dutch site rolls out half their fx-8150 review.. the fluid king!!!

i must say these results are impressive. impressive indeed.. oh sorry let me explain

pc games hardware a dutch pc gaming magazine & website recently teaed the 8150's results from a comprehensive review their doing. and i stand impressed

in fluid benchmarks (fritz chess, excel, aida64, pcmark, winrare, 7zip we see the 8150 soundly going to town on intel's might sandybridge and neahelm extreme's and in winrar's case specifically soundly handing the 2600k its face on a tray as well as the 990x.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,837552/Bulldozer-FX-8150-Neue-Werte-plus-FX-auf-6-5-GHz-per-LN2-Launch-erst-im-Oktober-Geruecht-des-Tages/CPU/News/bildergalerie/?iid=1555077

7zip it also beats the 2600k by a small margin but then loses to the born2thread 990x (but it can be half forgiven because nobody is as good as the 990x @ 7zip)

in fritzchess, pcmark, and truecrpyt(AES) it comes within double digit results of the 2600k or 990x but comes up short (of one or the other). in fact the only fluid bench intel seems to win is in the audio transcoding benchmark where the 8150 loses to basically every desktop sandybridge

then comes gaming... now i need to be clear that this review is far from finished. they also chose to disable turbo boost so its only running @ 3.6 this whole time. but generally speaking (stalker cop, avp, lp2) it only makes small gains over the phenom II x4 980 (the 1100t isnt tested im assuming its about the same) meaning that gaming wise at least with turbo disabled bulldozer isnt that smart of a move. howeevr its running at a good .6ghz slower than it would in the real world which may or may not play a role here.

but as it stand the 8150 is the new processing power king!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xV3AqncOJFM&feature=fvwrel

I think I will wait for a official review, official release, before dwelling deep into new chips. This looks a bit LOL... Bulldozer chip equal to a a phenom ix4 970 in gaming? Gonna just wait for guru3d, anandtech, legitreview, tomshardware, and couple other folks. jedikevin2

intel is always one step ahead bulldozer just got owned!! if that is true!

hmm thats impossible for AMD to be on the same level as the phenom II in gaming.

but from a professional standpoint the bulldozers are actually pretty good. they will more than likely match or beat the 2700k in price and preformance in raw computing power. they will probably also be a real force to be considered once sandybridge-extreme launches. i mean sb-e is going to be ridiculously overpriced nonsense. meanwhile amd is offering a better than sandybridge alternative for half the price if not more that will do very, very well.

sure in gaming its not as good as a flag phenom II x4 but these also arent games known for tkaing advantage of many cores. let see it in supreme commander or shogun 2 or starcraft II. then ill say its not a wise gaming cpu.

im calling this (from one perspective) a success in disguise based off these. and on the other side of the table sitll mroe than ample for gaming. but not the best option in the world. and based on the above i chllenge you to say different. also absed on its raw computing preformance we can see that its really good. when games start to make more use of 4 cores+ id imagine wed see the tables shift and the game get a little more interestin..

sure in gaming its not as good as a flag phenom II x4 but these also arent games known for tkaing advantage of many cores. let see it in supreme commander or shogun 2 or starcraft II. then ill say its not a wise gaming cpu.

ionusX

Starcraft 2 doesn't even use 2 cores fully, having 8 would be useless for that game :P

I find those gaming benchmarks hard to believe, because the Fx-8150 is even higher clocked...

but from a professional standpoint the bulldozers are actually pretty good. they will more than likely match or beat the 2700k in price and preformance in raw computing power. they will probably also be a real force to be considered once sandybridge-extreme launches. i mean sb-e is going to be ridiculously overpriced nonsense. meanwhile amd is offering a better than sandybridge alternative for half the price if not more that will do very, very well.

sure in gaming its not as good as a flag phenom II x4 but these also arent games known for tkaing advantage of many cores. let see it in supreme commander or shogun 2 or starcraft II. then ill say its not a wise gaming cpu.

im calling this (from one perspective) a success in disguise based off these. and on the other side of the table sitll mroe than ample for gaming. but not the best option in the world. and based on the above i chllenge you to say different. also absed on its raw computing preformance we can see that its really good. when games start to make more use of 4 cores+ id imagine wed see the tables shift and the game get a little more interestin..

ionusX

I find those gaming benchmarks hard to believe, because the Fx-8150 is even higher clocked...

GD1551

The clocks on those chips have nothing to do with how they perform. That fact has been glaringly obvious in CPU's for as long as I could remember.

[QUOTE="GD1551"]

I find those gaming benchmarks hard to believe, because the Fx-8150 is even higher clocked...

ravenguard90

The clocks on those chips have nothing to do with how they perform. That fact has been glaringly obvious in CPU's for as long as I could remember.

