Hardware Thread, AMDs FX-8150 "Bulldozer" Processor - The reviews are out! in Technical; Prepare to be disappointed.
AnandTech : anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/1
Bit-Tech : bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/10/12/amd-fx-8150-review/1
Hexus : hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/32110-amd-bulldozer-fx-8150/
TechReport : techreport.com/articles.x/21813
Gameplay Performance: ...
12th October 2011, 09:30 AM #1
AMDs FX-8150 "Bulldozer" Processor - The reviews are out!
13th October 2011, 12:03 AM #2
Yeah, was just gonna post them up aswell. Really disappointed that despite all the hype it struggles to outperform the equiavlent Intel CPU. The real rubbing of salt in the wound is that it's only on a par with the Intel i7-920 in half of the benchmarks!
It's a sad state of affairs when AMD's latest and greatest can't even match the performance of a 3 year old Intel processor !
Last edited by flyinghaggis; 13th October 2011 at 12:07 AM.
13th October 2011, 12:24 AM #3
Thing is, AMD will always be weaker on the CPU market due to the way they were perceived in the past.
One plus side is thaw they take their time with the chips and they tend to last longer than Intel CPUs in my experience.
13th October 2011, 12:54 AM #4
I like AMD a lot (partly because they don't do any of that artificial market segmentation BS that Intel does), but the power consumption is just crazy.
13th October 2011, 08:48 AM #5
In the age of attempting to lower energy use while increasing performance, amd have gone in completely the wrong direction in both departments. On the bright side at least i know my 2500k will last me a fair bit longer...at least until Intels release next year anyway lol
Complete and total flop of a release that said AMD have been pretty crap ever since their awesome Athlon XP Bartons and the earlier Athlon 64s. Did anyone else ever own the abit NF7-S motherboard? that + a barton 2500 was an overclockers wet dream
13th October 2011, 08:53 AM #6
used to have a barton 3200, iirc i thiunk i still have it kicking about.
very good bit of kit and design, with a single mided focus which i think is somewhat lacking.
in fairness my work rig is a Athlon 64 and still does the job
14th October 2011, 09:13 PM #7
- Rep Power
It is interesting that AMD is blaming Windows 7 for the bad performance results. Apparently Windows 7 is not aware of the core modules and the scheduler is putting threads in the wrong cores, so it would be interesting when we see the Windows 8 benchmarks to see if it is actually true.
15th October 2011, 04:41 PM #8
Why don’t they design their CPU's to work with the latest and greatest OS then, which currently is Windows 7. By the time Windows 8 comes out Intel would of released the new generation Ivory bridge CPU's and AMD will be left behind once again.
Originally Posted by Dave84
AMD - Excuses, excuses and a big disapointment after all the delays and hype.
15th October 2011, 04:51 PM #9
I liked my AMD k2 and thunderbird but I think they ve lost it but I appreciate their contribution to get big companies to sotp being lazy like:
Firefox with IE (I remember Microsoft saying IE6 would be the last release!)
pentium 4 (urgh!) AMD made intel re-think
ARM and ATOM
MSE, AVG etc.. and Norton and Mcafee (I remember swearing by Mcafee)
15th October 2011, 05:17 PM #10
I think it might be too late for AMD to catch up with Intel. They will always be one step ahead.
AMD Aims to Improve Bulldozer Performance-per-Watt by Up to 50% by 2014.
The success of AMD’s execution is also conditioned by the success of Globalfoundries. The Steamroller-generation (2013) chips will be made using 28nm process technology, whereas Excavator chips will need to be made using 20nm or thinner technology in 2014. Unfortunately for AMD, in 2014 its arch-rival Intel will have 14nm process technology in its hands and therefore the Excavator@20nm may not be enough to fight the major competitor
The main problem with the current Bulldozer architecture is that it's very, very late to market. AMD started working on it four years ago in 2007, which is a very long time in the world of desktop processors, so AMD have effectively released a new "old" product.
The two important things that it has going for it, are that it scales well with core count and clock speed - those 8GHz overclock marketing demos weren’t completely without merit. What we need to see is AMD improving performance much more than the prediction slide they’ve released, more like 100% or more perhaps, which is not really such an unrealistic target to achieve in three years of design and process improvements. Perhaps discarding this whole architecture and starting afresh with fully discreet cores like on the Phenom might be the way forward? AMD has recently let go some of its top-level management, so perhaps their replacements can turn the company around? (Source
15th October 2011, 05:38 PM #11
Makes you wonder when they completed all their 'in house' testing, why this wasn't spotted when testing on a typical mainstream system we as customers would use!
Originally Posted by Dave84
It's like a company releasing a car and stating the tyres supplied are not suitable for tarmac surfaces. Just what surface did they expect people to drive on?
I've been an Intel man for quite a number of years, both desktop and server. Other than the Pentium D line which was rubbish, Intel CPUs are high quality. I've had my Intel E8500 for years now and it's still quick!
15th October 2011, 05:47 PM #12
Thats unfair given Intel's latest CPU lines. Under Hyper-V virtialisation the latest round can choke as Windows is not able to cope with the additional bits for faster virtualisation. It sees only half of them and defines them as generic crippling performance and causing instability without hotfixes which only half fix the issue.
Originally Posted by ihaveaproblem
They both suffer from the same limitations imposed by the current software. Designing for current software would be silly as it would just stagnate progress like continuing full compatibility all the way back to XP because people refuse to upgrade. To develop they need to push the envolope and if they dident you'd probably still be enjoying you 3GHz Pentium core cpu with no MMX and only 32bit instructions.
16th October 2011, 09:38 AM #13
16th October 2011, 10:24 AM #14
I don't think it's so much a case of the Bulldozer's being weak - it's more along the lines of the Core's being so strong. They're decent machines and paired with decent graphics card will still make a great out of the box gaming machine. For anything beyond though I really couldn't recommend the 2500K more.
Always was fond of the Barton core chips - wiped the floor with the Pentium's of the time!
16th October 2011, 03:48 PM #15
I have a feeling that Bulldozer will be like the Phenom line, where the first iteration had some strong aspects but was let down by low clock speeds and high power consumption. I can see it becoming a good budget option as it matures - just like Phenom II. It's currently disappointing though, and I'll stick with Phenom II when budget power is needed.
By matt40k in forum MIS Systems
Last Post: 2nd February 2011, 03:04 PM
By TornUp in forum General Chat
Last Post: 2nd April 2008, 11:15 AM
By broc in forum General Chat
Last Post: 18th April 2007, 10:30 AM
By NetworkGeezer in forum *nix
Last Post: 5th May 2006, 09:49 AM
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)