AMD Bulldozer review by Guru3d is up.

[QUOTE="firefluff3"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

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

Gambler_3

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

That's not quite accurate... it's architecture is different. We aren't talking about Phenom II which ARE behind the times.

[QUOTE="firefluff3"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

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

Gambler_3

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

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.

I just brought a new rig aswell with the hope i could upgrade my CPU from a 955 to a bulldozer.

Seems pointless now. I should of waited a couple of weeks and gone Intel.:cry:

Its seems the only upgrade worth it is the FX quad core from a phenom II. Its cheaper than a 975 atleast and has better specs.

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="firefluff3"]

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

Tezcatlipoca666

That's not quite accurate... it's architecture is different. We aren't talking about Phenom II which ARE behind the times.

More reviews are up and more of the same it does ok in task like editing, but it doesn't beat out the i5 or i7 in most cases, and in gaming its nothing more than an X4

[QUOTE="Tezcatlipoca666"]

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]it's architecture is just so far behind the times.

Gambler_3

That's not quite accurate... it's architecture is different. We aren't talking about Phenom II which ARE behind the times.

crap i just remember tehy are going to stop making AM3 CPUS once these AM3+ came out. so anything looks to buy a CPU buy it now while supplies last.

Your looking at it from a limited view, the architecture is designed to support excessive amounts of thread, the 8 core is basically the first step, the core i9 will support 12 threads, but 6 of them are purely virtual and don't have their own resources. This is where the difference in the architecture will become more favorable to amd. And their modular design is going to allow them to scale extremely well going into the future, this is whats important here that no one sees, this architecture redesign may have costed them performance in older apps, but multithreaded performance is important, alot of applications today can't make use of all 8 cores, but some can, and more will be coming. Its more of a case this technology is slightly ahead of its time, and QQers are just wining because they can't make use of it in games they bought already. Sometimes new technology is designed around the idea of new software, and bringing better hardware for the future. Thats why direct x is loosing comparability with older versions because they are willing to forget the past and move on, OpenGl is suffering from this and trying to keep better support for backwards compatibility and is falling behind in terms of tech. But the comparison with OpenGl and DirectX isn't as bad, since hw isn't interchangeable at runtime, so its harder to digest the out with the old, in with the new way of thinking. Even DX11 will see a huge boost in performance, none of the drivers really support the dx11 multi threads, right now they are still being serialized at the driver level, and not utilized. savagetwinkie

I think the issue at hand is here is as you said, technology is too far ahead of its time. By the time we really need 8 physical cores (at least at the rate people are optimizing for this many) there will be a strong more refined version of AMDs/Intels offerings, which is really the issue here.

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"]Your looking at it from a limited view, the architecture is designed to support excessive amounts of thread, the 8 core is basically the first step, the core i9 will support 12 threads, but 6 of them are purely virtual and don't have their own resources. This is where the difference in the architecture will become more favorable to amd. And their modular design is going to allow them to scale extremely well going into the future, this is whats important here that no one sees, this architecture redesign may have costed them performance in older apps, but multithreaded performance is important, alot of applications today can't make use of all 8 cores, but some can, and more will be coming. Its more of a case this technology is slightly ahead of its time, and QQers are just wining because they can't make use of it in games they bought already. Sometimes new technology is designed around the idea of new software, and bringing better hardware for the future. Thats why direct x is loosing comparability with older versions because they are willing to forget the past and move on, OpenGl is suffering from this and trying to keep better support for backwards compatibility and is falling behind in terms of tech. But the comparison with OpenGl and DirectX isn't as bad, since hw isn't interchangeable at runtime, so its harder to digest the out with the old, in with the new way of thinking. Even DX11 will see a huge boost in performance, none of the drivers really support the dx11 multi threads, right now they are still being serialized at the driver level, and not utilized. GD1551

I think the issue at hand is here is as you said, technology is too far ahead of its time. By the time we really need 8 physical cores (at least at the rate people are optimizing for this many) there will be a strong more refined version of AMDs/Intels offerings, which is really the issue here.

edit: I think most people need to stop plannign on future technology too, liek the person that built a amd machine thinking these were going to be a good upgrade, you got to look at whats out now to make the best possible use of your money, if I dindn't already have a workstation and were planning on buying one, I'd definitly take the 8 core 8120 as a consideration in terms of price/performance, but when I built my workstation it wasn't available, and my $150 1090t phenom II x6 was definitly a worth while buy even if it wasn't in the top performance.

