AMD FX-8150 Black Edition Processor Launch Review @ HH

Discussion in 'Reviews & Articles Discussion' started by craig5320, Oct 12, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. caqde

    caqde Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    507
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    28
    No you wouldn't damage your memory far from it. On another note we should be able to get some preliminary results about what piledriver will be like early next year from the benchmarks of AMD's Trinity. Hopefully with them being almost done with Trinity. Piledriver should hopefully not have many delays or any for that matter. But regardless with what you are upgrading from even bulldozer has better IPC than the original Athlon from what I can tell.

    Guess we will find out in about ~5-7months with Trinity at least as far as IPC is concerned. Hopefully Trinity fixes the Cache issues that seemed to be prevalent in Bulldozer. Otherwise I think Bulldozer is a fine piece of Architecture that is just not completely refined yet.
     
  2. Super XP

    Super XP Aggressive Hi Def

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2011
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I find this to be one of the better reviews for AMD's FX 8150. Good Job.

    Personally AMD's got balls of iron for releasing a CPU design built from the ground up, that is meant for somewhat future multi-threaded apps. They took a huge chance, though I do believe Bulldozer runs more like a Server/Workstation CPU, hence the slow scores in Single Threaded apps.

    Anyhow, I agree with a 9/10 rating, just for Pure Innovation. I mean, just look at the thing, it's nothing we've seen before, and with a little tweaking and the proper software support, Bulldozer could eventually Bulldoze its way to the top.
     
  3. Super XP

    Super XP Aggressive Hi Def

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2011
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Now to get into a little more detail:

    I have to admit, I am happy that AMD finally released Bulldozer. AMD's Bulldozer needs newer software to really show off it's SPEED. At this point in time NO it does not Bulldoze the competition nor it's little brother the Phenom II x6 as much as many would have wanted. People need to realize for AMD to build something brand new from the ground up and release it as they did, I have to say they got Balls of Iron for pushing INNOVATION to the max.


    I am very impressed with Bulldozer, but I am also disapointed with it, because it was not what I personally expected. But like always AMD tried to put too much into the CPU, so now they will have to tweak the crap out of it, and hopefully with a newer B3 /B4 stepping (Q1 2012), they will get it up and running much better.


    AMD made a minor mistake and can easily fix it for better single threaded performance, let me explain, Bulldozer was designed for massive Multi-Threaded Apps to really show off it's power. Bulldozer also performs MUCH MUCH better in a Server/Work Station Environment. What happend to us consumers?


    That said, issues I find with the current Bulldozer Design and something AMD should resolve when AMD FX2 gets released (Piledriver via AM3+) is as follows:
    1) Threading Issue
    2) Power Draw When OC'ed
    3) Instruction Scheduling Errors Due to the OS
    4) Cache Trashing Issue
    5) Speed Up The L2 & L3 Cache Response Times
    6) Further Enhance the Brand Prediction
    7) Better Utilize the Cores for Better Single Threaded Performance
    8) Fix the Pipeline Flushing Issue
    9) Increase Cache Latency for Higher Yields
    10) Decode Unit not being Wide Enough
    And so on....................

    Once again, Thank you very much AMD for True Innovation and having Balls of Iron for the Bulldozer Release, now fix it for the upcoming Piledriver....
     
  4. blibbax

    blibbax nahm8

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2008
    Messages:
    6,210
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    73
    It's almost as if you might as well have written

    1) Make a better CPU

    :p
     
  5. qwertyhgfdsa

    qwertyhgfdsa New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2011
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Another 1st poster here (and last), good job on your review, you did managed to get some nice traffic on your site with it, so mission complete!

    As for the review it self, worthy of the gold in the special olympics. Gratz & bb


    p.s. i feel sorry for the potential people that might buy a bulldozer because of this ... review
     
  6. Trusteft

    Trusteft HH's Asteroids' Dominator

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2004
    Messages:
    22,315
    Likes Received:
    2,479
    Trophy Points:
    153
    The world is going to blow up now?

    Yes, good thing this review exists for traffic or else this site will never reach 10 members...Oh, wait...


    I bet you wish you had 1/100th of the skills to get into the special olympics.



    First of all, I am pretty sure the site is directed to people only and not any wannabe people or potential people as you say.

