AMD Bulldozer review by Guru3d is up.

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for savagetwinkie
savagetwinkie

7981

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#51 savagetwinkie
Member since 2008 • 7981 Posts

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="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.

hartsickdiscipl

again REDESIGN, i realize it might not have performance increases now, but the future is very bright for it, also nothing is using any of the new instruction sets, so again we are looking at it with a lopsided view. So we got a first edition redesign that might not be as fast for we were hoping for but is a good dev/work chip for threaded environments if you don't want to spend the extrea 60 dollas on a core i7 for the multi threaded goodness. Its not like this is a bad chip at all, priced accordingly.

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.

no it doesn't seem like an issue, its a fundamental redesign of their chip, there are new instruction sets that aren't being used... so agin there isn't enough data to really show what its capable of. new doesn't always mean better, it just can fit a market better, which amd is aiming directly at the low end consumers, even there market slides pointed out the average desktop bought is under 700 now, vs 700-1500. This is a decent chip, its designed to work with eyefinity and amd technologies, they are making a apu version of this soon. Its apparent the apu market is where they want to go, head first, all in, so we'll have an 8 core chip that supports 6 monitors? thats dev enviroment written all over it, work stations, any type of content creation. And its not exactly a bad gaming cpu, and once games come out optimized for it supporting the new instruction addons it will likely paint a different picture. DX11 is supporting threading now at the driver level, this is something that may benefit bulldozer heavily in gaming and bf3 is allegedly going to be the first to use it,
Avatar image for beefdog
beefdog

9185

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#52 beefdog
Member since 2004 • 9185 Posts

Well i must say...my little 920 @ 4.5ghz is Still keeping up pretty well with all these new processors.

Avatar image for blaznwiipspman1
blaznwiipspman1

16906

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#53 blaznwiipspman1
Member since 2007 • 16906 Posts

i dunno what amd was smoking when they released this, it mustve been some seriously bad pot. Oh well, market forces will bring the price of this chip down fairly quickly, im guessing $150 by february 2012, and even lower later on. Im highly dissapointed to say the least with AMD, i guess they just didnt have the $$ to hire the best and brightest like Intel. Im sure intel just breathed much easier after this debacle, what with ARM coming up very quickly and AMD slowing them down in the graphics department. Either way it looks like we have to depend on ARM for the serious competition. ARM isn't some pushover the companies backing it are each the size of intel, funding for performance won't be an issue.

Avatar image for hartsickdiscipl
hartsickdiscipl

14787

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#54 hartsickdiscipl
Member since 2003 • 14787 Posts

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"] again REDESIGN, i realize it might not have performance increases now, but the future is very bright for it, also nothing is using any of the new instruction sets, so again we are looking at it with a lopsided view. So we got a first edition redesign that might not be as fast for we were hoping for but is a good dev/work chip for threaded environments if you don't want to spend the extrea 60 dollas on a core i7 for the multi threaded goodness. Its not like this is a bad chip at all, priced accordingly.savagetwinkie

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.

no it doesn't seem like an issue, its a fundamental redesign of their chip, there are new instruction sets that aren't being used... so agin there isn't enough data to really show what its capable of. new doesn't always mean better, it just can fit a market better, which amd is aiming directly at the low end consumers, even there market slides pointed out the average desktop bought is under 700 now, vs 700-1500. This is a decent chip, its designed to work with eyefinity and amd technologies, they are making a apu version of this soon. Its apparent the apu market is where they want to go, head first, all in, so we'll have an 8 core chip that supports 6 monitors? thats dev enviroment written all over it, work stations, any type of content creation. And its not exactly a bad gaming cpu, and once games come out optimized for it supporting the new instruction addons it will likely paint a different picture. DX11 is supporting threading now at the driver level, this is something that may benefit bulldozer heavily in gaming and bf3 is allegedly going to be the first to use it,

One of the rules of thumb in PC hardware has always been real-world performance >>> extra features. This chip simply doesn't appear to bring home enough bacon in the current real-world apps. It's not a well-balanced CPU IMO. It's too ambitious for the current market and not focused enough to do anything well enough to make it really stand out.

Avatar image for Daytona_178
Daytona_178

14962

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#55 Daytona_178
Member since 2005 • 14962 Posts

That is a shame, looks like Sandy bridge is still the way to go, and will Ivy Bridge coming out early next year with 22nm and 3d transistors I guess things will be even worse for AMD then :/

Avatar image for blaznwiipspman1
blaznwiipspman1

16906

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#56 blaznwiipspman1
Member since 2007 • 16906 Posts

That is a shame, looks like Sandy bridge is still the way to go, and will Ivy Bridge coming out early next year with 22nm and 3d transistors I guess things will be even worse for AMD then :/

Daytona_178

not really. amd has a nice share of the netbook space since atom sux. Also arm is catching up fast, i wouldnt bet the farm on intel atm. ARM has claimed that its processors now match the intel core 2 quads, which would be what you're using. 2012 will be interesting.