Err, what I'm saying is that how bad could the chip be if lower clocked phenom 2s are beating it in gaming. What the hell is going on there. Spec wise bulldozer is supposed to crap on the phenom line up, so how is it that a higher clocked one is performing worse in games?

[QUOTE="GD1551"]

I find those gaming benchmarks hard to believe, because the Fx-8150 is even higher clocked...

ravenguard90

The clocks on those chips have nothing to do with how they perform. That fact has been glaringly obvious in CPU's for as long as I could remember.

indeed

[QUOTE="ravenguard90"]

[QUOTE="GD1551"]

I find those gaming benchmarks hard to believe, because the Fx-8150 is even higher clocked...

GD1551

The clocks on those chips have nothing to do with how they perform. That fact has been glaringly obvious in CPU's for as long as I could remember.

Err, what I'm saying is that how bad could the chip be if lower clocked phenom 2s are beating it in gaming. What the hell is going on there. Spec wise bulldozer is supposed to crap on the phenom line up, so how is it that a higher clocked one is performing worse in games?

Perhaps with the way it was designed. They didn't go with the traditional core design with the BD processor. Their 8-cores are technically a "quad-module" processor, with each module consisting of two partial cores sharing a few components typically found in one core.

In other words, this may be a case of lack of support in applications out now. It's much like the PS3 when it launched,where everyone found it uber difficult to design for it due to its unique processor design.

i must say these results are impressive. impressive indeed.. oh sorry let me explain

pc games hardware a dutch pc gaming magazine & website recently teaed the 8150's results from a comprehensive review their doing. and i stand impressed

in fluid benchmarks (fritz chess, excel, aida64, pcmark, winrare, 7zip we see the 8150 soundly going to town on intel's might sandybridge and neahelm extreme's and in winrar's case specifically soundly handing the 2600k its face on a tray as well as the 990x.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,837552/Bulldozer-FX-8150-Neue-Werte-plus-FX-auf-6-5-GHz-per-LN2-Launch-erst-im-Oktober-Geruecht-des-Tages/CPU/News/bildergalerie/?iid=1555077

7zip it also beats the 2600k by a small margin but then loses to the born2thread 990x (but it can be half forgiven because nobody is as good as the 990x @ 7zip)

in fritzchess, pcmark, and truecrpyt(AES) it comes within double digit results of the 2600k or 990x but comes up short (of one or the other). in fact the only fluid bench intel seems to win is in the audio transcoding benchmark where the 8150 loses to basically every desktop sandybridge

then comes gaming... now i need to be clear that this review is far from finished. they also chose to disable turbo boost so its only running @ 3.6 this whole time. but generally speaking (stalker cop, avp, lp2) it only makes small gains over the phenom II x4 980 (the 1100t isnt tested im assuming its about the same) meaning that gaming wise at least with turbo disabled bulldozer isnt that smart of a move. howeevr its running at a good .6ghz slower than it would in the real world which may or may not play a role here.

but as it stand the 8150 is the new processing power king!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xV3AqncOJFM&feature=fvwrel

ionusX

Those numbers come from OBR, probably the biggest troll on the internet. I don't care what the numbers are, if they are from him they are wrong.

when official ones come out from reliable sources then I'll believe it. I'd like to see AMD gain some ground with BD, and I dont think they delayed this chip this long to fall short of the 2500K like that. but we'll see... I own a 2500K and I hope AMD can atleast get close to the performance of it.

No way is it going to be slower clock for clock than phenom II, how can anyone even take this seriously?

No way is it going to be slower clock for clock than phenom II, how can anyone even take this seriously?

Gambler_3

If game performance with BD is not as consistent as the 25k then its a no buy for me. That i5 smokes everything it touches. 2scoopsofempty

these benchmarks are directly lifted from obrovsky blogspot. he has an engineering sample and these results have been on his site for quite a long time.

I'll be waiting for the Quad and Hexacore gaming reviews, since no game uses 8 coresWWIAB

[QUOTE="WWIAB"]I'll be waiting for the Quad and Hexacore gaming reviews, since no game uses 8 coresferret-gamer

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="WWIAB"]I'll be waiting for the Quad and Hexacore gaming reviews, since no game uses 8 coresmitu123

[QUOTE="mitu123"][QUOTE="ferret-gamer"] There are games that use 8 cores.ferret-gamer

Oh OBR benches. LAWL.MrGrimFandango

In case no one saw earlier. OBR is a humongous liar and constantly trolls, he's even admitted it and he hates AMD with a passion.

These benches are fake, he's just trolling.

[QUOTE="MrGrimFandango"]Oh OBR benches. LAWL.GummiRaccoon

In case no one saw earlier. OBR is a humongous liar and constantly trolls, he's even admitted it and he hates AMD with a passion.

