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

wepexpert117

New member
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
1
Comparison

I dunno if anyone noticed, but if u study the architectures carefully, then what AMD calls as a 'module' is comparable to a 'core' of Intels. Intels Hyperthreading allows two logical thread executions per core. But AMD's TruCore theory, only allows one thread per core. The Intel i5-2500K has 4 physical cores and 8 logical threads. Compared to that the most powerful of the AMD, the FX-8170, contains 4 modules which can execute 8 threads, with 2 cores per module, each core executing 1 thread. On the other hand the i7-2600K contains 6 physical cores and 12 logical threads. Hence by no chance, can the FX-8150, can match the capability of the 2600K, as the latter as 2 more cores to add to the power. As for the results of the benchmarking, it also agrees with the fact that the FX-8150 is comparable albeit a little less powerful than the i5-2500K, because of the architecture difference between Intels core and AMD's Bulldozer.If AMD ever brings out (according to them) a 12 core FX processor (Prob. FX-12XXX), then it would be really interesting to see how that matches with the i7-2600K. Altough the shared L2 cache architecture, is what may be detrimental to the performance of these processors. But frankly I am overall disappointed with the performance. I made a AMD rig this October with a 990FX board for upgradation to teh bulldozer. Now I think I'll hold onto my Phenom II x6 until, Piledriver shows some radical improvements, that is even if AMD bring out Piledriver to the AM3+ socket. :sad::sad::sad:
 

great_big_abyss

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 3, 2011
Messages
2,274
Location
Winnipeg
I dunno if anyone noticed, but if u study the architectures carefully, then what AMD calls as a 'module' is comparable to a 'core' of Intels. Intels Hyperthreading allows two logical thread executions per core. But AMD's TruCore theory, only allows one thread per core. The Intel i5-2500K has 4 physical cores and 8 logical threads. Compared to that the most powerful of the AMD, the FX-8170, contains 4 modules which can execute 8 threads, with 2 cores per module, each core executing 1 thread. On the other hand the i7-2600K contains 6 physical cores and 12 logical threads. Hence by no chance, can the FX-8150, can match the capability of the 2600K, as the latter as 2 more cores to add to the power. As for the results of the benchmarking, it also agrees with the fact that the FX-8150 is comparable albeit a little less powerful than the i5-2500K, because of the architecture difference between Intels core and AMD's Bulldozer.If AMD ever brings out (according to them) a 12 core FX processor (Prob. FX-12XXX), then it would be really interesting to see how that matches with the i7-2600K. Altough the shared L2 cache architecture, is what may be detrimental to the performance of these processors. But frankly I am overall disappointed with the performance. I made a AMD rig this October with a 990FX board for upgradation to teh bulldozer. Now I think I'll hold onto my Phenom II x6 until, Piledriver shows some radical improvements, that is even if AMD bring out Piledriver to the AM3+ socket. :sad::sad::sad:
Ya, the 2600/2700s are quad cores with hyperthreading.

Anyways, I don't think it's a question of raw power. I think the biggest disappointment about Bulldozer was the fact that performance wasn't as good as the new Intel chips, but the power consumption was exceedingly high. If the chips consumed a lot less power and were therefore more efficient, I don't think they would be considered such a fail.
 

Galcobar

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 18, 2009
Messages
430
Location
Richmond, B.C.
i7 2600/k are 4 core 8 threads via HT, i72500/k are 4 core 4 thread no HT.:thumb:
i7-2600K has Hyperthreading, i5-2500K does not.

The short form is that for the desktop second generation Core processors, i3 is two cores with HT (four threads), i5 is four cores with Turbo Boost (four threads + Turbo), i7 is four cores with Turbo and HT (eight threads + Turbo).

Only problem is that Intel doesn't follow any sort of strict rule in regards to what feature differentiates between i3 and i5 and i7, just that there will be a feature difference. As a result, you can have a processor be i5, but have Turbo and HT, as long as it only has two cores. There's only one such second generation desktop i5, and it's a low-temp (T) variant.

And then you get into laptops, where the i3 is two core/four thread, the i5 are two core/four thread with Turbo, and the i7 can be two core/four thread with Turbo or four core/eight thread with Turbo and may or may not have integrated graphics.

Though I've also noticed that Intel's own charts aren't always the most accurate when it comes to processor features. The summary currently lists the i7-2700K as having no IGP, for instance, though the individual processor page is correct.
 

terrybear

Banned
Joined
Jan 18, 2008
Messages
516
Location
midland, ontario
Ya, the 2600/2700s are quad cores with hyperthreading.

Anyways, I don't think it's a question of raw power. I think the biggest disappointment about Bulldozer was the fact that performance wasn't as good as the new Intel chips, but the power consumption was exceedingly high. If the chips consumed a lot less power and were therefore more efficient, I don't think they would be considered such a fail.
Well, the inherant problem is peaple dont think about the 8120's in the 125 & 95w range so they just string them ALL up as burning power period ... BUT if ya go look at windwithme's posting of the 95w 8120 http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/cpus-motherboards/49340-amd-s-newest-bulldozer-architecture-fx-8120-8cores-performance-oc-5g.html ... stock settings the standby/idle's 74 watts & load/full speed 157 on LinX. Thats with a biostar 990fx board & a 560.
 

great_big_abyss

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 3, 2011
Messages
2,274
Location
Winnipeg
On a slightly different note, a friend of mine ordered an 8150 for his server. Rather, he PRE-ordered it before they went on sale. Initially they promised that he would get it mid-november, but at this point he still hasn't seen hide nor hair of it. Something seems to be broken in their distribution lines.
 

geokilla

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2008
Messages
3,754
Location
Toronto
On a slightly different note, a friend of mine ordered an 8150 for his server. Rather, he PRE-ordered it before they went on sale. Initially they promised that he would get it mid-november, but at this point he still hasn't seen hide nor hair of it. Something seems to be broken in their distribution lines.
Where'd he buy it from? Time to cancel order?
 

great_big_abyss

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 3, 2011
Messages
2,274
Location
Winnipeg
He's a reseller, so he ordered it directly from one of his distributors. It seems like all the initial 8150's were sold to large companies, and all the little guys were left out in the cold.

Edit#1: I cancelled my order a month ago. It would have been okay if I had received it, but the longer I waited, the longer i started to wonder if it was really worth it. Turns out I'm glad I cancelled. I'll wait and see what Piledriver is like, and if it's compatible with AM3+

Edit#2: If Piledriver isn't as good as I want it to be, I suppose it will be time to ditch AMD (who I have supported since I built my first computer 10 years ago) and move over to Intel. I'll wait until my current CPU can't handle the latest games then make the move.
 

Soultribunal

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
8,282
Location
Mississauga
He's a reseller, so he ordered it directly from one of his distributors. It seems like all the initial 8150's were sold to large companies, and all the little guys were left out in the cold.

Edit#1: I cancelled my order a month ago. It would have been okay if I had received it, but the longer I waited, the longer i started to wonder if it was really worth it. Turns out I'm glad I cancelled. I'll wait and see what Piledriver is like, and if it's compatible with AM3+

Edit#2: If Piledriver isn't as good as I want it to be, I suppose it will be time to ditch AMD (who I have supported since I built my first computer 10 years ago) and move over to Intel. I'll wait until my current CPU can't handle the latest games then make the move.
My cousin and I both have supported AMD for the longest time and had systems prepped to take the new AMD chips.
But when our Thubans are doing just as good for the most part or a few points lower Clock for clock whats the point right? I'm with you on teh support side though. I remember my thunderbird very well.
Its a shame really, hopefully sometime in the future they will have good direction again as well as performance.

ST
 

Latest posts

Twitter

Top