Avatar image for theshadowhunter
theshadowhunter

2956

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#58 theshadowhunter
Member since 2004 • 2956 Posts

the fact that the 1100t beats the 8150 is enough to keep me away. AMD needs to go back to the drawing boards and not come back for a while, oh wait they did and they gave us this crap... you failed us AMD... their next cpus are suppsed to be 10-15% faster, what a joke....

Avatar image for msfan1289
msfan1289

1044

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#59 msfan1289
Member since 2011 • 1044 Posts

Sadly I named my daughter after AMD and now they release this garbage.

DeViLzzz

woooow :/ that does suck

Avatar image for C_Rule
C_Rule

9816

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#60 C_Rule
Member since 2008 • 9816 Posts

the fact that the 1100t beats the 8150 is enough to keep me away. AMD needs to go back to the drawing boards and not come back for a while, oh wait they did and they gave us this crap... you failed us AMD... their next cpus are suppsed to be 10-15% faster, what a joke....

theshadowhunter
Sooo.... Their next CPUs will be as fast as their previous CPUs?.. YEY! :D Wait... :|
Avatar image for msfan1289
msfan1289

1044

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#61 msfan1289
Member since 2011 • 1044 Posts

[QUOTE="theshadowhunter"]

the fact that the 1100t beats the 8150 is enough to keep me away. AMD needs to go back to the drawing boards and not come back for a while, oh wait they did and they gave us this crap... you failed us AMD... their next cpus are suppsed to be 10-15% faster, what a joke....

C_Rule

Sooo.... Their next CPUs will be as fast as their previous CPUs?.. YEY! :D Wait... :|

yeah wait.. lol faster from these CPUS, but by that time they will still be behind intel lol

Avatar image for msfan1289
msfan1289

1044

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#62 msfan1289
Member since 2011 • 1044 Posts

i just got this email from tigerdirect

that have "enter at your own risk" right

Avatar image for msfan1289
msfan1289

1044

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#63 msfan1289
Member since 2011 • 1044 Posts

here are the prices for it as well

Avatar image for mitu123
mitu123

155290

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 32

User Lists: 0

#64 mitu123
Member since 2006 • 155290 Posts

190 for the 6 core? Thought it would be a tad lower, oh well.

Avatar image for C_Rule
C_Rule

9816

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#65 C_Rule
Member since 2008 • 9816 Posts
$260??? They gotta be joking.
Avatar image for abuabed
abuabed

6606

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#66 abuabed
Member since 2005 • 6606 Posts
I knew they'd disappoint, Intel is still the way to go.
Avatar image for redwarrior191
redwarrior191

138

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#67 redwarrior191
Member since 2009 • 138 Posts

fail..AMD..fail.. looking at AMD's record in recent years.. there's even no point in hoping that their next lineup would be on par with intel.. well, at least their mobile fusion processors are better than atom, lol..

Avatar image for theshadowhunter
theshadowhunter

2956

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#68 theshadowhunter
Member since 2004 • 2956 Posts

socket 939 was the last good socket, when they went to AM2 they started their train of fail, I remember when I was at a Q and A session at the end of a AMD conference back in 2006 right before Conroe came out, I was like "what do you think about Conroe?" they were like, "LOL LOL LOL LOL, when real non engineering cpus come out then we will talk" I felt like a atheist in the middle of a catholic church and yelling that God didnt exist, cuz everyone was looking at me when I said that.

Avatar image for Silicel1
Silicel1

2342

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#69 Silicel1
Member since 2005 • 2342 Posts

i feel that heir approach is wrong as to have as many cores as possible, it may be viable in the future but in a market that changes so fast and also a new cpu lineup comes out almost every 2 years or so, there is no real point of futureproofing, CPU's by the time anything can utilize the potential of the CPU Intell will have its own 8 core competitor with better core performance, it would be nice if applications would be heavily multithreaded but they are not, by the time you can see major differences between performance just by adding more cores this CPU wont be a viable option. They should have concentrated more on the present and just made a really good quad core.

