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

Prolab

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
508
Location
Brampton
Agreed. The reviewer didn't seem to care about power consumption much I noticed.

Even then, the power consumption using the ASRock board + 6950 is 367 watts.

AMD FX-8150 Black Edition 8-Core Processor vs Core i7-2600K Review - Power / Temps / Overclocking

HWC power consumption with the CH5 + EVGA GeForce 460 is 447 watts.

What im curious to know is, what is the HWC power consumption just for the CPU. Hardwareheaven listed theirs as 239 watts (assuming that's right).
 

techman95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2011
Messages
319
Location
TEXAS
Not sure if this has been posted (or even if I am allowed) but has anybody seen this review were bulldozer seems to best a 2600k in gaming?

NCIX FORUMS - New Review Shows FX-8150 beating i7 260...
AMD FX-8150 Black Edition 8-Core Processor vs Core i7-2600K Review - Introduction

wow this is much better!!! could it really be that much different between boards? and why would AMD send out a flawed test board to every one? but that aside this seems much more respectable than all the reviews of other sites. we need more reviews on different boards and maybe when new bios are released in a few weeks or so.
 

Silvgearx

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 12, 2008
Messages
2,063
Location
Toronto
Even then, the power consumption using the ASRock board + 6950 is 367 watts.

AMD FX-8150 Black Edition 8-Core Processor vs Core i7-2600K Review - Power / Temps / Overclocking

HWC power consumption with the CH5 + EVGA GeForce 460 is 447 watts.

What im curious to know is, what is the HWC power consumption just for the CPU. Hardwareheaven listed theirs as 239 watts (assuming that's right).

It is there, 210w by cpu. <-- that is if you run stock. But who runs stock. :ph34r:


 

JJThomp

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
1,392
Location
Ontario
Those gaming reviews appear to be specially chosen, they use engines to make AMD look better, if you notice on the HWC review it wins in a couple games. Also I want to see northbridge OC review lol
 

frontier204

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
1,352
Location
ON, Canada
AMD FX-8150 Black Edition 8-Core Processor vs Core i7-2600K Review - Introduction

wow this is much better!!! could it really be that much different between boards? and why would AMD send out a flawed test board to every one? but that aside this seems much more respectable than all the reviews of other sites. we need more reviews on different boards and maybe when new bios are released in a few weeks or so.
From the review you linked in test setup:
Corsair H100 Cooler (Noctua Paste)
It looks like Bulldozer is like the nVidia GTX 465 - on [EDIT: stock] cooling it has frightening power consumption, but under more aggressive cooling it just has extremely high power consumption :bleh:
 

lKashl

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 26, 2009
Messages
191
Location
Australia
So it's true: BD is the DNF of processors :sad:
Haha I laughed so hard when I saw that... whilst crying over BD's performance at the same time.
Seriously AMD? Such an overhyped processor, sure for the price its a competitive offering against SB but SB is pretty much redundant performance in Intel's eyes already, not to mention that the FX processors were intended as a means to dominate the highest performance tier.

In the end though if you factor that the bios on the boards are yet to hit maturity, that most of the benchmarks dont fully support 8 cores and that AMD apparently haven't finished patching the OS kernels, there might still be hope of it beating the 2600k, but thats still not nearly enough at this time with Ivy Bridge on the horizon, hopefully Enhanced Bulldozer can take it out :S
 

bradleyg5

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2011
Messages
83
F1 2010 / F1 2011 uses the EXACT same engine as Dirt 3. Same multicore scaling as well.

Shogun 2 is VERY GPU bound unless you are playing at lower detail levels. Plus, there is no AI being used in Shogun 2's built in test.

I could go on and on but I really don't see an issue with the games picked. Do you HONESTLY think that Bulldozer would look that much better in newer GPU-bound games?
You say GPU bound but if you have GTX 580 or any sli combination equal or upwards it's going to be the CPU that makes the difference. You could have two GTX 580s but if you run a FX-8150 your not going to get 60FPS in GTA IV ARMA II or Shogun 2 maxed.

I don't think it would make the AMD look better I think it would show it to be as bad as it really is. I've been running a phenom II and two GTX 460s and the 460s almost always outrun the Phenom II. I dunno I just want to see the games where the CPU actually makes a difference, but I guess maybe that's too high up the enthusiast ladder to be of consequence to average readers, since to see that difference you need to have a lot of graphics power.

I guess I just don't fully understand why reviewers have started running CPU tests on such high graphics settings with such weak graphics card. I get it's a comparison of if the game can be run on that CPU but not necessarily a comparison of what CPU runs the game engine better and by how much. I mean what if I want to run 3d vision, I need to know which CPU can actually handle the graphics power I'm going to put into a system like that. I mean can a FX-8150 run dirt 3 or bad company 2(and by connection BF3) at 120FPS?

I really do like the review, I just leave it still unsure of if bulldozer can compete with a i5 2500k in modern multi threaded games like BF3 will be. I can infer it would run Shogun 2 and GTA IV and ARMA II down right awfully and potentially worse than phenom.
 

Latest posts

Twitter

Top