Bulldozer

ShadowHearth · 12-10-2011 12:35pm

Enderman wrote: »

Prices are cropping up at 200-230 for the 8150. i5 2500k is cheaper, so AMD have priced themselves out of the market imo. Very bad times for AMD.

Wasn't that in dollars? Or is it usual bull**** to bend over eurozone 230eu=230dollars

Is they will be more expensive then 2500k, then they are ****ed. Totally agree.

uncle_sam_ie · 12-10-2011 12:40pm

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Wasn't that in dollars? Or is it usual bull**** to bend over eurozone 230eu=230dollars

Is they will be more expensive then 2500k, then they are ****ed. Totally agree.

Not cheap compared to the 2500k
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/productlist.php?groupid=701&catid=6&subid=1942

deejer · 12-10-2011 12:46pm

Pity they only releasing the FX-8150 today. Would be interesting to see the performance of the other CPU's in the line up with their big overclocks

FX-6100: Six cores, 3.3 GHz CPU base (3.6 GHz Turbo Core, 3.9 GHz Max Turbo), $165 suggested retail price (U.S.)

FX-4100: Four cores, 3.6 GHz CPU base (3.7 GHz Turbo Core, 3.8 GHz Max Turbo), $115 suggested retail price (U.S.)

Monotype · 12-10-2011 1:00pm

The price will drop down in a few weeks. They'd really want the lower 8-core (FX-8120) below the 2500K, although there's a FX-8100 coming too.

The 6 and 4 cores don't look great, judging by low thread tests of the 8150. Barely a replacement of the Phenoms, worse performance per clock but better power consumption and overclocking. The 4100 might do someone who is trying to stretch a low budget and will overclock.

ShadowHearth · 12-10-2011 1:07pm

uncle_sam_ie wrote: »

Not cheap compared to the 2500k
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/productlist.php?groupid=701&catid=6&subid=1942

yup, 200 pounds for 8150. 2500k is 167 pounds... AMD is ****ed.

Tea_Bag · 12-10-2011 1:15pm

well.... that was disappointing.

even though I already jumped ship to the 2500K, I was still looking forward to this and I do like AMD as a company.

the 8150 is €250 on HWVS. not in stock so hopefully its just a place holder.
it also falls into the AM3 heading, which could confuse some people

deceit · 12-10-2011 1:32pm

I'm hugely disappointed with these chips. I was hoping I could finaly justify getting an amd cpu again in my main rig as i've always liked the company

. Looks like I will have to just stick with my i7's until next year and see if the new ivybridge and new bulldozer am4 are not disappointments like this.

Jonny7 · 12-10-2011 1:33pm

Lowest EU launch prices so far

FX-8150 - 224 euros
FX-6100 - 160 euros
FX-4100 - 109 euros

Anyone into gaming is far better off getting an i5 2500k

Anyone into multithreaded can get better value with the x6 1100, which the BD fails to beat in quite a few benchmarks (pretty shocking really)

I was waiting for this one, but overall its a disappointment.

ShadowHearth · 12-10-2011 1:41pm

i loled at comments here:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/10/12/amd-fx-8150-review/comments

deceit · 12-10-2011 1:57pm

I'm curious now though from reading more would this be a good cpu for a home server that runs a vm esx server with 13 servers installed as the cores would help I think? If it is I could be tempted to pick one up to replace my x58 server with it and put 16gb ram in it?

ShadowHearth · 12-10-2011 2:06pm

Tea_Bag · 12-10-2011 2:07pm

it is interesting that the 'modules ' on the 4 and 6 core are locked down 8150/20s. potentially unlockable cores might make these worthwhile afterall if you get a cheapish 4100 and do a full unlock.

no motherboard vendors support the idea yet and AMD said it won't work but that's what they said for the last 2 generations.

Avose · 12-10-2011 5:53pm

I have to say its a massive dissapointment.. I love AMD as a company in the past, but its not good this time. Higher price than a 2500k AND worse performance in games??

totally confused at how a completely new generation is so underwhelming, and im gonna have to give my cash to intel... Damn...

Meirleach · 12-10-2011 6:26pm

Avose wrote: »

I have to say its a massive dissapointment.. I love AMD as a company in the past, but its not good this time. Higher price than a 2500k AND worse performance in games??
totally confused at how a completely new generation is so underwhelming, and im gonna have to give my cash to intel... Damn...

Just a note, the gaming performance being worse seems to depend on the game

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1285/pg10/amd-fx-8150-black-edition-8-core-processor-vs-core-i7-2600k-review-deus-ex-human-revolution.html

Interesting both the hardwareheaven and HardOCP reviews where it did okay, were not testing it in a Crosshair V, most of the lower performing reviews were using that board.

If it does turn out that the Crosshair V is bottlenecking the chip I will be so pissed, it's the board I have

Overheal · 12-10-2011 7:02pm

Are the performances being compared when its coupled with an HD 6800/6900 series card? Apparently it's supposed to do some Voltron ****.

