What's new
  • Please do not post any links until you have 3 posts as they will automatically be rejected to prevent SPAM. Many words are also blocked due to being used in SPAM Messages. Thanks!

AMD Bulldozer FX-8150 Processor Review Comment Thread


Well-known member
Apr 22, 2011
on newegg.ca it just surfaced at 280$. 10% cheaper than 2600k. i think we are some distance away from that promised 245$. and the 8120 is 230$


Well-known member
Jan 28, 2008
Markham, Ontario
As far as concrete numbers go for folders, this alone is a big reason to stay away from Bulldozer. Folders will often run both the cpu and gpu at the same time at 100%. If Bulldozer came in the same as a 2600K in folding numbers, but more efficiently then i could have been happy. But I don't see that happening, even when official PPD numbers start to roll in.

The only hope I see for folders here is if the gromacs folks can optimize for the new SSE instructions. But those guys can take quite a while to get these optimizations done due to the needed reliability of submitted results. Maybe these Bulldozer chips will do well in the multi-processor boards.

Even then, with these power numbers....

I've completely stopped GPU folding. With Donkey McDinkey's new power plan, I figure I might as well save money now by eliminating the extra power consumption right now.

Realistically though, a used I7 970 or one of those E5645 server chips would be far better investment than bulldozer.

And who wouldn't want better performance in 198% of tasks? :bleh:

Seriously, though - Bulldozer's failure to keep up in single- or lightly-threaded applications really oughtn't come as much of a surprise to anybody. It's failure to keep up in multi-threaded applications, though, is an absolutely shocking finding that undercuts the whole raison d'être of Bulldozer. here are my takeaways:

It's a poor chip for ordinary users; It's a poor chip for gamers; It's a poor chip for crunchers; and, from the indicators that hint at SMP performance (wPrime and Cinebench), It's a poor chip for servers. In sum, Bulldozer has failed to appeal to ANY market at all, not even AMD's traditional stronghold in the budget category. AMD has pulled some fail over the years, but this has got to be the most epic of them all! :sad:

I guess I'm not that disappointed that I recently lost patience and invested in an I7 2600k running at 4.7Ghz.

I guess just like Phenom II was an improvement over original Phenom, we can now look at PileDriver as being the next step for folders.

Really this was not a surprise to me. Whenever AMD has "delays" it seems like something is "wrong".

Blah. I guess my next server chips will be Opterons lol.


Well-known member
Aug 20, 2010
Vancouver, BC
Guess I was waiting for nothing. I shudder at the thought of ever folding with this. Hell, they should name it PussyCat. Expected a roar, got a tiny meow instead. What an utter travesty. :doh:


Well-known member
Feb 26, 2010
Guess I was waiting for nothing. I shudder at the thought of ever folding with this. Hell, they should name it PussyCat. Expected a roar, got a tiny meow instead. What an utter travesty. :doh:

To be honest, the way they tried to make improvements on the architecture seemed like a "Bulldozer" approach to me. (moar coars, moar cache! moar clock, more powa!)


Staff member
Dec 8, 2008
Probably not that much to be honest.

The cooler a processor is the less power it consumes, so supposedly super-cooled processors are extremely energy efficient.

Someone else can surely elaborate on the physics behind it.

The higher the temp the more resistance to the Voltage you are pumping into the chip. Keep it cool and its much more efficent from set voltage to actual voltage that the CPU receives.

Not that it matters here, this CPU just has no excuse.
I tried to support your GPU's and your drivers let me down.
I tried to support your CPU's and your architecture let me down.

What is left?


Latest posts