Obviously they suck for gaming, but from a work-related point of view they are not that bad :
Many pro applications are multi-core and multi-thread optimized and this CPU really shines when in front of these, beating a i5 2500k and sometimes the i7 2600k. They are priced the same, around 270€.
Since the Intel socket is more expensive than a AM3+ socket you can build yourself a cheaper and more powerfull work station than a Intel based one. Add the potential overcloacking gain and it's worth it. I can imagine some people who want to work at home or some entreprises being interested by this architecture.
Since the Intel socket is more expensive than a AM3+ socket you can build yourself a cheaper and more powerfull work station than a Intel based one. Add the potential overcloacking gain and it's worth it.
Unfortunately not true. The cheapest 9xx AM3+ motherboard I can find on newegg, for example, is $100. Not even sure if it can OC. You can easily get $100 OC'ing 1155 motherboards, not to mention $60 non-OC motherboards.
You also need to spend more on the PSU, especially if OC'ing. An OC'd FX8150 consumes almost 3 times more than an OC'd 2600k.
The cheapest 9xx AM3+ motherboard I can find on newegg, for example, is $100. Not even sure if it can OC. You can easily get $100 OC'ing 1155 motherboards, not to mention $60 non-OC motherboards.
Search more, there are others motherboard with different chipsets that are even more affordable ( in the 70€ range like the ASUS M5A87 ) and also does overcloacking. Asus did some of good quality ( for having one I can tell ). Is there a particular reason you chose the 9xx chipset ?
You also need to spend more on the PSU, especially if OC'ing. An OC'd FX8150 consumes almost 3 times more than an OC'd 2600k.
Does absolutly not means 3 times more expensive PSU. Also, at what clock speed are you OCing ? I'm not sure it consumes 3 times more until you reach a very big one... BTW it doesn't really make sense to compare the power requirements of a 8 core with a 4 core, even more with a completely different architecture. To be fair It should be compared to the i7 960x.
The cheapest 9xx AM3+ motherboard I can find on newegg, for example, is $100. Not even sure if it can OC. You can easily get $100 OC'ing 1155 motherboards, not to mention $60 non-OC motherboards.
Search more, there are others motherboard with different chipsets that are even more affordable ( in the 70€ range like the ASUS M5A87 ) and also does overcloacking. Asus did some of good quality ( for having one I can tell ). Is there a particular reason you chose the 9xx chipset ?
You also need to spend more on the PSU, especially if OC'ing. An OC'd FX8150 consumes almost 3 times more than an OC'd 2600k.
Does absolutly not means 3 times more expensive PSU. Also, at what clock speed are you OCing ? I'm not sure it consumes 3 times more until you reach a very big one... BTW it doesn't really make sense to compare the power requirements of a 8 core with a 4 core, even more with a completely different architecture. To be fair It should be compared to the i7 960x.
On October 14 2011 06:20 renkin wrote: BTW it doesn't really make sense to compare the power requirements of a 8 core with a 4 core, even more with a completely different architecture. To be fair It should be compared to the i7 960x.
Cores don't really matter, neither does clockspeed.
The 2600k is a competitor when it comes to price and performance(in multithreaded apps) and thus Bulldozer has to be compared to it.
Bulldozer doesn't even have real 8 cores :p
Would still love to see a detailed power draw comparison at different loads tho, not that "we used prime or linpack" shit. Has any site done this so far? HT4u has atleast measured cpu+pwm alone to get mainboards out of the equation, but that doesn't satisfy me.
AMD has released a statement about AMD FX and the sub-par performance currently seen.
This week we launched the highly anticipated AMD FX series of desktop processors. Based on initial technical reviews, there are some in our community who feel the product performance did not meet their expectations of the AMD FX and the “Bulldozer” architecture. Over the past two days we’ve been listening to you and wanted to help you make sense of the new processors. As you begin to play with the AMD FX CPU processor, I foresee a few things will register: In our design considerations, AMD focused on applications and environments that we believe our customers use – and which we expect them to use in the future. The architecture focuses on high-frequency and resource sharing to achieve optimal throughput and speed in next generation applications and high-resolution gaming.
An excerpt.
And since a decent number of you might have read bits of me thrashing them, if you want to see what I had to say after seeing this, here it is in the interest of fairness.
Yes. Basically AMD has given up trying to compete directly with Intel in the current market. In order to catch up, AMD is trying to "head em off at the pass"
Oh? I thought it was more like "grasping at straws".