    (Do you hear me monkeys? Get out!)

    Between me and you and the interweb, anyone who buys a bulldozer after reading this review, is way too clever for the likes of you to even mention them. Because they have at least managed to read the review and not just a score, and are able to understand it. But, I guess when it was raining brains, you were holding an umbrella.

    Take care.
     
    Tyrsonswood likes this.
  7. Stuart_Davidson

    Stuart_Davidson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    5,843
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    73
  8. SW1

    SW1 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2011
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Having read this review I decided to start an account on HH to share my thoughts (no doubt everyone wants to hear them ;))

    I generally find Hardware Heaven very good and have been a reader for several years, but I just don't see how they came to this conclusion. I have read reviews on many different sites (Bit Tech, Tom's Hardware, Tech Radar, Expert Reviews) and none of them found AMD's newest CPU to be much good, with BT and TH even finding it to be slower than the aged i7-920 in some games, and consistently slower than the considerably less expensive i5 2500k. Even in the more multi-threaded benchmarks the FX-8150 barely picked up a lead over the i5 2500k.

    I just don't see how this can be given 9/10 and a 'Recommended' award when it offers such mediocre performance per core for the price. I'm not an Intel fan boy, in fact I am currently writing this review on my main desktop PC which uses an AMD X6 1090t. Yet the FX-8150 is on the whole a disappointment; it often fails to usurp the cheaper (and older) i5 2500k and has arrived too close to IvyBridge to make it worth considering.

    I don't want to suggest for a moment that HH are biased, but I don't see how they reached such a positive conclusion. Sorry.
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2011
  9. Stuart_Davidson

    Stuart_Davidson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    5,843
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    73
    Then i shall sum it up very simply for you... it has a positive conclusion because it is not actually a bad CPU.
     
  10. adolf512

    adolf512 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2011
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    i would like to see how bulldozer and sandy bridge performs while using 2 6950 in crossfire X, i know it might be stuff like mikro stuttering/fps drop but the graphic card wont influence the performance less then i guess.

    i agree that the performance while playing at 800*600 doesn't mean anything.

    i have read speculations that the motherboards might affect the performance since the results is much worse on other sites, but i am not to sure about that.
     
  11. Judas

    Judas Obvious Closet Brony Pony

    Joined:
    May 13, 2002
    Messages:
    38,883
    Likes Received:
    1,097
    Trophy Points:
    138
    the processor isn't a bad one..... it's price ... value.... performance.. which i think the performance is a matter of great discussion considering that it looks like there is room for improvement depending on the softwares ability to make better use of it... 8 cores.... hell we have 6 core cpu's that still aren't fully used...
     
  12. caqde

    caqde Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    507
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Very true performance should go up over time especially as newer programs are developed using newer compilers along with newer versions of current applications getting optimizations and being compiled on newer compilers. The next few years will really show this too as Microsoft is going to be releasing Visual Studio 11 (internally vNext) around the time Windows 8 is released. A big focus in VS11 is using letting programmers use multi-core processors and GPGPU's in a streamlined fashion. Another recent change is the release of the new C++ specification aimed at streamlining multi-core programming using C++ and its STL libraries.

    Basically coding for processors like Bulldozer is becoming easier for programmers and the tools to do so are going to become more accessible in the next few years.
     
  13. Super XP

    Super XP Aggressive Hi Def

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2011
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Please note for some reason the Intel i7 2600k is Clocked 500MHz faster than the AMD FX-8150. Sort of leaves you wondering why? Because Bulldozer does quite well In My Opinion in the BenchMarks yet with a slower clock.

    It seems Bulldozer scales well with lot's of DDR3 memory and within CrossfireX and/or SLI...

    AMD FX-8150 vs. Intel i7-2600k CrossFireX HD 6970 x3 Head-to-Head
    LINK:
    AMD FX-8150 vs. Intel i7-2600k CrossFireX HD 6970 x3 Head-to-Head - Unigine Heaven Benchmark :: TweakTown USA Edition

    In My Opinion, and looking at these results, if you plan on going Tri-CrossfireX, then Bulldozer is the CPU to get. :taste:
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2011
  14. Trusteft

    Trusteft HH's Asteroids' Dominator

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2004
    Messages:
    22,315
    Likes Received:
    2,479
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Anyone else having a deja vu feeling? 2 cores vs single core CPU?
     
