Review Consensus: AMD FX Processor 8150 Underwhelming [Archive] - Page 2

3volvedcombat

Oct 13, 2011, 04:03 PM

Just reading:
http://www.amd.com/US/PRODUCTS/DESKTOP/PROCESSORS/AMDFX/Pages/amdfx.aspx

The features and benefit's are the first thing I see that shows something shady.

Overclock for a big boost......
Get an extra burst of raw speed...... Turbo Core.....
Push your performance with tuning controls.....
Enjoy stable, smoother performance...... (No shit it should be stable and smooth.)

If they practically recommend you to do this, that's the first sign they new what they were doing and they new the performance was going to be Shitty.

Be Epic. Be Brutal. ........
Some kid watching T.V. Ninja Titan's could have thought up that one.
*face palm*

And if it really uses 500+ watts at 4.6Ghz, they can get right the fuck out of here. I don't want to say it like that, but COME on.

FreedomEclipse

Oct 13, 2011, 04:03 PM

we can setup a virtual one for you powered by FX processors, it will be so slow and unreal you will already giveup, retire and join the Monks/Saints over there.

Or he can cross the border into Pakistan and set up a huge base with 100 computers for LAN games and 400 sheep on treadmills to provide electicity and air conditioning 5miles away from a goverment building or army camp and no one would ever know he was there.

Not even the Pakistani goverment

;);)

btarunr

Oct 13, 2011, 04:21 PM

but mr. witness protection ... i want sun, beach and bikinis :(

Knowing you, beach destinations are the first places they'll swoop.

[H]@RD5TUFF

Oct 13, 2011, 04:38 PM

Hardware Heaven shows Bulldozer in a positive light. They give it 9/10 overall.

In particular it shows Bulldozer beating the i7 2600k in games. How can this be?

Deus EX
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1285/pg10/amd-fx-8150-black-edition-8-core-processor-vs-core-i7-2600k-review-deus-ex-human-revolution.html

F1 2011
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1285/pg11/amd-fx-8150-black-edition-8-core-processor-vs-core-i7-2600k-review-f1-2011.html

Shogun Total War 2
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1285/pg12/amd-fx-8150-black-edition-8-core-processor-vs-core-i7-2600k-review-total-war-shogun-2.html

wow 3 whole games. .. .

cadaveca

Oct 13, 2011, 04:48 PM

@RD5TUFF;2424251']wow 3 whole games. .. .

I couldn't think of 3 better games...

I gotta say, in the console market, over the past MANY YEARS, developer's have been able to incrementally increase performance by code optimization.

It's pretty obvious by the encoding benchmarks that there's really alot of math power in Bulldozer. You could potentially say it's just under-utilized. It's not like it's really all that bad. It's just a little too ahead of it's time is all. Can I guarantee developer's will take advantage of that math power? Nope.

And those three games are ones that kind of show that very well. And that's why I say that a lot of the reviews seem biased, because not one seems to look to highlight where Bulldozer is a success, and most seem focused on disappointment.

TheMailMan78

Oct 13, 2011, 04:54 PM

And that's why I say that a lot of the reviews seem biased, because not one seems to look to highlight where Bulldozer is a success, and most seem focused on disappointment.

Much like my parents.

[H]@RD5TUFF

Oct 13, 2011, 04:55 PM

3volvedcombat

Oct 13, 2011, 05:02 PM

I couldn't think of 3 better games...

I gotta say, in the console market, over the past MANY YEARS, developer's have been able to incrementally increase performance by code optimization.

It's pretty obvious by the encoding benchmarks that there's really alot of math power in Bulldozer. You could potentially say it's just under-utilized. It's not like it's really all that bad. It's just a little too ahead of it's time is all. Can I guarantee developer's will take advantage of that math power? Nope.

And those three games are ones that kind of show that very well. And that's why I say that a lot of the reviews seem biased, because not one seems to look to highlight where Bulldozer is a success, and most seem focused on disappointment.

The thing is though, they hyped it way to much already, its already getting announced. They def see every single review on the net, yet most of them are negative.

There AMD, and that is no joke, they should have known about the performance numbers, THERE is no way the could not have known!!!! They tested, they marketed way to extremely and even had some overclocking Guinness record, and by then they new there performance numbers. There is no way this came out of the blue, its impossible with that infrastructure. Impossible.

There is not an excuse that matter's when it come's to the overall number's everybody is seeing. Not optimized is so much bullshit its beyond untrue, they practically guarantied an ENTHUSIAST PRODUCT, they even market it with a HD 6990!!!!!

No ethical way I can see for this seriously being a mistake, or some weird ass optimization problem, AMD knew all along, and they might keep it that way anyways.
There is no excuse for it to be under optimized, AMD knew simple as that. It's there main market and has been sense the 1970's.

So what make's anybody think that its just under optimized yet, they have been pumping out processor's on every window's platforms for a while. There is just no excuse....

TheMailMan78

Oct 13, 2011, 05:15 PM

@RD5TUFF;2424251']wow 3 whole games. .. .

Yeah three of the most heavily multi-threaded games on the market. BD has a shine you guys fail to grasp.

cadaveca

Oct 13, 2011, 05:21 PM

The thing is though, they hyped it way to much already, its already getting announced. They def see every single review on the net, yet most of them are negative.

There AMD, and that is no joke, they should have known about the performance numbers, THERE is no way the could not have known!!!! They tested, they marketed way to extremely and even had some overclocking Guinness record, and by then they new there performance numbers. There is no way this came out of the blue, its impossible with that infrastructure. Impossible.

There is not an excuse that matter's when it come's to the overall number's everybody is seeing. Not optimized is so much bullshit its beyond untrue, they practically guarantied an ENTHUSIAST PRODUCT, they even market it with a HD 6990!!!!!

No ethical way I can see for this seriously being a mistake, or some weird ass optimization problem, AMD knew all along, and they might keep it that way anyways.
There is no excuse for it to be under optimized, AMD knew simple as that. It's there main market and has been sense the 1970's.

So what make's anybody think that its just under optimized yet, they have been pumping out processor's on every window's platforms for a while. There is just no excuse....

I cannot excuse some of the marketing. I've been complaining about it for a long time now. There are a lot of good ideas there, they are all just poorly executed.

There's a reason companies do not comment about unreleased products, and yes, AMD very much broke that this time. But, officially, they did an effective job of marketing from the business perspective, because literally every aspect of Bulldozer is something I personally expected. The power consumption, clocking, and performance, are all exactly where expected.

The marketing to the enthusiast failed. The Guinness thing should not have been mentioned except at launch. The FX moniker should have been explained, yet, if look back through Bulldozer posts..I knew what FX meant, but many many others didn't.

I do not understand, why, when adding two cores, and 6 cores weren't used to begin with, that peopel thought that magically there would be more performance. When the cores are used effectively, the 8150 does pull ahead considerably.

The fact these chips use such a high voltage while in max turbo mode, yet live on, no problem, is pretty incredible. The fact they can push 300++ watts through that small of a process is quite amazing, and is part of the reason that things like 8 GHz clocks are possible.

To be completely honest, I don't really see Bulldozer as a failure at all, and frankly, anyone claiming it is, really, is still buying into the hype, because literally everyone is buying into these reviews, and the negative outlook. Clearly there are issues when they are using ES samples for reviews. Why are there so few retail samples?

Nobody gets it. And I'm not about to explain things when it's so bloody obvious.

Oh well, not my problem. ;)

TheMailMan78

Oct 13, 2011, 05:26 PM

RevengE

Oct 13, 2011, 05:30 PM

I knew it was going to be a fail. I was just waiting for the offical announcement.

CDdude55

Oct 13, 2011, 05:51 PM

qu4k3r

Oct 13, 2011, 05:54 PM

I'd like to see more reviews it with all FX cpus included (not 8150 only).
Where is the TPU review of AMD FX Cpu?
Is w1zz still cooking it?
I'm hungry, lol.-

TheMailMan78

Oct 13, 2011, 05:55 PM

Dent1

Oct 13, 2011, 05:55 PM

Arguably Bulldozer is the better overall CPU. Granted single threaded performance is poor and makes it perhaps a sceptical choice without a price drop. However in multithreaded applications the Bulldozer often pulls ahead of the i7 Bloomfield and i5 2500K and keeps up with the i7 2600K with ease.

I guess AMD are guilty of releasing the CPU too early. Perhaps if they waited a year or two, say early 2013 to mid 2014 software developers would have moved along with the times to multithreaded coding and results would sway towards AMD's new architecture.

In a away I sort of blame software developers too for holding back current hardware by dragging their feet with multithreaded coding.

Edit:

Clearly there are issues when they are using ES samples for reviews. Why are there so few retail samples
Was Engineering samples really used on the reviews. Isnt that unfair and bias?

LordJummy

Oct 13, 2011, 05:59 PM

Going to wait a while to grab an AM3+ chip to put my 990FX board to work i guess, till then i got this to play with :D:

http://img.techpowerup.org/111013/Capture666678.png

Free next delivery ftw!:rockout:

Performance increase over 470 is not that huge. However, it's a great card. Enjoy it.

If I had an AM3+ board, I would probably buy the 8150 just to test it myself. Have fun though!

TheMailMan78

Oct 13, 2011, 06:02 PM

Performance increase over 470 is not that huge. However, it's a great card. Enjoy it.

If I had an AM3+ board, I would probably buy the 8150 just to test it myself. Have fun though!

BF3 will prove that statement wrong. That extra VRAM makes a difference in DX11.

cadaveca

Oct 13, 2011, 06:20 PM

Was Engineering samples really used on the reviews. Isnt that unfair and bias?

I would not say unfair and bias, but...

Are you really gonna beleive a company that makes millions of chips couldn't find 50 single retail samples to hand out to reviewers when they said ES chips and retail are different?

And that is all.

Official reviews are equpped with a Crosshair 5 motherboards, a retail chip in the tin, a belt buckle, and a watercooler. If there are not pictures of all of these things, then the review should be ignored.

If the watercooler is NOT used, then the review is invalid, IMHO. If the review uses an ES chip, it is INVALID. I could add several more criteria here, but those two are enough.

CDdude55

Oct 13, 2011, 06:21 PM

Performance increase over 470 is not that huge. However, it's a great card. Enjoy it.

If I had an AM3+ board, I would probably buy the 8150 just to test it myself. Have fun though!

It fights with the GTX 570s performance plus as mentioned the extra VRAM was a plus. Granted im running at 1080p, but it's never bad to have more of everything, you never know when you'll start running into games that will eat it all up.

I was thinking about getting a 8 core BD chip but it just wasn't worth the cost considering my overclocked X6 1055T pretty much in the same arena as it for now.

I'm also expecting the 6970's power consumption and heat output will be better then my current 470, Fermi runs hot as everybody has come to expect.

Dent1

Oct 13, 2011, 06:38 PM

Are you really gonna beleive a company that makes millions of chips couldn't find 50 single retail samples to hand out to reviewers when they said ES chips and retail are different?

How can we be sure ES were used in reviews. I read through most of the literature from Tomhshardware, Techspot, Hardware Heaven etc and none of the journalists mention only having Engineering samples available.

Granted some of the literal was extremely long, maybe my eyes missed the parts where they mentioned having ES only.

LordJummy

Oct 13, 2011, 06:39 PM

It fights with the GTX 570s performance plus as mentioned the extra VRAM was a plus. Granted im running at 1080p, but it's never bad to have more of everything, you never know when you'll start running into games that will eat it all up.

I was thinking about getting a 8 core BD chip but it just wasn't worth the cost considering my overclocked X6 1055T pretty much in the same arena as it for now.

I'm also expecting the 6970's power consumption and heat output will be better then my current 470, Fermi runs hot as everybody has come to expect.

Yeah, I used to run a GTX 470 last year for a month or two. It was a good card. The only reason I started buying 6950's was boredom really. I started reading about the unlocking and wanted eyefinity, etc so I went for it.

The 470 was a great card though. The heat and power was exaggerated a bit by some people, although it is a bit on the warm side. The 6950/6970 reference gets warm too on occasion, and is equally loud. It will outperform the 470 for sure though.

The 6970 is a great card. I'm running two myself, in eyefinity config with a 4th monitor for reading documents when I need it. Best setup evar.

BF3 will prove that statement wrong. That extra VRAM makes a difference in DX11.

You, once again misunderstand where I'm coming from. I've owned a gtx 470, and I run two 6970's now. I think I know very well the difference between the two.

I wasn't speaking of VRAM differences. Of course the extra RAM will make a difference in future titles that use over 1GB. "Duh".

(Typical mail man knee jerk reaction)

W1zzard

Oct 13, 2011, 06:41 PM

Where is the TPU review of AMD FX Cpu?

according to amd they were supposed to have sent a cpu yesterday, no tracking number for the package yet. dont expect a tpu review soon

cadaveca

Oct 13, 2011, 06:42 PM

How can we be sure ES were used in reviews. I read through most of the literature from Tomhshardware, Techspot, Hardware Heaven etc and none of the journalists mention only having Engineering samples available.

Granted some of the literal was extremely long, maybe my eyes missed the parts where they mentioned having ES only.

Look at CPU-Z screenshots for "8130P" as the CPU name. Pretty easy.

If there is no CPU-Z, look for them using the provided watercooler, and for them using the ASUS Crosshair V motherboard. NO Crosshair 5 is an immediate disqualification, in my books, unless they somehow confirm that they have a retail chip.

