Amd fx 8150

[Protomize]

I'm sort of lost here. My GPU is an AMD Radeon HD 7850, so, I'm not a blind fanboy. How could someone say an FX 8150 is a worthwhile CPU when it fails to keep up with a "quad" core sandy-ivy bridge Intel? How can an "octa-core" modern day CPU not outperform or be on par with a quad core or lesser CPU in ALL tasks? Is the single core performance of the 8150 this bad?

I'm not trying to start a flame war, I'm just curious...

 

[soccerballtux]

what games?
amd single core performance is bad, yes.
8150 can keep neck and neck with intel in highly threaded games though, like BF3. If BF3 games become commonplace, we'll be OK

 

[mikeymikec]

nvm

 

[Magic Carpet]

I'm not trying to start a flame war, I'm just curious...

I think, this has already been discussed to death on this forum. Search button can give you all the answers.

 

[Arkadrel]

@Protomize

Intel make big fat cores = good for low threaded things.
AMD make small many cores = good for highly threaded things.


In alot of games CPU really doesnt matter that much:

The AMD FX-4100 ~109$ on newegg
The Intel I7-2600k ~300$ on newegg.

is the ~200$ differnce in price (almost twice what the FX-4100 costs) worth ~2 fps?


It all comes down to how developers choose to optimise games.

 

[boxleitnerb]

Multiplayer please and use a faster GPU. The included result of the Athlon II X2 suggests a GPU bottleneck.

 

[Maximilian]

I'm sort of lost here. My GPU is an AMD Radeon HD 7850, so, I'm not a blind fanboy. How could someone say an FX 8150 is a worthwhile CPU when it fails to keep up with a "quad" core sandy-ivy bridge Intel? How can an "octa-core" modern day CPU not outperform or be on par with a quad core or lesser CPU in ALL tasks? Is the single core performance of the 8150 this bad?

I'm not trying to start a flame war, I'm just curious...

Because that someone is a blind fanboy.

 

[Yuriman]

Multiplayer please and use a faster GPU. The included result of the Athlon II X2 suggests a GPU bottleneck.

In the posted bench, the CPU is capable of allowing 60fps anyway so it makes no difference.

@OP, for gaming, to me it's a no brainer to get an Intel chip but Bulldozer chips do have a market. You're just not one of their target customers.

EDIT: Since I already have a watercooling loop and an i3 can't be overclocked, if I were looking to build a new rig and were very budget constricted, I would consider a Bulldozer chip right now even for gaming. If an i5 fit within my budget, I'd go for that instead.

 

[NTMBK]

How can an "octa-core" modern day CPU not outperform or be on par with a quad core or lesser CPU in ALL tasks?

AMD definitions of cores is weird- Bulldozer cores come in "modules", which is a pair of cores. They share a lot of resources between the two cores. In terms of amount of resources on a die, it's somewhere between Intel's one core with Hyperthreading and two cores without.

 

[Arkaign]

In the posted bench, the CPU is capable of allowing 60fps anyway so it makes no difference.

@OP, for gaming, to me it's a no brainer to get an Intel chip but Bulldozer chips do have a market. You're just not one of their target customers.

EDIT: Since I already have a watercooling loop and an i3 can't be overclocked, if I were looking to build a new rig and were very budget constricted, I would consider a Bulldozer chip right now even for gaming. If an i5 fit within my budget, I'd go for that instead.

That's the thing, that posted bench is useless unless you want to play SP BF3, which few do. MP, particularly large maps with lots of vehicles and 64p does indeed punish slower CPUs pretty soundly. I have a spare Athlon X4 630 system mildly overclocked with a 6950 2GB, and it's not as rock solid by a long shot when the big maps are cranking.

BD is okay for some things, gaming is not really the strong suit. It's good enough to be fine for most people, particularly those without really strong GPUs, but $ for $, it's a bad deal even at current prices, as a 2500k will annihilate it overall once you factor in easy 4ghz+ overclock, better sata/usb/pcie performance, lower power, lower heat, etc.

