Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

AMD Releases FX Series of Bulldozer-Based CPUs

Last response: in Systems
Share
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
October 12, 2011 8:36:28 AM

Well.....It's about time.... :whistle: 
m
0
l
October 12, 2011 11:28:20 AM

you got that right
m
0
l
Related resources
October 12, 2011 12:18:40 PM


unfortunately you are right, i've seen my own favorite sites as well and it doesn't really blow away the 2500 at all, speak nothing of the 2600, and thats just sad really, being an AMD fan, because i know the rest of this post will be filled up with all the intel fans shouting their 'i told ya so' rants. :pfff: 
m
0
l
October 12, 2011 12:37:01 PM

fuzzykiss said:
unfortunately you are right, i've seen my own favorite sites as well and it doesn't really blow away the 2500 at all, speak nothing of the 2600, and thats just sad really, being an AMD fan, because i know the rest of this post will be filled up with all the intel fans shouting their 'i told ya so' rants. :pfff: 


Even I am an Intel fan, but I never thought that AMD is 'not good'.
What I thought was, from the rumors, that for a month, or at least for couple of days, AMD Bulldozer will lead the market, calling itself 'The fastest CPU on the planet' or something like that. Just like the way they released the ATI Radeon HD6990, and it was the fastest GPU, until GTX 590 came out.
m
0
l
October 12, 2011 12:40:42 PM

Chirag Borawake said:
Even I am an Intel fan, but I never thought that AMD is 'not good'.
What I thought was, from the rumors, that for a month, or at least for couple of days, AMD Bulldozer will lead the market, calling itself 'The fastest CPU on the planet' or something like that. Just like the way they released the ATI Radeon HD6990, and it was the fastest GPU, until GTX 590 came out.

and yes, even intel fans should be saddened at this news..for without competition intel has no need to improve what it has currently..they don't need to push the envelope, just sit back a few years and cash in on what they already have. :pfff: 
m
0
l
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 12, 2011 12:43:52 PM

well, other than some serious issues with FPU (Less than thuban in SuperPi?) It competes with sandy, which means its at least competitive now.

which is better than 2 generations behind.

I suspect some software tweaks will improve performance a little. My bet is the 6100 will be close to a 2300/2400 in performance, which will make it the best budget deal at $180.
m
0
l
October 12, 2011 12:57:02 PM

ScrewySqrl said:
well, other than some serious issues with FPU (Less than thuban in SuperPi?) It competes with sandy, which means its at least competitive now.

which is better than 2 generations behind.

I suspect some software tweaks will improve performance a little. My bet is the 6100 will be close to a 2300/2400 in performance, which will make it the best budget deal at $180.

possibly, hopefully, they will do a bios upgrade maybe. i dunno, after all the fanfare..highest overclocking..blah blah..all the hype..this was really a do or die situation for AMD and they came up short.. :pfff: 
the intel fans don't even need to rant, i'll do it for them...sigh :( 
m
0
l
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
October 12, 2011 2:26:38 PM

I have been thinking about a new CPU and board, for gaming. I have been waiting and waiting to see what bulldozer was going to do and I am little disappointed. Looking strictly at a price to performance ratio it’s hard to see any positives in the 8150.

I can get an i5 for 210 and a x68 board for 100, total update would be $310.

Or I can get a 8150 for $260 (that’s the cheapest I have seen it) and a 990-fx board for 140. Total update costs $400.

So for 90 bucks extra I get a computer that will some times be better in heavily threaded tasks but will often be the same or slower, and will always be slower in single threaded tasks.

I feel sad.
m
0
l
October 12, 2011 2:43:23 PM

fuzzykiss said:
and yes, even intel fans should be saddened at this news..for without competition intel has no need to improve what it has currently..they don't need to push the envelope, just sit back a few years and cash in on what they already have. :pfff: 


My thoughts exactly - although I have to admit - there is a lot of future potential and as AMD said it's a design in it's Infant stages. The current results may be disappointing but with the new architecture a few updates might be all it needs to turn the tables and turn this into a heated tie.

~Coffee
m
0
l
October 12, 2011 2:46:29 PM

Quote:
I suspect some software tweaks will improve performance a little. My bet is the 6100 will be close to a 2300/2400 in performance, which will make it the best budget deal at $180.