Dent1

Oct 13, 2011, 06:50 PM

Look at CPU-Z screenshots for "8130P" as the CPU name. Pretty easy.

If there is no CPU-Z, look for them using the provided watercooler, and for them using the ASUS Crosshair V motherboard. NO Crosshair 5 is an immediate disqualification, in my books, unless they somehow confirm that they have a retail chip.

according to amd they were supposed to have sent a cpu yesterday, no tracking number for the package yet. dont expect a tpu review soon

Could it be AMD messed up with the FedEX and none of the reviewers got retail CPUs.

Instead the reviewers used their own initiative and used an engineering sample.

xenocide

Oct 13, 2011, 06:53 PM

Hardware Heaven shows Bulldozer in a positive light. They give it 9/10 overall.

In particular it shows Bulldozer beating the i7 2600k in games. How can this be?

That is the only review I have seen where Bulldozer clearly beats the 2600k or even the 2500k, I remain skeptical.

TheMailMan78

Oct 13, 2011, 06:54 PM

Yeah, I used to run a GTX 470 last year for a month or two. It was a good card. The only reason I started buying 6950's was boredom really. I started reading about the unlocking and wanted eyefinity, etc so I went for it.

The 470 was a great card though. The heat and power was exaggerated a bit by some people, although it is a bit on the warm side. The 6950/6970 reference gets warm too on occasion, and is equally loud. It will outperform the 470 for sure though.

The 6970 is a great card. I'm running two myself, in eyefinity config with a 4th monitor for reading documents when I need it. Best setup evar.

You, once again misunderstand where I'm coming from. I've owned a gtx 470, and I run two 6970's now. I think I know very well the difference between the two.

I wasn't speaking of VRAM differences. Of course the extra RAM will make a difference in future titles that use over 1GB. "Duh".

(Typical mail man knee jerk reaction)

Well if you wouldn't type in vague phrases like "Performance increase over 470 is not that huge." when talking about a 6970 then it wouldn't have been a "misunderstanding". Make yourself clear or prepare to be "misunderstood".

(Typical LordJummy knee jerk reaction)

FreedomEclipse

Oct 13, 2011, 06:55 PM

according to amd they were supposed to have sent a cpu yesterday, no tracking number for the package yet. dont expect a tpu review soon

£10 says it doesnt turn up.... It sounding more and more like AMD have something to hide.

TheMailMan78

Oct 13, 2011, 07:00 PM

£10 says it doesnt turn up.... It sounding more and more like AMD have something to hide.

Or they are having manufacturing issues.

cadaveca

Oct 13, 2011, 07:06 PM

Could it be AMD messed up with the FedEX and none of the reviewers got retail CPUs.

Instead the reviewers used their own initiative and used an engineering sample.

Very possible. But then we are talking about rushed reviews because they were waiting for retail chips.

nt300

Oct 13, 2011, 07:06 PM

Done some digging on Bulldozer and its possible issues related to today's software and Windows 7.

1) Memory Bandwidth is somehow getting hampered.
2) Cache Thrashing Issue
3) Scheduling Issue
4) 4 Cores = 2 Threads per Core vs. 8 Cores = 1 Thread per Core – Somehow the OS is getting this mixed up (Windows Update should resolve this issue so it can be utilized properly)
5) Possible a performance Bios update is needed for Socket AM3+ motherboards. Current Bios used for reviews should be null/void.
6) They should conduct a SLI/Crossfire Benchmark with Bulldozer and see what happens.
7) AMD what happend to Quad-Channel? Surely Bulldozer is not being feed enough food IMO.

Just my take in doing some research on the internet about Bulldozer. I still commend AMD for the innovation put into Bulldozer, and I too believe this thing is ahead of its time. Software developers need to quick mucking around and help utilize Bulldozer to the fullest just as they constantly do for Intel CPUs.
according to amd they were supposed to have sent a cpu yesterday, no tracking number for the package yet. dont expect a tpu review soon
W1zzard, as soon as you get that Bulldozer, please by all means Molest the bloody chip and give a wide range of scenarios if you can, in regards to 8GB of DDR3-1866 vs. 16GB of DDR3-1866 etc. I believe Bulldozer will do better with more DDR3 memory along with running a CrossfireX and/or SLI setup. Anyhow you know your stuff,

erocker

Oct 13, 2011, 07:15 PM

Done some digging on Bulldozer and its possible issues related to today's software and Windows 7.

1) Memory Bandwidth is somehow getting hampered.
2) Cache Thrashing Issue
3) Scheduling Issue
4) 4 Cores = 2 Threads per Core vs. 8 Cores = 1 Thread per Core – Somehow the OS is getting this mixed up (Windows Update should resolve this issue so it can be utilized properly)
5) Possible a performance Bios update is needed for Socket AM3+ motherboards. Current Bios used for reviews should be null/void.
6) They should conduct a SLI/Crossfire Benchmark with Bulldozer and see what happens.
7) AMD what happend to Quad-Channel? Surely Bulldozer is not being feed enough food IMO.

Just my take in doing some research on the internet about Bulldozer. I still commend AMD for the innovation put into Bulldozer, and I too believe this thing is ahead of its time. Software developers need to quick mucking around and help utilize Bulldozer to the fullest just as they constantly do for Intel CPUs.

W1zzard, as soon as you get that Bulldozer, please by all means Molest the bloody chip and give a wide range of scenarios if you can, in regards to 8GB of DDR3-1866 vs. 16GB of DDR3-1866 etc. I believe Bulldozer will do better with more DDR3 memory along with running a CrossfireX and/or SLI setup. Anyhow you know your stuff,

1. Unfortunatley, I believe this is a design issue.

2. Possible fix with #4

3. # 4, but doubtful. May have to wait until Windows 8

4. I hope so.

5. Doubt it.

6. It's been done. Reviews are out there and it's not very impressive.

7. It's not there, it is what it is.

xenocide

Oct 13, 2011, 07:15 PM

3) Scheduling Issue
This is a valid complaint. In synthetic benchmarks it wasn't really a noticeable difference when they used Win8.

4) 4 Cores = 2 Threads per Core vs. 8 Cores = 1 Thread per Core – Somehow the OS is getting this mixed up (Windows Update should resolve this issue so it can be utilized properly)
That's basically what BD is. They advertise it as an 8-Core, but it's 4 physical cores with 8 integer units and a buttload of cache. So they are pulling an Intel and marketing it as an Octa-Core.

6) They should conduct a SLI/Crossfire Benchmark with Bulldozer and see what happens.
It's been done, the 2500k\2600k pull ahead when the CPU is the determining factor.[/QUOTE]

Crap Daddy

Oct 13, 2011, 07:16 PM

I cannot excuse some of the marketing. I've been complaining about it for a long time now. There are a lot of good ideas there, they are all just poorly executed.

There's a reason companies do not comment about unreleased products, and yes, AMD very much broke that this time. But, officially, they did an effective job of marketing from the business perspective, because literally every aspect of Bulldozer is something I personally expected. The power consumption, clocking, and performance, are all exactly where expected.

The marketing to the enthusiast failed. The Guinness thing should not have been mentioned except at launch. The FX moniker should have been explained, yet, if look back through Bulldozer posts..I knew what FX meant, but many many others didn't.

I do not understand, why, when adding two cores, and 6 cores weren't used to begin with, that peopel thought that magically there would be more performance. When the cores are used effectively, the 8150 does pull ahead considerably.

The fact these chips use such a high voltage while in max turbo mode, yet live on, no problem, is pretty incredible. The fact they can push 300++ watts through that small of a process is quite amazing, and is part of the reason that things like 8 GHz clocks are possible.

To be completely honest, I don't really see Bulldozer as a failure at all, and frankly, anyone claiming it is, really, is still buying into the hype, because literally everyone is buying into these reviews, and the negative outlook. Clearly there are issues when they are using ES samples for reviews. Why are there so few retail samples?

Nobody gets it. And I'm not about to explain things when it's so bloody obvious.

Oh well, not my problem. ;)

Well you might not see it as a failure, it's your perspective and original opinion. Maybe failure is to hard, maybe let's say it's an underachiver for 90% of the reviewers who were sent whatever chips AMD wanted them to get.

Apart from the performance that you say you expected to be like this, do you think the desktop CPU market needs these products? Do you think AMD made the right choice to put out a processor that performs on average 10% better than their previous lineup on multithreaded and on par or worse on single threeaded?

Do you think AMD has any chance to sell a chip that costs 60$ more than the i5-2500K while on average at stock clocks it performs better in 2-3 benches out of 10? Do you think anybody outside the small enthusiast community will wait for software optimizations in order to increase the potential performance of the Bulldozer?

Do you think that a guy who has an X6 should upgrade to the FX? Do you think that a guy who has a SB should switch to FX? Can you please tell me who will buy this chip?

cadaveca

Oct 13, 2011, 07:26 PM

Apart from the performance that you say you expected to be like this, do you think the desktop CPU market needs these products? Do you think AMD made the right choice to put out a processor that performs on average 10% better than their previous lineup on multithreaded and on par or worse on single threeaded?

Yes, actually, I do. Maximum performance is un-important to 90% of the market. It just needs to work, and decently, as most users don't even know how to measure FPS. Enthusiasts are a very small part of the market, after all.

Do you think AMD has any chance to sell a chip that costs 60$ more than the i5-2500K while on average at stock clocks it performs better in 2-3 benches out of 10?

Yes. I stated this long before launch, and still stand by that.

Do you think anybody outside the small enthusiast community will wait for software optimizations in order to increase the potential performance of the Bulldozer?

I think people outside the enthusiast community aren't even going to care. Not everyone needs a "hotrod" PC. Most people will make a "derp" face when you ask them what a motherboard is.

Do you think that a guy who has an X6 should upgrade to the FX? Do you think that a guy who has a SB should switch to FX? Can you please tell me who will buy this chip?

X6 to FX...sure. Will you see much improvements as such a user? Probably not, but at the high-end of products, considering multi-GPU, and potentially multi-monitor configs, the BD chips are a much better option than X6 chips.

SB to FX? Nah, unless you want to play with something new. Many will do this; erocker already has...

Who will buy the chip? Many people will. We have a situation where either AMD was incapable of making enough chips, clearly, if they cannot provide every review website with a retail sample, or there's something else afoot. Whether the problem is yeilds, or that all the chips are already sold to OEMs..doesn't matter. Considering that almost every retailer that did have chips yesterday is now sold out, I don't see why you would even question AMD's ability to sell.

The fact of the matter is, if you ignored every other site, and listened to just what I've been saying the past few months, none of this would have been any surprise.

90% of chips on the market are overkill for most people's real needs. None really needs to overclock. It's not like BD is incapable of running games or other apps because it's too slow...it's just not quite as fast as Intel, and is priced accordingly. Daily usage there would probably not be a lot of discernable difference in usage, for things like web browsing and such. I don't understand how it's disappointing, at all.

Dent1

Oct 13, 2011, 07:47 PM

Can you please tell me who will buy this chip?

1.) people whom have AM2+ board and dont want to change boards
2.) people whom have a AM3 board and dont want to change boards
3.) people whom are casual gamers whom do a fair bit of multithreaded work as well e.g. encoding.
4.) people whom do multithreaded encoding all day as a job/hobby
5.) people whom want their PC to last for as long as possible and will sacrafice performance today if it means having a well performing PC in 4-5 years when multithread applications and OS catch up.

I could go on, but 5 points is enough.

[H]@RD5TUFF

Oct 13, 2011, 07:57 PM

according to amd they were supposed to have sent a cpu yesterday, no tracking number for the package yet. dont expect a tpu review soon

They are too emberesed to send one.:D

TRWOV

Oct 13, 2011, 07:59 PM

1.) people whom have AM2+ board and dont want to change boards
2.) people whom have a AM3 board and dont want to change boards
3.) people whom are casual gamers whom do a fair bit of multithreaded work as well e.g. encoding.
4.) people whom do multithreaded encoding all day as a job/hobby
5.) people whom want their PC to last for as long as possible and will sacrafice performance today if it means having a well performing PC in 4-5 years when multithread applications and OS catch up.

I could go on, but 5 points is enough.

1 and 2 don't apply. You need an AM3+ board.

cadaveca

Oct 13, 2011, 08:02 PM

1 and 2 don't apply. You need an AM3+ board.

Actually, they do, becuase most people will buy a complete system, not do "upgrades". Upgrading is nearly 100% an enthusiast thing, and mostly for enthusiasts with little cash. Most users will buy a complete system because they do not have time to do an upgrade, nor the required know-how. Those users won't be changing boards...they'll buy the whole thing new.

You cannot apply how you personally use your PC to anything here. Enthusiasts are the minority, and any thoughts you have as an enthusiast aren't really AMD's concern. When enthusiasts make up most of the market, then AMD will cater to them.

qubit

Oct 13, 2011, 08:05 PM

Actualyl, they do, becuase most people will buy a complete system, not do "upgrades". Upgrading is nearly 100% an enthusiast thing, and mostly for enthusiasts with little cash. Most users will buy a complete system beucase they do not ahve time to do upgrade, nor know how.

You cannot apply how you personally use your PC to anything here. Enthusiasts are the minority, and any thoughts you have as an enthusiast aren't really AMD's concern. When enthusiasts make up most of the market, then AMD will cater to them.

Indeed, that unfortunately, is the bottom line in any area of business. If you're not in the mainstream segment, you don't affect that companies bottom line much and they just don't care about you. :ohwell:

cadaveca

Oct 13, 2011, 08:07 PM

I don't see that as an issue, although many might. But usually my own personal needs do not reflect in my opinions when it comes to technology. I'd like AMD to listen to me, but I'm not gonna ever think they will.

