My 8150 Bulldozer experience - so far!

[AtenRa]

No. I think to go higher stable I'll need liquid cooling. Don't get me wrong, it con boot into windows at 4.3 up to 4.5 but I use Intel Burn test and it freezes. Could be a weak PSU (Antec Green 750W) since I'm using 2 5850s but I doubt it. I think its the thermals. The Hyper212+ even with 2 fans can't take the heat off fast enough when this chip runs faster than 4.2 Ghz on all eight cores. Quite frankly, liquid cooling with a new case will cost @$150 and for what? A gain of perhaps .4 Mhz? Not worth it. I'm satisfied with a SOLID 4.2 Ghz Bulldozer. BTW some posters say "hey at stock it clocks up to 4200" True but only on 4 cores. I have this cpu running all 8 cores at 4200 24/7/365 and can run anything and its stable.

Does it complete any other benchmark at 4.4GHz with 1.425v ??? say Cinebench 11.5 or PovRay or x264 ??

 

[funboy6942]

I got my BD 8120 to 4.1 on stock volts and air and I been VERY happy with the performance I get. I can play DiRT 3 on my Catleap monitor at highest settings and all the eye candy turned on and I get no slow down using just one HD6970. Id try BF3 if I had a copy but I dont. But I can play everything I own with it, and do MKV files with no troubles at all. Sure I could of gone intell and got a faster system, but it would of cost me 2x3 times more cash, and my funds are limited to the point I couldnt afford the 8150.

 

[MentalIlness]

Mem


read 13732-------12304

write 10041-------10076

copy 13199-------15806

latency 54.5----------55.4

CPU
Queen 36159-------27012

Photoworx 31598-------42776

Zlib 304.5--------223.3

AES 191485------302543

Hash 4292--------2853

FPU
VP8 3296--------2585

Julia 13663-------8136

Mandel 6980--------3964

SinJulia 2931--------2250

This is my FX 8120 @ 3.4Ghz

 

[beginner99]

Sure I could of gone intell and got a faster system, but it would of cost me 2x3 times more cash

Wrong. The thing is that Intel nowadays actually offers better price/performance than AMD. One of the reason why Bulldozer is such a fail.

 

[eternalone]

Wrong. The thing is that Intel nowadays actually offers better price/performance than AMD. One of the reason why Bulldozer is such a fail.

Actually with the price cuts on Monday, the BD 8120 actually will give the price/performance advantage to AMD if your overclocking and are a heavy BF3 player. Furthermore if Piledriver ends up being an Ivy Bridge like upgrade, the BD 8120 would be a compelling buy until Steamroller. Frys already has the 8120 on sale for $149.00 BM so I say thats a damn good deal if your willing to give up the elite performance of Intel, some of us are to save a little cash in this economy then again some are not.

 

[guskline]

Does it complete any other benchmark at 4.4GHz with 1.425v ??? say Cinebench 11.5 or PovRay or x264 ??

With the Hyper 212+ cooler and the old server case with 80mm fans heat dissipation might be a problem. A few days from now I will receive A Corsair H100 water cooler and a CoolerMaster HAF 912 case so the thermals will hopefully be better addressed.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I got my BD 8120 to 4.1 on stock volts and air and I been VERY happy with the performance I get. I can play DiRT 3 on my Catleap monitor at highest settings and all the eye candy turned on and I get no slow down using just one HD6970. Id try BF3 if I had a copy but I dont. But I can play everything I own with it, and do MKV files with no troubles at all. Sure I could of gone intell and got a faster system, but it would of cost me 2x3 times more cash, and my funds are limited to the point I couldnt afford the 8150.

2 to 3 times more cash for an intel system?? I assume you must mean because you have the mobo for AMD already, but still the difference in the CPU is 100.00 or less from a 2500k.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Actually with the price cuts on Monday, the BD 8120 actually will give the price/performance advantage to AMD if your overclocking and are a heavy BF3 player. Furthermore if Piledriver ends up being an Ivy Bridge like upgrade, the BD 8120 would be a compelling buy until Steamroller. Frys already has the 8120 on sale for $149.00 BM so I say thats a damn good deal if your willing to give up the elite performance of Intel, some of us are to save a little cash in this economy then again some are not.

If they cut prices, AMD is a more attractive option I will admit. But PC gaming is an expensive hobby, so I dont know if it is worth it to save 50 to 100 dollars on a cpu that will be used on a 1000 dollar system and when games costs 60.00 each. I guess that is a personal value decision though, so I wont disagree with you if that is personally how you feel.

 

[guskline]

frozentundra123456: You are correct. I have 2 2500k rigs and admittedly bought more expensive mbs but saying an Intel system is 2 to 3 times more expensive is incorrect.

