Bulldozer project

[XtrmJash]

Does anyone have any experience with the AMD bulldozer stuff? I heard a while ago that it was a failed experiment, but they weren't giving up on it. Now I see the 8 core CPU is going for under 200$, and I don't think I can resist. Anyone got one? What's the performance like? Anyone got reasons against?

I'd be looking at:

AMD Bulldozer black edition (AMD FX-8120) 8 cores @ 3.1Ghz.
Gigabyte GA-78LMT <32Gb RAM 1333MHz DDR3
Seagate Barracudia 7200 RPM / 1TB
2x8Gb DDR3 1333MHz RAM
AMD Radeon HD 6450 w/ 2Gb DDR3
My PSU, it's some 650 watt cheapo thing.

Already got the graphics, RAM, HDD, so would just be buying the CPU / MB.

[Farsa]

what are you going to use it for?

[klusbert]

What I've heard of AMDs 8cores is that it is almost worl most like an intel 4 core with hyperthreading. The first release was a big fail(to much expectations), I wanted to buy it then but in the last moment I bought intel 2700k for obvious reasons.

But I've not heard much about the 2nd release, but I think it's worth it's money. But I would buy AMD FX-8350 cost almost as much and the 2nd edition have better ipc(instruction per cycle) then you can imagine overclock it.

But if you are going to game with it a intel 2500k is better in performance, at least in games.


Keep in mind intel is about 2 years ahead Amd, but if it the price that is your first priority amd is great.
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?...350+Eight-Core

Im not surprised Amd toping the list performance/%price

[Blaster_89]

If you're going to get AMD, make sure you get a Vishera CPU. Do NOT get the 8120/8150. If you want 8 cores, go for the 8320 or 8350.
I assume you're not going to use it for gaming, considering your shitty GPU, so the 8320/8350 will probably beat Intel's equivalent(s).

edit: Make sure you get some aftermarket cooler (I personally use CM's 212 Evo), unless you manage to get AMD's watercooler bundled with the CPU.

[DarkstaR]

I personally have a 8150FX Black Edition and I have no complaints. It's a fucking beast processor, clocks to 4.6GHz, doesn't overheat, and I haven't had any issues with it. Sure, you can say it's about the same as an Intel 4-core processor with hyper threading, but its also much cheaper.

Not sure why everyone here seems to have a problem with it (maybe they've read bad reviews but not actually TESTED IT), but I personally love it. Paid 170$ for it and would buy it again. AMD > Intel any day.

[XtrmJash]

what are you going to use it for?

Very light gaming, mostly in Tibia but the occasional few hours on WoW / LoL. The GPU isn't really anything I'm worrying about, just wondering if it is as good as / better than just getting an i7...

What I've heard of AMDs 8cores is that it is almost worl most like an intel 4 core with hyperthreading. The first release was a big fail(to much expectations), I wanted to buy it then but in the last moment I bought intel 2700k for obvious reasons.

But I've not heard much about the 2nd release, but I think it's worth it's money. But I would buy AMD FX-8350 cost almost as much and the 2nd edition have better ipc(instruction per cycle) then you can imagine overclock it.

But if you are going to game with it a intel 2500k is better in performance, at least in games.


Keep in mind intel is about 2 years ahead Amd, but if it the price that is your first priority amd is great.
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?...350+Eight-Core

Im not surprised Amd toping the list performance/%price

That cpubenchmark site is quite interesting, suggests that I'm looking along the right lines. I disagree that intel is 2 years ahead, I think if anything Intel are behind for not having developed a commercially available 8 core CPU yet, when AMD have been manufacturing them for a few months (maybe even years?) Though intel is ahead regarding the internals, I can't help but think it's better to have an 8 core than a 4 core HT CPU, since 8 cores can handle not more calls, but a wider range of calls at once... For a CPU to make any use of HT, the software needs to be designed with incredible detail, and I don't think any software is up to the job yet.

If you're going to get AMD, make sure you get a Vishera CPU. Do NOT get the 8120/8150. If you want 8 cores, go for the 8320 or 8350.
I assume you're not going to use it for gaming, considering your shitty GPU, so the 8320/8350 will probably beat Intel's equivalent(s).

edit: Make sure you get some aftermarket cooler (I personally use CM's 212 Evo), unless you manage to get AMD's watercooler bundled with the CPU.

The 8120 was the first to spring up when I searched amazon, I will look for the 8320/8350 in a while. I'll most likely get a cooler from WoC, they supply computers for my company but they only deal with intel, they will source AMD components and deliver in hours upon request... Not looking for anything fancy, just want something which will be as powerful as my i7 at work, or at least provide a similar experience. The software build time at home at the minute is about 6 minutes, whereas at work it's 2 minutes or so. I'm using an AMD Phenom II though, which is piss poor compared to my old rig which I blew up, but it gets me by and costed practically nothing lol

What's wrong with the 81**? Why are the 83** so much better?

[XtrmJash]

I personally have a 8150FX Black Edition and I have no complaints. It's a fucking beast processor, clocks to 4.6GHz, doesn't overheat, and I haven't had any issues with it. Sure, you can say it's about the same as an Intel 4-core processor with hyper threading, but its also much cheaper.

Not sure why everyone here seems to have a problem with it (maybe they've read bad reviews but not actually TESTED IT), but I personally love it. Paid 170$ for it and would buy it again. AMD > Intel any day.

Exactly the response I was waiting/hoping/praying for, really. I read in a lot of places that AMD are behind the times or whatever, but I've only ever heard it from Intels loyal customers or just generally intel users. As mentioned above I'm using an AMD Phenom II, dual core, some 1.7Ghz or so per core, and it's a ton better than the Intel dual core I had for some time, which are actually very differently priced (the intel was about £120, AMD would be about £75 at the time). Not entirely sure why, but it seems a lot more responsive using XP / Win7, though running Windows 98 is considerably faster on the intel (strange shit going down there, might be due to using 2 different releases or something, the AMD one may have been a OA blend or something similar.

I believe the 8150 can be clocked to 5GHz, with the right cooling in place? Though I doubt even you could consume 100% CPU with that thing with 8 cores at 4.6GHz.

At work we had some comms breakdown with intel a while ago, they wouldn't supply us with their 8 core CPU, so we went and bought a server board with 2x intel slots, put in some i7 Ivy Bridge CPUs, 256Gb RAM, and a fuckton of SSD drives (I think we had 16 SSD drives, at 160Gb each, when they were pretty much £10/Gb, as opposed to their current £1/Gb or so). It was one hell of a powerful machine, but I suspect even with those two CPUs being hyperthreaded (therefore actually claiming 16 cores), it wouldn't compete with the AMD 8 core CPUs in the same price range, let alone after hyperthreading... I mean, we can even get a 16 core CPU from AMD, and they have semi-released their latest 32 core, though its stability is definitely questionable.

The other beauty of AMD is, of course, the freedom you get from it all, they are a lot more lenient in my experience with ports and plugs, e.g intel actually limit motherboard manufacturers to putting, for instance, 1 PCI-e port on their motherboard, whereas AMD just say, yeah do you want / can, if it works we'll help you sell it. It's almost like Apple / Microsoft, or even Microsoft / Linux. A fight for freedom against a fight for typical end user pleasure.

[DarkstaR]

Exactly the response I was waiting/hoping/praying for, really. I read in a lot of places that AMD are behind the times or whatever, but I've only ever heard it from Intels loyal customers or just generally intel users. As mentioned above I'm using an AMD Phenom II, dual core, some 1.7Ghz or so per core, and it's a ton better than the Intel dual core I had for some time, which are actually very differently priced (the intel was about £120, AMD would be about £75 at the time). Not entirely sure why, but it seems a lot more responsive using XP / Win7, though running Windows 98 is considerably faster on the intel (strange shit going down there, might be due to using 2 different releases or something, the AMD one may have been a OA blend or something similar.

Different systems and tasks perform better with different processors. The Windows operating system has what is called a HAL, or hardware abstraction layer. Many processors will have different instructions for different types of optimization, different ways of branch prediction, etc. The HAL is what determines what processor is present and uses the features to their full potential. What you could have experienced is Windows 98 optimization for Intel, since AMD wasn't "big-ticket" back then and, therefore, lacked proper HAL support.

Also, my Phenom x4 2.8GHz was amazing and way outperformed my duocore Intel 3.0GHz + hyper threading (They say hyper threading is almost like 2x the cores, but it only enables parallel processing and doesn't give any extra cache advantages).

I believe the 8150 can be clocked to 5GHz, with the right cooling in place? Though I doubt even you could consume 100% CPU with that thing with 8 cores at 4.6GHz.

The 8150 was the first desktop processor successfully clocked to 9.0GHz. You need some intense cooling, but it can do the trick (not that anybody needs that power).

At work we had some comms breakdown with intel a while ago, they wouldn't supply us with their 8 core CPU, so we went and bought a server board with 2x intel slots, put in some i7 Ivy Bridge CPUs, 256Gb RAM, and a fuckton of SSD drives (I think we had 16 SSD drives, at 160Gb each, when they were pretty much £10/Gb, as opposed to their current £1/Gb or so). It was one hell of a powerful machine, but I suspect even with those two CPUs being hyperthreaded (therefore actually claiming 16 cores), it wouldn't compete with the AMD 8 core CPUs in the same price range, let alone after hyperthreading... I mean, we can even get a 16 core CPU from AMD, and they have semi-released their latest 32 core, though its stability is definitely questionable.

If you want beast processing, throw in 10 GPU's (NVidia or AMD) and use hardware acceleration. GPU's are optimized for mathematical operations so any sort of graphics, encryption, or brute-forcing can be done seamlessly.

The other beauty of AMD is, of course, the freedom you get from it all, they are a lot more lenient in my experience with ports and plugs, e.g intel actually limit motherboard manufacturers to putting, for instance, 1 PCI-e port on their motherboard, whereas AMD just say, yeah do you want / can, if it works we'll help you sell it. It's almost like Apple / Microsoft, or even Microsoft / Linux. A fight for freedom against a fight for typical end user pleasure.

Plus, most AM3+ boards come with easy overclocking and full hardware control over the processor.

[Farsa]

Considering you will be moving from an AMD Phenom II...pretty much anything new would be a good upgrade lol

But yes, if that is your budget(200$), you will be fine with an AMD. Those 8 core will be useful only in a handful of cases and in games you can expect to be on par with i5 34xx processors.

The quote about AMD being behind Intel is a fact. Compare both companies high tier CPUs and you will see Intel's performance is superior, more expensive too, but that is for obvious reasons... technology's price doesn't scale linearly for high end equipment. AMD's strategy is stuffing more core inside the processor and offer the best performance/cost.

[DarkstaR]

The quote about AMD being behind Intel is a fact. Compare both companies high tier CPUs and you will see Intel's performance is superior, more expensive too, but that is for obvious reasons... technology's price doesn't scale linearly for high end equipment. AMD's strategy is stuffing more core inside the processor and offer the best performance/cost.

Completely agree. I'm and AMD guy but I know, when it comes to top of the line, Intel is in the lead. However, the cost/power ratio AMD gives is amazing if you're trying to make a powerful rig on a budget.