Dent1

Oct 13, 2011, 08:08 PM

1 and 2 don't apply. You need an AM3+ board.

I was under the impression Bulldozer was backward compatible with atleast AM3, with the bios update, and unofficially backward compatible with most AM3 boards without the flash. I guess I am wrong :confused: lol

/scarcasm

Crap Daddy

Oct 13, 2011, 08:15 PM

cadaveca

Oct 13, 2011, 08:17 PM

Ok, so they buy a new machine. Why will they decide over an FX build? I just can't get out of my mind the price AMD is asking for the 8150 when the performance is in the 2500K area.

Like I said, you are an enthusiast, just by having an account here, so your view is not important.

Like i know that might sound like me just bieng a jerk, but the fact of the matter is that it is 100% true. CPU cost has no bearing when buying a full system. Final system cost does. If a 2500K system is even $50 more than an 8150 system is, guess which one is going to sell more often than not?

If you are an enthusiast, AMD expects you to overclock, at which point, cost and stock performance is not important, because your costs are much more than the chip anyway, with extra cooling and such figured in. retail cost of the chip according to AMD is $245, and retailers are currently gouging prices hard, by $45 in some instances. That $245 includes markup for the retailer to make money, while OEMs that build systems pay far less because they buy in far larger quantities, and do nto have such large markups. At this point, retail pricing is very much a moot point.

Dent1

Oct 13, 2011, 08:23 PM

Ok, so they buy a new machine. Why will they decide over an FX build? I just can't get out of my mind the price AMD is asking for the 8150 when the performance is in the 2500K area.

You are talking about buying individual components as an enthusiasts still. The pricing is different for an buying entire rig.

Non enthusiasts, wanting (semi) gamings rigs will go PCWorld or to a local computer shop physically. The shop manager knows that Intel branding fetches for a premium so the entire computer based around the 2500K will be priced higher than an entire computer based around the FX 8150. Customers in PCWorld will happily pay more for an Intel computer than an AMD computer because of brand recognition alone.

I would go as far as saying that a customer would pay more for a lowend Intel I3 than a AMD FX8150. Simpily because they dont know whom AMD is. Shops know this and will mark Intel's prices up.

Slight techy non enthusiasts might say "well I dont know whom AMD is, but 8 cores will last me longer and gain application support as it matures, so I dont need to spend another $1,200 on a new computer anytime soon" - and they would be smart to think that.

devguy

Oct 13, 2011, 08:29 PM

Any reviews out there showing FX performance under Eyefinity resolution gaming? The few people I remember talking up the FX line before launch said it is a monster performer at uber high resolutions. Granted it may just be GPU bottleneck, but with an Eyefinity setup, I don't give a damn if the 2600k handily beats an FX 8150 at 1080p and under. If it performs well up there and is better than my Thuban, I'll consider it. Otherwise, I'll stay where I am.

Super XP

Oct 13, 2011, 08:34 PM

Ok, so they buy a new machine. Why will they decide over an FX build? I just can't get out of my mind the price AMD is asking for the 8150 when the performance is in the 2500K area.
An example here would be a 2500K based system costing say $800 but with 2TB and 4GB of DDR3-1866 ram where as the 8150 setup can cost $600 but with say 1TB and 4GB of DDR3-1600 Ram.

When it comes down to a complete system, companies will piece them together in a way to save money but still try and get a maximum asking price.

We in the know how in the other hand know what to buy and how to build. We know how to upgrade and we know how to make a 2 to 3 year old system last as long as possible via smart upgrades and OC'ing.....:toast:

Crap Daddy

Oct 13, 2011, 08:44 PM

OK you are starting to convince me about the utility of the FX but AMD has to retire quickly the Phenom II since its existence at a much better price and for daily use and one GPU setup gaming still good compared to Bulldozer.

Any reviews out there showing FX performance under Eyefinity resolution gaming? The few people I remember talking up the FX line before launch said it is a monster performer at uber high resolutions. Granted it may just be GPU bottleneck, but with an Eyefinity setup, I don't give a damn if the 2600k handily beats an FX 8150 at 1080p and under. If it performs well up there and is better than my Thuban, I'll consider it. Otherwise, I'll stay where I am.

Here it is, two 6970:

http://www.tweakpc.de/hardware/tests/cpu/amd_fx-8150_bulldozer/benchmarks_gaming.php

Sorry but the X6 seems better in many games benched here

devguy

Oct 13, 2011, 08:52 PM

Here it is, two 6970:

http://www.tweakpc.de/hardware/tests/cpu/amd_fx-8150_bulldozer/benchmarks_gaming.php

Sorry but the X6 seems better in many games benched here

Thanks for the link. The x6 seems better? The differences across all cpus (except the Nehalem CPU seems screwy) seem extremely minimal in all games but Far Cry2, a game I don't care for. I'm sticking with my Thuban.

Crap Daddy

Oct 13, 2011, 08:54 PM

OK, I was looking at different resolutions. You're right. But anyway nothing spectacular on behalf of the FX.

cadaveca

Oct 13, 2011, 08:55 PM

OK you are starting to convince me about the utility of the FX but AMD has to retire quickly the Phenom II since its existence at a much better price and for daily use and one GPU setup gaming still good compared to Bulldozer.

You are right, 100%. And this will happen shortly, I'm sure.

But anyway nothing spectacular on behalf of the FX.

I agree. But then agian, I never expected it to be "spectacular". Only other sites and such and other users did, so this is all no big deal, IMHO, becuase AMD NEVER claimed it was the next coming of christ, like so many others would have had you beleive.

Stop buying into the hype that says it's bad...it's not...they just had unrealistic expectations, and really ,that reflects more on them and their know-how, rather than anything AMD did.

TRWOV

Oct 13, 2011, 09:01 PM

Actually, they do, becuase most people will buy a complete system, not do "upgrades". Upgrading is nearly 100% an enthusiast thing, and mostly for enthusiasts with little cash. Most users will buy a complete system because they do not have time to do an upgrade, nor the required know-how. Those users won't be changing boards...they'll buy the whole thing new.

The statement was that people with AM2+ and AM3 boards that wanted to upgrade and not change boards could buy a Bulldozer processor.

I was under the impression Bulldozer was backward compatible with atleast AM3, with the bios update, and unofficially backward compatible with most AM3 boards without the flash. I guess I am wrong :confused: lol

/scarcasm

For AM3 boards your board has to have 8-series chipset (890FX, 890GX, 880G and 870), plus the board must keep up with the power requirements. And last but not least, you'll need a bios update which depends on whenever your manufacturer will release it or not.

With 9-series boards already out I don't think that many of them will release a bios update for 8-series boards. You could rely on bios hacking thought, since the 890FX and 990FX are pretty much the same chipset.

cadaveca

Oct 13, 2011, 09:04 PM

The statement was that people with AM2 and AM3 boards that wanted to upgrade and not change boards could buy a Bulldozer processor.

Ok, but you realize AMD officially said that they would NOT support this, right?

You're listening to other sites again, who are, in a large way, reporting inaccurate info. I'm sorry for the confusion, but I have asked reviewers that I know that have chips, and not one is able to get Bulldozer working in anything but 9-series boards, and even then, there is a BIOS update specfic to Bulldozer, in such a way that there is even a warning in the CPU box that you should update the BIOS. And that BIOS update applies to 9-series boards...

I do NOT expect any user with AM3 to actually get Bulldozer working properly. An AM3+ socket and 9-series chipset are required.

All retail listings of the CPUs should contain this disclaimer:

Note: AMD FX Processors require an AMD 9-Series motherboard with socket AM3+; these processors are not backward compatible with previous generation motherboards.

See here:

http://www.ncix.ca/products/?sku=64404

Crap Daddy

Oct 13, 2011, 09:09 PM

Well, I personally didn't have high expectations but was sucked into this hype which was somehow similar to the build-up for the 6000 series GPUs... with the same outcome for those who thought that the Radeons will drive out of business the green monster after the succes of the 5000 series.

And you know what, for me personally, deep down I wanted the FX to turn out like this. I just put a lot of money for me into a new Intel build in March which is doing exactly what I was expecting from it and little bit more. It would have been pretty sad that after only six months something better at lower price should have hit the market. I'm going to sleep. Thanks.

TRWOV

Oct 13, 2011, 09:12 PM

What are you talking about? Let's recap:

Crap Daddy posted:
Can you please tell me who will buy this chip?

Dent1 replied:
1.) people whom have AM2+ board and dont want to change boards
2.) people whom have a AM3 board and dont want to change boards
[...]

I replied:
1 and 2 don't apply. You need an AM3+ board.

Then you replied to me:
Actually, they do, becuase most people will buy a complete system, not do "upgrades". Upgrading is nearly 100% an enthusiast thing, and mostly for enthusiasts with little cash. Most users will buy a complete system because they do not have time to do an upgrade, nor the required know-how. Those users won't be changing boards...they'll buy the whole thing new.

To which I said:
The statement was that people with AM2+ and AM3 boards that wanted to upgrade and not change boards could buy a Bulldozer processor.

Then:
Ok, but you realize AMD officially said that they would NOT support this, right?

You're listening to other sites again, who are, in a large way, reporting inaccurate info. I'm sorry for the confusion, but I have asked reviewers that I know that have chips, and not one is able to get Bulldozer working in anything but 9-series boards, and even then, there is a BIOS update specfic to Bulldozer, in such a way that there is even a warning in the CPU box that you should update the BIOS. And that BIOS update applies to 9-series boards...

I do NOT expect any user with AM3 to actually get Bulldozer working properly. An AM3+ socket and 9-series chipset are required.

Which is entirely the point I was making.

cadaveca

Oct 13, 2011, 09:16 PM

Yeah, I understand. And in leiu of those users being able to upgrade(which they may never be able to do), they must buy a full system.

I just skipped over the part where that wasn't possible...because those users, in many instances, will still buy AMD. AMD "fanboys" are some of the most loyal of all, that I have seen. And the users that bought into AM2/AM3 are very much, in most instances, fanboys, because back then, Intel was the performance leader too, and it didn't stop them from buying into the platforms they currently have, although there were faster options.

devguy

Oct 13, 2011, 09:23 PM

Something interesting I thought you guys might like from an overclocking guide at XS (http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?275891-Bulldozer-Overclocking-Guide-(Performance-Scaling-Charts-max-OCs)LN2-Results-coming!). FX seems to prefer HTT overclocking to multiplier overclocking in a bunch of the benches there (1st and 3rd columns the most relevant). That's kinda neat, and has always been my preferred way to overclock. Multiplier overclocking is boring to me.

CDdude55

Oct 13, 2011, 09:26 PM

You're listening to other sites again, who are, in a large way, reporting inaccurate info.

Not really, even Softpedia reported AM3+ only compatibility(and non-official AM3 support). It was all over the place.

[H]@RD5TUFF

Oct 13, 2011, 09:28 PM

I was under the impression Bulldozer was backward compatible with atleast AM3, with the bios update, and unofficially backward compatible with most AM3 boards without the flash. I guess I am wrong :confused: lol

/scarcasm

As long as it has an AM3+ socket, it works, some AM3 boards have them the vast majority do not.

cadaveca

Oct 13, 2011, 09:29 PM

Not really, even Softpedia reported AM3+ only compatibility. It was all over the place.

Yes, but there were claims and such way back that all you needed was teh black socket, before the 9-series boards came out. Many OEMs even said that their 8-series boards would work with Bulldozer, but this was months and months ago, and today, they do not work.

Like, I get what you're saying, but people beleive that this upgrade path is possible, because it was reported as possible, albeit wrongly reported, at this point.

[H]@RD5TUFF

Oct 13, 2011, 09:31 PM

Stop buying into the hype that says it's bad...it's not...they just had unrealistic expectations, and really ,that reflects more on them and their know-how, rather than anything AMD did.

Wrong AMD hyped the hell out of it even making claims of beating a 980x, yet it doesn't come even close to that. AMD promised everything and delivered on nothing.:shadedshu

cadaveca

Oct 13, 2011, 09:33 PM

@RD5TUFF;2424566']Wrong AMD hyped the hell out of it even making claims of beating a 980x, yet it doesn't come even close to that. AMD promised everything and delivered on nothing.:shadedshu

I said months ago, and now, that if you do not find it on the AMD website, then it is not true. I don't care what was reported, in private to reviewers, nor do I care that reviewers decided to leak the info. Maybe next time listen to me, instead of the hype.

Again, I will say this was intentional, and exposes the bias. These reviewers that leaked that wanted you to see those slides, so that their conclusion that BD sucked seemed to have merit. No slides or anything that claimed such were supposed to be released to the public.

it's not my fault you listened to the hype and rumour. Every time info like this came out, you can find my posts in the threads questioning it.

AMD hyped NOTHING...except that 8150 was the "World's Fastest CPU", and again, I have repeatedly complained about such things. Please go and check the sources.

Dent1

Oct 13, 2011, 09:33 PM

It's a shame I can't find it now. But a couple of weeks back I saw on Ebuyer.com an AM2 nforce 630a chipset with AM3+ ready firmware support. Went on the manfucturers website and it was true. The board was only £30 because of its age, 6 years old?

