which chip is best for dual gaming and workstation use (virtual machines, web development, programming, and gaming).

Edit: Also multi-monitor testing would be cool too since I'm running a 3 monitor setup. From leaked slides they were showing AMD's chips with benefits at ultra high resolution run in eyefinity. But maybe I'm asking for too much.
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 4:49:11 AM

se7envii said:
+1. I'm about ready to make a purchase but am wondering which CPU (i7 2600K vs 8 core AMD) would perform better for the next 2-3 years. I have dual 6950s and will be moving to Windows 8 and right now the 2600K looks a lot more tempting after reading reviews of the 8150. But if the 8150 might do better on Windows 8 and future apps within this time span along with dual GPUs it could make all the difference. Also would be interesting to know which chip is best for dual gaming and workstation use (virtual machines, web development, programming, and gaming).


Good point........
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 6:10:31 AM

Something doesn't make sense though. Didn't AMD provide this ki that included the suspect mobo? If so, i can only see 2 problems with that:

1. They didn't test their cpu on said mobo (kinda careless and dumb if so)
Or
2. They did, but either a. That's what they really expected as results or b. They decided to go through even though they know it impairs their cpu.

m
0
l
October 13, 2011 6:50:03 AM

And confirms this line of thought further. There is a gigabyte board involved!!!!!!!!!! Holy Asus Batman!!!!!
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 7:21:45 AM

wow I knew there was no way in hell AMD would release a processor at those prices that performed so poorly... I really hope you're right OP...
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 7:31:45 AM

Quoting Tulx here. Thanks for the further research mate!!!!!!

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/315752-28-buying-bull...

Scroll to the bottom and check his compiled benchmarks. Have a look at the complete reviews please? Are there any more benches out there? Post it here please.

I wish we could get some hands on on BD FZ instead of all this biased corporate crap.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 7:53:27 AM

Looks like a major difference isn't neessarily the motherboard, but this

2x 4GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3-1866
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 7:57:04 AM

Anythings possible. Like I said. We need more unbiased, hands on, unbiased reviews......
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 8:05:13 AM

And a quick run through of some compiled screenshots.













Are the guys at Anandtech aware yet? Or is this more of a Toms story as of now?

Thanks to tulx!!!!!!

I just wish some one from Toms or AMD would actually look into this!!!!!!
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 9:22:01 AM

The more I read the more I feel that the guys at AMD have made a massive mistake by keeping Asus as their official test kit partners.

Is this going to be its bane??



Also when is it available for retail in the USA?? Any ideas? I have a feeling till guys like us don't get their hands on something concrete its going to be a shot in the dark.
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 9:36:35 AM

i approve this message
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 10:02:12 AM

I think you guys should notice: Sites have a diffrent way of testing their products. This gives diffrent scores.
Example: FPS, are those minimal, average, max? In many sites they dont specify.
Example: specify what is High, very high settings (all maxed on very high?).
Example: Are you playing an open area to test ? are you playing a 1v1 or a 4v4 (starcraft 2).
Its easy to modify the parameters to get the results "you" want to get. Finally note that there are many diffrent games beeing tested. But i think its safe to asume that the bulldozer will have a hard time since cpu intensive games (like starcraft 2) seem to be running better on Intel.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 10:02:45 AM

Also... Using Nvidia? Probably to use physx on GPU....
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 10:05:52 AM

Wow this is really interesting.
As someone who regards AMD as awesome, I feel like I have betrayed them after quickly judging Bulldozer as a failure =/

I hope this all works out well for AMD, nobody deserves to have something that is great be judged different because of biased results.
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 10:09:32 AM

I am quite happy in finding this thread.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 10:10:42 AM

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150-processor-rev...

Check this out. makes a lot of more sense to me than the other reviews.
Also i dont know how usefull the extra cores are. I guess it deneonds on the software (EPIC GAMES said that the future of software was to make multi core aplications but we will see).
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 10:12:55 AM

Why almost all the CPU gaming benchmarks are performed on a resolution higher than 1440x900 + AA where GPUs become the bottleneck?
There should be a review with lower resolution with no AA and only then we REALLY be able to see who is better for games: BD or SB
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 10:19:05 AM

cats_Paw said:
http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150-processor-rev...

Check this out. makes a lot of more sense to me than the other reviews.
Also i dont know how usefull the extra cores are. I guess it deneonds on the software (EPIC GAMES said that the future of software was to make multi core aplications but we will see).


It makes it seem as if Bulldozer came too early :??: 
Which might be the case with most applications not utilising all of the cores but we would have had more raging peeps if it was delayed any longer :kaola: 
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 10:24:40 AM

What i would like to see is the same tests tomshardware has done but with different GPU(AMD).
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 10:25:54 AM

Perhaps. All i know is im getting soon a Laptop for gaming, and im going with an i5-2430M before the i7-2630 Due to better performance in games of a dual core higher clocked and cooler than a quad.
This is the sort of information that im guessing Intel Does not want out there.

Im still on a Q6600 since i belive even this processor is not yet fully utilized :D .
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 10:26:46 AM

Could it be that nVidia's drivers created a conflict with bulldozer's processes in order to yield negative results? I mean if we start to doubt AMD now, we will definitely be more skeptical of Southern Islands GPU, which nVidia stands to lose from significantly since it'll be out many months before Kepler's new iteration.