Avatar image for OldSoldier123
OldSoldier123

257

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#70 OldSoldier123
Member since 2009 • 257 Posts

About a month ago i predicted that bulldozer would fail. A few powerful cores>>>lots of weaker cores, espacially in gaming

Avatar image for C_Rule
C_Rule

9816

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#71 C_Rule
Member since 2008 • 9816 Posts

About a month ago i predicted that bulldozer would fail. A few powerful cores>>>lots of weaker cores, espacially in gaming

OldSoldier123
I think most people knew it would turn out bad, but just didn't want it to be so.
Avatar image for Kendog87
Kendog87

1111

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#72 Kendog87
Member since 2010 • 1111 Posts

This rly is a shame.

Avatar image for Grawse
Grawse

4342

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#73 Grawse
Member since 2010 • 4342 Posts

Good thing I'm very impatient and bought the Sandy Beast. No worrying about buyers remorse :P

Avatar image for SamiRDuran
SamiRDuran

2758

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#74 SamiRDuran
Member since 2005 • 2758 Posts

biggest flop in pc hardware history?

Avatar image for trastamad03
trastamad03

4859

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#75 trastamad03
Member since 2006 • 4859 Posts
SO I assembled (didn't buy, just saved it as a wishlist) a brand new PC and waited for... This? How disappointing and what a waste of time. I guess I learned a lesson... Never gonna have faith in AMD Processors ever again. Time to readjust my wishlist PC to an Intel based one.
Avatar image for FireEmblem_Man
FireEmblem_Man

20386

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#76 FireEmblem_Man
Member since 2004 • 20386 Posts

Well, this gives me a good excuse to keep my current chip. If Trinity and the Piledriver cores won't help AMD, then I'll go Ivy Bridge.

Avatar image for Gambler_3
Gambler_3

7736

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: -4

User Lists: 0

#77 Gambler_3
Member since 2009 • 7736 Posts

And people criticize intel for changing sockets so soon, isnt it better to bring revolutionary performance in a new socket than to bring such useless incremental improvements on one socket?

For a phenom II and core 2 quad owner, sandy bridge remains the only viable upgrade option. Do you now understand why I was so much against "AM3+" builds that people had been suggesting here? There were so many people going for "bulldozer ready" PC and look what happened now? People used to say that LGA 775 and LGA 1156 are dead sockets thus an AM3+ build is superior, it turns out a phenom II owner cant really go anywhere so it's more or less dead socket for them now. ;)

Avatar image for hoola
hoola

6422

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#78 hoola
Member since 2004 • 6422 Posts

I really don't want to support Intel after what they did to Project Offset, but if this is all AMD can provide right now then I will have to bite the bullet and buy a i5-2500k. I'll still buy an AMD video card, though. My AMD X2 3800 and 8800gts 320mb are so outdated.

Avatar image for Human-after-all
Human-after-all

2972

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#79 Human-after-all
Member since 2009 • 2972 Posts

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

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

ionusX

I trust them, but I do agree. Something is up here. If something doesnt change very soon Im thinking that this may be another Phenom/Phenom 2 situation. There is no way they would release a CPU like this and expect anything but disappointment.

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..

Is it suppose to use piledriver or BD? If it is using BD I don't know how they'll put that power hungry furnace on a chip with a GPU. Especially for laptops. Maybe a die shrink but damn it consumes a lot of power.
Avatar image for AutoPilotOn
AutoPilotOn

8655

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#80 AutoPilotOn
Member since 2010 • 8655 Posts
Makes me glad I got my 2500k a few months ago. Heck I paid $250 for my CPU and motherboard cheaper than just the 8150 CPU
Avatar image for Gambler_3
Gambler_3

7736

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: -4

User Lists: 0

#81 Gambler_3
Member since 2009 • 7736 Posts

biggest flop in pc hardware history?

SamiRDuran

Well from the time I have been following PC hardware, the 2900XT is still hands down the biggest flop ever. Everyone was "sure" that it is going to be significantly faster than an 8800GTX and it turned out to be weaker than the 8800GTS.

It had a serious performance issue with anti-aliasing and it never got fixed by any driver updates. And it wasnt until the 5870 that AMD really got back in the high end market.

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
04dcarraher

23857

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#82 04dcarraher
Member since 2004 • 23857 Posts

[QUOTE="SamiRDuran"]

biggest flop in pc hardware history?

Gambler_3

Well from the time I have been following PC hardware, the 2900XT is still hands down the biggest flop ever. Everyone was "sure" that it is going to be significantly faster than an 8800GTX and it turned out to be weaker than the 8800GTS.

It had a serious performance issue with anti-aliasing and it never got fixed by any driver updates. And it wasnt until the 5870 that AMD really got back in the high end market.

