Bulldozer is out and it sucks

[Wishmaster]

Wow.
the 2500k is 18FPS avg faster running 3.3ghz vs the FX8150 at 4.8ghz ..

I would suggest to the gamer above to just skip the AMD chips right now and go Intel..for this very reason. It's not like you save much money on the AMD.

I would like to know where he say that FPS report. .

I was refering to this one, from the bit-tech article PaulPicks21 linked.


I too was hoping for more & thought that it may just be some reviews wanting to make AMD look bad.
But I do not think thats the case when all reviews, from all major sites are all saying:

"Skip this one, Its a real turd."

It even struggles against the 1100T x6 in some cases

 

[Beta]

Looks fake to me. They do not even list the AMD cpu at stock speed.

 

[paulpicks21]

Looks fake to me. They do not even list the AMD cpu at stock speed.

It's not fake lol, it's a very reputable site, they also have a monthly magazine out in the uk and a big forum online.

The UK's leading source for Hardware and Games reviews | bit-tech.net

 

[Wishmaster]

Looks fake to me. They do not even list the AMD cpu at stock speed.

From the looks of things, i dont think it stands a fighting chance at default speeds. Sadly.

 

[paulpicks21]

Am I missing something here? Is the stock speed of the 8150 not 3.6ghz?

And if it is then it is listed in the picture 2nd from bottom.

 

[Wishmaster]

Am I missing something here? Is the stock speed of the 8150 not 3.6ghz?

And if it is then it is listed in the picture 2nd from bottom.

No you're not.
Apparently I did though

 

[Phone Man]

Here is a price comparison from Newegg. I am building a new rig so the wife can have my old one. I am sticking with AMD with an ASUS AM3+ MB and may just go with the PII X6 1100T with discount price of $175. I then can see what will happen down the road so I am leaving my upgrade options open for the next couple years. Was really hoping Bulldozer was better then it is, but the thermals are way out of whack. I guess that is why AMD is offering a water cooler ($100).



Jim

 

[Beta]

Am I missing something here? Is the stock speed of the 8150 not 3.6ghz?

And if it is then it is listed in the picture 2nd from bottom.

No you're not.
Apparently I did though

That what I said. They do not even list the stock speed of the CPU in the Benchmark. Thats why I said it looked fake.

 

[Beta]

Am I missing something here? Is the stock speed of the 8150 not 3.6ghz?

And if it is then it is listed in the picture 2nd from bottom.

No you're not.
Apparently I did though

Here is a price comparison from Newegg. I am building a new rig so the wife can have my old one. I am sticking with AMD with an ASUS AM3+ MB and may just go with the PII X6 1100T with discount price of $175. I then can see what will happen down the road so I am leaving my upgrade options open for the next couple years. Was really hoping Bulldozer was better then it is, but the thermals are way out of whack. I guess that is why AMD is offering a water cooler ($100).

http://flyingsuicide.net/news/intel...water-cooling-some-performance-figures-shown/
View attachment 178910

Jim

Don't over think the water cooler. Intel is doing the same thing with the Sandy Bridge-E. From what Intel has said that the new highend chip will not ship with a fan cooler but a water cooler. A new way to make money off of people and OEM's alike.

 

[Beta]

Look at this review. A review that I can trust.

AMD FX 8150 Black Edition 8-Core Review (with Gigabyte 990FXA-UD7) | KitGuru

 

[midnitemaximum]

To make matters worse for AMD, Intel's latest Sandy Bridge-E processors are coming out next month; as well as their Ivy Bridge platform in early 2012, which will crush AMD even more. AMD really dropped the ball here, I was expecting some competition, but instead, Bulldozer only managed to bulldoze itself, it couldn't even compete with its predecessor Thuban which is utter disappointment and hate to say it -- failure. They went backwards in performance, I have no idea how that is possible. Maybe if they released Bulldozer when Nahalem (Core i7) first came out, it would have been justified. But that doesn't seem to be the case here; Intel is really light-years ahead of AMD.

The only bad I see coming from this is it gives Intel an incentive to raise their prices since there really is no competition coming from AMD at all in regards to the desktop market. AMD will lose more market share as the time goes by, which Intel has about 81% of the global market.

 

[1foxracing]

For me the most important benchmark is with Adobe Photoshop CS5 and the FX-8150 shines at this operation. I sometimes edit 100's of photo's in 1 sitting and this chip appears it would save me lots of time over a full day of editing.
I'm not a gamer at all and I do very little video encoding. I'm not a AMD fanboy either, I also just finished a i5 2500K system to test CS5 for myself, I just need to pick a Nvidia video card to try out the cuda acceleration.

