Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community - Reply to Topic

Thread: [Official] AMD Bulldozer Reviews Thread Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
10-22-2011 03:26 PM
2010rig
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steak House View Post
WOW - ^^^^ That's real world and that's bad!
Anandtech further supports these findings.



I don't get why people are using GPU bound scenarios to say Bulldozer is "good", when even a Dual Core i5, or a Phenom II quad would get the exact same results. When testing a CPU, it should be tested in CPU bound scenarios to see what it's truly capable of.





Quote:
In many cases, AMD's FX-8150 is able to close the gap between the Phenom II X6 and Intel's Core i5 2500K. Given the right workload, Bulldozer is actually able to hang with Intel's fastest Sandy Bridge parts. We finally have a high-end AMD CPU with power gating as well as a very functional Turbo Core mode. Unfortunately the same complaints we've had about AMD's processors over the past few years still apply here today: in lightly threaded scenarios, Bulldozer simply does not perform. To make matters worse, in some heavily threaded applications the improvement over the previous generation Phenom II X6 simply isn't enough to justify an upgrade for existing AM3+ platform owners. AMD has released a part that is generally more competitive than its predecessor, but not consistently so. AMD also makes you choose between good single or good multithreaded performance, a tradeoff that we honestly shouldn't have to make in the era of power gating and turbo cores.
10-22-2011 02:21 PM
Steak House
Quote:
Originally Posted by black96ws6;15406059 
I posted this in another thread however I think it deserves repeating here:

It's almost as if there's something inherently wrong with the architecture of Bulldozer.

For example, even in one of the supposed few "good" reviews of it, such as HardOCP's (which is really just a GPU limited review), a lot of people apparently missed the Civilization 5 benchmarks in that article:

Sandy Bridge CRUSHES the 8150 in Civ 5, which is very strange, since Civ is one of the more well multi-threaded games. You'd think an "8 core chip" clocked that high would perform a LOT better:





http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/10/11/amd_bulldozer_fx8150_gameplay_performance_review/4

13182343781D3JFR9LiH_4_2_l.gif

Those are two alarming paragraphs from HardOCP that should make any gamer think twice about going with the 8150 as a gaming machine...

WOW - ^^^^ That's real world and that's bad!
10-22-2011 06:58 AM
Derp
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMD2600;15406387 
I want to see some benches where BD is using 1866mhz ram and with the CPU-NB overclocked.

cpunb.jpg

There. Source is Sin0822's review.

Still fails.
10-22-2011 06:54 AM
Schmuckley NB @ 2500ish same with HT..only 1600 ram..it's not playing nicey-nice with my ram frown.gif
10-22-2011 06:25 AM
AMD2600 I want to see some benches where BD is using 1866mhz ram and with the CPU-NB overclocked.
10-22-2011 05:07 AM
TheBlademaster01
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derp View Post
He is in a biased position to get people to buy from the store he works at.

"Hai guys, Lunus here. We will be selling these new pre-overclocked 8 core bulldozer systems soon! But don't hold your breath because as the reviews have proven over and over this CPU is a piece of garbage, so please don't give us your business. We are going to assemble, overclock and stress test a total of 50 of these systems and we want them to sit in the back room collecting dust."

Are you following me here? In his position he can't be honest and say something like that.

BIASED. PERIOD.
Blasphemy, one can only be biased against AMD you know...
10-22-2011 05:06 AM
black96ws6 I posted this in another thread however I think it deserves repeating here:

It's almost as if there's something inherently wrong with the architecture of Bulldozer.

For example, even in one of the supposed few "good" reviews of it, such as HardOCP's (which is really just a GPU limited review), a lot of people apparently missed the Civilization 5 benchmarks in that article:

Sandy Bridge CRUSHES the 8150 in Civ 5, which is very strange, since Civ is one of the more well multi-threaded games. You'd think an "8 core chip" clocked that high would perform a LOT better:

Quote:
What you see above is no mistake, we ran the test multiple times on the AMD FX-8150 system to make sure we didn't screw something up. The AMD FX-8150 consistently produced an average framerate of 40 FPS each time we tried it. Both the Intel i7 2600K and 2500K thoroughly blew the AMD FX-8150 out of the water by providing a whopping 42% faster performance with the Intel i7 2600K.
Quote:
When we overclocked the AMD FX-8150 to 4.6GHz we experienced a significant performance increase in this game, 17% faster than it was at stock settings. However, even with 17% faster performance, it was still not able to reach up to Intel Core i7 2600K and 2500K stock performance in this game.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/...mance_review/4



Those are two alarming paragraphs from HardOCP that should make any gamer think twice about going with the 8150 as a gaming machine...
10-22-2011 04:38 AM
Schmuckley wheee..i can make an athlon 2 X4 get higher scores than this..matter of fact..just read a thread where a llano build looked MUCH better

10-22-2011 04:21 AM
Schmuckley
Quote:
Originally Posted by swindle View Post
Man, this 2500k is awesome.

Should have done this AGES ago.
hmm..try this..install a program..delete it..then right-click the unused desktop icon..lol
10-22-2011 04:00 AM
swindle Man, this 2500k is awesome.

Should have done this AGES ago.
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off