Any Bulldozer rumors?

[drkCrix]

More Fuel To The Fire

http://www.donanimhaber.com/islemci/...o-inceleme.htm

They didnt state the test setup so I have no idea what to think of this, for those who don't want to waste time watching a slow video here are the results from it:

3dmark01
FX8150 = 44523
1100T = 46962
i7 2600K = 60850

3dmark06
FX8150 = 17699
1100T = 20243
i7 2600K = 25371

3dmark06 CPU
FX8150 = 5835
1100T = 5944
i7 2600K = 6690

3dmark11 Extreme
FX8150 = 1857
1100T = 1757
i7 2600K = 1855

3dmark11 Physics
FX8150 = 5829
1100T = 5257
i7 2600K = 8808

CineBench 11.5 x64
FX8150 = 5.98
1100T = 5.82
i7 2600K = 6.71

CPUMark 99
FX8150 = 486
1100T = 499
i7 2600K = 568

Fritz Chess
FX8150 = 12030
1100T = 11385
i7 2600K = 13240

PCMark 7
FX8150 = 2815
1100T = 2549
i7 2600K = 3233

SuperPi 1M
FX8150 = 20.472
1100T = 19.348
i7 2600K = 10.098

WinRAR
FX8150 = 51
1100T = 69
i7 2600K = 53

AIDA64 CPU AES
FX8150 = 294788
1100T = 53738
i7 2600K = 448842

AIDA64 FPU Sin Julia
FX8150 = 2900
1100T = 3197
i7 2600K = 4667

AIDA64 FPU Julia
FX8150 = 12472
1100T = 12583
i7 2600K = 18414

Batman Arkham Asylum (1920x1080, 8xAA)
FX8150 = 199
1100T = 194
i7 2600K = 202

Batman Arkham Asylum (1680x1050, 8xAA)
FX8150 = 213
1100T = 208
i7 2600K = 219

Civ 5 Leader Benchmark (1680x1050, 8x AA, AF+ Ultra)
FX8150 = 100.88
1100T = 100.43
i7 2600K = 98.81

Just Cause 2 (Desert Sunrise, 1920x1080)
FX8150 = 85.7
1100T = 84.39
i7 2600K = 86.5

Just Cause 2 (Desert Sunrise, 1680x1050)
FX8150 = 95.9
1100T = 94.48
i7 2600K = 97.38

3dmark06
FX-8150 + 1333MHz RAM = 17612
FX-8150 + 1866MHz RAM = 17699

3dmark06 CPU
FX-8150 + 1333MHz RAM = 5758
FX-8150 + 1866MHz RAM = 5835

Cinebench R11.5 x64
FX-8150 1333MHz RAM = 5.94
FX-8150 1866MHz RAM = 5.98

3dmark06 CPU
FX8150 4.5GHz = 6852
FX8150 = 5835
i7 2600K = 6690

SPI 1M
FX8150 4.5GHz = 19.297
FX8150 = 20.472
i7 2600K = 10.098

[zicoz]

Those numbers are sort of disapointing when you compare it to the 1100 aren't they?

[drkCrix]

From another Forum

"Actually, we already have such an issue known for Bulldozer, and NO bench-marked system has the patch installed!

The shared L1 cache is causing cross invalidations across threads so that the prefetch data is incorrect in too many cases and data must be fetched again. The fix is a "simple" memory alignment and (possible)tagging system in the kernel of Windows/Linux.

I reviewed the code for the Linux patch and was astonished by just how little I know of the Linux kernel... lol! In any event, it could easily cost 10% in terms of single threaded performance, possibly more than double that in multi-threaded loads on the same module due to the increased contention and randomness of accesses.

Not sure if ordained reviewers have been given access to the MS patch, but I'd imagine (and hope) so! Last I saw, the Linux kernel patch was still being worked on by AMD (publicly) and Linus was showing some distaste for the method used to address the issue. One comment questioned the performance cost but had received no replies... but you don't go re-working kernel memory mapping for anything less than 5-10%... just not worth it! "

[jethro]

For gaming, cpu has become largely irrelevant unless: a. you play RTS games b. you have a very high end multi GPU set you're trying to get the most out of.

In other words, if these cpus offer 2500K level performance for less money they are a "success".

Hopefully they bring that and we maintain the competition that keeps all players in gaming (intel/AMD/NVIDIA) competing on the price front. (I only mention NVIDIA because presumably if AMD CPUs closes up shop their GPU division does as well)

[kbohip]

In other words, if these cpus offer 2500K level performance for less money they are a "success".

Bingo! That's really all I'm hoping for at this point. Really, this is the way AMD has always worked in the past. Offer something with the same performance (or even a tad bit lower) for a lesser price. We all just got really spoiled by the Athlon 64's when they were destroying Intel back in the day.