On the "low" end if I was to buy the 8120 plus the least expensive 990fx mb it would cost $160 + $129 = $289. For a 2500k plus least expensive Z68 mb it would cost $220 +$95=$315. Just got those prices off of newegg. Microcenter is cheaper on CPUs

 

[guskline]

Tore down the 8150 rig to await a new case - CM HAF 912 and a new cooling system Corsair H100. I intend on mounting the H100 on the inside top to draw in cool air and use a Zalman 1800rpm 120mm exhaust fan coupled with 2 CM 120mm intake fans in the front and an Antec 140mm side fan on low speed to cool the 2 5850s in CF. The idea is to keep this 8150 cool while OCing. Might run the H100 on performance if I can stand the noise. I also switched out PSUs and put the Antec Green 750 into my Intel rig with the single GTX680 and will use the Antec TruePower II 750 W PSU from it in the Bulldozer build.

I'll keep you posted with the build.

 

[guskline]

So your conclusion is that you can play MW3 with a bulldozer, therefore bulldozer is awesome. Good to know.

Hypertag: No argument that the Intel rigs I have below play games better, but cmon they have a GTX680 in my 27.5" monitor and 2 GTX670s in SLI in my 3 monitor setup so of course they play better. Plus the SB chip is definitely superior.

When Time permits, after I tweak the 8150 with a better case and cooling, I'll slap the GTX 680 in the Bulldozer rig to see how it compares to the Intel rig. My comment about being able to play COD MW3 was more directed at those screaming that a Bulldozer is trash. It played the games well. BTW was able to install BF3 AND Crysis2, Obviously they reside on a slower WD Green HD but I also was able to play those games without any problems.

Is the 8150 Awesome (your words not mine)? NAHHH! Is it Trash? NAHHH

 

[kelco]

I disabled half the cpu and overclocked the rest to 4.5ghz. It is a tad smoother than leaving it alone. I'll probably put it back to stock and enjoy the fans on silent.

 

[B-Riz]

I think the 8120 / 8150 chips are fascinating market pieces for the number of threads they have. Most mainstream users will see no benefit in these chips.

The x6 Phenom II's shook things up when they were realsed; 6 physical cores!!!

I'm really curious how the 8120 /8150 handle multiple virtual machines with lots of RAM installed, as they are truly server type chips, kind of like the thinly disguised i7 920 when it was released.

 

[beginner99]

If they cut prices, AMD is a more attractive option I will admit. But PC gaming is an expensive hobby, so I dont know if it is worth it to save 50 to 100 dollars on a cpu that will be used on a 1000 dollar system and when games costs 60.00 each. I guess that is a personal value decision though, so I wont disagree with you if that is personally how you feel.

Very well said. CPU price differences are pretty small compared to total system cost. Also motherboards tends to be more compatible to newer GPUs than CPUs. Meaning future-proofing a CPU nowadays IMHO makes at least some sense.

Example: I have an lga1156 (lynnfield) MB with i7-870. While I could upgrade to best/newest GPU available I could not upgrade my CPU to anything new without getting a new MB.

Hence if you save too much on the CPU you will need to upgrade your motherboard earlier and hence probably end up spending more in the long run!

 

[AtenRa]

The problem is that the majority of the PC Gaming systems (tower only)are at $700 and bellow. So going for the AMD FX6100 or Core i3 at $120 instead of the $220 for the Core i5 gives you another $100 for a better GPU. Not everyone spends $1000 for a gaming PC.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Bulldozer isn't worth it, no matter how you look at it. The Core i3-2120 obliterates the FX-4100 and is about on-par with the FX-6100 overall, and the Core i5-3470 at $200 obliterates anything AMD has.

If you overclock Bulldozer it rears its ugly head and you're stuck with a huge power consumption increase for a small to moderate performance increase. Both at 4.5GHz, a Core i5-3570K will destroy an FX-8150. They overclock about the same. Platform price/performance is better with Intel as well, too.

There's really little to no reason to buy an AMD CPU right now. Intel has the budget market cornered with the Celeron G530/540, the Pentium G620 and G850; the mainstream market with the Core i3-2120 and the performance market with the Core i5-3470, 3570K, and 3770K.

 

[B-Riz]

Bulldozer isn't worth it, no matter how you look at it. The Core i3-2120 obliterates the FX-4100 and is about on-par with the FX-6100 overall, and the Core i5-3470 at $200 obliterates anything AMD has.

If you overclock Bulldozer it rears its ugly head and you're stuck with a huge power consumption increase for a small to moderate performance increase. Both at 4.5GHz, a Core i5-3570K will destroy an FX-8150. They overclock about the same. Platform price/performance is better with Intel as well, too.

There's really little to no reason to buy an AMD CPU right now. Intel has the budget market cornered with the Celeron G530/540, the Pentium G620 and G850; the mainstream market with the Core i3-2120 and the performance market with the Core i5-3470, 3570K, and 3770K.

Looking at AnandTech Bench, an 8150 works great for multi-threaded applications.

The problem is, it is a chip made for a market that does not yet exist.

