My 8150 Bulldozer experience - so far!

[Pilum]

Two members here just benched borderlands 2 on the FX8150, and their findings are much higher than that website...

Because the results are not comparable. At all.

They benched with disabled/low PhysX, while the website seems to have that on high setting. If you look at the comparison videos available on the web, PhysX effects are used heavily in BL2 and offer really nice graphical extras. Disabling PhysX means that there are a lot less effects to be rendered, which reduces the overall graphics load, which in turn raises the framerate. Of course the game also doesn't look nearly as good as with PhysX. So what our resident AMD fans "bench" is not really indicative of what you'd want to use if you like good-looking games.

But it's even more complicated; in BL2, PhysX can be run on the GPU if it's a modern Nvidia card. This will take off some load of the CPU, but in turn also impact rendering performance (the GPU can only do graphics OR PhysX each cycle). For a real comparison of BL2 CPU performance needs, you'd need to test it with the following combinations:
Intel CPU + Nvidia gfx
Intel CPU + AMD gfx
AMD CPU + Nvidia gfx
AMD CPU + AMD gfx

And each of these combination would also need to be tested for the different PhysX settings. Only then could we really say just how well AMDs CPUs perform vs. Intels. But for the moment it seems to be safe to say that for real maximum quality in BL2, you're best of with an Intel/Nvidia combination.

 

[infoiltrator]

Enjoyable thread.
Despite yellers.
At the introduction price and performance Bulldozer was a bad deal.
ATM it works well enough as an alternative, and can be attractively priced.
There are still advantages to Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge for most people

"that's the way it is," enjoy your choice.

 

[guskline]

Enjoyable thread.
Despite yellers.
At the introduction price and performance Bulldozer was a bad deal.
ATM it works well enough as an alternative, and can be attractively priced.
There are still advantages to Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge for most people

"that's the way it is," enjoy your choice.

Thank you infoiltrator. Too bad I didn't have a voice clip of the late Walter Cronkite saying "that's the way it is"
I started the thread to give my impressions of the comparison since I own the 3 chips in my sig below.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Enjoyable thread.
Despite yellers.
At the introduction price and performance Bulldozer was a bad deal.
ATM it works well enough as an alternative, and can be attractively priced.
There are still advantages to Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge for most people

"that's the way it is," enjoy your choice.

No, it doesn't.

No, there aren't.

If what you were saying were true, Sandy/Ivy Bridge wouldn't be flying off the shelves. That, and most people buying AMD processors wouldn't be going for the Phenom II instead.

Bulldozer is a huge atrocity that should've never gone past the design stage. As a company, how do you manage to mess up so badly that the product you shipped in 2008 is better overall than the product you shipped in 2011? Three years, and you make a product that's worse. Simply inexcusable, and AMD deserved all the crap they're getting for it because it's a terrible CPU and architecture.

 

[inf64]

As a company, how do you manage to mess up so badly that the product you shipped in 2008 is better overall than the product you shipped in 2011? Three years, and you make a product that's worse. Simply inexcusable, and AMD deserved all the crap they're getting for it because it's a terrible CPU and architecture.

That's not true and please don't spread BS here. If you are OCer it doesn't mean everybody OCs to. Stock vs stock FX8150 is better than 1100T by around 10%. In games they are virtually tied. In applications FX8150 can be substantially faster. This is on desktop. In server workloads Bulldozer is even stronger(vs K10 Opterons) than in dekstop workloads. In future, more facts and less fiction please.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

That's not true and please don't spread BS here. If you are OCer it doesn't mean everybody OCs to. Stock vs stock FX8150 is better than 1100T by around 10%. In games they are virtually tied. In applications FX8150 can be substantially faster. This is on desktop. In server workloads Bulldozer is even stronger(vs K10 Opterons) than in dekstop workloads. In future, more facts and less fiction please.

In heavily multi-threaded programs, that is. Everywhere else, it's slower.