AMD didnt acquire ATI until 2006 and the 3000's series was last true ATI product the 4000 series onward has been under AMD control
Avatar image for Gambler_3
Gambler_3

7736

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: -4

User Lists: 0

#83 Gambler_3
Member since 2009 • 7736 Posts

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="SamiRDuran"]

biggest flop in pc hardware history?

04dcarraher

Well from the time I have been following PC hardware, the 2900XT is still hands down the biggest flop ever. Everyone was "sure" that it is going to be significantly faster than an 8800GTX and it turned out to be weaker than the 8800GTS.

It had a serious performance issue with anti-aliasing and it never got fixed by any driver updates. And it wasnt until the 5870 that AMD really got back in the high end market.

AMD didnt acquire ATI until 2006 and the 3000's series was last true ATI product the 4000 series onward has been under AMD control

I wasnt talking about biggest AMD flop but biggest in general.

Avatar image for Addict187
Addict187

1128

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#84 Addict187
Member since 2008 • 1128 Posts

Im done with AMD well just there pcCPUs. Im Mad that i wasted all this time waiteing and for nothing. i7 2500k here i come

Avatar image for MonsieurX
MonsieurX

39858

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#85 MonsieurX
Member since 2008 • 39858 Posts
Sounds like an Ivy bridge update for me next summer
Avatar image for savagetwinkie
savagetwinkie

7981

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#86 savagetwinkie
Member since 2008 • 7981 Posts

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

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.

hartsickdiscipl

no it doesn't seem like an issue, its a fundamental redesign of their chip, there are new instruction sets that aren't being used... so agin there isn't enough data to really show what its capable of. new doesn't always mean better, it just can fit a market better, which amd is aiming directly at the low end consumers, even there market slides pointed out the average desktop bought is under 700 now, vs 700-1500. This is a decent chip, its designed to work with eyefinity and amd technologies, they are making a apu version of this soon. Its apparent the apu market is where they want to go, head first, all in, so we'll have an 8 core chip that supports 6 monitors? thats dev enviroment written all over it, work stations, any type of content creation. And its not exactly a bad gaming cpu, and once games come out optimized for it supporting the new instruction addons it will likely paint a different picture. DX11 is supporting threading now at the driver level, this is something that may benefit bulldozer heavily in gaming and bf3 is allegedly going to be the first to use it,

One of the rules of thumb in PC hardware has always been real-world performance >>> extra features. This chip simply doesn't appear to bring home enough bacon in the current real-world apps. It's not a well-balanced CPU IMO. It's too ambitious for the current market and not focused enough to do anything well enough to make it really stand out.

you still don't get it, we don't see the real world performance chip until its fully utilized, the current market is heading down a threaded focus any way, not all tech has to hit the shelves fully usable this architecture is for the very near future, and once we see what happens when the new instruction sets get added in we'll get a better view. Most likey the intel SSE instructions are being used in programs now since they were readily available already.
Avatar image for red12355
red12355

1251

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#87 red12355
Member since 2007 • 1251 Posts
You don't buy tech now so that it performs well later, you buy tech so that it performs well now. By the time that games take full advantage of the new instructions and extra threads, both Sandy Bridge and Bulldozer will be outdated.
Avatar image for AutoPilotOn
AutoPilotOn

8655

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#88 AutoPilotOn
Member since 2010 • 8655 Posts
You don't buy tech now so that it performs well later, you buy tech so that it performs well now. By the time that games take full advantage of the new instructions and extra threads, both Sandy Bridge and Bulldozer will be outdated.red12355
Exactly. if its not up to par yet then whats the motivation to buy it hoping it will get better? When and if it does get optimized there will be something newer out anyways.
Avatar image for Mr_BillGates
Mr_BillGates

3211

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#89 Mr_BillGates
Member since 2005 • 3211 Posts

The flop is near fermi-level.

Avatar image for kraken2109
kraken2109

13271

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#90 kraken2109
Member since 2009 • 13271 Posts

Seems to be the sam everywhere.

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1285/pg1/amd-fx-8150-black-edition-8-core-processor-vs-core-i7-2600k-review-introduction.html

AMD I am disapoint :(

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
04dcarraher

23857

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#91 04dcarraher
Member since 2004 • 23857 Posts

The flop is near fermi-level.

Mr_BillGates
How was fermi a failure?
Avatar image for Tezcatlipoca666
Tezcatlipoca666

7241

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#92 Tezcatlipoca666
Member since 2006 • 7241 Posts

[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

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.