  15. blibbax

    blibbax nahm8

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2008
    Messages:
    6,210
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    73
    They clocked the i7 500MHZ faster because that was their maximum overclock. Basically, they wanted to demonstrate what performance an end-user could expect. Furthermore, in some of the games that you list as being clock for clock AMD victories, the i7 nearly doubles the FX's FPS, so I don't agree with your conclusion.

    If you plan on going tri-crossfire, avoid Bulldozer like the plague. Bulldozer is faster in games when there is a graphics bottleneck, due to a small platform advantage. When you add all those cards you shift to a CPU bottleneck much of the time, and as numerous reviews have demonstrated, where a CPU bottleneck is present the i7 wins by huge margins, even at lower clock speeds.

    BlueMak: It's not quite like the dual core vs. single core. Early dual cores were close to the single threaded performance of single cores at the time, and had miles better multi-threaded performance. The FX does not really come close to the single threaded performance of an i5 either at performance per price, performance per watt, performance per transistor or outright performance. In multi-threaded performance it's advantage over an i5 is rarely substantial and often non-existent. Even those benchmarks that favour the FX most - those that you might take to be representative of future programs - do not show it beating competing Intel products by a substantial margin, especially when efficiency is taken into account.
     
  16. Trusteft

    Trusteft HH's Asteroids' Dominator

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2004
    Messages:
    22,315
    Likes Received:
    2,479
    Trophy Points:
    153
    I remember quite well how the single core CPUs blasted the double core out of the water with performance. So it was not close to them. When software that was using them appeared, only then they became a must have. I still remember the advices everyone was giving, stay with single core for gaming for now, no need to get a slower dual core cpu.

    I am not saying they are the same case, but it does remind me of that time. All I know is if I could buy a new PC now and had to choose between cores, I would not see the performance of this CPU vs others as a problem.
     
  17. Takaharu

    Takaharu Unus offa, unus iuguolo

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    3,343
    Likes Received:
    338
    Trophy Points:
    108
    Blah blah blah
    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]
    Blah [​IMG][​IMG]
    Blah blah [​IMG]

    I think I've made my point.
     
  18. Super XP

    Super XP Aggressive Hi Def

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2011
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Fair conclusion, but when you are benchmarking hardware, CPU's along with Graphics should be CLOCKED the same for comparison purposes. FX 8150 may have not fully won all those benchmarks which I've posted, but they would have been dam closer with 500MHz bump in clock or equal clock for both AMD & Intel.

    Check this out. Something is obviously wrong with this combo. We've already determined Bulldozer requires tweaking as I've posted in an earlier post.
    Check out this :confused:
    Asus Crosshair V formula board may have hampered Bulldozer
    Asus Crosshair V formula board may have hampered Bulldozer - Overclock.net - Overclocking.net
     
  19. Super XP

    Super XP Aggressive Hi Def

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2011
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Here is a QUOTE from another site.
    Something is going on with the Motherboards and the Bulldozer CPU.
    This quote seem to make a load of sense. Also no reason to buy a PII when Bulldozer is out.
    Let things get ironed out with the AM3+ motherboards along with Bulldozer, then we will see a clearer picture. So far Bulldozer is a better buy than PII hands down.
     
  20. Casecutter

    Casecutter New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: Cash outlay to Gaming Performance nothing Else!

    I was very interested in results and consider the approximately $115 difference in CPU/mobo the Intel platform was provide... said a bunch.

    Here's what I'd like to see the same set-up both OC'd the best each can be rung out. I'd like the Intel system to get GTX 560ti, while the FX due to saving the $115... have that cost get a 6970 and I still have ~$50 in my pocket. Then run a bunch of gaming B-M at 2560x and see which provides the better gaming experience and with what levels of detail can be achieve.

    Cause what matters is the level of gaming you achieve for the money spent! I have a feeling the FX OC'd and getting the added value of 6970 trumps the Intel system. Heck I'll let the Intel keep that water cooler and I'll work with a XIGMATEK Aegir SD128264 and pocket another $50 and probably not cut my OC'n ability any. And with the extra $100 I'll bump to 16Gb of 1866Mhz Thank you!

    All those synthetics don't mean diddly....
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

visited