I Don't think there exist such a Magical Bios update or Microcode or whatever kind of programing that will help the situation simply because: There is no way :non:  to reverse the CPU from consuming about twice as an Intel I5 or i7 for a 4.5-4.6 OC on Air.
m
0
l
October 12, 2011 2:50:00 PM



So yeah, I'm not recommending Any BD CPU's to no one.
m
0
l
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
October 12, 2011 3:57:13 PM

It was a big dissappointment. I wished AMD could have pulled it off, but alas. They must have run into some severe problems in development for it to have taken THIS LONG and is THIS CRAPPY. I'm really disappointed, I am(was) an AMD fan myself.
m
0
l
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 12, 2011 5:18:19 PM

well, the 6100 in the few items I've seen is on par with a 2300 stock (no one has OCed it yet), and the 4100 matches a i3-2100.

so again, AMD seems to be a value chip, not a game breaker.
m
0
l
October 12, 2011 5:37:34 PM

striker410 said:
It was a big dissappointment. I wished AMD could have pulled it off, but alas. They must have run into some severe problems in development for it to have taken THIS LONG and is THIS CRAPPY. I'm really disappointed, I am(was) an AMD fan myself.

well...i'm STILL an AMD fan albeit a severely disappointed one... :cry: 
m
0
l
October 12, 2011 5:51:08 PM

I use Intel CPUs so I haven't really been keeping up with this Bulldozer stuff, but from these Tom's benchmarks it's a little bit of a letdown. Please excuse my lack of knowledge on the subject but I thought it was supposed to give Intel a run for its money.
m
0
l
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
October 12, 2011 5:58:45 PM

In my mind the only way the FX-8150 would make sense to the average consumer would be if it costs around $150. It is a pretty impressive CPU but the value is not there when a cheaper CPU, or even a last generation cpu can outperform it.

Maybe we will get lucky and in a few months there will be a newer revision that will address the lack of ability to handle single threaded tasks, and maybe the new revision will be less expensive to manufacture.

Maybe a magic unicorn will appear in my back yard and befriend me and I can name him and take him on adventures.
m
0
l
October 12, 2011 6:06:35 PM

I feel that AMD needs to come up with a whole new architecture. Take what they know and redesign and build off that. I seems they are trying to keep things compatable with older models and just modify and tweak. I say start fresh and start a new beginning. I feel AMD is getting to far behind with there CPUs and it needs a major overhaul. We need some competition. Every personal computer that I own is AMD and I plan to stay loyal, but this was a big disappointment.
m
0
l
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 12, 2011 6:24:01 PM

apparently no one else is listening to OUR grumbling:




Sold out already.
m
0
l
a b B Homebuilt system
October 12, 2011 6:45:39 PM

"I'm just as excited to see how BD performs as the next guy. But losing your mind over a single article that says nothing at all about the overall performance of the CPU seems a bit pre-mature and overly optimistic."

"Don't you think?"

Sound familiar, Fuzz?
m
0
l
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
October 12, 2011 6:52:05 PM

DoomsWord89 said:
"I'm just as excited to see how BD performs as the next guy. But losing your mind over a single article that says nothing at all about the overall performance of the CPU seems a bit pre-mature and overly optimistic."

"Don't you think?"

Sound familiar, Fuzz?


Not just one article. A few of the other posters put links to real world benchmarks and comparisons. This new chip just cant hang with i5 or i7, and is beat by the old phenom x4 in a few of the tests.

bulldozer = weaksauce
m
0
l
a b B Homebuilt system
October 12, 2011 6:55:46 PM

bucknutty said:
Not just one article. A few of the other posters put links to real world benchmarks and comparisons. This new chip just cant hang with i5 or i7, and is beat by the old phenom x4 in a few of the tests.

bulldozer = weaksauce


Indeed, I was simply referring to what I told the OP several months ago in one of his past posts about BD.
m
0
l
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
October 12, 2011 6:58:01 PM

oh... I see the quotes now.....

well then carry on, and good day to you sir.
m
0
l
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
October 12, 2011 7:39:17 PM

I think the issue is that games and programs are not seeing a module as 2 cores which is a problem with this architecture right now and my be fixed in the future, but that doesn't help now.

Anandtech:

AMD also shared with us that Windows 7 isn't really all that optimized for Bulldozer. Given AMD's unique multi-core module architecture, the OS scheduler needs to know when to place threads on a single module (with shared caches) vs. on separate modules with dedicated caches. Windows 7's scheduler isn't aware of Bulldozer's architecture and as a result sort of places threads wherever it sees fit, regardless of optimal placement. Windows 8 is expected to correct this, however given the short lead time on Bulldozer reviews we weren't able to do much experimenting with Windows 8 performance on the platform. There's also the fact that Windows 8 isn't expected out until the end of next year, at which point we'll likely see an upgraded successor to Bulldozer.
m
0
l
a c 136 B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 12, 2011 9:34:56 PM

Bulldozer is clearly a server chip for highly multithreaded workloads .
It also looks to be reasonably priced as a desk top productivity cpu when software makes use of its strengths

But as an enthusiast gamer cpu the limitations are all too obvious .
The extra cores/threads dont help , and since each is sometimes weaker than a Phenom core/thread its a bit of a hard sell for AMD .

