AMD Unlocked FX Processors Announced

[TheOnlyHero]

Originally Posted by naoan

No, you won't, it is slower clock per clock than Phenom II, http://www.legionhardware.com/articl...fx_4170,6.html

So if i unlock my Phenom II X2 550BE to Quad core it will have the same performance as the new amd FX Processors ? Shame on you amd ! I guess its better to buy a Phenom II X4 955 or 965

[Fourstaff]

So AMD lost this not because they don't have a good chip, but because the software couldn't manage to take advantage of the special architecture. Redo this benches in a year time, I think its going to paint a different picture. As of now though, 2500K still gets "most value for money" in my books, and the budget gamer will still get recommended i3 2100/2120. Sorry AMD, as much as I like to believe, The only recommendation you get from me is the productivity section, and even then its the 1100T, not Bulldozer.

[YautjaLord]

F*** YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!

Need to read my eyes out, but that one is obvious; let's see what this f***er is all about/capable of/how's it blend/etc.... One more reason to start looking for some awesome web design job.

LET THE DOZERING BEGIN!!!!!!!!!!!!

[bear jesus]

I'm relatively meh towards bulldozer, it's good enough with heavy workloads but not really amazing and far from urging to upgrade but saying that sandy bridge did not urge me to upgrade so i had little expectation for bulldozer to be able to make me, time to wait to see what the price and performance of sandy bridge E is like.

Originally Posted by cadaveca

Seems to me that it ticked those boxes were goals, and not facts, based on a lot of the reviews out already at nearly every site...except here.

I guess I was right, and AMD marketing IS fail.

Do I really need to go buy a chip and do a review? I want to believe you, I really do.

I find it shameful that AMD has not sent you a chip, how are you supposed to provide accurate reviews of the scorpius platform without the CPU?

Admittedly i would not like to suggest that you buy one but i think AM3+ boards should probably be tested with bulldozer now, have you been in contact with AMD attempting to get one?

[thanatoscries]

So much for the PR, guess my road stays with the 2500k... considering I'm only looking to game...

[Yellow&Nerdy?]

It's not a bad chip, but it got over-hyped before launch. It's pretty much the same situation as it was with first gen i7 and i5 processors and Phenom II processors, as it is now with BD and SB. It's not bad value wise, but as of now, performance still lacks some. It might be, that the current benchmark-software is not working so well with the architecture, but the i5 2500K is probably the best gaming CPU.

[entropy13]

Originally Posted by Yellow&Nerdy?

It's not a bad chip, but it got over-hyped before launch. It's pretty much the same situation as it was with first gen i7 and i5 processors and Phenom II processors, as it is now with BD and SB.

No, quite far from it. Bulldozer is more like Phenom I and Netburst (Williamette) rather than Nehalem.

[the54thvoid]

Originally Posted by Fourstaff

So AMD lost this not because they don't have a good chip, but because the software couldn't manage to take advantage of the special architecture. Redo this benches in a year time, I think its going to paint a different picture.

Yeah, I read a few reviews mentioning that. The problem is the chip is out now and in a year their will be more new tech (what comes after IvyBridge, then there's Piledriver too).

It looks poor against it's own stable mate (1100T) in per core performance and although it shines in super multi core tasking, the real word majority usage doesn't call for it. Folk are also blabbing about it's a great OC'er but so is SB so it's not really a victory there. Hell, my C0 stepping i7 920 runs at 3.66GHz (which equates to a 1 GHz overclock which is 137% stock.)

[deleted]

Won't say what review site I'm from. But bulldozer has had the to be the worst benching I've ever experienced in my life.

It performs like an 1100T, there is no question about it. Not kernel, no enhancement, other than having the latest CPU code, which all of these have.

While I was benching BD gave us very inconsistent, VERY inconsistent benchmark scores. Something is wrong with the CPU and how it handles data with its modules- By any comparison to an 1100t, I felt like BD was two cores behind at all times.

We ran wPrime, SuperPI, CineBench, and Vantage, and get different scores every time, and the only that changed was the voltage output or nothing at all.

You can just keep running it again and again but the scores are wildly different. But you can grab and average, or wait until you see the same score, or take the best and run with it.

Don't believe me? Look at all the scores so far, either it looks OK or it's just terrible. The next few days will be a PR disaster from AMD

Reposted here from an anonymous source. It would certainly explain why some of the reviews seem mostly favorable towards Bulldozer, while at the same time some benches show the FX 8150 performing worse than the 1100T or even the 955 BE.

[entropy13]

Originally Posted by Fourstaff

So AMD lost this not because they don't have a good chip, but because the software couldn't manage to take advantage of the special architecture. Redo this benches in a year time, I think its going to paint a different picture.

Did you say the same thing when Intel first came up with Hyper-Threading (as well as its more recent incarnation) and the software couldn't manage to take advantage of it?

[twindragon6]

It had so much potential. Stock it benches worse than a phenom II X6. Just get an I5 2600 or better and it's spanked. I guess I'll just rock my FX-57 for another year or wait to see what new parts Intel spits out...

[MikeMurphy]

Originally Posted by Yellow&Nerdy?

It's not a bad chip, but it got over-hyped before launch.

Not a bad chip??

After reading countless reviews I would prefer to pick up an 1100T based on the very old K10.5 architecture.

[YautjaLord]

Well, what can i say: reviews (as well as CPU[s]) are a mixed bag; on few sites the 8150 dissing out 2600K & it's own predecessors, on another sites it actually beaten by them - either it is a complete fail or something went wrong with few chips. Mostly checked how it performs in 3DMarks of all flavors & games (more specifically AvP3 & Crysis 2); not so meh but not ground breaker either. Where it does shine is in OC'ing potential: some sites mention 1.0GHz+ OCs.