And a 10% improvement from a new completely new architecture is absolute crap, and again, you failed to read where I said "overall". What world do you live in where heavily multi-threaded software makes up 90% of the market?

And, in fact, Bulldozer is even worse in servers. It seems like you haven't done your research, because again Magny Cours is better than Interlagos overall. And this is taking into account server software is better at multi-threading:

Virtualization

Rendering

In servers, Interlagos is at best 5% better than Magny Cours and in most applications it's slower. It also consumes more power. This is without taking into account in this particular review the Interlagos Opteron is clocked 4.5% higher and has 33% moar cores.

Bulldozer is a horrible architecture and that's why all products based on it, be it for the desktop or server market, are utter crap. Piledriver is more of the same: a small architectural revision that will put us back where we were a year ago with Sandy Bridge vs. Bulldozer. Steamroller seems to be bringing bigger changes, but Haswell has many enhancements as well. Except about the same IPC increase from Ivy Bridge to Haswell as going from Nehalem/Westmere to Sandy Bridge. This will, again, put us back at square one. AMD will still be behind significantly in overall performance three years from now.

 

[Yuriman]

In servers, Interlagos is at best 5% better than Magny Cours and in most applications it's slower. It also consumes more power. This is without taking into account in this particular review the Interlagos Opteron is clocked 4.5% higher and has 33% moar cores.

This might have been forgiveable if Bulldozer hadn't also been a die shrink. Phenom II @ 32nm might well have been a faster chip.

 

[AtenRa]

And, in fact, Bulldozer is even worse in servers.

http://www.amd.com/us/products/server/benchmarks/Pages/performance-summary-four-socket-servers.aspx
Performance Summary – Four-Socket Servers

SPEC, SPECint, and SPECfp are registered trademarks of the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. The results stated above reflect results published on http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/ as of February 16, 2012. The comparison presented above is based on the best performing four-socket servers using AMD Opteron™ processor Models 8393 SE, 8439 SE, 6180 SE, and 6282 SE. For the latest SPECint®_rate2006 and SPECfp®_rate2006 results, visit http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/.

http://www.amd.com/us/products/serv...n-performance-summary-two-socket-servers.aspx
HPC Application Performance Summary – Two-Socket Servers

The results above are based on measurements in AMD labs as of December 2, 2011. Pricing reflects 1kU tray pricing on www.amd.com and www.intel.com as of December 2, 2011, and is subject to change. ROMS results based on ROMS v3.1. LS-DYNA results based on LS-DYNA mpp971s from LSTC. WRF results based on WRF v3. GROMACS results based on GROMACS 4.5.3.

http://www.amd.com/us/products/server/benchmarks/Pages/specpower-ssj-2008-2p-6200.aspx
SPECpower_ssj™2008 - Two-Socket Servers (including AMD Opteron™ 6200 Series Processor)

SPEC and SPECpower are registered trademarks of the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. The results stated above reflect results published on www.spec.org/power_ssj2008/results as of November 16, 2011. The comparison presented above is based on two-socket servers with the highest overall performance to power ratio using AMD Opteron™ processors Model 2384, 2435, 6174, and 6276. For the latest SPECpower_ssj2008 results, visit www.spec.org/power_ssj2008/results.

Source : http://www.amd.com/us/products/serv... Performance&Sub11=Virtualization Performance

 

[inf64]

Thanks AtenRa,you saved me whole lot of time there. As for desktop workloads,my favorite harware.fr : faster than 1100T in application workloads by 8% (some workloads not threaded well so that's what dragged down the average a bit) and virtually the same in games.

 

[guskline]

LOL Wut Axel: Simple question. Have you personally used an AMD 8150? Yes or no.

I ask not to bait or embarass you. I simply notice that many who are BASHING the 8150 are doing this based upon what they read or heard, not on their personal experience. Also, I understand this because the obvious question is why would you spend $$ on such a poor performing CPU?