@RD5TUFF;2424566']Wrong AMD hyped the hell out of it even making claims of beating a 980x, yet it doesn't come even close to that. AMD promised everything and delivered on nothing.:shadedshu

To be fair, up until the marketing slide show. AMD was very quiet. You guys were actually saying yourself how Bulldozers launch is silent. The only noise AMD made was the OC'ing record.

When the slides came the community made noise about the performance not AMD.

@RD5TUFF;2424566']claims of beating a 980x, yet it doesn't come even close to that. AMD promised everything and delivered on nothing.:shadedshu

It was close to the 980X in mutithreaded benchmarks. Didn't you read the reviews or did you skip straight to gaming?

CDdude55

Oct 13, 2011, 09:47 PM

Yes, but there were claims and such way back that all you needed was teh black socket, before the 9-series boards came out. Many OEMs even said that their 8-series boards would work with Bulldozer, but this was months and months ago, and today, they do not work.

Like, I get what you're saying, but people beleive that this upgrade path is possible, because it was reported as possible, albeit wrongly reported, at this point.

That is true, though i remember there were some pics of 800/700 series boards with the black AM3+ sockets that were reported a few months ago:

http://www.techpowerup.com/143395/GIGABYTE-First-to-Market-with-AM3+-Black-Socket-Motherboards.html

I haven't seen that board hit retail though, it's rev 3.1.

But there is this board which is based on the 890FX chipset and have an AM3+ socket: ASRock 890FX DELUXE5 AM3+ AMD 890FX SATA 6Gb/s USB... (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157248)

Doesn't that indicate that it's possible for the older 800/700 chips to support BD if they'd just switch sockets?

cadaveca

Oct 13, 2011, 09:52 PM

According to AMD, no, that does NOT mean it will support Bulldozer. There are various reasons why.

CDdude55

Oct 13, 2011, 09:56 PM

According to AMD, no, that does NOT mean it will support Bulldozer. There are various reasons why.

I wonder why, they even share the same silicon.

If it doesn't work then that board shouldn't even exist with that socket.

cadaveca

Oct 13, 2011, 10:02 PM

I wonder why, they even share the same silicon.

If it doesn't work then that board shouldn't even exist with that socket.

I do not have the answer to that question. All i know is that many stores have that claim in thier listings for the chips that state you need an AM3+ board with a 9-series chipset, and that JF-AMD said the same.

As I understand it, it's more about a P-State that the 8-series and earlier boards do not support, due to VRM design, so the actual silicon on the board is not important. This is also why a BIOS update is required for Bulldozer, and these BIOSes will not work well with Thuban, because of the different P-States.

Horrux

Oct 13, 2011, 10:06 PM

Wow. I just don't know what to say. AMD dropped the ball big time. If I were to "upgrade" my Phenom II X6 1100t to the current top-end FX model, I would lose in performance in quite a few applications.

I think I echo a lot of AMD fans' sentiment with what I have been saying over the past few months: "If bulldozer provides competitive performance (relative to the i7 2600) or at least price-competitive performance compared to the 2500, I'll stay with AMD. Otherwise, I will be seriously tempted to switch over to Intel".

Anyone else?

TRWOV

Oct 13, 2011, 10:49 PM

I don't know. Given its price point, the 8120 might be a good buy. Take that sucker home and OC the hell of it.

And if the rumored thread dispatcher patch increases the performance as much as AMD says, the 8120 looks even sweeter. I don't know if the cache trashing could be corrected with a patch too.

I was planning to upgrade in March so I can wait and see how things unfold.

[H]@RD5TUFF

Oct 14, 2011, 12:57 AM

I don't know. Given its price point, the 8120 might be a good buy. Take that sucker home and OC the hell of it.

The problem with that theory is the crazy power draw at load.

alexsubri

Oct 14, 2011, 01:05 AM

I'm still waiting for the FX 8170 review

LordJummy

Oct 14, 2011, 01:18 AM

I'm still waiting for the FX 8170 review

There is no 8170 at this time I thought?

Side question: Has anyone here actually ordered a retail 8150/8120 for their rig?

I'm finding it hard not to order a mobo/8150 to play with it myself, despite all of the mixed reviews. It looks like it would still be a fun chip to play with...

[H]@RD5TUFF

Oct 14, 2011, 01:21 AM

There is no 8170 at this time I thought?

Side question: Has anyone here actually ordered a retail 8150/8120 for their rig?

I'm finding it hard not to order a mobo/8150 to play with it myself, despite all of the mixed reviews. It looks like it would still be a fun chip to play with...

I ordered an 8150 it should be here by the weekend, it should make a decent chip for my file server, but that seems all the chip will be good for.

erocker

Oct 14, 2011, 01:22 AM

I'm finding it hard not to order a mobo/8150 to play with it myself, despite all of the mixed reviews. It looks like it would still be a fun chip to play with...

Oh, it is fun! :D I'm doing some messing around right now. I have a few sets of RAM I want to play around with as well. Right now, I'm using Elpida Hypers.

Check it: http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=153443&page=3

:toast:

LordJummy

Oct 14, 2011, 01:28 AM

Oh, it is fun! :D I'm doing some messing around right now. I have a few sets of RAM I want to play around with as well. Right now, I'm using Elpida Hypers.

Check it: http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=153443&page=3

:toast:

oooh sweet bro. I'm thinking I might grab an 8120 just for testing and overclocking the shit out of it. I will have to rig it in my custom water setup and have some fun....

Your screenies are really tempting me, and I only need a motherboard and the chip. I don't expect it to replace my 970, but I want a new toy that is different than what I've got you know?

alexsubri

Oct 14, 2011, 01:31 AM

Oh, it is fun! :D I'm doing some messing around right now. I have a few sets of RAM I want to play around with as well. Right now, I'm using Elpida Hypers.

Check it: http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=153443&page=3

:toast:

Have you done any benchmarks? If so, are they the same or different from the review websites?

Super XP

Oct 14, 2011, 01:36 AM

Have you done any benchmarks? If so, are they the same or different from the review websites?
You have a ASUS Sabertooth 990 FX. Have you noticed the latest bios update for your mobo? It says it's an AMD CPU Firmware Update. Have you updated this? Is it updating your CPU's firmware or your mobo's bios??

[H]@RD5TUFF

Oct 14, 2011, 01:42 AM

I don't think firmware will "fix" the problem.

alexsubri

Oct 14, 2011, 01:44 AM

You have a ASUS Sabertooth 990 FX. Have you noticed the latest bios update for your mobo? It says it's an AMD CPU Firmware Update. Have you updated this? Is it updating your CPU's firmware or your mobo's bios??

The newest one is Version 0705 which was released towards the end of Sept. I haven't uploaded my BIOS yet, I should , I plan on doing it soon. I just got this motherboard less than a week ago. So, I am still tweaking, recovering what I lost from my old HD's (Had to do a reformat, not related to the motherboard)

Super XP

Oct 14, 2011, 01:55 AM

@RD5TUFF;2424822']I don't think firmware will "fix" the problem.
I was just wondering why it said "AMD CPU Firmware Update" for a motherboard bios update. I would think if AMD was to release a firmware update you would find it on the AMD website NO?

Also, I agree a AMD FX CPU firmware update won't repair something that is not broken. I now truly believe Bulldozer is very complex, and it will take time to make it work the way it was meant to. That said, AMD should have worked harder to ensure the OS along with software take fully take advantage of the new CPU design.

LordJummy

Oct 14, 2011, 03:33 AM

I do have to say I have never seen so many fan boys crawl out of the woodwork (at least not for some time) on some of the other forums. I'm surprised the TPU discussions have been fairly civil.

Should I buy the 8120 now or should I wait until a revision is made? Is there a hardware revision planned for the near future or just software/firmware? I'm trying to decide whether or not to go for it now.

[H]@RD5TUFF

Oct 14, 2011, 03:41 AM

I was just wondering why it said "AMD CPU Firmware Update" for a motherboard bios update. I would think if AMD was to release a firmware update you would find it on the AMD website NO?

Also, I agree a AMD FX CPU firmware update won't repair something that is not broken. I now truly believe Bulldozer is very complex, and it will take time to make it work the way it was meant to. That said, AMD should have worked harder to ensure the OS along with software take fully take advantage of the new CPU design.

I don't buy the BS about it's the OS's fault, even if it is how dumb is AMD for not designing for a current OS, rather than one that there isn't even an RC for.

TRWOV

Oct 14, 2011, 03:48 AM

@RD5TUFF;2424822']I don't think firmware will "fix" the problem.

I do have to say I have never seen so many fan boys crawl out of the woodwork (at least not for some time) on some of the other forums. I'm surprised the TPU discussions have been fairly civil.

Should I buy the 8120 now or should I wait until a revision is made? Is there a hardware revision planned for the near future or just software/firmware? I'm trying to decide whether or not to go for it now.

With the fact that Piledriver is being released so soon (Q1 2012, isn't it?) I believe that AMD knew about the design problems (branch prediction, pipeline flushing, cache trashing, decode unit not wide enough) but instead counted on frequencies to make up until PD could be released. Anandtech's review also shows that cache latency is worse than Phenom II. Both of these problems can be blamed on Global Foundries. Cache latency can be increased and clockspeeds lowered to give higher yields.

I think that AMD saw the problems that needed reworking but decided that clockspeed would be enough for the time being but then a few months later they find that yields were too poor and had no choice but to launch as is.

Horrux

Oct 14, 2011, 09:22 AM

With the fact that Piledriver is being released so soon (Q1 2012, isn't it?) I believe that AMD knew about the design problems (branch prediction, pipeline flushing, cache trashing, decode unit not wide enough) but instead counted on frequencies to make up until PD could be released. Anandtech's review also shows that cache latency is worse than Phenom II. Both of these problems can be blamed on Global Foundries. Cache latency can be increased and clockspeeds lowered to give higher yields.

I think that AMD saw the problems that needed reworking but decided that clockspeed would be enough for the time being but then a few months later they find that yields were too poor and had no choice but to launch as is.

That makes sense and provides a glimmer of hope for those of us who would like to remain users of AMD chips but also require competitive performance...

Prima.Vera

Oct 14, 2011, 11:04 AM

LOL. Even my old Core 2 Quad 9650 beats the crp out of Dozer.
Epic Fail.:eek::shadedshu

LordJummy

Oct 14, 2011, 11:26 AM

LOL. Even my old Core 2 Quad 9650 beats the crp out of Dozer.
Epic Fail.:eek::shadedshu

mmm not really. now you're just getting into wishful thinking territory.

the 8150 as it turns out actually can perform quite well under the right circumstances. it is far better than your c2q overall.

claylomax

Oct 14, 2011, 11:37 AM

"Perhaps in the future this will pay big dividends, but at this moment in time the bulldozer is looking more like 8 shovels" http://www.vortez.net/articles_pages/amd_fx_8150_bulldozer_cpu_review,14.html :laugh:

LordJummy

Oct 14, 2011, 03:10 PM

I'm starting to see some benefits in BD now. I think I'm going to go ahead and get an 8150. I just can't resist playing with it at this point. Even if it doesn't outperform my i7 970 it will still be a great time to bench and test :P

Update:

My first impression wasn't too positive, but you know, after I read every review, I think those that reviewed the chips had expectations set way too high. Tom's even posted an editorial about that exact subject, and consequently, blamed AMD's marketing for those false expectations.

That made me look into the sources for all the hype, and really, most of it was websites looking for hits, and not anything that AMD gave out for the public to see.

So I personally don't blame AMD here...I blame all those websites that hyped BD, for falsely raising people's expectations.

AMD's not 100% free and clear of this mess though. I said nearly 6 months ago that this greatly reminded me of the Phenom I and 2900XT hype, and I going to stick to my personal opinion that all the hype was directly a result of Intel fanboys setting AMD up to fail, even though it really seems AMD didn't do much to deal with the issues as they came up.

Totally agree. My first impression was guided by tons of over hyped negative reviews and people yelling the sky is falling. After my own research through all the BS I've come to the conclusion that the 8 core chip is actually really nice for some of my personal uses. It looks like they will be addressing some of the issues very soon, so I'm going to grab one and let them work out the bugs.

The 8150 will be an excellent chip for my secondary machine to replace my i7 950 setup I think. I also want to do what I can to support Intel's competition at this point, and inevitably post my own little reviews once I've fully tested it. I think we need to give these chips more time to really brew and get to their optimum potential. ( I never thought I would be saying that, but I really believe it. ) There is also nothing more fun than playing with a completely new architecture. Definitely looking forward to it :D

cadaveca

Oct 14, 2011, 03:22 PM

My first impression wasn't too positive, but you know, after I read every review, I think those that reviewed the chips had expectations set way too high. Tom's even posted an editorial about that exact subject, and consequently, blamed AMD's marketing for those false expectations.

That made me look into the sources for all the hype, and really, most of it was websites looking for hits, and not anything that AMD gave out for the public to see.

So I personally don't blame AMD here...I blame all those websites that hyped BD, for falsely raising people's expectations.

AMD's not 100% free and clear of this mess though. I said nearly 6 months ago that this greatly reminded me of the Phenom I and 2900XT hype, and I going to stick to my personal opinion that all the hype was directly a result of Intel fanboys setting AMD up to fail, even though it really seems AMD didn't do much to deal with the issues as they came up.

nt300

Oct 14, 2011, 04:26 PM

Pros
+ Innovative architecture design
+ Very overclockable
+ Power efficient using Cool 'n' Quiet
+ Improved Turbo modes

Cons
- Weak single thread performance
- Often outperformed by Phenom II
- Only fast in ideal scenarios

If the Single Threaded Performance got resolved somehow, we wouldn't be having this discussion about Bulldozer. This CPU was designed for massive Multi-Threading and will destroy anything in the market place with the proper multi-threading software testing.

