Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 89

Thread: AMD Releases FX-Series Bulldozer Desktop CPUs

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    France
    Posts
    15

    Default Some Linux results

    I don't know if this was already pointed out, but a French website tested the FX-8150 under Ubuntu 11.04 using PTS. The results are here :

    http://www.pcinpact.com/articles/amd-fx-8150/420-5.htm

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peapa View Post
    I don't know if this was already pointed out, but a French website tested the FX-8150 under Ubuntu 11.04 using PTS. The results are here :

    http://www.pcinpact.com/articles/amd-fx-8150/420-5.htm
    Thanks a lot, I think this perfectly illustrates what a bad CPU the new Bulldozer really is. It's just the best review I've seen so far. I've decided to just go out an buy a good old Phenom II x4 before it gets more expensive when people realize what a good value it is.
    Oh well, as they say , better luck next time.
    Looking at the figures I still can't understand why AMD even created Bulldozer ? They could have just built a 32 nm Phenom II , even an 8 cored one would have had less transistors and those would have been 8 full cores, with some small improvements added it would have been way better than this. If they added hyperthreading to that .... an almost pefect CPU.
    Last edited by mcirsta; 10-13-2011 at 08:33 AM.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    649

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mcirsta View Post
    Looking at the figures I still can't understand why AMD even created Bulldozer ? They could have just built a 32 nm Phenom II , even an 8 cored one would have had less transistors and those would have been 8 full cores, with some small improvements added it would have been way better than this. If they added hyperthreading to that .... an almost pefect CPU.
    hmm I dont get it, did we read the same results, bulldozer is on this test 14% faster when I look at a price-comparition site in germany (geizhals.at/de) the bulldozer is cheaper listet than whats the price there, so it costs only 226,- Euro and that is before its availible prices (especialy after this bad reviews will fall more) that would be 33% more expensive if you calculate a 80,- Euro Mainboard and 8gb ram to each of this systems you get even to less more money in percentage for such a system so for 14% more speed and better idle-power-consumtion values I would pay everytime 33% more money (for the cpu for the system maybe only 10-15% more money). At least if I want a really fast system or I would look for benchmarks for the slower cpus or wait for the new sockel or...

    And even Linux is not perfektly optimised for the bulldozer right now, I heard of a patch that is done but not included in linux yet, what would bring down powerconsumtion in some situations and such stuff.

    And you can buy the fx-8120 version that has 4ghz turbo instead of the 4.2ghz turbo (5% difference) and pay 20% less so thats a good offer, too.

    how much percent of the buyers buy the overpriced top modell of a cpu company anyway, people who burn money to light their cigars.
    Last edited by blackiwid; 10-13-2011 at 08:59 AM.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    519

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mcirsta View Post
    Thanks a lot, I think this perfectly illustrates what a bad CPU the new Bulldozer really is. It's just the best review I've seen so far. I've decided to just go out an buy a good old Phenom II x4 before it gets more expensive when people realize what a good value it is.
    Oh well, as they say , better luck next time.
    Looking at the figures I still can't understand why AMD even created Bulldozer ? They could have just built a 32 nm Phenom II , even an 8 cored one would have had less transistors and those would have been 8 full cores, with some small improvements added it would have been way better than this. If they added hyperthreading to that .... an almost pefect CPU.
    There is not much info about the test system, but they seem to have tested with stock 11.04, so it's most probably lacking this patch http://us.generation-nt.com/answer/p...204200361.html

    Yes, the BD launch has been close to catastrophic due to how charts make the chip look especially compared to Phenom II, much to the delight of Intel fans. All the more reason to remain critical

    Looking at the figures I still can't understand why AMD even created Bulldozer
    Personally, looking at the figures I want more software soon that takes advantage of the new architecture.
    Last edited by PsynoKhi0; 10-13-2011 at 09:34 AM.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackiwid View Post
    hmm I dont get it, did we read the same results, bulldozer is on this test 14% faster when I look at a price-comparition site in germany (geizhals.at/de) the bulldozer is cheaper listet than whats the price there, so it costs only 226,- Euro and that is before its availible prices (especialy after this bad reviews will fall more) that would be 33% more expensive
    Yes , we read the same results , did you read the transistor count on that thing ? I can't be sold much cheaper than it is... and I find it a bad deal so I'm just going to buy an old generation CPU, an AM3+ MB and wait for the 2012 Bulldozer.
    I ways saying this ... Phenom II x6 = 900 mil tranzistors , assume all of then are dedicate for each core (it's not ) that's 150 mil / core max. OK now that would mean an 8 core Phenom II x8 would have 900 + 300 = 1200 mil transistors. The Bulldozer thingy has 2000 mil transistors, that's 66% more than a potential Phenom II x8. Now if the performance is 14 more compared to the 6 core Phenom II, the 8 core Phenom II would probably kick its .... rear and it would be cheaper to produce and have 8 real cores , not 8 shared ones.
    So again , why do we have the Bulldozer , why does AMD have it ?