The purpose of this thread was to describe an actual user's experience compared to 2 nicely OC'd 2500ks (see sig below).

Again, have you actually used a 8150 machine?

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

LOL Wut Axel: Simple question. Have you personally used an AMD 8150? Yes or no.

I ask not to bait or embarass you. I simply notice that many who are BASHING the 8150 are doing this based upon what they read or heard, not on their personal experience. Also, I understand this because the obvious question is why would you spend $$ on such a poor performing CPU?

The purpose of this thread was to describe an actual user's experience compared to 2 nicely OC'd 2500ks (see sig below).

Again, have you actually used a 8150 machine?

That is not relevant to anything.

The fact is, a 3570K is only $230 and runs 95% of applications faster. That is why Bulldozer is a turd.

AMD has done the same thing Intel did with the Pentium 4: sell based on hype about frequencies. Now AMD is hyping giving you "moar cores". The problem is, Intel's cores are 60-70% faster.

It's pure hypocrisy from AMD's part. From 2003-2005 they were selling people the idea that frequency didn't matter but rather architecture and efficiency, and look what they're doing now.

 

[Makaveli]

That is not relevant to anything.

The fact is, a 3570K is only $230 and runs 95% of applications faster. That is why Bulldozer is a turd.

AMD has done the same thing Intel did with the Pentium 4: sell based on hype about frequencies. Now AMD is hyping giving you "moar cores". The problem is, Intel's cores are 60-70% faster.

It's pure hypocrisy from AMD's part. From 2003-2005 they were selling people the idea that frequency didn't matter but rather architecture and efficiency, and look what they're doing now.

While i've agreed with most of your post however I think it is relevant.

Having personal experience with the system is important because its makes your opinon that much more valid.

If someone told you all ford cars suck and you never drove one would you believe them or drive it yourself then make a decision?

Granted you can look up spec sheets and read reports to get a general idea of a product. Nothing beats hands on experience even if its just to confirm its a dud.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

While i've agreed with most of your post however I think it is relevant.

Having personal experience with the system is important because its makes your opinon that much more valid.

If someone told you all ford cars suck and you never drove one would you believe them or drive it yourself then make a decision?

Granted you can look up spec sheets and read reports to get a general idea of a product. Nothing beats hands on experience even if its just to confirm its a dud.

No, it doesn't. Many people (average Joe) base their opinions on subjective BS. What you need to make an informed decision is the numbers and someone that looks at features objectively.

You can use reviews to see if the information being given is accurate/objective.

I'm not gonna believe what my neighbor says about X car that he's tried versus someone that made a coherent, in-depth test (a reviewer).

 

[guskline]

That is not relevant to anything.

The fact is, a 3570K is only $230 and runs 95% of applications faster. That is why Bulldozer is a turd.

AMD has done the same thing Intel did with the Pentium 4: sell based on hype about frequencies. Now AMD is hyping giving you "moar cores". The problem is, Intel's cores are 60-70% faster.

It's pure hypocrisy from AMD's part. From 2003-2005 they were selling people the idea that frequency didn't matter but rather architecture and efficiency, and look what they're doing now.

I take that to be a No answer to my question. While I'm at it you sure seem to have intense vitriol toward AMD!

I own 2 Intel I5 2500ks and as stated above they are my best gaming CPUs and the 8150 is not as fast in benchmarking almost all the single thread aps and they split the multi-thread but I don't hate AMD for that. What's with the intense angst?

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

I take that to be a NO?

I don't use or buy crap.

 

[Makaveli]

I don't use or buy crap.

lol

 

[guskline]

I don't use or buy crap.

That is funny.

 

[inf64]

I don't use or buy crap.

Really?

Dell Inspiron M101z:
Intel Core i3-330UM | ADATA SP900 128GB | Intel HD Graphics |

I highlighted the POS part of the machine you own. That thing is a graphics decelerator in fact. Intel did improve in this regard lately but that particular generation was uber POS. Sorry.

