Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Why I bought a Bulldozer inside

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 13, 2011 1:39:01 PM

Somebody on these forums pointed out that Toms and a few other sites used the same benchmarking kit with an nVidia 580 gpu and the same mobo ASUS Crosshair V. This these tests are using a different benchmarking kit and an AMD gpu... *cough* as intended

Nobody can argue with pictures :) 











a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 3:24:31 PM

The problem with benchmarks is we don’t know what the authors or testers true intentions are. Are they really looking for the best data to help people make a good buying decision? Are they fan boys compelled by some sense of loyalty to make their company look better?

I wonder why the Dues and Dirt tests are run at a high res like 1920x1080, with AF cranked, but with the graphic settings on low and AA off? Especially when they are getting average FPS in the 70s.

No one would play at that res with settings on low and AA off, but AF on full. A more realistic setting would be AF, AA, on half like 8x and graphics on medium or High for an average FPS of 50-60.

Perhaps when set to a more balanced and realistic setting the i7 pulls away?

Anyway it is good to see AMD back in the fight again. I still remember the day I got my AMD k6-2 550mhz and smoked all my LAN party friends P2s. And then when I got an Ahtlon x2 and ran all over every one else’s P4s. Hopefully Bulldozer will turn out the same way.
Score
0
Related resources
October 13, 2011 3:38:58 PM

bucknutty said:
The problem with benchmarks is we don’t know what the authors or testers true intentions are. Are they really looking for the best data to help people make a good buying decision? Are they fan boys compelled by some sense of loyalty to make their company look better?

I wonder why the Dues and Dirt tests are run at a high res like 1920x1080, with AF cranked, but with the graphic settings on low and AA off? Especially when they are getting average FPS in the 70s.

No one would play at that res with settings on low and AA off, but AF on full. A more realistic setting would be AF, AA, on half like 8x and graphics on medium or High for an average FPS of 50-60.

Perhaps when set to a more balanced and realistic setting the i7 pulls away?

Anyway it is good to see AMD back in the fight again. I still remember the day I got my AMD k6-2 550mhz and smoked all my LAN party friends P2s. And then when I got an Ahtlon x2 and ran all over every one else’s P4s. Hopefully Bulldozer will turn out the same way.


There are two Deus Ex Benchies, 1 of which is 16 AF in which the Bulldozer still triumphs. As for the Dirt, not sure, it's just what was posted :o  It's no secret that bulldozer excels with more resolution.
Score
0
October 13, 2011 3:48:20 PM

Why I bought a Bulldozer inside?

- Because i didn't have Intel inside :D 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 4:24:52 PM

When people get over the shock that Bulldozer didn't humiliate Intel's best CPUs, they will come to understand that BD is a fine CPU for most consumers and businesses. Buy what makes you happy. Few people need or will pay for bleeding edge CPUs other than for bragging rights.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 4:33:57 PM

jonnyrb said:
It's no secret that bulldozer excels with more resolution.


It's a secret to me... more resolution = more GPU bottlenecking. Therefore CPUs are less dependant on the framerate. Low res, low settings, low AA, etc, take the GPU out of the equation and the CPU and mobo become the bottleneck. If a CPU/mobo is really better, it will show it off at these modest settings.

You can verify this yourself with FurMark. Just set it to low res and then run it at 0xAA and 8xAA and I bet you'll see no difference. Then change the CPU clock and you'll see a big difference.

EDIT: Or just look at the HAWK bench results
Score
0
October 13, 2011 7:50:58 PM

You are right....pictures don't lie. Using ASROCK and Gigabyte boards and both nvidia and AMD graphics cards.




















Score
0
October 13, 2011 7:58:19 PM
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 8:40:48 PM

I think the fx-8150 is an amazing piece of tech, and it could really put AMD back in the fight, how ever I feel it needs to be under $200. To compete with the i5 2500 it needs to cost less, simple as that.
Score
0
October 13, 2011 9:32:55 PM

Bulldozer was over-hyped... it was intended to complete with Sandy Bridge and for the most part it does. However, I think all these benchmarks only prove we hit a wall with CPU's. I can't help but notice on MOST benches even the PII is keeping up with Sandy-bridge and Bulldozer.