[AMDTurbo]

Bingo! That's really all I'm hoping for at this point. Really, this is the way AMD has always worked in the past. Offer something with the same performance (or even a tad bit lower) for a lesser price. We all just got really spoiled by the Athlon 64's when they were destroying Intel back in the day.

Ahh I remember those days

But now, since 2006 they have been meh

Honestly I expect them to be "meh" in this case as well.

I decided not to wait anymore and just picked up a 2500k yesterday. I just don't think AMD can give me similar/better performance for under $180.

[AMDScooter]

Ahh I remember those days

But now, since 2006 they have been meh

Honestly I expect them to be "meh" in this case as well.

I decided not to wait anymore and just picked up a 2500k yesterday. I just don't think AMD can give me similar/better performance for under $180.

^^^ That 2500K is tough to beat. I have a local microcenter and got my 2500K with a good MSI MOBO out the door for under $300. I'd love to see AMD have another winner here... 8 core sweetness might win me back. But the price point will have to be very attractive.

[kbohip]

Ahh I remember those days

But now, since 2006 they have been meh

Honestly I expect them to be "meh" in this case as well.

I decided not to wait anymore and just picked up a 2500k yesterday. I just don't think AMD can give me similar/better performance for under $180.

^^^ That 2500K is tough to beat. I have a local microcenter and got my 2500K with a good MSI MOBO out the door for under $300. I'd love to see AMD have another winner here... 8 core sweetness might win me back. But the price point will have to be very attractive.

Totally agree with you guys. I've almost just gone ahead and pulled the trigger on a 2500k a few times this summer, but decided to give AMD another chance. Instead I just pieced together as much as I could. Sheesh, Wednesday can't get here soon enough!

[AMDTurbo]

I just thought to myself....2500k for $180 and Ivy Bridge will be 1155 socket?

No brainer (although so far Ivy Bridge doesn't look like much improvement).

Even if AMD does better in gaming at that pricepoint, 5-10FPS difference is no big deal.

460SLI will take care of that.

But I have doubts AMD will do better in gaming, and gaming is really all I care about.

[3dfxrain]

Bulldozer FX-8120 benchmarks in Russian.

[kbohip]

Bulldozer FX-8120 benchmarks in Russian.

Da, comrade. May the cpu with best "Metro 2033" score win.

[kbohip]

I wonder if Ryan will have a review on here as early as Midnight tonight?

[Ryan]

Yup. Check back in just a few minutes!

[kbohip]

Ok...calm down kbohip. Going to read now. Take a breath...


Hmmm...., I think I'm more confused than ever after reading that review. Truthfully though, I was hoping for more performance for $245, especially with the 2500k now selling off and on below $200. Sheesh, remember when AMD offered the best price/performance and Intel was a distant 2nd in that regard?

[kbohip]

Oh Hell no! In games like Far Cry 2 and Crysis 2 the 8150 either gets beaten, or ties with the ancient Phenom X4 980 BE!?!?! Compared to the 2600k, it's just a disaster.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx...ssor-review/19

More great news:

In comparison to Intel’s processors, the AMD FX-8150 performed right about on par with the quad-core Core i5-2500K. The Core i5-2500K was faster than the FX in our encoding tests, some of the game tests, and in most of the PCMark Vantage tests. Whereas the FX took the lead in PCMark7’s Entertainment benchmark, a couple of game tests, and in Cinebench. Versus higher-end Intel processors like the Core i7-2600K or i7-970, however, the FX generally couldn’t compete. It should also be noted that the FX-8150 consumed considerably more power than Intel’s current Sandy Bridge-based processors. At this point it’s clear that Intel maintains not only a performance lead, but a significant advantage in power efficiency as well.

http://hothardware.com/Reviews/AMD-F...anded/?page=11

So from what I can gather so far from a few reviews, the reviewers are about as confused as I am, but the gist of it is AMD took WAY too long to introduce a new cpu that's about the same as Intel's 10 month old 2500k, costs at least $50 more, all the while presumably running hotter and consuming more power than Sandy Bridge. I hope none of you here own any AMD stock!

Another edit as I read more reviews. Tom's Hardware has quite a few games benchmarks up. It's really sad there too.



The FX-8150 sure is making the X4 980 BE look like a bargain though isn't it?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...x,3043-19.html

Another review finds an issue with the Steam version of Shogun 2 and the FX-8150 caused the system to crash when it tried to load the level.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpu...-8150-review/9


Oh and last but not least. Overclocking this thing? Yeah, you're gonna need a bigger psu! According to Bit-tech, full load total power consumption on a 2500k running at 5ghz is 311 watts. Sounds like a lot until you see the 8150 at 586 watts!

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpu...8150-review/10