Crap Daddy

Oct 14, 2011, 05:26 PM

If the Single Threaded Performance got resolved somehow, we wouldn't be having this discussion about Bulldozer. This CPU was designed for massive Multi-Threading and will destroy anything in the market place with the proper multi-threading software testing.

At its price point.

ensabrenoir

Oct 14, 2011, 06:12 PM

erocker

Oct 14, 2011, 06:15 PM

Wow.... sorta like bringing a speed boat to the drag strip and shouting from the sidelines. If we were in,water id pawn u all!

Better yet, bringing a Bulldozer to the drag strip and shouting "If this drag strip was dirt...."

LordJummy

Oct 14, 2011, 06:31 PM

Better yet, bringing a Bulldozer to the drag strip and shouting "If this drag strip was dirt...."

Better yet, bringing a hula hoop to a jump rope competition. amirite?

Dent1

Oct 14, 2011, 07:38 PM

[B]I have asked reviewers that I know that have chips, and not one is able to get Bulldozer working in anything but 9-series boards

and even then, there is a BIOS update specfic to Bulldozer, in such a way that there is even a warning in the CPU box that you should update the BIOS. And that BIOS update applies to 9-series boards...

I do NOT expect any user with AM3 to actually get Bulldozer working properly. An AM3+ socket and 9-series chipset are required.

I guess you are wrong. lol

http://www.techpowerup.com/153573/ASRock-Announces-Wide-Ranged-Support-for-AMD-FX-Processors.html

ASRock have prioritized AM3+ motherboard implementation and is the first to produce the most sophisticated AM3+ CPU-capable motherboards. The entire range of AM3+ mobo includes AMD's 9-Series, 8-Series, 7-Series and Nvidia's GeForce 7025 chipset series. Importantly, ASRock have a complete motherboard products line (from high-end, performance to budget-level) supporting AM3+ Bulldozer processors. Users are able to enjoy the exciting AM3+ performance with the latest BIOS update. ASRock is confident to say that they are the only motherboard maker that can offer so many AM3+ mobo choices based on difference chipsets. And this is what other mobo makers cannot do.

PS. isnt the 7025 chipset like 6 years old. Anyone with a crappy AM2/AM2+ board should be able to drop in a AMD FX without breaking the bank.

cadaveca

Oct 14, 2011, 07:40 PM

I guess you are wrong. lol

:rockout:

Today, yes. Yesterday, no.:laugh:

Alot of boards are working, but not all. And I do not mean AsRock boards, I mean all boards in general.

Hopefully by the time these FX chips are back in stock in retail, all boards will work.

Covert_Death

Oct 14, 2011, 07:41 PM

@RD5TUFF;2424943']I don't buy the BS about it's the OS's fault, even if it is how dumb is AMD for not designing for a current OS, rather than one that there isn't even an RC for.

because you design for the futuer... this is a stepping block for future CPU's from AMD

Covert_Death

Oct 14, 2011, 07:50 PM

can someone please answer this one question....

i have a PII x4 955 clocked at 4.1Ghz (temps from 36c-60c)

if i upgrade to an 8150 and OC it as well (say 4.6-4.8Ghz) will i see noticeable improvement in current games (BF3, BC2, ArmA II, ArmA III) and such?

thanks... i really like the CPU for the potential it has but just want to make sure if i get it that it will ACTUALLY be an UPGRADE

thanks all :)

Dent1

Oct 14, 2011, 07:54 PM

Covert_Death, which resolution do you play at?

BFBC2 and BF3 are multithreaded. Reviews show the FX series perform better in the BF3 beta than even the I7 2600k, so I doubt you'd need to overclock it to see the benefit.

As for the ArmA series I'm not sure if its multithreaded, so somebody else will have to comment on that.

If you are actually doing work, then yes its an upgrade. For gaming, it depends on your choice of games - but for singlethreaded applications/games, definitely not.

Covert_Death

Oct 14, 2011, 07:57 PM

Covert_Death, which resolution do you play at?

BFBC2 and BF3 are multithreaded. Reviews show the FX series perform better in the BF3 beta than even the I7 2600k, so I doubt you'd need to overclock it to see the benefit.

As for the ArmA series I'm not sure if its multithreaded, so somebody else will have to comment on that.

thanks, sorry i guess i should have included more info...

i run at 1920x1080 60Hz with two GTX460's in SLI OC'd quiet a bit...

i also do a LOT of CAD rendering (mechanical engineering major) and im pretty sure i would see quiet a large benefit in this area as well...

Horrux

Oct 14, 2011, 08:04 PM

thanks, sorry i guess i should have included more info...

i run at 1920x1080 60Hz with two GTX460's in SLI OC'd quiet a bit...

i also do a LOT of CAD rendering (mechanical engineering major) and im pretty sure i would see quiet a large benefit in this area as well...

Yeah, CAD is usually heavily threaded, so it looks good for you, I think.

Dent1

Oct 14, 2011, 08:11 PM

i also do a LOT of CAD rendering (mechanical engineering major) and im pretty sure i would see quiet a large benefit in this area as well...

Single threaded 3D rendering performance is poor, but multithreaded 3D rendering in Cinebench the FX @ 4.6GHz seems on par with the 2500K @ 4.8GHz.
Not sure if POV Ray is multi threaded, but FX 8120 @ 4.6GHz seems on par with the i5/i7 series @ 4.8GHz.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/10/11/amd_bulldozer_fx8150_desktop_performance_review/8

Covert_Death

Oct 14, 2011, 08:13 PM

hmmm, looks very tastey... now to decide if i buy one now or wait for stepping revision or see if piledriver is AM3+....... decisions decisions

theoneandonlymrk

Oct 14, 2011, 08:17 PM

the futures starting to look rosey then since single threadeds on the decline and multithreaded processings on the up, i might go with an upgrade this xmass after all, i think a lot has been made of early benches on un optimised software and hardware and that new soft and games as they arrive that do use more then 1 - 4 cores things will start leaning AMD's way

Goodman

Oct 14, 2011, 08:20 PM

hmmm, looks very tastey... now to decide if i buy one now or wait for stepping revision or see if piledriver is AM3+....... decisions decisions

Save your money & keep it as it is or buy an PIIx6 & don't ever look back ;)

ensabrenoir

Oct 14, 2011, 08:24 PM

because you design for the futuer... this is a stepping block for future CPU's from AMD

True yet you must also stay usable in the present or there won't be a future for you. We may all drive electric cars in the future. Hower there is not PRESENTly a large enough support infastructure for ford to only make electric cars . So the hybrid (gas & electric) exist until that future point.

Covert_Death

Oct 14, 2011, 08:29 PM

LordJummy

Oct 14, 2011, 08:33 PM

The future = magnets. Everyone knows this.

Covert_Death

Oct 14, 2011, 08:35 PM

Once we can unravel a magnetic field yes haha

MadClown

Oct 14, 2011, 08:37 PM

well guess im not building a new pc just yet

HalfAHertz

Oct 15, 2011, 08:24 AM

Just do AMD a favor and don't buy Bulldozer CPUs. Let them fry for a bit and shave some fat ...

Prima.Vera

Oct 15, 2011, 10:06 AM

mmm not really. now you're just getting into wishful thinking territory.

the 8150 as it turns out actually can perform quite well under the right circumstances. it is far better than your c2q overall.

Not in the games it isn't. Don't take my word. Just check the charts from some pages before...;)

Horrux

Oct 15, 2011, 10:09 AM

Just do AMD a favor and don't buy Bulldozer CPUs. Let them fry for a bit and shave some fat ...

I thought they fried and shed the fat in the Phenom I days, and then some more lately? I'm thinking AMD looks thin and frail right now... They don't need to get on a diet, believe me.

Just go look at their financials... :cry:

Jack Doph

Oct 15, 2011, 10:30 AM

I'm pretty sure this thread has outlived its longevity...

Super XP

Oct 15, 2011, 11:52 AM

And the fact that hybrids are more fuel efficient then electric ;) Electrics are still natural gas and oil vehicles in the long run, the engine is just no longer in the car but at a power plant.... hydrogen is the future as its only biproduct is water ;)

Anyway, I'm not buying another pII when I already have one,, I wannt great multithread use since that's all I do basically ... I THINK bd is the answer for me, again unless pd comes quickly and is am3+
I believe it's been already established that Piledriver is indead going to sit on Socket AM3+. The future Piledriver II based on a 10 core design is said to be on Socket FM2 in around Q1 2013. But in reality, AMD can change there minds if they wanted.
well guess im not building a new pc just yet
You got what I have a Phenom II x4 940 with a max OC of 3.60 GHz. Can't go over this number no matter what I do. I am due for an upgrade, but will hold off alittle longer for now.
I thought they fried and shed the fat in the Phenom I days, and then some more lately? I'm thinking AMD looks thin and frail right now... They don't need to get on a diet, believe me.

Just go look at their financials... :cry:
I believe Barcelona and it's launch was worst than Bulldozer. But AMD quickly resolved most of it's issues with Phenom II. Hopefully they can do the same with Bulldozer, such as a AMD FXII or something. But they would need a much wider performance gap between say original Bulldozer vs Bulldozer II. The PI and PII gap was good, just not as good, but not great. PII had the ability to clock higher.

techtard

Oct 15, 2011, 04:05 PM

DigitalUK

Oct 15, 2011, 04:21 PM

you always break all the eggs when making an omlette?

techtard

Oct 15, 2011, 04:23 PM

LOL. Never been called out on that saying before. +1 for you.

Wile E

Oct 15, 2011, 06:49 PM

Like I said, you are an enthusiast, just by having an account here, so your view is not important.

Like i know that might sound like me just bieng a jerk, but the fact of the matter is that it is 100% true. CPU cost has no bearing when buying a full system. Final system cost does. If a 2500K system is even $50 more than an 8150 system is, guess which one is going to sell more often than not?

If you are an enthusiast, AMD expects you to overclock, at which point, cost and stock performance is not important, because your costs are much more than the chip anyway, with extra cooling and such figured in. retail cost of the chip according to AMD is $245, and retailers are currently gouging prices hard, by $45 in some instances. That $245 includes markup for the retailer to make money, while OEMs that build systems pay far less because they buy in far larger quantities, and do nto have such large markups. At this point, retail pricing is very much a moot point.
Since when does the number of units they sell, and how, make any difference on the performance level of a chip? The reviews are about the performance. The way they are sold is irrelevant in that context.

Defending the performance of a product based on where the majority of it's sales are based, does not make it a well performing product.

BD = underperforming, period.

I guess you are wrong. lol

http://www.techpowerup.com/153573/ASRock-Announces-Wide-Ranged-Support-for-AMD-FX-Processors.html

ASRock have prioritized AM3+ motherboard implementation and is the first to produce the most sophisticated AM3+ CPU-capable motherboards. The entire range of AM3+ mobo includes AMD's 9-Series, 8-Series, 7-Series and Nvidia's GeForce 7025 chipset series. Importantly, ASRock have a complete motherboard products line (from high-end, performance to budget-level) supporting AM3+ Bulldozer processors. Users are able to enjoy the exciting AM3+ performance with the latest BIOS update. ASRock is confident to say that they are the only motherboard maker that can offer so many AM3+ mobo choices based on difference chipsets. And this is what other mobo makers cannot do.

PS. isnt the 7025 chipset like 6 years old. Anyone with a crappy AM2/AM2+ board should be able to drop in a AMD FX without breaking the bank.
Wrong. BD does not support DDR2. SO unless those boards sprouted DDR3 slots, AM2/AM2+ is out, period. Those chipsets can be made compatible if built on the AM3/AM3+ socket, not on current AM2/AM2+ boards.

They should ditch AM3+ for piledriver, and move on to the next socket. Break compatibility, and hopefully INNOVATE.

Sometimes you have to break some eggs to make an omlette.
I personally think that all this backwards compatibility limited their options. They had to design a brand new architecture, but force it to work with some old and tired components.

Look at all the tinkering the motherboard makers are having to do to try to get this chip to run properly.

I have to agree. I really think it's time for them to move to a newer platform.you always break all the eggs when making an omlette?

Not if you buy carton eggs. :D

Steevo

Oct 15, 2011, 07:30 PM

I'm buying a 1100T for my system today so I get the good chips before they are gone.

I will send my 940 to my parents and get their X2 back for a cheapo build for a friend.

Edit....I ordered it. $189.00 with free shipping....

cadaveca

Oct 15, 2011, 09:18 PM

BD = underperforming, period.

It's not like the offered performance prevents BD from completing any tasks, nor does it lack compatibility to run software, nor does it break anything. If it doesn't meet YOUR expectations, that's fine. Not everyone needs to have the fastest chip possible.

When 90% of the chips sold aren't intended for users like you, you bet it's a viable excuse. You're just disappointed because AMD didn't have the capability of meeting the needs of both markets, but the market where the real numbers of chips sell do not have the same expectations that enthusiast do. Catering to those with the big bucks ensures they can have the funds to further reiterate on the product, as they have done countless times in the past.

Don't forget, the Athlon/Phenom core design stuck around for like 8 years. BD will most likely last just as long as well.

I mean really now, if AMD really had enthusiasts in mind, would enthusiasts be presented with a very limited supply of chips? I wouldn't be surprised to see AMD barely release any to retail as PileDriver is expected very soon. Where are teh BD chips AMD has been making, after all? Who got shipped chips first as a customer? Definitely not the retail space!!