Two things offset that somewhat .Firstly CPU's are almost never the limiting factor in a high resolution gaming rig . If your monitor is 1920 x 1080 or above there wont be any disadvantage to using BD ...... but also no particular reason to use one either .
The second is that the 4170 and 4100 may be great value for gamers . Im looking forward to comparisons with the phenom x4 955 and i3 2100
m
0
l
a c 136 B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 13, 2011 1:21:39 AM

fuzzykiss said:
OH YEAH BABY!!
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2394505,00.asp#fbi...
maybe I should have said "oh no baby" :heink: 
after waiting so long...today is almost a day of mourning for me. :sweat: 


maybe you cried too soon

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/10/11/amd_bulldozer...


"We played a lot of Battlefield 3 Beta Multiplayer this week, and not once did we feel that any CPU provided an advantage or disadvantage to our gameplay experience. Whether the CPU was running at stock settings, overclocked, or if it was AMD FX-8150 or Intel Core i7 2500K or 2600K, they all let us play BF3 with the same performance and image quality. "
m
0
l
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 1:25:42 AM

that's because there's a GPU limitation. Once we get into the 28nm GPU's, a 2500k might be a minimum! Fact is, You could use a C2Q and still be fine.
m
0
l

Best solution

a c 136 B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 13, 2011 8:04:12 AM

striker410 said:
that's because there's a GPU limitation. Once we get into the 28nm GPU's, a 2500k might be a minimum! Fact is, You could use a C2Q and still be fine.



Undoubtedly true . Even C2D's C2Q's are competitive in gaming with a 2500k .

BD is a disappointment because of its uneven performance on the desktop , even if it does occasionally beat the 2600k , but it be used as a gaming cpu .

No point in buying the 8150 though , if all are unlocked
and maybe no point buying an 8 core for gaming . The 6 or the quad might be better overclockers
Share
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 8:18:47 AM

ScrewySqrl said:
well, other than some serious issues with FPU (Less than thuban in SuperPi?) It competes with sandy, which means its at least competitive now.

which is better than 2 generations behind.

I suspect some software tweaks will improve performance a little. My bet is the 6100 will be close to a 2300/2400 in performance, which will make it the best budget deal at $180.



Couldn't agree more. It's been a frustrating few months where everywhere I've looked I have seen AMD *fanboys* screaming out for how BullDozer would *blow away* SandyBridge - When, in reality, all AMD were really doing was playing catch up to release a "competitive" product.

The gaming benchmarks don't look great, and there's pretty significant differences between BullDozer and SB but no doubt the 8-cores on the BullDozer CPU will be made use of somewhere else. At least AMD aren't lagging so far behind now and the processor cores do appear to have near equal over-clocking ability (based on TOMs Article on the FX-8150) when compared to SB. Allow some time for tweaks and changes, then the landscape might change a little a AMD will have a truly competitive product available so end users can make an equal decision between Intel or AMD.

Windows 8 could be a pretty big turning point too. http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer... No doubt IvyBridge then will come and release something equally as competitive, but that's the way the market works :) 
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 1:58:41 PM

Outlander_04 said:
maybe you cried too soon

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/10/11/amd_bulldozer...


"We played a lot of Battlefield 3 Beta Multiplayer this week, and not once did we feel that any CPU provided an advantage or disadvantage to our gameplay experience. Whether the CPU was running at stock settings, overclocked, or if it was AMD FX-8150 or Intel Core i7 2500K or 2600K, they all let us play BF3 with the same performance and image quality. "

I hope so, its nice to see a positive review.
m
0
l
October 20, 2011 12:45:20 AM

Outlander_04 said:
Undoubtedly true . Even C2D's C2Q's are competitive in gaming with a 2500k .

BD is a disappointment because of its uneven performance on the desktop , even if it does occasionally beat the 2600k , but it be used as a gaming cpu .

No point in buying the 8150 though , if all are unlocked
and maybe no point buying an 8 core for gaming . The 6 or the quad might be better overclockers

in the end i hope you are right, i ended up getting the 8120..black edition and your right..unlocked..so..we'll see
m
0
l
October 20, 2011 12:46:18 AM

Best answer selected by Fuzzykiss.
m
0
l
!