The they still can be considered top of the line processers, its not like getting a core i7 2600k is going to really be more productive/playable. A core i7 is a little over 300, i can save about 60 bucks and the difference is 4xAA to 2xAA in civ 4... and this is without dx11 threads... so itsn ot like there are massive leaps in perfomance, The top of the line processers are basically edging each other out here and there in real world perfomance, and the only leaps are in pricing.

Hmm, they're now out on newegg and amazon and only amazon so far has the 4 core for 130 bucks.

its like in 2007 when the phenom I came out. it was a distaster and Conroe ate it alive even though it came out almost a year before it.

its like in 2007 when the phenom I came out. it was a distaster and Conroe ate it alive even though it came out almost a year before it.

theshadowhunter

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="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.

Gambler_3

I just brought a new rig aswell with the hope i could upgrade my CPU from a 955 to a bulldozer.

Seems pointless now. I should of waited a couple of weeks and gone Intel.:cry:

Its seems the only upgrade worth it is the FX quad core from a phenom II. Its cheaper than a 975 atleast and has better specs.

mattuk69

Yea I almost did the same thing. Glad I waited for the reviews, gonna go buy my SB setup on Friday.

I just brought a new rig aswell with the hope i could upgrade my CPU from a 955 to a bulldozer.

Seems pointless now. I should of waited a couple of weeks and gone Intel.:cry:

Its seems the only upgrade worth it is the FX quad core from a phenom II. Its cheaper than a 975 atleast and has better specs.

mattuk69

I can't believe this. I'm actually waiting for my new rig to be assembled, a 970 board and an Athlon X3 (for untill the unmentionable arrives, HAHA). Think I might get an i3 build instead. What a dissapointment.

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] AMD didnt acquire ATI until 2006 and the 3000's series was last true ATI product the 4000 series onward has been under AMD controltequilasunriser

More benchmarks, in some cases the 4170 beats the 6-8 core Bulldozers.

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8150fx_8120fx_6100_and_fx_4170,6.html

More benchmarks, in some cases the 4170 beats the 6-8 core Bulldozers.

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8150fx_8120fx_6100_and_fx_4170,6.html

mitu123

Ouch so it looks like in anything that doesn't support more than 4 cores its not better than an X4, and even when it does it still looses to the SB

One people seem to forget (I am not defending AMD's choice of architecture) but almost EVERYTHING is becoming at least multicored. Multicore is going to have a huge boom, unlike before. Hell cell phones are dual core and on their way to quad core now. The development for multicore / thread should increase quite dramatically over the next couple of years. It may soon become to technology people "look" for when making purchases. Human-after-all

But the problem is by the time 6-8 cores are used on a regular basics, intel will have some 200 dollar 6 core than will make the bulldozer look like crap. For gaming we just finally got quads being used in most games.

One people seem to forget (I am not defending AMD's choice of architecture) but almost EVERYTHING is becoming at least multicored. Multicore is going to have a huge boom, unlike before. Hell cell phones are dual core and on their way to quad core now. The development for multicore / thread should increase quite dramatically over the next couple of years. It may soon become to technology people "look" for when making purchases. Human-after-all

Yea, yea. And where are 1st generation Phenoms now?

More benchmarks, in some cases the 4170 beats the 6-8 core Bulldozers.

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8150fx_8120fx_6100_and_fx_4170,6.html

mitu123

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

More benchmarks, in some cases the 4170 beats the 6-8 core Bulldozers.

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8150fx_8120fx_6100_and_fx_4170,6.html

mattuk69

[QUOTE="mattuk69"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

More benchmarks, in some cases the 4170 beats the 6-8 core Bulldozers.