Steevo

Oct 15, 2011, 09:32 PM

Most of BD went to server chips. Plus AMD is making craploads more APU units than BD.

Wile E

Oct 16, 2011, 04:20 AM

It's not like the offered performance prevents BD from completing any tasks, nor does it lack compatibility to run software, nor does it break anything. If it doesn't meet YOUR expectations, that's fine. Not everyone needs to have the fastest chip possible.

When 90% of the chips sold aren't intended for users like you, you bet it's a viable excuse. You're just disappointed because AMD didn't have the capability of meeting the needs of both markets, but the market where the real numbers of chips sell do not have the same expectations that enthusiast do. Catering to those with the big bucks ensures they can have the funds to further reiterate on the product, as they have done countless times in the past.

Don't forget, the Athlon/Phenom core design stuck around for like 8 years. BD will most likely last just as long as well.

I mean really now, if AMD really had enthusiasts in mind, would enthusiasts be presented with a very limited supply of chips? I wouldn't be surprised to see AMD barely release any to retail as PileDriver is expected very soon. Where are teh BD chips AMD has been making, after all? Who got shipped chips first as a customer? Definitely not the retail space!!

None of that changes the fact that it doesn't even outperform the previous generation in some tests. It's a poor performer, and it got the reviews it deserved. No amount of "intended market" spin you throw on it changes that.

Covert_Death

Oct 16, 2011, 04:26 AM

None of that changes the fact that it doesn't even outperform the previous generation in some tests. It's a poor performer, and it got the reviews it deserved. No amount of "intended market" spin you throw on it changes that.

your words "in some tests"

sooooo based on what your saying, if it excels in test that you would use on a daily basis then it is good for you. most of the test where PII did better was single threaded... and if you don't care for single threaded performance then why would you not buy it based on tests that don't pertain to your usage ?

Wile E

Oct 16, 2011, 04:31 AM

your words "in some tests"

sooooo based on what your saying, if it excels in test that you would use on a daily basis then it is good for you. most of the test where PII did better was single threaded... and if you don't care for single threaded performance then why would you not buy it based on tests that don't pertain to your usage ?

Because it still consumes more power and costs more to do it compared to Thuban.

It's just especially underwhelming when compared to the Intel offerings.

entropy13

Oct 16, 2011, 04:38 AM

your words "in some tests"

sooooo based on what your saying, if it excels in test that you would use on a daily basis then it is good for you. most of the test where PII did better was single threaded... and if you don't care for single threaded performance then why would you not buy it based on tests that don't pertain to your usage ?

If you don't care for single threaded performance, it only means one thing.

You are using "software of the future" that is yet to be released, much less coded and compiled. :laugh:

Covert_Death

Oct 16, 2011, 04:42 AM

If you don't care for single threaded performance, it only means one thing.

You are using "software of the future" that is yet to be released, much less coded and compiled. :laugh:

i would say 95% of the software i run is multi-threaded, and i'm certainly not from the future and the software is most certainly already released...

the two or three video games i play are all multi-threaded games, and i heavily use my machine for CAD rendering...

the only single threaded software i can think of iTunes.... and i really don't see BD coming to a crawl with iTunes haha

guys these CPU's may not be for you but they are still very good at what they are designed to do... multithreaded software apps, and there is plenty of software out there supporting multi core setups... if there weren't we would still be in the single-dual core era, but we aren't

entropy13

Oct 16, 2011, 05:05 AM

i would say 95% of the software i run is multi-threaded, and i'm certainly not from the future and the software is most certainly already released...

the two or three video games i play are all multi-threaded games, and i heavily use my machine for CAD rendering...

the only single threaded software i can think of iTunes.... and i really don't see BD coming to a crawl with iTunes haha

guys these CPU's may not be for you but they are still very good at what they are designed to do... multithreaded software apps, and there is plenty of software out there supporting multi core setups... if there weren't we would still be in the single-dual core era, but we aren't

A game that uses at least two threads is already "multi-threaded", you know. The FX-8150 only really shines when all 8 threads were being used...much like how the i7 2600K, with its 8 threads, only really outperforms significantly the i5 2500K which has 4 threads.

But I actually agree that BD is not much a fail "as is", but if you have read my previous posts, you would have seen that:
#1 - because of the price, it has an awful price/performance ratio
#2 - because of the power consumption AND worse performance, it uses up more power to finish a certain task AND takes longer as well
#3 - it only becomes a "good buy" IF you already have a compatible board and you have specific usage that would fully use its "advantages"; if power consumption is NOT an issue, it's a "good buy." In other words, there's a lot of if's to satisfy just for it to become a "good buy"

Super XP

Oct 16, 2011, 01:03 PM

They should ditch AM3+ for piledriver, and move on to the next socket. Break compatibility, and hopefully INNOVATE.

Sometimes you have to break some eggs to make an omlette.
I personally think that all this backwards compatibility limited their options. They had to design a brand new architecture, but force it to work with some old and tired components.

Look at all the tinkering the motherboard makers are having to do to try to get this chip to run properly.
Well that's the thing, they won't move to Socket FM2 yet, because they cannot. They need to FIX Bulldozer's issues first, then move the technology to a new platform. In my estimation, and according to recent rumours, they plan on prolonging Socket AM3+ with an new breed of 4-6-8 Piledriver cores for the remainder of 2012, then hopefully by then they would have ironed out performance issues which we've seen as of late and move everything over to Socket FM2.

Socket AM3+ is not tired, the original Bulldozer was already meant to work on it, it is only the 10-Core Piledriver that was suppose to switch to the FM2.

This IMO is a good idea, keeping Socket AM3+ alive and kicking for much longer than planned, then release Socket FM2.

Though mark my words, if Bulldozer was indead as fast as rumours suggested, 10-Core Piledriver would have gotten released in Q1 2012 under Socket FM2 Guaranteed :D

Semi-Lobster

Oct 16, 2011, 01:07 PM

Did the release of Bulldozer lower the prices of the Phenom II series? I was going to get one but hell, might as well just use that money to get an upgrade for my existing AM3 setup to a Phenom II X6 1100T or X4 980 from my X3 720?

cadaveca

Oct 16, 2011, 03:51 PM

Because it still consumes more power and costs more to do it compared to Thuban.

It's just especially underwhelming when compared to the Intel offerings.

I gotta agree with this, for sure. I just simply never expected anything else. It's not underwhelming when you didn't expect anything else.

I mean, I could go back through the BD threads and find my posts expecting basically everything BD has been revealed to be. Although the "internet marketing" may have portrayed a different picture, the stuff that AMD had on their website seems to pretty accurately reflect the CPU that was released.

But it's not THAT underwhelming compared to the Intel chips...for nearly a year we've had the 1100T vs the 2600K, and AMD still managed to sell many chips, when the 1100T could never really approach the 2600K. Now, in multithreading, the 8150 excels over the 2600K, but because most apps aren't multithreaded, few benefits can be noticed, overall.

Super XP

Oct 16, 2011, 05:13 PM

Some retailers jacked up the price of the Phenom II X6 1100T :eek: You can find the AMD FX 8120 for cheaper.

Horrux

Oct 16, 2011, 05:25 PM

Some retailers jacked up the price of the Phenom II X6 1100T :eek: You can find the AMD FX 8120 for cheaper.

Makes perfect sense.

FreedomEclipse

Oct 16, 2011, 05:29 PM

Some retailers jacked up the price of the Phenom II X6 1100T :eek: You can find the AMD FX 8120 for cheaper.

probably to take advantage to those people who were holding off upgrading and waiting for BD.

BD gets some extremely bad press and all the fan boys who were holding out decide to go with the next best option available....X6 1100T.

any retailer that jacks up prices of older chips to take advantage of the situations like these deserves to be shutdown.

ensabrenoir

Oct 16, 2011, 05:34 PM

Even after launch....we still don't know bull dozer.

Altered

Oct 16, 2011, 05:37 PM

any retailer that jacks up prices of older chips to take advantage of the situations like these deserves to be shutdown.

Ill go even further on that. Any business that jacks up prices to take advantage of situations is pretty low in my book. But on the other hand a business in not there to be your friend, no matter what they advertise, they are there to make as much $ as they can. It happens every day look at gas prices or plywood in hurricane situations etc etc etc. :ohwell:

nt300

Oct 17, 2011, 01:10 PM

techtard

Oct 17, 2011, 06:52 PM

probably to take advantage to those people who were holding off upgrading and waiting for BD.

BD gets some extremely bad press and all the fan boys who were holding out decide to go with the next best option available....X6 1100T.

any retailer that jacks up prices of older chips to take advantage of the situations like these deserves to be shutdown.

Supply and demand. Basic market principle.

LordJummy

Oct 17, 2011, 07:15 PM

Supply and demand. Basic market principle.

Are Phenom II's suddenly low in supply? Aren't they still producing them?

I don't think it's as simple as supply vs. demand in this case. Has AMD made any kind of announcements to halt P2 x6 production? I thought that was just a rumor.

erocker

Oct 17, 2011, 07:17 PM

Even after launch....we still don't know bull dozer.

Sure we do and it's quite simple. The chip is aptly named. It's big and powerful like a Bulldozer, just not very fast.

Covert_Death

Oct 17, 2011, 07:19 PM

cadaveca

Oct 17, 2011, 07:22 PM

Sure we do and it's quite simple. The chip is aptly named. It's big and powerful like a Bulldozer, just not very fast.

:roll:

:banghead:

You'd think people would get it by now...

:laugh:

:rockout:

LordJummy

Oct 17, 2011, 07:26 PM

Doesn't have to be lower supply, I bet they are in greater demand then they were a month ago. Nobody was buying them a month ago because everyone was waiting for bd, now everyone is buying them and demand has drastically gone up from a month ago.

I am being dramatic but this is what's happening and why prices have risen

How do you know that Phenom II X6 sales have gone up? I mean how do you know, personally?

Do you have the AMD sales figures?

Also, people who have BD compatible motherboards and are buying phenom II chips are making poor decisions, IMHO.

Super XP

Oct 17, 2011, 08:37 PM

Here is a QUOTE from another site.
Something is going on with the Motherboards and the Bulldozer CPU.
This quote seem to make a load of sense. Also no reason to buy a PII when Bulldozer is out.
If the chip flops in 2 board brands, and beats Intel in 2 others, then yes, it is the boards that flop the chip.
Hardocp
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/10/11/amd_bulldozer_fx8150_gameplay_performance_review/2
HardwareHeaven
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1285/pg12/amd-fx-8150-black-edition-8-core-processor-vs-core-i7-2600k-review-total-war-shogun-2.html
Rage3D
http://www.rage3d.com/reviews/cpu/amd_fx_8150/index.php?p=9

On these boards, Bulldozer came up equal or better in most respects with the Intel chips. In Gaming, it had a wide margin as it should have.

Bulldozer delivered on some boards, and had not, that tells us that there is an issue with some boards, period.

Evident Conclusion of Empirical Data Surpasses Anything Else.

Ahhzz

Oct 17, 2011, 08:38 PM

Sure we do and it's quite simple. The chip is aptly named. It's big and powerful like a Bulldozer, just not very fast.

Oh that's just WRONG hahahahah:roll::banghead::roll::banghead: so when you gonna get us a solid FX review, 'Rocker?

Super XP

Oct 17, 2011, 08:42 PM

Funny

CDdude55

Oct 17, 2011, 08:50 PM

Here is a QUOTE from another site.
Something is going on with the Motherboards and the Bulldozer CPU.
This quote seem to make a load of sense. Also no reason to buy a PII when Bulldozer is out.

I really don't see what you're saying, those benchmarks are just again proving that if you have a 6 core Phenom II chip you might as well stick with it.

The BF3 benchmark was the only game that really showed BD in a good light considering it's multithreaded, it also only showed that the peak framerate was better but the average framerate was still only about 3.8% better then Sandy Bridge.

Again, i think it's just people trying to make up excuses again to justify the chips existence/performance.

erocker

Oct 17, 2011, 08:59 PM

Oh that's just WRONG hahahahah:roll::banghead::roll::banghead: so when you gonna get us a solid FX review, 'Rocker?

I'm not. I'll just post stuff in the AMD FX clubhouse. I think I have got my issues worked out now I had to do some tweaks in Win 7 to resolve some things but all looks good now. I'm also going to be trying out Windows 8 shortly. :(

Funny

I suppose I can chuckle a bit that it is ineed underwhelming. It consumes an awful lot of power, sure multicore performance can be good but the cores that make up the multicores are slow. Things can be spun anyway you want, this chip is underwhelming. That being said, it's a blast to overclock and test out other than some of the issues that Windows was giving me with this thing. Multiple installs, even used different versions of Windows 7 and there were always issues in the Event Log. Get the chip and play with it, until then you're kinda just blowing smoke. This chip = underwhelming. I don't see any kind of magical bios or O/S updates that is going to raise this CPU past the status of "underwhelming" either. But.. whatever. This CPU is servicable, it works and you can do things with it for a decent price. I've said my piece here. :toast:

LordJummy

Oct 17, 2011, 09:06 PM

I really don't see what you're saying, those benchmarks are just again proving that if you have a 6 core Phenom II chip you might as well stick with it.

The BF3 benchmark was the only game that really showed BD in a good light considering it's multithreaded, it also only showed that the peak framerate was better but the average framerate was still only about 3.8% better then Sandy Bridge.

Again, i think it's just people trying to make up excuses again to justify the chips existence/performance.

Your opinion is a bit extremist. There are quite a few benchmarks and games that put it in a favorable light. I think you've made your thoughts on it clear throughout the threads.

I think that a lot of benchmarks and game results simply showed that a lot of games and benchmarks are old and poorly made. The CPU is doing exactly what it was designed for, and I believe it will continue to improve over the next several months and following years.

The chip has strengths and weaknesses. It's not a total failure. It is actually a really neat CPU. It just has a ton of negative hype all around it, and if people aren't intelligent enough to cut through the crap and see the chip for what it is then that's their problem.

I have one on back order myself. I didn't read too many reviews because I want to try it for myself.

CDdude55

Oct 17, 2011, 09:38 PM

Your opinion is a bit extremist. There are quite a few benchmarks and games that put it in a favorable light. I think you've made your thoughts on it clear throughout the threads.

I think that a lot of benchmarks and game results simply showed that a lot of games and benchmarks are old and poorly made. The CPU is doing exactly what it was designed for, and I believe it will continue to improve over the next several months and following years.

The chip has strengths and weaknesses. It's not a total failure. It is actually a really neat CPU. It just has a ton of negative hype all around it, and if people aren't intelligent enough to cut through the crap and see the chip for what it is then that's their problem.

I have one on back order myself. I didn't read too many reviews because I want to try it for myself.

I have seen a few benchmarks and games where Bulldozer does pull ahead, but not enough to make a difference for me to switch CPUs and that's really my only grief, but overall it's not completely terrible. It has been shown over and over again that these chips aren't very good in single threaded applications and that it doesn't get better until the workload gets spread across the cores. You could argue that BD will get better as software starts getting designed with multiple cores/threads in mind, but im still not sure if BD is strong enough to matter by then.

AMD took a brave risk with the new design, i just think it was executed poorly.

With that said as ive said in the past, i too am planning to go Bulldozer at some point, either with the second iteration or if the current line gets better in the future. I'm already running a 990FX board, so im ready when AMD is ready to do better then their current gen Phenom II chips.

Super XP

Oct 17, 2011, 10:59 PM

I really don't see what you're saying, those benchmarks are just again proving that if you have a 6 core Phenom II chip you might as well stick with it.

The BF3 benchmark was the only game that really showed BD in a good light considering it's multithreaded, it also only showed that the peak framerate was better but the average framerate was still only about 3.8% better then Sandy Bridge.

Again, i think it's just people trying to make up excuses again to justify the chips existence/performance.
I know Bulldozer is very imature at the moment, my point in that post was websites are starting to re-test Bulldozer and it's performing better than first thought. Is there an issue with the ASUS Crosshair V Formula? Don't know, but what I do know is every single review site got the same package from AMD which included that motherboard, the motherboard I also have pending my Bulldozer purchase.

I suppose in about 2 to 3 weeks we will see more reviews go up with newer updated bioses and different system config's.

Anyhow in regards to those review links, check out the benchmarks, Bulldozer was right up the 2600's alley.

entropy13

Oct 18, 2011, 02:25 AM

Here is a QUOTE from another site.
Something is going on with the Motherboards and the Bulldozer CPU.
This quote seem to make a load of sense. Also no reason to buy a PII when Bulldozer is out.

Following your reasoning then, since there's a slight increase in performance of using an ASUS Maximus IV Extreme-Z over the Z68A-GD65 (which was the Sandy Bridge motherboard in the [H] review) they should also retest everything, but with a different board for the AMD and Intel CPUs?

CDdude55

Oct 18, 2011, 03:05 AM

I know Bulldozer is very imature at the moment, my point in that post was websites are starting to re-test Bulldozer and it's performing better than first thought. Is there an issue with the ASUS Crosshair V Formula? Don't know, but what I do know is every single review site got the same package from AMD which included that motherboard, the motherboard I also have pending my Bulldozer purchase.

I suppose in about 2 to 3 weeks we will see more reviews go up with newer updated bioses and different system config's.

Anyhow in regards to those review links, check out the benchmarks, Bulldozer was right up the 2600's alley.

I think you're trying to find excuses for the chip since you seem like a heavy AMD fan (just basing it off your past posts), you can't cope with the idea that they won't be as good as Intel's current line of chips so you try to find anything to push the illusion that it's still a good buy against the competition.

Again, saw all those benchmarks, the only thing that is wrong is the CPU their using, the boards are fine. Naturally a different motherboards/BIOS will perform differently, but it still doesn't do anything of significance for the chip, you'd STILL be better off with an old Phenom II or if you really want performance, go Intel.

My system is all AMD, so no bias here, i see the reviews and it's crap. Will it improve?, maybe in the future, but it will take a while, it won't be an overnight BIOS update or motherboard replacement, thats a bunch of bullshit.....

Damn_Smooth

Oct 18, 2011, 03:11 AM

I think you're trying to find excuses for the chip since you seem like a heavy AMD fan (just basing it off your past posts), you can't cope with the idea that they won't be as good as Intel's current line of chips so you try to find anything to push the illusion that it's still a good buy against the competition.

Again, saw all those benchmarks, the only thing that is wrong is the CPU their using, the boards are fine. Naturally a different motherboards/BIOS will perform differently, but it still doesn't do anything of significance for the chip, you'd STILL be better off with an old Phenom II or if you really want performance, go Intel.

My system is all AMD, so no bias here, i see the reviews and it's crap. Will it improve?, maybe in the future, but it will take a while, it won't be an overnight BIOS update or motherboard replacement, thats a bunch of bullshit.....

I think with lower prices and a power consumption fix, we could have a contender. I can't see that happening any time before the 8170 though. If even then.

Goodman

Oct 18, 2011, 03:21 AM

any retailer that jacks up prices of older chips to take advantage of the situations like these deserves to be shutdown.

Twice... just to be sure ;)

The computer store around here price of the PIIx6 is just under the FX8120 but it cost more then the FX6100 (except for the 1055T) , why am i not surprise? :laugh: :rolleyes:

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=43991&stc=1&d=1318908457

CDdude55

Oct 18, 2011, 03:30 AM

I think with lower prices and a power consumption fix, we could have a contender. I can't see that happening any time before the 8170 though. If even then.

I agree.

Anyways keep in mind, i wrote that post that brash mostly cause i'm tired, got home late, so im mad, and then i go on my favorite tech site to find more crap about how there's ''untapped potential'' in Bulldozer. More bullshit about how ''if you make this small tweak, it will change the entire performance of the chip.'' when back in reality it performs like shit and will be shit until they actually focus on the chips themselves, stop blaming the motherboards, stop blaming Windows 7.

Damn i need to sleep, still a bit angry. Be back in the mourning!!

Damn_Smooth

Oct 18, 2011, 03:42 AM

I agree.

Anyways keep in mind, i wrote that post that brash mostly cause i'm tired, got home late, so im mad, and then i go on my favorite tech site to find more crap about how there's ''untapped potential'' in Bulldozer. More bullshit about how ''if you make this small tweak, it will change the entire performance of the chip.'' when back in reality it performs like shit and will be shit until they actually focus on the chips themselves, stop blaming the motherboards, stop blaming Windows 7.

Damn i need to sleep, still a bit angry. Be back in the mourning!!

I definitely see where you're coming from man. I expected more from BD too. I still think they have the potential to make something good with the architecture but I would have preferred another delay over what they released.

Have a good night. :toast:

Goodman

Oct 18, 2011, 03:46 AM

More bullshit about how ''if you make this small tweak, it will change the entire performance of the chip.'' when back in reality it performs like shit and will be shit until they actually focus on the chips themselves, stop blaming the motherboards, stop blaming Windows 7.

Damn i need to sleep, still a bit angry. Be back in the mourning!!

No! man you're not sleepy you're well awake , that is what i think also...:toast:

wolf

Oct 18, 2011, 03:47 AM

these CPU's should have never been called FX, that name is now forever tainted by this release. the could have done all the dev work and named the chip's just a month or two before release, I have a feeling if it had been done that way they wouldn't be FX CPUs.

Goodman

Oct 18, 2011, 06:15 AM

I found a funny AMD Bulldozer video (not really a Bulldozer still funny :laugh:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQWWbr6qKM0&feature=related

Super XP

Oct 18, 2011, 12:22 PM

Following your reasoning then, since there's a slight increase in performance of using an ASUS Maximus IV Extreme-Z over the Z68A-GD65 (which was the Sandy Bridge motherboard in the [H] review) they should also retest everything, but with a different board for the AMD and Intel CPUs?
No why should they, Sandy Bridge is not Brand New Built from the ground up. Bulldozer is. The company to blame for the inconsistenty in performance and incompatability via mobo's and such is AMD period. My issue is people are not giving them credit for putting out innovation and trying something new.

We all now know the history about why Bulldozer was not as good as we thought. Upper Management made stupid decisions and now AMD is paying for them, hopefully in the short term until Piledriver comes out.

Bulldozer is far from being a wash though, they may not outperform as much as we would have liked, it's still a great CPU. And it still holds it's ground in gaming along with many other apps, it just needs to be priced about $50 less right now.

As for most of the reviews on October 12, 2011, most if not all need to re-Benchmark Bulldozer with proper updates from scratch.

AsRock

Oct 18, 2011, 12:41 PM

http://i.imgur.com/aLPRd.png

RIP AMD

You better hope that don't happen..

CDdude55

Oct 18, 2011, 12:46 PM

No why should they, Sandy Bridge is not Brand New Built from the ground up. Bulldozer is. The company to blame for the inconsistenty in performance and incompatability via mobo's and such is AMD period. My issue is people are not giving them credit for putting out innovation and trying something new.

We all now know the history about why Bulldozer was not as good as we thought. Upper Management made stupid decisions and now AMD is paying for them, hopefully in the short term until Piledriver comes out.

Bulldozer is far from being a wash though, they may not outperform as much as we would have liked, it's still a great CPU. And it still holds it's ground in gaming along with many other apps, it just needs to be priced about $50 less right now.

As for most of the reviews on October 12, 2011, most if not all need to re-Benchmark Bulldozer with proper updates from scratch.

I still disagree, i believe they will need to revise the actual chip design to make a difference in performance, updating the BIOS and swapping out the motherboards isn't the solution for the problem, because the chip is the problem. I commend them on trying a new design, i'm so glad they did cause K10 was ancient.

I'm personally waiting till Piledriver, but if they revise the current generation BD chips, that'd be great too.

I don't see a point in having all reviewers re-benchmark Bulldozer.

HalfAHertz

Oct 18, 2011, 01:04 PM

Well the best you could hope for is a CPU driver like for the old Athlon x2's and a new stepping. If each of those gave you 3-5% perf. then at least BD would be in the same ballpark as the PhII x6...

CDdude55

Oct 18, 2011, 01:33 PM

Well the best you could hope for is a CPU driver like for the old Athlon x2's and a new stepping. If each of those gave you 3-5% perf. then at least BD would be in the same ballpark as the PhII x6...

True that would help, still wouldn't be a enough to warrant an upgrade from a Phenom II just yet though.

If they can manage to make BD better then their current Phenom II chips at least in multi-threaded applications, only then would that warrant an upgrade for me. If they can keep the price down too along side that, i'd be a winner.:)

The TDP is also fairly high with BD, i'd also be great if they can lower the power consumption and heat output.

I would of bought one a few days ago at launch if they had done such things.

cadaveca

Oct 18, 2011, 03:46 PM

updating the BIOS and swapping out the motherboards isn't the solution for the problem, because the chip is the problem.

Erocker put it best...it IS a bulldozer....massive amounts of power possible, but very slow.

Put ia big pile of work in front of it, it will push right on through, but small pile isn't going to move any faster than big one.

It almost seems to me like perhaps AMD hoped for something like 5 GHz stock clocks, but fabrication issues prevented that goal from being reached.

To me this makes sense considering that the rumour is that a recent firing @ AMD was due to AMD not securing other foundries i ncase a situation like this happened...plain and simple, AMD didn't have a backup plan.

That said, I'm not going to expect as much as you are from revisions. I expect a die shrink will up clocks, and only at that point will AMD have a good chip, as SKT1155 products won't be the top performer for Intel, SKT2011 will.

So, Intel needs to be SKT1155 only, for the desktop space. Recent news says that Intel is lowering the TDP of 1155 with ivybridge, which could possibly mean that the clocks will not go up much more on 1155, for fear of outshadowing SKT2011.

Super XP

Oct 18, 2011, 11:30 PM

I still disagree, i believe they will need to revise the actual chip design to make a difference in performance, updating the BIOS and swapping out the motherboards isn't the solution for the problem, because the chip is the problem. I commend them on trying a new design, i'm so glad they did cause K10 was ancient.

I'm personally waiting till Piledriver, but if they revise the current generation BD chips, that'd be great too.

I don't see a point in having all reviewers re-benchmark Bulldozer.
Well yes I can see them taking Bulldozer's Design and manipulating it with massive tweaking for Piledriver.

Covert_Death

Oct 18, 2011, 11:33 PM

all i gotta say is i really wanna see piledriver more focused on desktop enthusiasts and released Q1 of next year for AM3+

i get that BD was more server focused and thats totally fine but they need to give us desktop enthusiasts something to upgrade too and i really hope it is a much better upgrade when PD comes rolling in to town

ensabrenoir

Oct 19, 2011, 01:57 AM

let the over hyping of pile driver begin!:rockout: What harm could it do?:rolleyes: :banghead:
yep.... intels going down... hard!!!!( going down a road made of cold hard cash cause when you make a Ferrari u can charge Ferrari prices):pimp:

eidairaman1

Oct 19, 2011, 02:13 AM

Covert_Death

Oct 19, 2011, 02:34 AM

lol im not saying PD is gonna smoke intel... honestly i don't care, but i have an AM3+ board and would like to actually upgrade to something "competitive" if PD offers that on AM3+ then i will get it, if BD gets revised and looks better then i'll upgrade to that, i really don't care how it preforms to intel but how it performs with what i currently have

Neuromancer

Oct 19, 2011, 02:45 AM

Well AMD wont be going anywhere, they still have a strong GPU division.

As for CPUs, they wont be going anywhere either, in both VLPU and Server segments they have a strong enough base.

Having said that, I hope that they take the criticism, both from review sites, readers, owners and past employee testimony to redouble their efforts and make the next architecture more worthy. In the mean time they can try and improve on the design issues of the current gen.

The design of BD could be a success if for low threaded say up to for, it actually did use the 256bit FP, and saw a marked increase in performance as a result.

Perhaps it is up to using the right applications to take advantage of the design, as well as fixing the threading issues, I do not know enough. For now at least, until more useful information is out about it, I am holding off and sticking with my Thuban.

What would be interesting is if they released a good 4 core version not based on 2 modules but on 4 modules with 4 of the integer units designed out. (Or is that Llano? I will know soon enough anyway, FM1 board is here and CPU should be soon :) )

Super XP

Oct 19, 2011, 03:03 AM

Posted by seronxNew things in Piledriver that may be in some or all Piledriver CPUs:
Input/Output Memory Management Unit Version 2
Fused Multiply-Add 3
Converged Bit Manipulation Instructions
Trailing Bit Manipulation Instructions
Increased L1 DTLB size 32 entries to 64 entries
IPC & Power Management Improvements
Turbo Core Version 3

Piledriver CPUs:
Trinity
Viperfish(Sepang/Terramar/Vishera?)

What to expect:
10-15% increase in performance ( I think they can squeeze out a lot more with additional Tweaking of the original Bulldozer with the above updates. I say approx: 20% to 25%)
or
5-7.5% increase in performance and 5-7.5% decrease in power usage
or
10-15% decrease in power usage :D

Athlonite

Oct 19, 2011, 04:17 AM

Why's everyone comparing the power consumption of a 4core to an neutered 8core that's like comparing apples to bananas ofcourse it's going to use more power it's got more actual cores DUH

evan if it does perform worse watt for watt (that's just bad design)

Horrux

Oct 19, 2011, 02:22 PM

nt300

Oct 19, 2011, 04:40 PM

Bulldozer has great power controlling restraints and runs cool. It is when you start Overclocking the processor and upping its core voltage is where you find it sucking back power. The same can be said for SandyBridge and other similarly priced CPU's. We are talking about a very large 2 Billion Transistor CPU with 8-Cores. Run it stock and you got yourself a power saving processor. If you plan on overclocking this processor, then there shouldn't be complaints about power usage.

Sure AMD could have done a lot better overall with this Bulldozer Micro-Architecture, but unfortunately they've catered the design for the full server/workstation market. According to recent news via the blogosphere, AMD plans on a complete molestation (Overhaul) of the Bulldozer design for the forthcoming Piledriver Core. This in turn should be enough to keep them quite competitive overall and reclassify Bulldozer II (Piledriver) for the high performance desktop segment.
Here is the link,
http://www.amazon.com/review/RV7ZTITV8B968/ref=cm_cr_rev_detup_redir?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=FxJHU1JA6RGBGI&cdPage=1&asin=B005UBNKZG&newContentNum=7&store=electronics&cdThread=Tx11VIXKGCH4PMP&newContentID=MxWIFRARWE6PHD#Mx26OZ7SIVR3DOZ

Covert_Death

Oct 19, 2011, 04:53 PM

Here is the link,
http://www.amazon.com/review/RV7ZTITV8B968/ref=cm_cr_rev_detup_redir?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=FxJHU1JA6RGBGI&cdPage=1&asin=B005UBNKZG&newContentNum=7&store=electronics&cdThread=Tx11VIXKGCH4PMP&newContentID=MxWIFRARWE6PHD#Mx26OZ7SIVR3DOZ

this is what i'm hoping for

they obviously focused on servers for BD (which is fine) so i hope they shift gears and focus on Enthusiast desktop for PD!

LordJummy

Oct 19, 2011, 05:20 PM

Damn_Smooth

Oct 19, 2011, 05:26 PM

If you were waiting all that time for BD, and now you are going to keep waiting again for PD you are basically the definition of insanity.

This thread should definitely be closed down. I just keep watching the exact same comments back and forth, and it's giving me deja vu to be honest.

You do realize that you have complete freedom not to click on the thread right? With Piledriver and IB launching around the same time, I have no problem stretching out my Phenom II until then.

naoan

Oct 19, 2011, 05:28 PM

If you were waiting all that time for BD, and now you are going to keep waiting again for PD you are basically the definition of insanity.

This thread should definitely be closed down. I just keep watching the exact same comments back and forth, and it's giving me deja vu to be honest.

Every Bulldozer thread give me that :laugh:

Well, once there's one with link to bigfoot sighting, that was pretty fresh actually :roll:

Covert_Death

Oct 19, 2011, 05:28 PM

LordJummy

Oct 19, 2011, 05:41 PM

same here... i have an 990FX board so i will get the best chip that will fit it, and PD is pretty close, what i won't do is buy another MOBO anytime soon, but im not going to buy BD then a few months later want PD... that is insanity

You are just further proving what I said. You wait for BD which fails (in so many ways), you continue to wait for the next release from the same company expecting different results. What makes you think the next release is going to be all good when their last several releases were mediocre at best? Interesting...

Do you ever want to stop waiting and start doing?

BrooksyX

Oct 19, 2011, 05:45 PM

You are just further proving what I said. You wait for BD which fails (in so many ways), you continue to wait for the next release from the same company expecting different results. What makes you think the next release is going to be all good when their last several releases were mediocre at best? Interesting...

Do you ever want to stop waiting and start doing?

Agreed playing the waiting game is just an endless cycle. Either get a current bulldozer or sell your stuff and jump to sandybridge.

erocker

Oct 19, 2011, 05:47 PM

Agreed playing the waiting game is just an endless cycle. Either get a current bulldozer or sell your stuff and jump to sandybridge.

..or buy a 1090t. Dirt cheap 6 core and it will do what you need.

CDdude55

Oct 19, 2011, 05:52 PM

..or buy a 1090t. Dirt cheap 6 core and it will do what you need.

Already have a 1055T, and already have a 990FX board so i'm waiting for PD or current gen BD revisions.

I don't have money to spend on both a BD and SB platform like you do.

erocker

Oct 19, 2011, 05:54 PM

Already have a 1055T, and already have a 990FX board so i'm waiting for PD or current gen BD revisions.

I don't have money to spend on both a BD and SB platform like you do.

Okay... a 1055T is fine :confused:

CDdude55

Oct 19, 2011, 06:00 PM

Okay... a 1055T is fine :confused:

lol, just throwing it out there that i pretty much have to stick with the platform i picked, so i'm still in hopes BD will get better.

erocker

Oct 19, 2011, 06:03 PM

lol, just throwing it out there that i pretty much have to stick with the platform i picked, so i'm still in hopes BD will get better.

I don't think I was talking to you. Maybe I was. Bah, I don't care. This thread is stale anyways man. :laugh:

Covert_Death

Oct 19, 2011, 06:20 PM

lol, just throwing it out there that i pretty much have to stick with the platform i picked, so i'm still in hopes BD will get better.

this^

this is why i don't mind waiting for PD, im not playing the waiting game, im just waiting for the best option for my MoBo... i upgraded to a 990FX because i needed a new MoBo but couldn't really afford another CPU at the same time so i had to get something that would work with my PII, now that things are settling down for me a bit i would like to eventually upgrade my CPU but i don't want to have to replace my MOBO to do that since i just got this one, BD seemed like the right choice before it released but its just not enough to push me to do it at this time, so maybe when PD is released in a few months it will be, or a revision of BD...

either way i want to use my AM3+ board so whatever chip entices me the most i will get

LordJummy

Oct 19, 2011, 06:33 PM

this^

this is why i don't mind waiting for PD, im not playing the waiting game, im just waiting for the best option for my MoBo... i upgraded to a 990FX because i needed a new MoBo but couldn't really afford another CPU at the same time so i had to get something that would work with my PII, now that things are settling down for me a bit i would like to eventually upgrade my CPU but i don't want to have to replace my MOBO to do that since i just got this one, BD seemed like the right choice before it released but its just not enough to push me to do it at this time, so maybe when PD is released in a few months it will be, or a revision of BD...

either way i want to use my AM3+ board so whatever chip entices me the most i will get

Either way, what do these thinking out loud posts have anything to do with "Review Consensus: AMD FX Processor 8150 underwhelming" ?

Covert_Death

Oct 19, 2011, 06:36 PM

Either way, what do these thinking out loud posts have anything to do with "Review Consensus: AMD FX Processor 8150 underwhelming" ?

lol absolutely nothing.

unless you consider the fact that since reviews were underwhelming it gives motivation to possibly wait for PD if waiting for a AM3+ chip haha

Super XP

Oct 19, 2011, 09:11 PM

AMD plans on a complete molestation (Overhaul) of the Bulldozer design for the forthcoming Piledriver Core. This in turn should be enough to keep them quite competitive overall and reclassify Bulldozer II (Piledriver) for the high performance desktop segment.
It would be nice to get some confirmation about this overhaul. Are they talking about the Socket AM3+ 8-Core Piledriver or the 10-Core Piledriver for Socket FM2 that is said to get released sometime in 2013?

btarunr

Oct 19, 2011, 09:19 PM

It would be nice to get some confirmation about this overhaul. Are they talking about the Socket AM3+ 8-Core Piledriver or the 10-Core Piledriver for Socket FM2 that is said to get released sometime in 2013?

AMD in its own presentation told us to expect just about 10% performance improvement overall between Bulldozer and Piledriver.

Completely Bonkers

Oct 19, 2011, 09:56 PM

... and that 10% gain was speculative and shown as a performance/watt improvement. Therefore, raw performance might be less than 10%, ie, could be as low as 0%

http://img.techpowerup.org/111014/Capture075.jpg

nt300

Oct 19, 2011, 10:11 PM

AMD in its own presentation told us to expect just about 10% performance improvement overall between Bulldozer and Piledriver.
You mean 10% increase not including Bulldozer's fixes that it needs. If they mean 10% after BD's fixes then they call this Piledriver, then Houston, we have a problem.

Super XP

Oct 19, 2011, 10:46 PM

You mean 10% increase not including Bulldozer's fixes that it needs. If they mean 10% after BD's fixes then they call this Piledriver, then Houston, we have a problem.
I bloody hope not, it better be Bulldozer fixes, make it run the way it was meant to run, then only then squeeze out ANOTHER 10% gto 15% and call that Piledriver. If not then I am afraid of Intel once again :nutkick: AMD :rolleyes:

Robotguts

Oct 25, 2011, 11:30 PM

As of Today....26/10/11

:cool: BulDozer PCCG has now on for sale 1st Batch,

AMD FX-8120 8-Core Processor $259.00
AMD FX-6100 6-Core Processor $215.00

:cry:http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=18658

Athlonite

Oct 26, 2011, 02:25 AM

8 out of 11 etailers here are saying out of stock

AMD FX-Series FX-8150 3.6GHz Socket AM3+ Box $394.44

AMD FX-Series FX-8120 3.1GHz Socket AM3+ Box $328.43

AMD FX-Series FX-6100 3.3GHz Socket AM3+ Box $277.14

AMD FX-Series FX-4100 3.6GHz Socket AM3+ Box $195.00

Neuromancer

Oct 26, 2011, 02:39 AM

As of Today....26/10/11

:cool: BulDozer PCCG has now on for sale 1st Batch,

AMD FX-8120 8-Core Processor $259.00
AMD FX-6100 6-Core Processor $215.00

:cry:
link (http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=18658)

Fixed that for you.

Next time no point in giant sizing the font or changing the color (lol changing hte color of hyperlinks tee hee) All you succeeded in doing was making a large font broken looking hyperlink.

Though I gotta admit why was the end colon of your emoticon orange instead of red???

Neuromancer

Oct 26, 2011, 02:48 AM

I bloody hope not, it better be Bulldozer fixes, make it run the way it was meant to run, then only then squeeze out ANOTHER 10% gto 15% and call that Piledriver. If not then I am afraid of Intel once again :nutkick: AMD :rolleyes:

No need to be afraid.

Intel is usually the performance king. those people that cry "AMD better produce or are dead in 2 years" have been saying the same thing for 30 years. Ignore the morons.

With the reintroduction of RISC based processing and the improvements in GPGPU usage, it will be interesting to see how computers evolve over the next decade TBH.

Will we be running 80 core processors in 10 years? I think so, of course they will be risc based ARM driven units that require a .5W of power at load per core. And another 50-80W for interface. No to little cache as RAM will again be circumstantially pushed to new levels and looser timings. DDR6 running at 8,000 mhz effective (1,000 mhz actual) at 10-10-10 and latencies still in the 40-50ns range in octachannel unit running on a 256bit bus.. (cuz it will be intel powering it and we know they love bus limiting their stuff)

*sigh