Why would someone want to upgrade from a PII or a first gen i7?? You would get nearly zero noticeable gain unless you happen to be a media junkie, and if that's the case you'll want Bulldozer for the eight cores.
Score
0
a c 88 à CPUs
October 13, 2011 9:56:05 PM

bucknutty said:
I think the fx-8150 is an amazing piece of tech, and it could really put AMD back in the fight, how ever I feel it needs to be under $200. To compete with the i5 2500 it needs to cost less, simple as that.

how is it an amazng piece of tech, please explain? lets see, its 8 cores gets beaten by 4 intel cores in 95% of situations, its power consumption is through the roof, it has lower per-core performance than their old phenom II core, its priced to match CPU's it cant compete with....... where is the amazing part?
Score
0

Best solution

a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 10:26:43 PM

iam2thecrowe said:
how is it an amazng piece of tech, please explain? lets see, its 8 cores gets beaten by 4 intel cores in 95% of situations, its power consumption is through the roof, it has lower per-core performance than their old phenom II core, its priced to match CPU's it cant compete with....... where is the amazing part?


I agree that the idea behind the design and the fact that it works is amazing. There are a few cases where a Bulldozer Module handles two threads really well and the sharing of the FPU make sense, though apparently not the implementation.

Even so it's like saying an average triathlete has an amazing left arm. That's nice, but it's not gonna get them first place. So too do Bulldozers finer qualities not mean much in the overall picture. The overall picture says Bulldozer disappoints and should end up priced less than the 2500k. The FX badge is for top preforming CPUs gamers are willing to pay a premium for and Bulldozer fails at that.
Share
October 13, 2011 10:47:53 PM

iam2thecrowe said:
how is it an amazng piece of tech, please explain? lets see, its 8 cores gets beaten by 4 intel cores in 95% of situations, its power consumption is through the roof, it has lower per-core performance than their old phenom II core, its priced to match CPU's it cant compete with....... where is the amazing part?

95% of situations didn't look at OP.. orr?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 1:19:56 AM

iam2thecrowe said:
how is it an amazng piece of tech, please explain? lets see, its 8 cores gets beaten by 4 intel cores in 95% of situations, its power consumption is through the roof, it has lower per-core performance than their old phenom II core, its priced to match CPU's it cant compete with....... where is the amazing part?


What other 8 core cpu can you get for under $300 to throw in a consumer board? I understand it is not perfect and I by no means think it's a good value at $250 or more, but give a little credit where credit is due. This new architecture has potential.
Score
0
a c 127 à CPUs
October 14, 2011 2:09:39 AM

bucknutty said:
What other 8 core cpu can you get for under $300 to throw in a consumer board? I understand it is not perfect and I by no means think it's a good value at $250 or more, but give a little credit where credit is due. This new architecture has potential.


What good is potential that could be 1-2 years away now? Especially when in 1-2 years Intel will push out 2-3 new archs.

AMD priced it wrong. AMD hid the performance while hyping it.

Meh. BD is not worth it over a 2500K.
Score
0
October 14, 2011 2:52:24 AM

What good is potential that could be 1-2 years away now? Especially when in 1-2 years Intel will push out 2-3 new archs.

AMD priced it wrong. AMD hid the performance while hyping it.

Meh. BD is not worth it over a 2500K. said:
What good is potential that could be 1-2 years away now? Especially when in 1-2 years Intel will push out 2-3 new archs.

AMD priced it wrong. AMD hid the performance while hyping it.

Meh. BD is not worth it over a 2500K.


not only that, people keep thinking "amd will get better once software matures", and intel wont?
Score
0
October 14, 2011 3:33:18 AM

wh3resmycar said:
not only that, people keep thinking "amd will get better once software matures", and intel wont?

You're correct.

But I do think that if they were to turn BD into an APU which would be out next yr, known as Trinity, there's potential for growth. APU is being held back by Stars arch, especially when you do hybrid crossfire. BD should change the game a little.

Also, current BD is actually good for software development where you run compilers and VMs.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 5:29:05 AM

alikum said:
You're correct.

But I do think that if they were to turn BD into an APU which would be out next yr, known as Trinity, there's potential for growth. APU is being held back by Stars arch, especially when you do hybrid crossfire. BD should change the game a little.

Also, current BD is actually good for software development where you run compilers and VMs.


IMO i think that Bulldozer will not add much performance in trinity their is a lot of talk about W8 improving it though and PD might solve a lot of issues. AKA IPC
Score
0
October 14, 2011 8:00:27 AM

Thing is, since 2007 they we're mentioning bulldozer and it's awesome performance.
But it was so hyped and anticipated, even I expected more.

I agree that it is a very capable processor for every daily task or gaming. But so do the i3 and pentium series...

The thing is, price performance isn't great. Also the performance perr Watt has gone backwards! Instead of forward...

That is the reason I'm dissapointed, If I really need to make a budget build I choose AMD. But they just aren't ready to compete in price, performance and performance per watt.

They are still catching up though, but it's been for so long...
The i5 2500k and i7 2600k was released like what, 10 months ago?
Price hasn't come down, which means there is still a good margin left to save on.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 8:40:03 AM

Bulldozer is simply 2 early in the world. If todays OS and software could use 8 cores it would beat the competition easy.
But we are still mostly running 2 cores in most scenarios, and in that, Intel has the upper hand.
Score
0
a c 80 à CPUs
October 14, 2011 10:00:08 AM

jonnyrb said:
I support posts like this, their real. Keep more benchies comming as you see them.


who builds a top end gaming computer to play at low resolution ?

this might make sense to people who buy intel cpu's ,
Score
0
a c 88 à CPUs
October 14, 2011 12:23:26 PM

bucknutty said:
What other 8 core cpu can you get for under $300 to throw in a consumer board? I understand it is not perfect and I by no means think it's a good value at $250 or more, but give a little credit where credit is due. This new architecture has potential.

but WTF is the point of an 8 core CPU to any consumer that is not running a server?????? and when a 4 core cpu can do the same work........while using less power......i mean, if intel wanted to waste silicon on an 8 core consumer model CPU, im sure they could. but they arent that silly.

Look, dont get me wrong everyone, i am an AMD fan from way back. From the k5/k6/k6-2/athlon/duron/athlonxp/athlon64 days. I loved AMD. the core 2 duo is the first Intel CPU i have purchased EVER, and it was well worth it. and since the core 2 duo, AMD has failed to impress, and this 8 core disaster that is slower than Phenom (and the core 2 architecture) is a joke. so it has more cores, so what. you could make a "Core 2 8 core" and it would be faster. that many cores is useless for the average consumer or gamer
Score
0
October 14, 2011 2:12:50 PM

Outlander_04 said:
who builds a top end gaming computer to play at low resolution ?

this might make sense to people who buy intel cpu's ,


Its not about actually playing at those resolutions. Its about ensuring that you are not CPU limited in your frames per second.

The benchmarks show that the FX hits a performance wall quite a bit before the i5 or i7 will. And without a big pricing advantage no gamer would be right to consider the FX.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 2:15:50 PM

Glad most people bought AM3+ boards.It helps AMD.Maybe we should setup AMD charity base.
Score
0
October 14, 2011 2:22:32 PM

iam2thecrowe said:
but WTF is the point of an 8 core CPU to any consumer that is not running a server?????? and when a 4 core cpu can do the same work........while using less power......i mean, if intel wanted to waste silicon on an 8 core consumer model CPU, im sure they could. but they arent that silly.

Look, dont get me wrong everyone, i am an AMD fan from way back. From the k5/k6/k6-2/athlon/duron/athlonxp/athlon64 days. I loved AMD. the core 2 duo is the first Intel CPU i have purchased EVER, and it was well worth it. and since the core 2 duo, AMD has failed to impress, and this 8 core disaster that is slower than Phenom (and the core 2 architecture) is a joke. so it has more cores, so what. you could make a "Core 2 8 core" and it would be faster. that many cores is useless for the average consumer or gamer



I agree with you about power consumption. For 32 nm chip. It loves the power. It's like driving an old 1970 Caddy for your daily driver with a 500 Cubic inch motor. It can do the speed limit of a 4 cyc 2011 Ford focus. But you get 5 mpg instead of 40 mpg with the Focus :D 
Score
0
October 14, 2011 2:25:20 PM

yannifb said:
Look at this, again AMD reiterates that perf should be inline with i5/i7 SB:
http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/processors/amdfx...

Something has to be wrong with the benches.



Ya, they are only showing you what the want you to see. Clock speeds don't mean anything!!!!
Score
0
October 14, 2011 3:14:05 PM

yannifb said:
Look at this, again AMD reiterates that perf should be inline with i5/i7 SB:
http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/processors/amdfx...

Something has to be wrong with the benches.


Their marketing department is doing everything they can because the chip won't sell itself based on the benches.
Score
0
October 14, 2011 5:39:55 PM

They keep shooting themselves in the foot.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 7:53:56 PM

^ In this case it's more like blown off.
Score
0
October 14, 2011 8:00:46 PM

sinfulpotato said:
Bulldozer was over-hyped... it was intended to complete with Sandy Bridge and for the most part it does. However, I think all these benchmarks only prove we hit a wall with CPU's. I can't help but notice on MOST benches even the PII is keeping up with Sandy-bridge and Bulldozer.

Why would someone want to upgrade from a PII or a first gen i7?? You would get nearly zero noticeable gain unless you happen to be a media junkie, and if that's the case you'll want Bulldozer for the eight cores.



