AMD Bulldozer review by Guru3d is up.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150-processor-review/1

Wtf, lol, it sucks.

Disappointing...


EDIT: VERY disapointing.

8 cores at 4.6GHz, nice.. But the benchmark photos are missing.. all of them... Oosuperclocked

underwhelming. at least AMD's improving.

im calling shenanigans amd wouldnt make a flagship preform worse than their last 4 core flag @ reference.. their not perfect but they arent stupid

Very underwhelming. A relative failure as a gaming CPU, but a very capable workstation chip. Not sure how anybody could recommend this over a 2500k for a gaming rig. By the time games really start using those extra threads this CPU will be obsolete. Better to go for the per-core performance of Sandy Bridge. Hell, it barely beats out a 3.5 to 3.7ghz Phenom II X4 in a couple of the game tests.

im calling shenanigans amd wouldnt make a flagship preform worse than their last 4 core flag @ reference.. their not perfect but they arent stupid

ionusX

You're calling shenanigans on Guru3d?

Well I am going to wait until more reviews come out even though I do trust guru3d's reviews.

It seems that even though the cpu isn't bad by any means, the sandybridge cpu's are incredible and are well worth the asking prices.

im calling shenanigans amd wouldnt make a flagship preform worse than their last 4 core flag @ reference.. their not perfect but they arent stupid

ionusX

Here's HardwareCannucks review.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/47155-amd-bulldozer-fx-8150-processor-review.html

Here's HardwareCannucks review.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/47155-amd-bulldozer-fx-8150-processor-review.html

davaniius

HardOCP did a review, it is OK in some regards but ultimately it is a failure when compared to SB. Human-after-all

[QUOTE="Human-after-all"]HardOCP did a review, it is OK in some regards but ultimately it is a failure when compared to SB. savagetwinkie

They were misguided in their approach.. at least from a gaming perspective.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-24.html

So, let's say someone puts Core i5-2500K and FX-8150 in front of you. The Core i5 costs $220 bucks, and the FX runs $245. Which one do you buy?

If it's me, I'm going with the Core i5.I gave the -2500K a Tom's Hardware Recommended Buy award back in January, and I stick by that recommendation almost a year later.

In the very best-case scenario, when you can throw a ton of work at the FX and fully utilize its eight integer cores, it generally falls in between Core i5-2500K and Core i7-2600K—which is where it should appearall of the timegiven a price tag between those two most relevant competitors. Sometimes FX manages to outperform the higher-end -2600K, but other times it's embarrassingly bested by its predecessor in threaded workloads.

:( I wanted AMD to do well.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-bulldozer-fx-8150-zambezi-contest,13685.html

So, let's say someone puts Core i5-2500K and FX-8150 in front of you. The Core i5 costs $220 bucks, and the FX runs $245. Which one do you buy?

If it's me, I'm going with the Core i5.I gave the -2500K a Tom's Hardware Recommended Buy award back in January, and I stick by that recommendation almost a year later.

In the very best-case scenario, when you can throw a ton of work at the FX and fully utilize its eight integer cores, it generally falls in between Core i5-2500K and Core i7-2600K-which is where it should appearall of the timegiven a price tag between those two most relevant competitors. Sometimes FX manages to outperform the higher-end -2600K, but other times it's embarrassingly bested by its predecessor in threaded workloads.

:( I wanted AMD to do well.

GD1551

So, let's say someone puts Core i5-2500K and FX-8150 in front of you. The Core i5 costs $220 bucks, and the FX runs $245. Which one do you buy?

GD1551

Well, maybe next time.

I wish I could dig up the thread from a few months back where I predicted this happening and everyone jumped on my ass because the preiction wasn't with the status quo. :P

Bottom line is if you have a Phenom II X4/6 just skip this **** until Piledriver...maybe it'll be just like the first gen Phenom processors. Human-after-all

lol I'm skipping everything until quad core becomes the new duo core..which I don't see happening until next gen consoles.

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="Human-after-all"]HardOCP did a review, it is OK in some regards but ultimately it is a failure when compared to SB. hartsickdiscipl

They were misguided in their approach.. at least from a gaming perspective.

ouch, Amd fail.

Intel SB 2600k in 3,4Ghz standard clock ownz Amd overclocked 4,7Ghz LOL

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"] i dont' think they were going for per core performance, the future is definitely in parallel processing, they made it modular to be able to keep tossing more and more threads in a core basically. they allegedly want to be able to go up to 32 dual threaded cores, which... is nuts.savagetwinkie

They were misguided in their approach.. at least from a gaming perspective.