 

[linnemeyerhere]

Detractors and those firmly in the Intel camp will rejoice in their choice to go with the leader. For me this eight core monster is the future direction of design and is only lacking the software designs to exploit it. I'm reading some great user comments and I would temper our use of words like SUCKS. Reminds me of this interview !

 

[Lebon14]

For me the most important benchmark is with Adobe Photoshop CS5 and the FX-8150 shines at this operation. I sometimes edit 100's of photo's in 1 sitting and this chip appears it would save me lots of time over a full day of editing.
I'm not a gamer at all and I do very little video encoding. I'm not a AMD fanboy either, I also just finished a i5 2500K system to test CS5 for myself, I just need to pick a Nvidia video card to try out the cuda acceleration.

I don't know but I've seen similar tests with the FX-8150 and ina ll tests I've seen, never, ever, that the Bulldozer won.

Check this out :
AnandTech - Bench - CPU

There is one test with Photoshop and Bulldozer lost.

 

[Wishmaster]

I wouldnt have a problem even going with a BD CPU right now except that its really not that much cheaper in the grand scheme of things.

I mean, by the time you get MOBO, Cooler, RAM etc ...
A Core i5 system will be a bit cheaper, and a core i7 just slightly more .. around $50-60.

Unless Im missing something it doesnt make sense if building for perfomance.

If BD was priced a little lower, it would be much better.
It would be a much more appealing choice.

 

[1foxracing]

For me the most important benchmark is with Adobe Photoshop CS5 and the FX-8150 shines at this operation. I sometimes edit 100's of photo's in 1 sitting and this chip appears it would save me lots of time over a full day of editing.
I'm not a gamer at all and I do very little video encoding. I'm not a AMD fanboy either, I also just finished a i5 2500K system to test CS5 for myself, I just need to pick a Nvidia video card to try out the cuda acceleration.

I don't know but I've seen similar tests with the FX-8150 and ina ll tests I've seen, never, ever, that the Bulldozer won.

Check this out :
AnandTech - Bench - CPU

There is one test with Photoshop and Bulldozer lost.

Check your link, the bench was performed using CS4. Looks like they need to update their test software to CS5, it's only been out for almost 2 years now
It really doesn't matter which system it performs better on, since I now have both AMD & Intel systems I'll do some of my own test then keep the best one for my own uses. I just need to decide what graphics card to put in the Intel system, the 560Ti or 570. There is a $100 price difference between the 2.

 

[Wishmaster]

Do you do alot of Gaming?
The 570 will be the better gamer, and able to push much higher settings (AA, AF etc)

It also has more CUDA cores, so technically its faster at anything that can take full advantage of it.
Folding, Cuda accelerated Video encoding etc.
But this will be largely dependant on the software you are using.

Thats not saying the 560 is a bad choice. They are both good cards.
Can't go wrong with either.

I suppose its a matter of determining what you'll be using it for the most, and then if the 570 is worth the extra $100.

To me personally, the Refrence design 570 is worth the extra $100.
Not only for the reasons listed above, but also the cooling.
The Vapor Chamber cooler vents all hot air out the back of the case, rather than part inside and part outside.

But again, really comes down to what you want/need out of the card, and what features are important to you.

 

[1foxracing]

Do you do alot of Gaming?
The 570 will be the better gamer, and able to push much higher settings (AA, AF etc)

It also has more CUDA cores, so technically its faster at anything that can take full advantage of it.
Folding, Cuda accelerated Video encoding etc.
But this will be largely dependant on the software you are using.

Thats not saying the 560 is a bad choice. They are both good cards.
Can't go wrong with either.

I suppose its a matter of determining what you'll be using it for the most, and then if the 570 is worth the extra $100.

To me personally, the Refrence design 570 is worth the extra $100.
Not only for the reasons listed above, but also the cooling.
The Vapor Chamber cooler vents all hot air out the back of the case, rather than part inside and part outside.

But again, really comes down to what you want/need out of the card, and what features are important to you.

Thanks for the tips, I do absolutely NO gaming of any kind. From the little research I did though the cuda cores will help accelerate the CS5 process. It seems to average 12 to 18% faster edits and if I'm working on a few hundred images in a day that will definitely make a difference in time.
I just need to do more research and see what the 570 might offer over the 560 in Photoshop only though. That extra $100 might be better invested in another SSD or larger RAID scratch disk.

 

[pparks1]

If you don't game "at all", save the $100 and get the 560.

 

[Wishmaster]

Agreed. If no gaming at all, just get the 560.

Not sure the 570 will bring that much more to the table if looking at CUDA acceleration alone.