DermotOH · 12-10-2011 8:35pm

So basically.... Stick with the 2500k

Avose · 12-10-2011 8:41pm

DermotOH wrote: »

So basically.... Stick with the 2500k

Yup, i just ordered my 2500k build 20 minutes ago...

uncle_sam_ie · 13-10-2011 9:37am

When Bulldozer prices fall through the roof due to them not selling and, believe me this will happen quickly as the reviews have been so bad, at what price point would you consider buying one?

kev_like · 13-10-2011 10:46am

uncle_sam_ie wrote: »

When Bulldozer prices fall through the roof due to them not selling and, believe me this will happen quickly as the reviews have been so bad, at what price point would you consider buying one?

All depends on how much that price drops to :P

ShadowHearth · 13-10-2011 12:59pm

uncle_sam_ie wrote: »

When Bulldozer prices fall through the roof due to them not selling and, believe me this will happen quickly as the reviews have been so bad, at what price point would you consider buying one?

that is the thing.

Since down of times we all knew:

INTEL - expensive, but powerfull
AMD - cheap and best bang for your money.

AMD tryed to be INTEL, and now it will pay for it. They priced it as intel, but forgot to add performance... :rolleyes:

The only thing, that can save them - baldly undercut Intel and get back in to its " bang for the money " world.

Lets play a waiting game...

Meirleach · 13-10-2011 1:04pm

ShadowHearth wrote: »

that is the thing.

Since down of times we all knew:

INTEL - expensive, but powerfull
AMD - cheap and best bang for your money.

That's actually wrong though, waay way back, the original fx and AMD64 chips were miles ahead of Intel....and priced to match!

Admittedly it has been far to long since then, which is a massive shame as more competition in the high end would be good for business, or at least consumers.

deejer · 13-10-2011 1:06pm

based on everything I have read I am better off sticking with my 965 rather than updating to Bulldozer at the moment.

So will be at least waiting for "Piledriver" before upgrading

ShadowHearth · 13-10-2011 1:27pm

Meirleach wrote: »

That's actually wrong though, waay way back, the original fx and AMD64 chips were miles ahead of Intel....and priced to match!

Admittedly it has been far to long since then, which is a massive shame as more competition in the high end would be good for business, or at least consumers.

yup, true, but it was 5 millions years ago

Monotype · 13-10-2011 1:43pm

Meirleach wrote: »

That's actually wrong though, waay way back, the original fx and AMD64 chips were miles ahead of Intel....and priced to match!

It's not that far back, there's not need to make me feel old... although it is a long time in the technology world. At least when the FX-57 was nearly €1K, you could still buy an opteron for under €200 and overclock to the same speeds... actually, that's the same price as a 2500K. I'm worried that the K processors are just a step in the phasing of locking down CPUs entirely. At least when overclocked, Bulldozer beats a 2500, maybe a 2600 so Intel can't afford to lock down for another while.

tuxy · 13-10-2011 6:54pm

Bring back the days of pentium 3 vs. athlon thunderbird

Fnz · 13-10-2011 10:43pm

uncle_sam_ie wrote: »

When Bulldozer prices fall through the roof

Wait, what? Are you in topsy-turvy land?

Are our floors safe? :pac:

Tar.Aldarion · 14-10-2011 11:15am

Monotype wrote: »

It's not that far back, there's not need to make me feel old... although it is a long time in the technology world. At least when the FX-57 was nearly €1K, you could still buy an opteron for under €200 and overclock to the same speeds... actually, that's the same price as a 2500K. I'm worried that the K processors are just a step in the phasing of locking down CPUs entirely. At least when overclocked, Bulldozer beats a 2500, maybe a 2600 so Intel can't afford to lock down for another while.

From what I was seeing a stock 2500k was better than a stock bulldozer for gaming? Do it really OC so much to be better than both the 2500k and 2600k, if they are OCed?

Jonny7 · 14-10-2011 12:00pm

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

From what I was seeing a stock 2500k was better than a stock bulldozer for gaming? Do it really OC so much to be better than both the 2500k and 2600k, if they are OCed?

Stick to the 2500k for gaming

Bulldozer is capable of reaching incredibly high overclocks, an enthusiast (using liquid nitrogen) got it to a smidge over 8 ghz recently.

Very power hungry though, in one review on a 4.6 overclock it was using 432 watts.

deejer · 14-10-2011 12:04pm

Jonny7 wrote: »

Very power hungry though, in one review on a 4.6 overclock it was using 432 watts.

Yep - saw 500w on a 5ghz overclock

deconduo · 14-10-2011 12:08pm

Jonny7 wrote: »

Stick to the 2500k for gaming

Bulldozer is capable of reaching incredibly high overclocks, an enthusiast (using liquid nitrogen) got it to a smidge over 8 ghz recently.

Very power hungry though, in one review on a 4.6 overclock it was using 432 watts.

I love how the person who came up with the chart put superPI at the top of the list with the big huge -100%. That program was written exclusively for Intel CPUs and doesn't even really work on AMD ones. Sure Bulldozer still sucks, but its not THAT bad :P

Bulldozer

Comments