AMD never hyped BD. They described their goals and made ONE announcement 50% for 33%. As the Linux benches come out you'll see what suckers you all are for bowing to a criminal.

Crap. And I finally left all of that. Thanks.
Score
0
October 14, 2011 8:01:54 PM

jimmysmitty said:
What good is potential that could be 1-2 years away now? Especially when in 1-2 years Intel will push out 2-3 new archs.

AMD priced it wrong. AMD hid the performance while hyping it.

Meh. BD is not worth it over a 2500K.



Find ONE article where they made any perf announcements. Just one. I've seen ZERO. You all did that.
Score
0
October 14, 2011 8:03:06 PM

Katsushiro said:
Their marketing department is doing everything they can because the chip won't sell itself based on the benches.



You mean like Netburst? Why are you all such suckers? Intel doesn't care about you. They just want more money than they deserve.
Score
0
a c 80 à CPUs
October 14, 2011 8:19:48 PM

Katsushiro said:
Its not about actually playing at those resolutions. Its about ensuring that you are not CPU limited in your frames per second.

The benchmarks show that the FX hits a performance wall quite a bit before the i5 or i7 will. And without a big pricing advantage no gamer would be right to consider the FX.


Im a gamer [ some days ] and I can tell you now IT IS ALL ABOUT PLAYING AT HIGH RESOLUTION , and has nothing to do with pointless comparisons showing one cpu or another can produce uselessly high fps at lower resolutions .

Its not a performance wall at all . Its a decent understanding of how digital technology actually works
Score
0
a c 88 à CPUs
October 14, 2011 9:17:37 PM

^ so lets all get athlon x2's because CPU power has nothing to do with performance at high resolution.
Score
0
October 14, 2011 9:22:05 PM

Outlander_04 said:
Im a gamer [ some days ] and I can tell you now IT IS ALL ABOUT PLAYING AT HIGH RESOLUTION , and has nothing to do with pointless comparisons showing one cpu or another can produce uselessly high fps at lower resolutions .

Its not a performance wall at all . Its a decent understanding of how digital technology actually works


I'll agree that at today's games, the FX-8150 is not a performance wall (at least to the degree that causes all the uproar on these forums). However, how about tomorrow's games? We test today's games at lower resolutions to speculate how these chips will perform on tomorrow's games which will be more CPU dependent and more likely to be CPU limited. The results indicate that Sandy Bridge will last longer in a gaming system before being the component that limits GPUs.

How about I quote myself from another thread:

quote:

... in the big scheme of things I will concede that it seems the FX-8150 can handle today's games at very playable settings. I highly doubt that anyone who buys this processor will be disappointed any time soon. Yet as games progress and when Phenom IIs become inadequate, I feel that the FX-8150 will be too. This is one of my complaints: there is little future-proofing value vs high end Phenom IIs (for gaming).

One more thing, they more than doubled the transistor count vs Phenom IIs and the FX is only marginally faster (Anand states FX is ~2 billion transistors, PII 6 cores are 904 million, PII 4 cores are 758 million). I mean, come on man. This is exactly like if nVidia's Fermi (GTX 580, 3 billion transistors) only beat the GTX 285 (1.4 billion transistors) by like 5-10%. Could you imagine the disappointment if that were the case?

:endquote

Score
0
a c 80 à CPUs
October 14, 2011 9:27:19 PM

Im not going to argue that AMD will be completely happy with BD . We already know the design is going to last less than a year before enhanced versions appear .
It may only be a matter of 2 months before enhanced BD cores appear in Fusion APU's

I doubt games will switch to being more cpu intensive . The BF3 beta is an example of the next generation of games . It likes quads , definitely , but cpu hardware is still less an issue than gpu hardware .
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 9:30:29 PM

Well I think the above case was kind of valid if you compared the 465 and the GTX 285 ^_^. Anyway yes, that is my fustration with the FX. AMD would have been better off with a Phenom II X8 that has 4 instruction decoders per core and lower cache latency.
Score
0
a c 88 à CPUs
October 14, 2011 9:49:10 PM

^+1
Score
0
October 14, 2011 11:02:14 PM

megamanx00 said:
Well I think the above case was kind of valid if you compared the 465 and the GTX 285 ^_^. Anyway yes, that is my fustration with the FX. AMD would have been better off with a Phenom II X8 that has 4 instruction decoders per core and lower cache latency.


+2
Score
0
October 16, 2011 2:08:47 AM

So any thread that casts BD in a positive light gets to keep going?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2011 2:41:10 AM

Katsushiro said:
Their marketing department is doing everything they can because the chip won't sell itself based on the benches.

very few people actually check benchmarks, the majority of people look at numbers. AMD calls it an 8-core cpu, and that will sell.

How many people here are arguing about benchmarks vs how many BD have already been sold?
Score
0
October 16, 2011 4:08:50 AM

yannifb said:
Look at this, again AMD reiterates that perf should be inline with i5/i7 SB:
http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/processors/amdfx...

Something has to be wrong with the benches.

Maybe there is something wrong with the people who made the claims that BD will be inline with a i7.

BaronMatrix said:
Find ONE article where they made any perf announcements. Just one. I've seen ZERO. You all did that.


You are being much too modest here. How can you have forgotten that YOU made the claim of 30 to 50% IPC improvement for BD over Deneb/Thuban? :non: 

BaronMatrix said:
You mean like Netburst? Why are you all such suckers? Intel doesn't care about you. They just want more money than they deserve.

This holds true for all for profit corporations, why do you think AMD is any different to Intel? :ange: 

Outlander_04 said:
Im a gamer [ some days ] and I can tell you now IT IS ALL ABOUT PLAYING AT HIGH RESOLUTION , and has nothing to do with pointless comparisons showing one cpu or another can produce uselessly high fps at lower resolutions .

Its not a performance wall at all . Its a decent understanding of how digital technology actually works

By all means show High Resolution, but showing Low Resolution gives you a better idea of which CPU is likely to serve you longer as a gaming CPU, where you only need to update your GPU every couple of years or so.

You seem to think that people only care about having a CPU good enough for at least the next 12 months, but many people have a far longer horizon that they want their CPU to be useful for.





Score
0
October 16, 2011 4:09:02 AM

phatbuddha79 said:
So any thread that casts BD in a positive light gets to keep going?


YES, plain and simple.
Score
0
October 16, 2011 4:25:56 AM

BaronMatrix said:
AMD never hyped BD. They described their goals and made ONE announcement 50% for 33%. As the Linux benches come out you'll see what suckers you all are for bowing to a criminal.

Crap. And I finally left all of that. Thanks.



Baron speaking for myself it really don't matter how good Bulldozer is on Linux systems, I only run Windows
based systems and that's where the performance matters to me.

I have a second system that's in need of a upgade it's sporting a E6600 with a 3870 and 4gb of ram.
that's what i wanted the Bulldozer to replace, but with the numbers in windows i'll be better off with
another 2600k for encoding or wait for SB-E or IB.
Score
0
October 16, 2011 5:06:08 AM

BaronMatrix said:
AMD never hyped BD. They described their goals and made ONE announcement 50% for 33%.


Score
0
October 16, 2011 6:55:54 AM

Just upgraded yesterday from my 1100t to an 8120. To me, it was money well spent. Here's why:

Everybody keeps making this bogus claim that today's software/OSes aren't geared as much for multithreading. Those people probably have never looked at their task manager. I have a Logitech G15 keyboard, so I can see per-core usage, at a glance. Windows (and Linux, of course) does an _outstanding_ job of spreading its workload across multiple cores. It means I have a lot more headroom for multi-tasking/threading both now and in the future.

As for games not using more than 2-4 cores? Again: you clearly haven't monitored your per-core usage when playing modern games. I cannot think of one single game that I own which doesn't get all 8 of my cores rumbling. Maybe not all with heavy loads, but working, nonetheless. It has unleashed my crossfire performance...I was very disappointed before.

Now, with all of that said, Sandy Bridge is easily a superior product, overall. I would not recommend BD, in good conscience to most system builders for the foreseeable future - only on a few niches that BD fills well. In that case, overclock an 8120 to get bang for buck. For anybody wanting a solid, future-looking upgrade for their old Phenom IIs w/o changing platforms, the OCed 8120 is definitely the way to go. It will make your computer run smoother in day-to-day workloads, as well as gaming. Just overclock it to or past a stock 8150 - mine is at 4.5ghz @ 1.47v stable. Unless you're doing something like Photoshop that doesn't scale well across cores. Definitely look at the benchmarks to make sure it will fit your needs, but for the gamers, I see no area where it slouches.

Note: these are the only benches I can easily link to right now...Not trying to cherry pick, or even prove anything...Just showing.

8120 @ 4.5ghz:
http://3dmark.com/3dm11/2008319
http://3dmark.com/3dmv/3562222

8120 @ 4.2ghz:
http://3dmark.com/3dm11/2002726
http://3dmark.com/3dmv/3559643

1100t @ 4.125ghz:
http://3dmark.com/3dm11/1902139?show_ads=true&page=%2F3... (This was my system - I just didn't have a futuremark account when I did the bench...Also can't find my vantage score, but it was around 19k for CPU)

Score
0
!