Water Cooling Versus Two Air Coolers
When AMD announced the FX line-up, it also revealed that it'd be introducing liquid cooling kits in certain geographies. We haven't seen these yet in North America, however the company did send us a sample of the Asetek-based unit it'll use. That's what we used for testing.
On top of that, we also wanted to explore whether liquid cooling is necessary for the FX-series chips, or if enthusiasts can still get by with aftermarket air coolers (or even AMD's boxed heat sink).
Thus, we tried out our maximum overclocked setting (4.6 GHz) not only with the Asetek water cooler, but also with the AMD boxed cooler and Zalman's CNPS 10X Extreme.
Zalman's solution does really well here, achieving a two-degree-Celsius lower result than the Asetek-based cooler. However, the boxed cooler was completely overwhelmed, and as a result the processor's thermal protection mechanism shut our system down after a few seconds. This seems to match what we've read from readers and experienced in other test setups: AMD's standard thermal solution is too small for serious overclocking attempts, and even at stock settings, it gets annoyingly loud.
Here's the test system with the water cooler during its benchmark run...
...and here's the one with Zalman's heat sink installed.
Current page: Water Cooling Versus Two Air CoolersPrev Page The Bulldozer Platform: Using FX-8150 To Test Next Page Clock Frequency: 3.6 GHz, Multiplier: 18x, CPU Voltage: 1.332 V
Stay on the Cutting Edge
Join the experts who read Tom's Hardware for the inside track on enthusiast PC tech news — and have for over 25 years. We'll send breaking news and in-depth reviews of CPUs, GPUs, AI, maker hardware and more straight to your inbox.
Reading conclusion paragraph, I'd have to agree. I think they probably would've been better of using the STARS arch and just die shrinking it to 32nm.Reply
I know I have been critical in my comments here and there, but I really do hope Bulldozer helps AMD learn and refine Piledriver and future CPUs so that they are all better as a result. I know I will be skipping BD, but that doesnt mean I dont ever want to use AMD again. I will always root for the underdog, in hopes that we have another Athlon 64 on our hands again.Reply
gulftown=expensive and useless.Reply
Sandybridges=king of the hill(price to performance)
Bulldozer=budget cpu with multitasking capabilities.
Fehh... did my build on a 990fx platform with a 955be CPU. Runs plenty fast, and I can upgrade the AM3+ in a year when AMD gets it right.Reply
Although I appreciate the work done on this article...
Nothing to see here folks, move along...
im just fine with my 110$ 955be.... 29 deg idle at 3.7ghzReply
Is that a typo on page 7 and 8? "Clock Frequency: 4.5 GHz, Multiplier: 22.5x, CPU Voltage: 1.428 V" cpu-z shows 1.380? page 8 cpu z shows 1.44 and not 1.5.Reply
As for my own efficiency testing, I achieved 1.375V (cpu z), 4.4Ghz out of my 8120 with ease. I upped the NB to 1.115v (+.015V)wich added more stability and clocked the NB to 2600 to match HTT, wich brought another 1gb/s on sandra's memory test. All without disabling C1E or C3 states.
Would be nice to see some followups with memory testing, BD responds to fast speeds. Hard to read since its in a different language but the graphs are easy enough to see
Tom's Hardware finds that overclocking increases speed, power requirements. Film at 11.Reply
yay! another efficiency article from toms. :love:Reply
sad to see amd's claims about efficiency turn out to be (much) less than accurate.
some people are definitely gonna complain about the ram used (ddr3 1333) and windows 8 or lack of highly threaded benchmarks like truecrypt encryption or pov ray tracing (as if those are always used by regular users lol) and stuff.
undervolting does look promising...but it doesn't seem to make any difference compared to sandy bridge systems. worse, bulldozer needs voltage increase to get more clockspeed.. i guess it will be more evident in fx 4100 and 6100 where substantial core voltage increase is necessary to get stock sandy bridge level performance out of them. that's just disappointing.
It seems to me that Bulldozer is either a AMD bastard child chip, or it's a first gen chip of which subsequent generations of the architecture will be playing "catch up" performance wise. Otherwise, it's typical AMD trying to be efficient rather than a heavy hitter.Reply
But if you ask me, this is a "defensive" chip in the processor wars. And no war has been won playing defense.
memadmaxIt seems to me that Bulldozer is either a AMD bastard child chip, or it's a first gen chip of which subsequent generations of the architecture will be playing "catch up" performance wise. Otherwise, it's typical AMD trying to be efficient rather than a heavy hitter.But if you ask me, this is a "defensive" chip in the processor wars. And no war has been won playing defense.Reply
Meaning this war is a TOTAL loss to AMD... SADLY... AMD - ABSURDLY MORONIC DEVICES.