 

[Durvelle27]

That's the thing, that posted bench is useless unless you want to play SP BF3, which few do. MP, particularly large maps with lots of vehicles and 64p does indeed punish slower CPUs pretty soundly. I have a spare Athlon X4 630 system mildly overclocked with a 6950 2GB, and it's not as rock solid by a long shot when the big maps are cranking.

BD is okay for some things, gaming is not really the strong suit. It's good enough to be fine for most people, particularly those without really strong GPUs, but $ for $, it's a bad deal even at current prices, as a 2500k will annihilate it overall once you factor in easy 4ghz+ overclock, better sata/usb/pcie performance, lower power, lower heat, etc.

i play BF3 64mp all the time with vehicles and it never lags or stutters.

 

[dma0991]

I'm not trying to start a flame war, I'm just curious...

You've just opened Pandora's box, curiosity got the best of me too not long ago. Out comes the legion of the red side with their charts that shows how great BD is at 7zip and extrapolate that figure to every benchmark in existence and the blue side will retort with gaming and synthetic benchmarks that has no real world benefits. It will easily be 5-10 years pages long of this never ending battle of which is superior. I'll sit this one out and enjoy my caramel glazed popcorn. ()

 

[2is]

@Protomize

Intel make big fat cores = good for low threaded things.
AMD make small many cores = good for highly threaded things.


In alot of games CPU really doesnt matter that much:

The AMD FX-4100 ~109$ on newegg
The Intel I7-2600k ~300$ on newegg.

is the ~200$ differnce in price (almost twice what the FX-4100 costs) worth ~2 fps?


It all comes down to how developers choose to optimise games.

I'm sure you spend all your time in BF3 playing single player right?

 

[boxleitnerb]

In the posted bench, the CPU is capable of allowing 60fps anyway so it makes no difference.

No. More than 60fps can make quite a difference. With more fps, your aiming will be more precise. And yes, as the others said - this was not a particularly demanding scenario if you look at how close the numbers are together.

 

[ShintaiDK]

In the posted bench, the CPU is capable of allowing 60fps anyway so it makes no difference.

It cant.

 

[Smoblikat]

@Protomize

Intel make big fat cores = good for low threaded things.
AMD make small many cores = good for highly threaded things.


In alot of games CPU really doesnt matter that much:

The AMD FX-4100 ~109$ on newegg
The Intel I7-2600k ~300$ on newegg.

is the ~200$ differnce in price (almost twice what the FX-4100 costs) worth ~2 fps?


It all comes down to how developers choose to optimise games.

Holy GPU bottleneck batman.

 

[guskline]

I'm sort of lost here. My GPU is an AMD Radeon HD 7850, so, I'm not a blind fanboy. How could someone say an FX 8150 is a worthwhile CPU when it fails to keep up with a "quad" core sandy-ivy bridge Intel? How can an "octa-core" modern day CPU not outperform or be on par with a quad core or lesser CPU in ALL tasks? Is the single core performance of the 8150 this bad?

I'm not trying to start a flame war, I'm just curious...

I wrote a thread about my experiences with the 8150 in this subsection. The single threaded performance of the 8150 is lacking vs the SB/IB chips unless you really ramp up the CPU clock. If the price is right the 8150 might be a decent chip if you have an 990FX mb with good cooling and want to play around. God knows there have been PLENTY of threads bashing the living daylights out of this chip. My 8150 thread gives some info on my comparison of the 8150 at 4.5 Ghz to my 2 SB 2500k rigs clocked to 4.53Ghz. I think (or hope) I made it very clear that the SB chips are superior for most benchmarks though at that clockspeed the 8150 actally pulls ahead of the 2500k in cinebench 11.5.

I stand by my opinion that with both chips clocked to this speed (4.5 Ghz) with a GTX 680 I had a hard time telling them apart in gameplay. Here's the entire thread in case you missed it;:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2265805

 

[MLSCrow]

I'm sort of lost here. My GPU is an AMD Radeon HD 7850, so, I'm not a blind fanboy. How could someone say an FX 8150 is a worthwhile CPU when it fails to keep up with a "quad" core sandy-ivy bridge Intel? How can an "octa-core" modern day CPU not outperform or be on par with a quad core or lesser CPU in ALL tasks? Is the single core performance of the 8150 this bad?