To be honest I doubt it would be ASUS, they stand to lose a significant business client by screwing them over. Afterall, they do make AMD GPUs and MoBos.
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 10:31:08 AM

By the way Pass Mark lists FX 8150 at 8600 (1 Sample), i5 2500k at 7300 (3.5k Samples), and i7 2600 (5.2k Samples). But I would take that with a heavy grain of salt.
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 10:49:05 AM

dontqqnub said:
What i would like to see is the same tests tomshardware has done but with different GPU(AMD).


+1
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 10:51:43 AM

cats_Paw said:
I think you guys should notice: Sites have a diffrent way of testing their products. This gives diffrent scores.
Example: FPS, are those minimal, average, max? In many sites they dont specify.
Example: specify what is High, very high settings (all maxed on very high?).
Example: Are you playing an open area to test ? are you playing a 1v1 or a 4v4 (starcraft 2).
Its easy to modify the parameters to get the results "you" want to get. Finally note that there are many diffrent games beeing tested. But i think its safe to asume that the bulldozer will have a hard time since cpu intensive games (like starcraft 2) seem to be running better on Intel.


Exactly. I would prefer to see some of our readers coming up with real benchmarks with multiple settings. And you are right. CPU intensive games will bomb here. The Metro results are very suspect ( PhysX??? was a nvidia card used?)

The test config clearly shows that a 6970 was used. So was a nvidia card also used with hacked drivers? ( similar to a 5870+460gtx). Also AMD does not do Physx. Its frame rates tank. Was a second card used for some tests?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 10:56:17 AM

mailpranshu said:
Exactly. I would prefer to see some of our readers coming up with real benchmarks with multiple settings. And you are right. CPU intensive games will bomb here. The Metro results are very suspect ( PhysX??? was a nvidia card used?)

The test config clearly shows that a 6970 was used. So was a nvidia card also used with hacked drivers? ( similar to a 5870+460gtx). Also AMD does not do Physx. Its frame rates tank. Was a second card used for some tests?

Have you got an AM3+ mobo?
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 11:01:44 AM

ghnader hsmithot said:
Have you got an AM3+ mobo?



Sadly I don't. Using an old AM2 mo bo!!!!!! This was supposed to be my upgrade. Frankly no one picked up a AM3+ mo bo here at all.

Have a friend who is using a Thuban with a AM3 (890) board. He was using his 5870 with a 8800GT and then a 460 GT later. No idea how effective it was. Arkham looked cool though.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 11:03:56 AM

mailpranshu said:
Sadly I don't. Using an old AM2 mo bo!!!!!! This was supposed to be my upgrade. Frankly no one picked up a AM3+ mo bo here at all.

Whats with all the excitement then.I mean you have been posting here and there about how benches are incorrect.
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 11:12:51 AM

ghnader hsmithot said:
Whats with all the excitement then.I mean you have been posting here and there about how benches are incorrect.


Well sorry if I gave that impression. Did not mean incorrect in anyway. I am 100% sure which ever site has published results has run its test diligently. What does bother me is that only the standard press kit has been used in most places. And as quoted above, a different mo bo and card has made a massive difference repeatedly.

The goal here is to find the best possible combination. And kill negativism instead of denouncing something from day 1. We need more benches on different rigs and combinations. Maybe a bios update for the Asus cross hair will fix this? Who knows? This week will tend to be rocky.

Do you by any chance have your hands on the 8150? If you do...... shed some light on this topic.

Peace.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 11:18:17 AM

So are you chaps telling me that i should not maybe just yet jump ship to intel and buy a 2500k set up with the £1000 id saved for my Bulldozer set up?
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 11:21:56 AM

I think its best to wait this period out mate...... No point jumping in and buying something after being influenced with public sentiment. We need a rerun of benches first.

This thread is not about which is better. Its about isolating the best possible combination and hopefully isolating the reason for the extremely varied multi site benchmarks.... If the reason is found we can isolate it and avoid it. Think in the lines of H67 and P67 threads...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 11:24:25 AM

Yes im thinking i may wait 1 more month to see how things pan out after other mobo reviews and even mobo BIOS updates that may need doing to fully enable the FXs full potential.
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 11:27:04 AM
October 13, 2011 1:06:44 PM

mailpranshu said:
Well sorry if I gave that impression. Did not mean incorrect in anyway. I am 100% sure which ever site has published results has run its test diligently. What does bother me is that only the standard press kit has been used in most places. And as quoted above, a different mo bo and card has made a massive difference repeatedly.

The goal here is to find the best possible combination. And kill negativism instead of denouncing something from day 1. We need more benches on different rigs and combinations. Maybe a bios update for the Asus cross hair will fix this? Who knows? This week will tend to be rocky.

Do you by any chance have your hands on the 8150? If you do...... shed some light on this topic.

Peace.


Ok....but reviews have been posted with different setups, using different boards and graphic cards.

Gigabyte + AMD cards perform just as badly as ASUS + Nvidia setups. The subpar benchies are not exclusive to ASUS/nvidia builds.

Straws......clutching.......denial.......desperation.......

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 1:12:22 PM

jdw_swb said:


Straws......clutching.......denial.......desperation.......


While this is likely to be true, its worth waiting it out before making a decision to spend (or not to spend) hard earned money.
m
0
l
    • 1 / 6
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!