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

They were misguided in their approach.. at least from a gaming perspective.

tequilasunriser

It's nice to be looking ahead and all, but what about the present? There's something seriously wrong when AMD's top quad-core Phenom II"s can beat this chip in some games. If they fail hard enough now, they will never realize whatever it is that they're driving towards.

"In games we see exactly the same thing. We specifically took two titles to show you that difference. The older title, Far Cry 2, is where we can see a performance hit, in fact CPU limitation kicks in as the per core performance of the FX 8150 can't keep up with the graphics card (CPU bottleneck). A Core i7 2500 or 2600, though with four cores have better per core performance, hence you'll see better performance."

LOL fail for gaming....grab a Phenom II or a sandy bridge...nothing to see here folks :P

[QUOTE="tequilasunriser"][QUOTE="savagetwinkie"] well AMD's ultimate plan is to make 1 chip, bringing the gpu/cpu together to have a combined instruction set, depending on how you look at it, they are working to a goal maybe? this might be more or less laying out the plans for heavily threaded environments.hartsickdiscipl

It's nice to be looking ahead and all, but what about the present? There's something seriously wrong when AMD's top quad-core Phenom II"s can beat this chip in some games. If they fail hard enough now, they will never realize whatever it is that they're driving towards.

Hah

this is most disappointing and yes i do distrust them, problem hartsick??

[QUOTE="tequilasunriser"][QUOTE="savagetwinkie"] well AMD's ultimate plan is to make 1 chip, bringing the gpu/cpu together to have a combined instruction set, depending on how you look at it, they are working to a goal maybe? this might be more or less laying out the plans for heavily threaded environments.hartsickdiscipl

It's nice to be looking ahead and all, but what about the present? There's something seriously wrong when AMD's top quad-core Phenom II"s can beat this chip in some games. If they fail hard enough now, they will never realize whatever it is that they're driving towards.

gah what a waste of time waiting. Guess i'm going sandy bridge after all my AMD-based stubborness. I cant even remember why I wanted to go with them so much in the first place.

this is most disappointing and yes i do distrust them, problem hartsick??

ionusX

The problem is that Guru3d is one of the most trusted and reputable hardware sites around. Their testing methodology looked to be solid. That, and the fact that their data correlates very closely with the results from multiple other reviews as already posted here. Clearly their results are in line with what we're seeing from other sources. Bulldozer isn't a strong performer in the majority of games.. and it's really not that great in most other environments either, especially when considering what Intel has had on the market for months in this price range.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="tequilasunriser"] well AMD's ultimate plan is to make 1 chip, bringing the gpu/cpu together to have a combined instruction set, depending on how you look at it, they are working to a goal maybe? this might be more or less laying out the plans for heavily threaded environments.savagetwinkie

It's nice to be looking ahead and all, but what about the present? There's something seriously wrong when AMD's top quad-core Phenom II"s can beat this chip in some games. If they fail hard enough now, they will never realize whatever it is that they're driving towards.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="tequilasunriser"] This. It seems unimpressive now, but it is the foundation of what will become a monster in later generations of AMD APUs.savagetwinkie

It's nice to be looking ahead and all, but what about the present? There's something seriously wrong when AMD's top quad-core Phenom II"s can beat this chip in some games. If they fail hard enough now, they will never realize whatever it is that they're driving towards.

I know that it's not all about the games, but the fact remains that Bulldozer is too weak clock-for-clock to show any significant advantages over the current Intel competition in the same price range in other apps as well. There really aren't many environments where this chip can be recommended over a 2500k or 2600k. By the time AMD's architecture might start to show some advantages, the current generation of chips will be obsolete and long-gone. They jumped the gun and got too ambitious IMO. They forgot to make the chip function well enough in current apps.

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"] This. It seems unimpressive now, but it is the foundation of what will become a monster in later generations of AMD APUs.tequilasunriser

It's nice to be looking ahead and all, but what about the present? There's something seriously wrong when AMD's top quad-core Phenom II"s can beat this chip in some games. If they fail hard enough now, they will never realize whatever it is that they're driving towards.

I read the reviews. It performs well in some other tasks, but not well enough to set it apart from a 2500k (especially overclocked), which is a cheaper chip.. and certainly not from the 2600k which is a bit more expensive. It just doesn't do anything well enough to justify its weakness in gaming and other single and dual-threaded apps.