 

[AtenRa]

I don't use or buy crap.

But you have recommended an inferior Intel Celeron/Pentium CPU vs AMD FX or Llano/Trinity. :whiste:

Celeron and Pentium are even slower than Llano
Celeron and Pentium doesn't have Quick Sunc
Celeron and Pentium doesn't have AES
Celeron and Pentium doesn't have AVX
Celeron and Pentium doesn't have Turbo Boost
Celeron and Pentium only have dual core no HT

vs Trinity A10-5800

It has AVX
It has AES
It has four(4) Cores
It has Turbo Core
It can be Overclocked, both CPU and iGPU
It can CrossFire with a Discrete GPU
It has superior Graphics Performance

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Really?

I highlighted the POS part of the machine you own. That thing is a graphics decelerator in fact. Intel did improve in this regard lately but that particular generation was uber POS. Sorry.

Right, except this is an ultra-portable and therefore is not used for gaming.

Compared to my mom's x120e with an E-350, this can actually multi-task and not get frozen.

So what would the marvelous higher-end IGP you're proposing do for me? It can already play 1080p video fine and give me 6 hours of battery life. Ultra-portable 3 pound laptops are not for gaming.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

But you have recommended an inferior Intel Celeron/Pentium CPU vs AMD FX or Llano/Trinity. :whiste:

Except a Core i3 is better than an A8/A10 and a Pentium is better than an A4/A6.

 

[AtenRa]

Except a Core i3 is better than an A8/A10 and a Pentium is better than an A4/A6.

Sorry but if you OC the A series and FX they are faster than Intel Celeron/Pentium and i3 and at the same time they have much much much faster Graphics.

You always forgetting that AMD A series and FX 4xxx can OC when we are talking low end CPUs, but you seam to brink it on with every chance you get when i5 and i7 are brought in to the conversation, i wonder why ?? :whiste:

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Sorry but if you OC the A series and FX they are faster than Intel Celeron/Pentium and i3 and at the same time they have much much much faster Graphics.

You always forgetting that AMD A series and FX 4xxx can OC when we are talking low end CPUs, but you seam to brink it on with every chance you get when i5 and i7 are brought in to the conversation, i wonder why ?? :whiste:

Except if you OC then you need a better cooler, motherboard, and power supply. And if you buy that, then you're at the same price as an i5 which is, you guessed it, faster in every task.

 

[Mallibu]

Except if you OC then you need a better cooler, motherboard, and power supply. And if you buy that, then you're at the same price as an i5 which is, you guessed it, faster in every task.

And that's the ending point, everyone should understand. Putting tons of lipstick on a pig can make it acceptable but it's still a pig. I'd take an i3 3220 over any fx4xx-6xxx simply because it will be faster in most of my workloads (yes in some will be slower but it will be the minority), will consume half the power (it's not the power bill..it's just i don't like having power hog parts inside my pc), will be better in games, and will not bring SSD performance down (Intel Sata 3 controllers > AMD ones) even though the last one doesn't get mentioned a lot. Overall IB > FX. End.

 

[frozentundra123456]

And that's the ending point, everyone should understand. Putting tons of lipstick on a pig can make it acceptable but it's still a pig. I'd take an i3 3220 over any fx4xx-6xxx simply because it will be faster in most of my workloads (yes in some will be slower but it will be the minority), will consume half the power (it's not the power bill..it's just i don't like having power hog parts inside my pc), will be better in games, and will not bring SSD performance down (Intel Sata 3 controllers > AMD ones) even though the last one doesn't get mentioned a lot. Overall IB > FX. End.

Well said. I am glad to see someone refute the AMD supporters (dare I say fanboys) with logical arguments. Edit: OP, please do not take this as being directed towards you. It is just getting old how some posters continually tout AMD as being superior and refuse to consider logical arguments to the contrary.