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

bradleyg5

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2011
Messages
83
Can i ask what the reasoning behind the games you picked? Why not test F1 2010/11 or Bad Company 2? those games are known to scale well with additional threads. Or how about Shogun 2 or Arma or GTA IV, games that are known to be some the most heavily CPU dependent games around. I really hate the games you guys choose to test, like left for dead 2 AND team fortress 2? you include two games that run on virtually the same engine? Far Cry 2/ Dirt 3/ Street Fighter 4/ Crysis 2... FOUR console ports? World in conflict and X3 maybe would be good choices if this review was written 5 years ago. So basically the only result that matters is Crysis and Civ 5 which both seem to be GPU bottlenecked near the top.

Drives me up the wall that you spend so much time testing games that don't matter.
 

Bond007

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 24, 2009
Messages
5,199
Location
Nova Scotia
what a flop. I love the ability to upgrade with AMD, but I think they need to start with a clean slate and forget the AMx socket. I wouldn't use this processor for power consumption alone (unless the performance was dramatically higher). Great review as always. Looks like any recommendations I make for the next year+ will be intel unless there is a dramatic pricing change.
 

MARSTG

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
4,351
Location
Montreal
a quick look around at other websites posting reviews about 8150 and no one offers folding numbers. Why is that? Reviewers didn't have enough time to test with the press kit? Toms Hardware offers a sneak peak on Widows 8 but no folding numbers.
 

BlueByte

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2011
Messages
538
Location
Maynooth
I actually ran wPrime 1024M at 4.6GHz in the review, got 241 seconds.

By the way, I updated that section to include the overclocked power consumption numbers, you will be...impressed.
Damn, I did actually sit down and read the whole review...but it was after my bedtime
 

SKYMTL

HardwareCanuck Review Editor
Staff member
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
13,410
Location
Montreal
Can i ask what the reasoning behind the games you picked? Why not test F1 2010/11 or Bad Company 2? those games are known to scale well with additional threads. Or how about Shogun 2 or Arma or GTA IV, games that are known to be some the most heavily CPU dependent games around. I really hate the games you guys choose to test, like left for dead 2 AND team fortress 2? you include two games that run on virtually the same engine? Far Cry 2/ Dirt 3/ Street Fighter 4/ Crysis 2... FOUR console ports? World in conflict and X3 maybe would be good choices if this review was written 5 years ago. So basically the only result that matters is Crysis and Civ 5 which both seem to be GPU bottlenecked near the top.

Drives me up the wall that you spend so much time testing games that don't matter.
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?
 

Arinoth

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
9,278
Location
Halifax
That review makes me feel rather good about my 1366 socket system still seeing as the 920 actually beat the FX-8150 sometimes and it seems uses less power overclocked as well.

Big disappointment to see AMD come up short, as well lack of competition means Intel can drive prices up and lower innovation
 

Yamcha

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 14, 2007
Messages
142
Location
Calgary, AB
What a disappointment.. I'm also glad I went for 2500K, people that have been waiting wont be happy..

I'm not completely surprised because AMD had said earlier the delay was due to bulldozer not being competitive enough.
 

Sagath

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 7, 2009
Messages
4,119
Location
Edmonton, AB
Chris, and other folders;

from another review is the following:

Despite a 9% higher base clock speed (more if you include turbo core), a 3.6GHz 8-core Bulldozer is only able to outperform a 3.3GHz 6-core Phenom II by less than 2%. Heavily threaded floating point workloads may not see huge gains on Bulldozer compared to their 6-core predecessors.

There's another issue. Bulldozer, at least at launch, won't have to simply outperform its quad-core predecessor. It will need to do better than a six-core Phenom II. In this comparison unfortunately, the Phenom II has the definite throughput advantage. The Phenom II X6 can execute 50% more SSE2/3 and x87 FP instructions than a Bulldozer based FX.

Since the release of the Phenom II X6, AMD's major advantage has been in heavily threaded workloads—particularly floating point workloads thanks to the sheer number of resources available per chip. Bulldozer actually takes a step back in this regard and as a result, you will see some of those same workloads perform worse, if not the same as the outgoing Phenom II X6.
Not good. One guy said 13-14k on SMP.....
 

Latest posts

Twitter

Top