Software has not really caught up to the hardware we have been spoiled with in the past two years.

 

[Hatisherrif]

The i3 does not "obliterate" the FX 4100 in anything but power consumption, but solely for that reason I would recommend it over the Bulldozer CPU. The FX 6100 though, gives the i3 a tough time. The highest end Bulldozer performs like an ill i5 - at times good, at other times better, and sometimes worse than the freaking Pentium IV. All that while consuming much more power.

Bulldozer has potential, but it is up to AMD to polish it into goodness.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Looking at AnandTech Bench, an 8150 works great for multi-threaded applications.

The problem is, it is a chip made for a market that does not yet exist.

Software has not really caught up to the hardware we have been spoiled with in the past two years.

The Core i5-3570K has a slightly lower clock speed and half the number of cores yet is faster in multi-threaded. In single-threaded and anything that doesn't use eight cores it's absolute decimation.

AMD will keep increasing performance, but so will Intel. So we'll still be where we are now.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

The i3 does not "obliterate" the FX 4100 in anything but power consumption, but solely for that reason I would recommend it over the Bulldozer CPU. The FX 6100 though, gives the i3 a tough time. The highest end Bulldozer performs like an ill i5 - at times good, at other times better, and sometimes worse than the freaking Pentium IV. All that while consuming much more power.

Bulldozer has potential, but it is up to AMD to polish it into goodness.

That's not what review sites say. And keep in mind this review was made in Linux, which would play in favor of Bulldozer's architecture:

The FX-4100 did quite poorly for being a quad-core part and even came in behind the i3-2120, which is a dual-core CPU with Hyper Threading. The quad-core A8-3850 also was more efficient than the FX-4100.

The AMD FX-4100 is currently carrying a retail price of about $130 USD while the Intel Core i3 2120 is coming in right now at $140 USD. In most of the Linux tests that were carried out, this lower-end Sandy Bridge CPU blew AMD's FX-4100 out of the water. The i3-2120 operates at just 3.3GHz and is a dual-core part with Hyper Threading while the FX-4100 operates at 3.6/3.8GHz and is a true quad-core.​

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_fx4100_bulldozer&num=7

Bulldozer is a complete dud and AMD deserves all the bad rep they're getting for it. At every price point there's an Intel CPU that's better overall.

 

[Durvelle27]

That's not what review sites say. And keep in mind this review was made in Linux, which would play in favor of Bulldozer's architecture:



http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_fx4100_bulldozer&num=7

Bulldozer is a complete dud and AMD deserves all the bad rep they're getting for it. At every price point there's an Intel CPU that's better overall.

if they would have oced the FX 4100 it would have did a little better ?

 

[B-Riz]

The Core i5-3570K has a slightly lower clock speed and half the number of cores yet is faster in multi-threaded. In single-threaded and anything that doesn't use eight cores it's absolute decimation.

AMD will keep increasing performance, but so will Intel. So we'll still be where we are now.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=287&i=327.328.329.330.331.332.333.2.5.3.4.6.25.26.27.28.29.30.31.32.33.34.35.36.37.38.39.40.41.42.43.46.344.345.53.54.55.334.60.61.62.129.336.337.338.339.340.341.342.342.343.335

I do not see the 3570k in the drop down.

Also, a more apt comparison is the i7 2600k vs the fx 8150, which is linked above.

There are differences, but I do not see epic failure you so espouse repeatedly.

I see great multi-threaded performance for the money (non OC).

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

if they would have oced the FX 4100 it would have did a little better ?

But how would that be a decent value proposition, then? You save $15 bucks on the processor itself but then you have to spend $25 on a better cooler and get a motherboard with decent power circuitry. Not to mention if you OC the FX-4100 will consume double the power as the i3. And you'd go through the hassle, just for it to match the Core i3 while consuming much more power and having a higher overall cost?

It makes no sense.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Prod...2.129.336.337.338.339.340.341.342.342.343.335

I do not see the 3570k in the drop down.

Also, a more apt comparison is the i7 2600k vs the fx 8150, which is linked above.

There are differences, but I do not see epic failure you so espouse repeatedly.

I see great multi-threaded performance for the money (non OC).

Just so you know, Anandtech isn't the only review site in the world.

Multi-threaded performance is good, but so is Intel's. Again, the 3570K is faster in multi-threaded and only costs a bit more. This is forgetting the obvious fact that most applications are not, in fact, fully multi-threaded.

 

[Durvelle27]

But how would that be a decent value proposition, then? You save $15 bucks on the processor itself but then you have to spend $25 on a better cooler and get a motherboard with decent power circuitry. Not to mention if you OC the FX-4100 will consume double the power as the i3. And you'd go through the hassle, just for it to match the Core i3 while consuming much more power and having a higher overall cost?

It makes no sense.

i was able to oc my FX 4100 to 4.3GHz on stock volts and cooling with no problem with no increase in consumption or heat ? plus many others have to ?