Like I said in my blog though, if they'd price them against a different part of the performance curve, they'd sell enough to make up for the reduced price. If an 8150 rig was priced around an i5 2300 or 2400 rig, they'd be damned competitive for game streaming, and college students in video or coding type stuff where they might want to leave cores running on something and do some light gaming in the evening.
Uses too much power if one would use it for a workstation ( + sub par performance compared to the competitor ) and if they even made a laptop version of it... it'd drain too much power...
never heard of a cpu where " can my psu handle it " would ever be asked until now perhaps... 229 watts full load alone...
On October 14 2011 10:33 JingleHell wrote: Oh? I thought it was more like "grasping at straws".
Like I said in my blog though, if they'd price them against a different part of the performance curve, they'd sell enough to make up for the reduced price. If an 8150 rig was priced around an i5 2300 or 2400 rig, they'd be damned competitive for game streaming, and college students in video or coding type stuff where they might want to leave cores running on something and do some light gaming in the evening.
I was more referring to the parts where Bulldozer benches significantly better in Windows 8 developer preview.
According to AMD, Windows 7 throws threads around "willy nilly" where win8 has proper thread scheduling.
On October 14 2011 10:33 JingleHell wrote: Oh? I thought it was more like "grasping at straws".
Like I said in my blog though, if they'd price them against a different part of the performance curve, they'd sell enough to make up for the reduced price. If an 8150 rig was priced around an i5 2300 or 2400 rig, they'd be damned competitive for game streaming, and college students in video or coding type stuff where they might want to leave cores running on something and do some light gaming in the evening.
I was more referring to the parts where Bulldozer benches significantly better in Windows 8 developer preview.
According to AMD, Windows 7 throws threads around "willy nilly" where win8 has proper thread scheduling.
If you can believe that.
Well, Vista is the OS I'm used to thinking of as being rather spastic.
Just remember, if the thread scheduling gets them 1-2% better performance, they're not lying. Wait for proper benches, IMO.
Not saying it isn't possible, but they've demonstrated enough ability to deceive via omission with this release that nobody in their right mind should take anything they say at any more than minimal face value.
I believe that. What's confusing is that this question was asked ages ago: "how will Windows 7 recognize modules" and AMD responded "Microsoft will deal with it before launch". They didn't it seems because it does stupidly better in Windows 8 than it does in Windows 7.
Its not a fantastic processor since it doesn't quite handle the deficiencies of all AMD processors (that is weak single threaded performance) but its not that terrible. Still no point buying one over a i3 2100 or something because holy shit that power draw when turbo coring is unacceptable.
There were a few cases where bulldozer did like 15 percent better on win8, I can't recall which right now.
I think if piledriver comes out, and thats 15 percent better, then win8 comes out making the entire brand 15 better as well? I think we just might have some competition.
Not right now though. I think they are crazy pricing it the way they are right now. Once the chip stops selling out I expect a pretty big price drop.
I'm disappointed by Bulldozer as it is currently, but lets not throw the architecture out the window and assume that it's a complete failure. The fact that standard clock speeds are in the 3.7-4 Range is insane.
And it does completely obliterate the i7-2600k in x264 encoding that's proof of it's potential.. I'm hoping that the reason it's so bad in single thread performance is because of scheduling issues. Only time will tell.
I don't believe that the full potential of Bulldozer will be seen until Windows 8, unless Microsoft released a fix(which they have done in the past -- mind you it was Windows 95).. I'd say as it stands right now Bulldozer isn't worth the purchase, but in due time I believe that it will live up to its hype and shine like it was supposed to.
On October 14 2011 11:33 PunkyBrewster wrote: I'm disappointed by Bulldozer as it is currently, but lets not throw the architecture out the window and assume that it's a complete failure. The fact that standard clock speeds are in the 3.7-4 Range is insane.
And it does completely obliterate the i7-2600k in x264 encoding that's proof of it's potential.. I'm hoping that the reason it's so bad in single thread performance is because of scheduling issues. Only time will tell.
I don't believe that the full potential of Bulldozer will be seen until Windows 8, unless Microsoft released a fix(which they have done in the past -- mind you it was Windows 95).. I'd say as it stands right now Bulldozer isn't worth the purchase, but in due time I believe that it will live up to its hype and shine like it was supposed to.
Signed up to post this shit? What's AMD's PR department like, anyway? Did your Advertising staff get canned?
EPT