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

Absolutely. I have doubts about AMD's interest in gaming though. They had time to work on a high IPC CPU like the 2500k but instead they worked on a modular design more suited for very multithreaded work... Maybe they gave up on the gaming front (although they haven't admitted this outright yet). I'm sure that Bulldozer will allow for some beastly supercomputers but yeah..

In my opinion AMD is moving towards workstations, supercomputers (in which they are already doing well), and mid-range APU's. We may never see the equivalent of the Athlon 64 ever again.

Avatar image for savagetwinkie
savagetwinkie

7981

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#93 savagetwinkie
Member since 2008 • 7981 Posts
Tech and programs are changing while its dissapointing that they are stomping the competition, any one going for an upgrade from a dual core will still likely get a good amount of bang for your buck with these, and I just look at this total redesign as a step in teh right direction, for the future, i'm waiting for the apu version which I'll grab for a dev setup, I won't need to purchase video cards, eyefinity will come with it, and its likely going to be the most cost effective dev machine on the planet once they popup.
Avatar image for firefluff3
firefluff3

2073

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#94 firefluff3
Member since 2010 • 2073 Posts

By the time games really start using those extra threads this CPU will be obsolete.

hartsickdiscipl

was the same thing said about the Q6600 or whatever it is quad core compared to the dual?

Avatar image for edinsftw
edinsftw

4243

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#95 edinsftw
Member since 2009 • 4243 Posts

Well, that was quite saddening.

Avatar image for Gambler_3
Gambler_3

7736

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: -4

User Lists: 0

#96 Gambler_3
Member since 2009 • 7736 Posts

[QUOTE="Mr_BillGates"]

The flop is near fermi-level.

04dcarraher

How was fermi a failure?

Ya seriously. :|

Avatar image for kraken2109
kraken2109

13271

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#97 kraken2109
Member since 2009 • 13271 Posts

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="Mr_BillGates"]

The flop is near fermi-level.

Gambler_3

How was fermi a failure?

Ya seriously. :|

They used lots of power and got hot, but performance was fine. Not really a flop in my opinion.
Avatar image for ionusX
ionusX

25778

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#98 ionusX
Member since 2009 • 25778 Posts

[QUOTE="C_Rule"][QUOTE="theshadowhunter"]

the fact that the 1100t beats the 8150 is enough to keep me away. AMD needs to go back to the drawing boards and not come back for a while, oh wait they did and they gave us this crap... you failed us AMD... their next cpus are suppsed to be 10-15% faster, what a joke....

msfan1289

Sooo.... Their next CPUs will be as fast as their previous CPUs?.. YEY! :D Wait... :|

yeah wait.. lol faster from these CPUS, but by that time they will still be behind intel lol

well clarification is needed their next APU lineup will be 10% better mainly because its 6 core piledriver crossed with a gpu (largest trinity will be a hexa) a full 2 cores inferior to the fx-8150.

piledriver itself hasnt been claimed to be 10% better. in fact we have no idea how much better an 8 core piledriver is vs an 8150.

Avatar image for Gambler_3
Gambler_3

7736

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: -4

User Lists: 0

#99 Gambler_3
Member since 2009 • 7736 Posts

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

By the time games really start using those extra threads this CPU will be obsolete.

firefluff3

was the same thing said about the Q6600 or whatever it is quad core compared to the dual?

Yes but the Q6600's per core efficiency wasnt as far behind the E8400 as BD is to sandy bridge. Still the E8400 was the better buy for those who regularly upgrade and Q6600 was better for those who want longevity at the cost of some current performance.

Bulldozer on the other hand I just dont see a scenario for a gamer where it's the better buy, it's architecture is just so far behind the times.

Avatar image for aeatyes
aeatyes

131

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#100 aeatyes
Member since 2004 • 131 Posts

I'm just going to say it because no one else apparently has, at least not directly.

It doesn't matter if the future of software is all about having more cores because by the time that happens, Intel will have something that is better than Bulldozer/Piledriver.

And to realize this golden future, AMD will need to survive until then; so, yeah, having a little relevancy in today's market is important.

Also, from the looks of things at Intel, they have been focused on creating strong processors, and then slowly increasing the core count, rather than simply putting a bunch of ok cores together for a decent processor. The new Sandybridge CPU's are due out in the first half of November, and two of the three willl have six-cores, and they will probably perform even better than the i2600k does, which already outperforms or rivals the 8150 in all areas. That's only two cores behind AMD's newest, top-end product. Honestly, realistically, it doesn't look that good for AMD.

And you can bet your a** that Intel has much more coming down the pipe for 2012.

Cheers.