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

chrisk

Folding Captain
Joined
Jul 12, 2008
Messages
7,540
Location
GTA, Ontario
Hell yeah if you are a hard-core AMD fan or fanboy then by all means buy this chip. Still will run anything out there, and who are us to tell folks how to spend their money. It won't be my money any time soon, but if the AMD fans can send some cash to the company to keep her going strong then that si good for the rest of us.
 

Killswitch

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
829
Location
Sault Ste Marie, Ontario
Hell yeah if you are a hard-core AMD fan or fanboy then by all means buy this chip. Still will run anything out there, and who are us to tell folks how to spend their money. It won't be my money any time soon, but if the AMD fans can send some cash to the company to keep her going strong then that si good for the rest of us.
Absolutely. If I had an AM3+ mobo and a quad core cpu I'd go for an FX-8150. Sadly there's no point otherwise.

EDIT: I think AMD shot themselves in the foot with this architecture. Two partial cpu cores that share resources to make one "module" does NOT equal two cores..... so IMO the FX-8150 isn't an 8 core processor. I'm not sure what it actually is.

To me it's a quad core with some extra crap tossed in there an attempt and imitate an i7's Hyper-Threading at the hardware level.
 
Last edited:

techman95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2011
Messages
319
Location
TEXAS
Absolutely. If I had an AM3+ mobo and a quad core cpu I'd go for an FX-8150. Sadly there's no point otherwise.
just ganna wait till either i kill my 1090T or the prices come down alot or either the revamp (8170) actually pulls some thing from this in a positive sense, but who knows there are hardcore fanboys out there that are already selling the 8150 out (bless their hearts)
 

terrybear

Banned
Joined
Jan 18, 2008
Messages
516
Location
midland, ontario
EDIT: I think AMD shot themselves in the foot with this architecture. Two partial cpu cores that share resources to make one "module" does NOT equal two cores..... so IMO the FX-8150 isn't an 8 core processor. I'm not sure what it actually is.

To me it's a quad core with some extra crap tossed in there an attempt and imitate an i7's Hyper-Threading at the hardware level.
Nooooo hyperthreading by intel is the extra crap they have thrown out to & intels isn't even realy a hardware its only a extra data executable!!

Let me put it to some folks in a automotive aspect to those whom understand engines ....

Intels aproach is like having single overhead cam's over a piston but has 2 fuel injectors ... adds more fuel, but due to 1 valve can not get the efficency out of the extra injector & is less powerful & efficient.

AMD's Buldozer is like having the dual overhead cam's over the piston which the 2 valves opening & closing provide more effecency & power to the engine cause of it.

Let me also remind folks of what back in the day Intel them themselves tried to do ala what amd has done with Buldozer ..... Hello Pentium D ..... And how where those chips ..... if i remember correctly the same as what peaple are slingin bout the bulldozers .... Only diffrence between now & then is I think AMD's design is better then intels attempt back in the day ...

Also lets further understand that aspect of things from amd's side right now ... say they can put up to 6 core's in a die w/ graphics or 8 w/o ..... making a reference to my earlier example ... a 6 modualed die would be a 12 headed/core & of course a 8 would be 16 headed/core's.

IF yields can come up, clocks go up, cores increase while power consumption goes down .... then amd's gamble may not pay off now ... but in the future it will.
 

Killswitch

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
829
Location
Sault Ste Marie, Ontario
Nooooo hyperthreading by intel is the extra crap they have thrown out to & intels isn't even realy a hardware its only a extra data executable!!

Let me put it to some folks in a automotive aspect to those whom understand engines ....

Intels aproach is like having single overhead cam's over a piston but has 2 fuel injectors ... adds more fuel, but due to 1 valve can not get the efficency out of the extra injector & is less powerful & efficient.

AMD's Buldozer is like having the dual overhead cam's over the piston which the 2 valves opening & closing provide more effecency & power to the engine cause of it.
That's what I said. AMD is doing trying to do hyper-threading at the hardware level.

It's not and NEVER will be more efficient either. Why? More hardware in the CPU that needs power to operate. Intel beat AMD to the better idea/tech and they can't copy it, only imitate or try to come up with a better idea.
 

EmptyMellon

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
522
Had BD Zambezi been a true SNB killer, people would been falling head over heal to get their hands on one and all the e-tailors would be be charging even more then now (cashing in on the craze). Instead the bandwagon has rolled off the other side of the hilll and the enthusiast community was caught standing with their mouths and eyes wide open stairing at marketing train wreck that the general public is completely clueless about. And like Intel of the past, AMD is simply going on with business instead of making a big deal out of it like some (non-HWC) tech forum members that call for AMD to close up shop and the like (blaming JF-AMD). If AMD will truelly be able to refine the process even a bit by the time FX-8170 will hit then great, if not there is always the Piledriver architecture or Intel's SNB-E.
 

Killswitch

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
829
Location
Sault Ste Marie, Ontario
More isn't always better

Classic example - Remember the Radeon 2900XT? It had MONSTER specs compared to the 8800GTX... 512 bit bus etc.... but yet the 2900XT wasn't all that great.
 

EmptyMellon

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
522
More isn't always better

Classic example - Remember the Radeon 2900XT? It had MONSTER specs compared to the 8800GTX... 512 bit bus etc.... but yet the 2900XT wasn't all that great.
Hence it would be an interesting excise to see how would a die-shrink of the Thuban affect the performance/power agains the present 45nm design - yet AMD is looking to phase it out ASAP, while Intel is still selling their Pentiums, go figure.
 

Killswitch

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
829
Location
Sault Ste Marie, Ontario
Hence it would be an interesting excise to see how would a die-shrink of the Thuban affect the performance/power agains the present 45nm design - yet AMD is looking to phase it out ASAP, while Intel is still selling their Pentiums, go figure.
It may be wise for AMD to keep Phenom II's in production for a bit longer yet seeing how the 6 cores of the Thuban is so close in performance to "8 cores" in Bulldozer.

I agree. Perhaps a die shrink and even some tweaking for a "Phenom III" might have been the way to go. The X6 was closing in on Intel's top dogs compared to X4's. The Phenom II does contain some decent architecture, and true CPU cores.... not one core with part of another one mash into it. Sorry, the module idea has me pissed. Either way, AMD probably just didn't want to see the last few years of R&D go down the crapper. They likely felt obligated to release BD.

Makes me wonder how a 32nm Phenom II X8 would fare. :whistle:
 

Latest posts

Twitter

Top