These benches are fake, he's just trolling.

Another win to us Intel boys. Plenty of love to go around ;)

TF2 ran at around 40fps on my old core 2 duo, plop in that hexcore, and bam...400fpswis3boi

[QUOTE="MrGrimFandango"]Oh OBR benches. LAWL.GummiRaccoon

In case no one saw earlier. OBR is a humongous liar and constantly trolls, he's even admitted it and he hates AMD with a passion.

These benches are fake, he's just trolling.

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]TF2 ran at around 40fps on my old core 2 duo, plop in that hexcore, and bam...400fpsGambler_3

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]TF2 ran at around 40fps on my old core 2 duo, plop in that hexcore, and bam...400fpskraken2109

cl_showfps 1 has me in the 300s in thick combat. Not like anything above 60 is going to be very noticeable, but there's definitely room for dips :)

cl_showfps 1 has me in the 300s in thick combat. Not like anything above 60 is going to be very noticeable, but there's definitely room for dips :)MrGrimFandango

How you only had 40 fps on a c2d is beyond me. It must have been severely underclocked. Going from 40 -> 400 by adding 4 cores makes no sense for that game unless the C2D was sitting at like 2ghz.

We are talking a 10x boost in performance, heck it is not possible with a highly overclocked sandy bridge either, technology hasnt advanced anyway near that much since the core 2 duo.

So if BC2 supports six cores .... surely an i7 is better than the standard i5 2500k for games like that? or am I missing something?Birdy09

Support multiple cores doesn't mean it supports hyperthreading, which is what the i7 has over the i5. Unless you're talking about the 980x, there will be no tangible benefit moving from a 2500k to a 2600k in BC2.

[QUOTE="Birdy09"]So if BC2 supports six cores .... surely an i7 is better than the standard i5 2500k for games like that? or am I missing something?ravenguard90

Support multiple cores doesn't mean it supports hyperthreading, which is what the i7 has over the i5. Unless you're talking about the 980x, there will be no tangible benefit moving from a 2500k to a 2600k in BC2.

[QUOTE="ravenguard90"]

[QUOTE="Birdy09"]So if BC2 supports six cores .... surely an i7 is better than the standard i5 2500k for games like that? or am I missing something?Birdy09

Support multiple cores doesn't mean it supports hyperthreading, which is what the i7 has over the i5. Unless you're talking about the 980x, there will be no tangible benefit moving from a 2500k to a 2600k in BC2.

The BD processors are known to have 8 physical cores, unlike the i7 2600k's four physical cores and four virtual cores made possible through hyperthreading.

Should a game support more than four cores, there will be a tangible benefit for gamers who have more than four cores, which is where these new processors fall in.

[QUOTE="Birdy09"][QUOTE="ravenguard90"]

Support multiple cores doesn't mean it supports hyperthreading, which is what the i7 has over the i5. Unless you're talking about the 980x, there will be no tangible benefit moving from a 2500k to a 2600k in BC2.

ravenguard90

The BD processors are known to have 8 physical cores, unlike the i7 2600k's four physical cores and four virtual cores made possible through hyperthreading.

Should a game support more than four cores, there will be a tangible benefit for gamers who have more than four cores, which is where these new processors fall in.

We are talking a 10x boost in performance, heck it is not possible with a highly overclocked sandy bridge either, technology hasnt advanced anyway near that much since the core 2 duo.

Gambler_3

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

We are talking a 10x boost in performance, heck it is not possible with a highly overclocked sandy bridge either, technology hasnt advanced anyway near that much since the core 2 duo.

wis3boi

4x6 = 24Ghz

2.4(not 2.2)x2 = 4.8Ghz

Since core 2 architecture is slightly superior we make it 5Ghz.

24/5= 4.8x more CPU power and thats when the game is completely optimized for hexa core and your GPU is not bottlenecking.

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

We are talking a 10x boost in performance, heck it is not possible with a highly overclocked sandy bridge either, technology hasnt advanced anyway near that much since the core 2 duo.

Gambler_3

4x6 = 24Ghz

2.4(not 2.2)x2 = 4.8Ghz

Since core 2 architecture is slightly superior we make it 5Ghz.

24/5= 4.8x more CPU power and thats when the game is completely optimized for hexa core and your GPU is not bottlenecking.

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="wis3boi"] Going from an un-overclockable first gen E6600 2.2ghz (i bought that thing on release day) to an AMD X6 overclocked to 4ghz, yea its a major leap.

MrGrimFandango

4x6 = 24Ghz

2.4(not 2.2)x2 = 4.8Ghz

Since core 2 architecture is slightly superior we make it 5Ghz.

24/5= 4.8x more CPU power and thats when the game is completely optimized for hexa core and your GPU is not bottlenecking.