I'm not trying to start a flame war, I'm just curious...

IMO, I call BS that you're not trying to start a flame war! =P This is exactly the type of thing that will start one, however, if you truly want an legitmate answer. There are a couple factors.

A) Yes, AMD single core performance is less than Intel.
B) Most programs don't utilize multiple cores.

So, if you have a program that only uses 4 cores, and you put a 4 core Intel vs an 8 core AMD, well...that is how Intel wins. Get it?

Even if you have a program that uses 8 cores and you put an intel 4c/8t cpu vs an amd 8c cpu, Intel still wins. Get it?

Intel > AMD. Get it?

Do we really need more of these threads? =P

 

[lakedude]

The real shame of it for AMD is that the bulldozer design is really supposed to be a server chip, but they get hammered by Intel in the server arena too.

Big data centers use a ton of power so if everything else is equal, lower power consumption is better. Not only does a data center need to feed computers with power but they need to run AC to keep it all cool as well.

AMD chips suck way too much power. You might not care on your one desktop machine but the people running data centers full of computers care about the electric bill a lot.

I really wish AMD and Intel would trade wins because competition is good for the consumer, and because I'm starting to feel sad for all the AMD fanboys out there.

 

[MLSCrow]

The real shame of it for AMD is that the bulldozer design is really supposed to be a server chip, but they get hammered by Intel in the server arena too.

Big data centers use a ton of power so if everything else is equal, lower power consumption is better. Not only does a data center need to feed computers with power but they need to run AC to keep it all cool as well.

AMD chips suck way too much power. You might not care on your one desktop machine but the people running data centers full of computers care about the electric bill a lot.

I really wish AMD and Intel would trade wins because competition is good for the consumer, and because I'm starting to feel sad for all the AMD fanboys out there.

AMD might actually be on to something with the updates and revision so the crapdozer arch, at least in terms of the server market from what I've read. Maybe it's just marketing crap, but perhaps it will turn out well for them. Check it out.

http://semiaccurate.com/2012/08/26/amd-pitches-opterons-as-a-vm-tco-play/

 

[Arkaign]

i play BF3 64mp all the time with vehicles and it never lags or stutters.

The FX4100 is a good bit better than the X4 630 for sure I think it's the super small cache and relatively poor IPC of the Athlon II that makes it a rather poor candidate for BF3. It works, but not very well.

 

[NostaSeronx]

How can an "octa-core" modern day CPU not outperform or be on par with a quad core or lesser CPU in ALL tasks? Is the single core performance of the 8150 this bad?

There is a few anomalies with the front-end with Bulldozer.

Now, Bulldozer can retire 4 macro-ops in each core this is up from Stars which could retire 3 macro-ops. Sandy Bridge can retire up to 5 macro-ops but is limited to 2 macro-ops per thread.

The front-end for Bulldozer gives 1 macro-op per core while the front-end for Sandy Bridge gives up to 3 macro-ops per thread. (10h/12h also happen to get 3 macro-ops from the Front-end but don't have all the necessary units to execute all of them at once)

If you can do 1+1 you can figure it out.

 

[NTMBK]

Holy GPU bottleneck batman.

A GTX580 is a bottleneck? At those kinds of resolutions and settings? What planet are you living on?

 

[Arkaign]

A GTX580 is a bottleneck? At those kinds of resolutions and settings? What planet are you living on?

Yes, it's a bottleneck. That's why you have various CPUs there of wildly different capability all bunched up together.

The perfect example is this :

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5699/nvidia-geforce-gtx-680-review/13

Go down to the 1680x1050 resolution, and you'll see the 580 stuck at 82.5fps, while the 680 churns out over 123.

There's always a bottleneck. In the case of the pic in this thread, it's clearly a GPU bottleneck, not sure how that could be interpreted any other way.

 

[lakedude]

There's always a bottleneck. In the case of the pic in this thread, it's clearly a GPU bottleneck, not sure how that could be interpreted any other way.

^Yep