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"] This. It seems unimpressive now, but it is the foundation of what will become a monster in later generations of AMD APUs.tequilasunriser

It's nice to be looking ahead and all, but what about the present? There's something seriously wrong when AMD's top quad-core Phenom II"s can beat this chip in some games. If they fail hard enough now, they will never realize whatever it is that they're driving towards.

gah what a waste of time waiting. Guess i'm going sandy bridge after all my AMD-based stubborness. I cant even remember why I wanted to go with them so much in the first place.

with_teeth26

this is most disappointing and yes i do distrust them, problem hartsick??

ionusX

[QUOTE="ionusX"]

this is most disappointing and yes i do distrust them, problem hartsick??

Iantheone

indeed now i look to the future trinity might be good amd has put out a claim of 10% better than bulldozer on that apu.. while nothing to jump about it may be worth watching..

[QUOTE="ionusX"]

this is most disappointing and yes i do distrust them, problem hartsick??

Iantheone

Maybe the product was rushed to market, or maybe they got too far in with their development in terms of time and money invested and just had to continue with this design until it's completion. Maybe they did know that it would be disappointing to most, but couldn't do anything about it.

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

It's nice to be looking ahead and all, but what about the present? There's something seriously wrong when AMD's top quad-core Phenom II"s can beat this chip in some games. If they fail hard enough now, they will never realize whatever it is that they're driving towards.

hartsickdiscipl

I know that it's not all about the games, but the fact remains that Bulldozer is too weak clock-for-clock to show any significant advantages over the current Intel competition in the same price range in other apps as well. There really aren't many environments where this chip can be recommended over a 2500k or 2600k. By the time AMD's architecture might start to show some advantages, the current generation of chips will be obsolete and long-gone. They jumped the gun and got too ambitious IMO. They forgot to make the chip function well enough in current apps.

[QUOTE="tequilasunriser"][QUOTE="savagetwinkie"]

It's nice to be looking ahead and all, but what about the present? There's something seriously wrong when AMD's top quad-core Phenom II"s can beat this chip in some games. If they fail hard enough now, they will never realize whatever it is that they're driving towards.

hartsickdiscipl

I read the reviews. It performs well in some other tasks, but not well enough to set it apart from a 2500k (especially overclocked), which is a cheaper chip.. and certainly not from the 2600k which is a bit more expensive. It just doesn't do anything well enough to justify its weakness in gaming and other single and dual-threaded apps.

[QUOTE="Iantheone"][QUOTE="ionusX"]

this is most disappointing and yes i do distrust them, problem hartsick??

ionusX

indeed now i look to the future trinity might be good amd has put out a claim of 10% better than bulldozer on that apu.. while nothing to jump about it may be worth watching..

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"] its not all about games, i know here thats what we care about, but when redesigning a chip from the ground up, to be modular and scalable, along with having a shear extra billion transistors in logic compared to any other CPU on the market, there is probably a lot more going on then we can see at this point. intel's hyper threading is at a disadvantage in the long run, its a pure virtual thread, it doesn't get its own resources and has to share with the main core, where AMD's modules are more like 1 core, with two virtual threads that have their own resources, so almost like two cores, witch are stackable as dual cores. And I know I heard one of their plans were to go with 32 of these modules... 64 threads... nom nom nomsavagetwinkie

I know that it's not all about the games, but the fact remains that Bulldozer is too weak clock-for-clock to show any significant advantages over the current Intel competition in the same price range in other apps as well. There really aren't many environments where this chip can be recommended over a 2500k or 2600k. By the time AMD's architecture might start to show some advantages, the current generation of chips will be obsolete and long-gone. They jumped the gun and got too ambitious IMO. They forgot to make the chip function well enough in current apps.

It's sad that they weren't able to make this chip perform better in more CURRENT apps and specifically games. There are stock Phenom II X4s that can beat this chip in some apps. Doesn't that seem like a bit of an issue, considering that Phenom II X4s are essentially AMD Core 2 Quads? Seriously.. Somebody with a Q6600 overclocked to 3.5ghz or so can beat this chip in some games. That's just sad. The right way to make a chip is to make one that performs well in the apps that are out at release. This may be a decent workstation chip, but it's certainly not what most of us were hoping/waiting for.

The [H] review had it the 8150 be about the same as the 2500k and 2600k except in civ 5. Civ 5 is weird though because the minimum framerate for each of the 3 CPUs was 0.