Also, what's with this Win 8 unlocks all Dozer instructions potential s***; is it real? The only way to find out is to have one for one self: i'll see how it runs once hit the store shelves here & bought. And yeah - i did read through the entire reviews database as promised few posts back, so now my eyes hurt abit.

[Fx]

Originally Posted by btarunr

In short, FX-8150 gives you:

• 90~95% the performance of Core i7-2600K
• 24% lower price
• Roughly 22% greater performance per dollar
• Overclocks like Chuck Norris

No fail.

+1

perfect summary

[Fx]

Originally Posted by reverze

And thats what is so great about AMD, whatever CPU you buy its always a good deal.

CPUs are so fast that even a 2.5 year old phenom II 940 plays any game out there perfectly, all this performance unless time is money for the very few encoding for a living, is pure luxery.

so true. I am sticking with my 955 until the 8170 is released and matures. until then I am doing just fine for gaming and encoding. like you said though- mostly tasks such as encoding will be the areas for improvement

[Fx]

Originally Posted by YautjaLord

Also, what's with this Win 8 unlocks all Dozer instructions potential s***; is it real? The only way to find out is to have one for one self: i'll see how it runs once hit the store shelves here & bought. And yeah - i did read through the entire reviews database as promised few posts back, so now my eyes hurt abit.

that is interesting news which I hadnt came across. that would be awesome if it turns out mostly true

[MikeMurphy]

I don't think its a Win7 scheduler problem. AMD with its millions spent on this thing surely could have sent a team to Microsoft to work out a revised scheduler.

They didn't. There is a reason for it.

[Fourstaff]

Originally Posted by entropy13

Did you say the same thing when Intel first came up with Hyper-Threading (as well as its more recent incarnation) and the software couldn't manage to take advantage of it?

I would have said the same thing, yes. Now we just need to sit back and let those code monkeys bang something which use Bulldozer to its fullest. This processor still feels very "server-ish".

[YautjaLord]

Thinking of it, i was actually prepared for some s*** like that but thought it'll be a bit better; nevermind, Crysis 2 @ full-blown DX11/1920x1200 runs just fine & so is AvP3; on few sites all CPUs (both AMD's & Intel's) go nose to nose in those specific benchies stock & OC'd; 8150 is great OC'er with C5F on wc & regular air: 4.9GHz stable on air? Do the same trick with 965BE - see what you get when you'll OC it 1.3GHz above stock clock on air. jk

The way i see it: give both app developers (atleast to Futuremark & game developers) to catch up with all possible updates & AMD to polish the otherwise great tech in a month possibly 2 & see what cooks out of it; buy the all Dozer/AM3+ equipment & test yourselves; and possibly it'll wind up not so average afterall. There must be something behind the tech & name that is more than just marketing gimmick; plus inclusion of SLI into AMD's MCP & it's overall implementation indicates something quite great nevertheless. I still find it a great reason to keep saving for this setup. Hope to see review over here & after that i'll check this out in my rig, if you'll want.

[techtard]

I need to see some benches. It might be worth it if every chip overclocks well.
Going to spend the next while looking at all the reviews.

Being that I am primarily a gamer, and most games these days are not optimized for multi-core, FX is probably not in my future.
If they can hit the sweet spot with an OC though, that might make things interesting.

[Crap Daddy]

Anyway you look at it it's a disaster. The only strong point should have been the overclockability but... On air all reviewers barely reached stable 4.8 with a power consumption that needs to be sustained by a nucular plant.

Haven't seen a comparison yet between say 2500K at 4.5 (easily attainable) and 8150 at 4.8. I'm pretty sure the 2500 is better in 90% of the benches with half the power draw and 20% less expensive. I think the worse part of this launch is that AMD is compromising its position as bang/buck CPU provider. The whole lineup of FX pricewise is a mess.

I can't even think about the performance compared to the competition - and I would include here also the Thubans and such - of lower level Zambezis, the 6000 and 4000 series.

[techtard]

Did any of the reviewers increase the HTT and NB when they overclocked? Or was it a vanilla cpu multiplier only overclock?
AMD performance is usually better when you overclock the other components too.

[xenocide]

Originally Posted by techtard

Did any of the reviewers increase the HTT and NB when they overclocked? Or was it a vanilla cpu multiplier only overclock?
AMD performance is usually better when you overclock the other components too.

I know for a fact Overclockers.com did.

[blibba]

AMD would have been better off just releasing a 32nm Phenom II. I don't understand why they bothered at all.

[cadaveca]

Originally Posted by bear jesus

I find it shameful that AMD has not sent you a chip, how are you supposed to provide accurate reviews of the scorpius platform without the CPU?

Admittedly i would not like to suggest that you buy one but i think AM3+ boards should probably be tested with bulldozer now, have you been in contact with AMD attempting to get one?

No, I have not been in contact with the right people @ AMD, obviously. I did ask JF-AMD numerous times for chips, and was quite serious; I'm sure you've seen my posts, and I am pretty sure I asked him in PM too. He did not offer me a contact name.

That said, everything I use for reviews so far, other than the boards; memory, CPUs, PSU, HDD, and everything else, I bought with my own dollar.

I have asked board partners for a chip to review 9-series board with, however.

I'm going to ask AMD's marketing directly, again, for a CPU, but I totally expect to have to buy Bulldozer. It just sucks that no chips are available to me here in Canada yet.


Who knows, maybe TPU will have a review up in the future. I don't see much point though, as reviews are on nearly every other tech site but here already. It would be great to see a review done with Crossfire 6950's and Eyefinity though. I could do that, but I'm not likely to have much in the way of motivation when I got to buy a chip.