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8150fx_8120fx_6100_and_fx_4170,6.html

mitu123

[QUOTE="Human-after-all"]One people seem to forget (I am not defending AMD's choice of architecture) but almost EVERYTHING is becoming at least multicored. Multicore is going to have a huge boom, unlike before. Hell cell phones are dual core and on their way to quad core now. The development for multicore / thread should increase quite dramatically over the next couple of years. It may soon become to technology people "look" for when making purchases. gamerns

Yea, yea. And where are 1st generation Phenoms now?

[QUOTE="SamiRDuran"]

biggest flop in pc hardware history?

Gambler_3

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.

There is no bigger flop than the FX 5800 launch.

saw this in another forum, brings up a good point with the arguement with the 2600K vs the fx-8150:

They're both eight threads, the OS could give a crap if they 4 cores with hyper-threading to give 8 threads, or 8 "modules". Here are the few things that matter to most people on OCN:

1.) Price/performance, Intel is the winner here in most categories)
2.) Power/performance. AMD is epic failing this one with any of its "high performance" CPUs.
3.) Pure performance, goes to Intel, no contest.

AMD Fans, answer me this, you save $60 on buying an AMD FX over Intel 2600k, get performance that isn't even close to the 2600k, and then end up paying most of that $60 back on your electricity bill. Seriously, you'd have to by high or just completely irrational to want the Bulldozer for any reason.

And for the record let me state that I've owned numerous AMD rigs over the years, I'm a performance enthusiast, not some hopeless fanboy, and at the moment AMD has nothing to bring to the table.

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="SamiRDuran"]

biggest flop in pc hardware history?

GummiRaccoon

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.

There is no bigger flop than the FX 5800 launch.

Guess I will try out that 2600k since I am quite upset about the performance of the Bulldozer... Is the i7 2600k a good step up from a Phenom II X6 1090t?, like the one in my sig..ShadowDragon78

Hell yeah!

I can safely say I'm going back to Intel with my next build, been years since they were my main.

Honestly, the 8120 looks like a pretty awesome deal to me at this point. It will probably be a better processor then the 2500k in the long run, and is basically the same price.

Honestly, the 8120 looks like a pretty awesome deal to me at this point. It will probably be a better processor then the 2500k in the long run, and is basically the same price.

magnax1

Looks like I am going SB, mega fail AMD, mega fail.V4LENT1NE

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

Honestly, the 8120 looks like a pretty awesome deal to me at this point. It will probably be a better processor then the 2500k in the long run, and is basically the same price.

mitu123

Looks like I am going SB, mega fail AMD, mega fail.V4LENT1NE

Do expect them to be very expensive. Especially at first since Intel typically release their flagships first.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="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.

Gambler_3

There is no bigger flop than the FX 5800 launch.

[QUOTE="mitu123"][QUOTE="magnax1"] I hope it isn't too long... [QUOTE="V4LENT1NE"]Looks like I am going SB, mega fail AMD, mega fail.Tezcatlipoca666

Do expect them to be very expensive. Especially at first since Intel typically release their flagships first.

Also isnt Ivy delayed until 2013?04dcarraher

I had plans to go with AMD for the 1st time ever, but not after this disappointment of BD. What I'm going to do now is wait for LGA 2011 motherboards which come out next month. The X79 and get a Sandy Bridge-E CPU. And upgrade to a Ivy later next year.

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

There is no bigger flop than the FX 5800 launch.

wis3boi

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="SamiRDuran"]

biggest flop in pc hardware history?

GummiRaccoon

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.

There is no bigger flop than the FX 5800 launch.

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]Ya have heard alot about that but wasnt a PC hardware follower back then so cant really have an opinion myself.

ferret-gamer

Guess I will try out that 2600k since I am quite upset about the performance of the Bulldozer... Is the i7 2600k a good step up from a Phenom II X6 1090t?, like the one in my sig..ShadowDragon78

There's no point in upgrading from a Phenom II to a Sandy Bridge unless you're doing something other than gaming. Phenom II's do just as well as any other CPU in games, they hardly bottleneck at all.