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PsynoKhi0 View Post
    There is not much info about the test system, but they seem to have tested with stock 11.04, so it's most probably lacking this patch http://us.generation-nt.com/answer/p...204200361.html
    That patch will bring less then 5% performance increase and that's if you're lucky so good but almost insignificant.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mcirsta View Post
    Looking at the figures I still can't understand why AMD even created Bulldozer ?
    For server markets. I think the desktop release was just mandatory for them, but it's really aimed at servers, and from what I've seen it's good at typical server workloads. Trinity will be the interesting one for desktops (with the whole fusion thing).

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,910

    Default

    It seems to follow the classic strategy for high-end servers (see SPARC T3): many threads at once at the expense of single-threaded performance.

    This was a rather unsuccessful launch, but I do expect that it will prove to be a decent architecture in the long run -- something MUST have gone wrong somewhere in terms of this particular product, there is no way that this is the performance they were aiming for. I expect them to fix the problems, when it will be a very competitive chip.

    Still, it's interesting to note that the latest SPARC T4 has made a bit of a turn in design, with much improves single-core performance at the expense of fewer cores. So it will be interesting to see how well Bulldozer does on high-end servers.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kivada View Post
    No, iDong waggling by fanbois means nothing but to a handful of morons that don't know how to weigh their options.

    What's an unavoidable fact is the number of idiots that still want a comp with a Pentium in it, let alone how few OEMs offer AMD parts and those that do offer them seem to gimp them in the stupidest ways possible.

    Take the last get AMD mobile parts, the fastest was the Phenom2 X4 X940 Black Edition, that was only available in 1 laptop anywhere in the US and could only be configured with an HD5650m GPU while you could easily get an Intel i7 Mobile X920 Extreme Edition with 2x HD6990m or GTX580M GPUs in Crossfire/SLI in at least a dozen different models of laptop.

    AMD has made huge gains in OSS driver support, yet try finding AMD hardware via Zareason or Syetem76, both companies that specialize in Linux compatible hardware. What little that is offered is in no better shape then the bargain basement(read crap) brands like HP, Dell and Acer.

    How about on the bottom end where AMD is actually winning, you know, with the A, E and Z series APUs, go look for anything based on them in your local big box retailer display shelves. Oh whats that? They have only 1 AMD machine with hardware thats 3 years out of date?

    So what happens? The 95% shop at those places, all they see is Intel hardware, so thats what they buy, it's why Intel has something like 80-90% of the GPU market, it sure as hell isn't because it's a good product at the price point.

    Am I a fanboy? No, I just don't want to give Intel money, they're already far too ubiquitous, if they keep growing you can bet your ass we'll see the return of $4000 CPUs.

    I'd love to support VIA, but I run Linux and they seem to be too retarded to realize their own position and should have merged with Nvidia long ago for the benefit of both companies. Its one of the few times you'll ever hear me support a merger, because I liked what was demoed with the VIA Nano CPU with the Nvidia ION chipset and Nvidia would have had access to their X86 license and stable of ARM devs. Though I still don't like that Nvidia wont release docs to the Nouveau team, I'll take OSS drivers over blobs any day of the week.

    I'd give Xcore86 a try, if they get to at least i686 compatibility and can at least use a PCI GPU. This leaves only one choice, AMD as the only company that sells OSS compatible hardware that doesn't have a near complete monopoly on the market.
    Wow, your long winded.... So AMD's desktop and mobile marketing teams sucks... Havent you already realized that AMD has taken a "Server at every cost" approach? But what does that have anything to do with mindshare?

    Might I remind you of Sledgehammer... Before that the desktop, and mobile space was in a similar predicament... Then they gained mindshare with Sledge, and guess what happened...

    EDIT: which is exactly my point... They NEED so -STOP ALLOWING- marketing to make engineering decisions. If they would design a balanced processor that had good ILP -AND- good TLP it would have been received better. But no, instead marketing insisted on something that they could call 8 cores even though its actually only 4.

    Dont get me wrong tho, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with BD architecture.. It has some bottlenecks that must be fixed, but once they are it has FAR more aggregate bandwidth than SB or IB....

    My advice is wait until the next 1 or 2 product refreshes.
    Last edited by duby229; 10-13-2011 at 11:28 AM.

  10. #70

    Default

    Nope, "mindshare" means nothing, marketing to consumers means nothing, all that matters is selling parts to OEMs. You know, Dell, HP/Compaq, Acer, eMachines, Sony, Lenovo, Toshiba, Hitachi, Asus, MSI. The box makers that sell ridicules amounts of machines with windows+crapware in big box stores.

    Consumers don't pick a comp based on it's hardware, they do so based on it's price, they want sub $500 machines that are using maybe $200 worth of hardware at best, so burning money trying to advertise to consumers means very little since they're just going to buy whatever the snot nosed kid in a blue shirt with a yellow name tag puts them in front of because thats what his manager tells him to do as the store may make a higher margin off it's sale.

    This is why you still see machines being sold as new to this day based on the Nvidia 6150 chipset.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •