My 8150 Bulldozer experience - so far!

[Mallibu]

You choose to ignore 95% of todays software, and praise the 5% that shows FX in a positive light, yet I live in a dream world?

You ignored the 14 benchmarks in the review you linked, just so you can link the one that FX is 1% better, get your head out of the sand.

 

[AtenRa]

Nope,I care about todays software which is 2 to 4 threaded. (and to a little extend 6 threaded.) I do not care about 2-3 specific programs that are 8 threaded, unless I plan to use them and only them.

So in todays software the i5 is better, as shown by the 50+ benchmarks above.

Im sorry but those benchmarks are usable today, just because YOU dont use them doesnt mean others dont.
I could say that all those 2-4 threaded apps you quoted are outdated and nobody use them because they dont use more than 2-4 threads.

You see, i can play the same game

Again, where are the 3470 benchmarks to prove your point ???

 

[inf64]

Cinebench ,mainconcept,x264 2nd pass ,povray,solidworks,C-ray,truecrypt,photoshop cs 5.1,handbrake,abbyy finereader,7-zip are all examples where FX>i5 and sometimes even i7 2600K. There are real world applications in client segment that are well mulithreaded and as time goes by, they will become the dominant part of test suits with ST ones being minority.

I should add excel 2010 to the list,I forgot about that one. All real world productive workloads that can bring you money. Unlike BS synthetics and games which are meaningless.

 

[guskline]

Better is a relative term. I started this thread recognizing that the 2500ks I had were "better" gaming CPUs BUT that does not mean the Bulldozer 8150 is terrible. I've now tweaked the 8150 and am content to run it at 4.5 Ghz (21.5 x 210) at a manual 1.425 V and it handles all of the diagnostics well. Perhaps my 8150 wasn't one of the best, perhaps my settings weren't correctly set but it only ran at 4.2 Ghz with my Hyper212+ Cooler. It needed water cooling to ramp higher. The H100 is much better (not the Best as I'm sure some posters have great Water cooled systems but at higher cost). Now to my point. So far the game play on the Bulldozer is just as smooth as my 2500ks. They have better video cards (2 GTX 670s in SLI and a single GTX680) vs the single 5850 in the Bulldozer. Since it's the Labor day weekend and I have more time, I'll try to switch out the GTX 680 from the 2500k rig to the 8150 rig to see how that affects it. That being said, for most people building a gaming rig the Intel might be a better route. IF you go Bulldozer 8150 be prepared to buy a water cooling system if you want serious OCing. I'm not well versed enough in multi-threaded apps but the intrinsic "feel" of the 8150 OC'd tells me it will run smooth and steady.

In a car world anology the 8150 is a naturally aspirated V-8 while the 2500k is a 4 cyclinder direct injection turbo. The PileDrivers might be the equivalent of "fuel injecting" the V8 to let it rev higher and smoother but I don't see a huge change in the equation.

 

[Mallibu]

I should add excel 2010 to the list,I forgot about that one. All real world productive workloads that can bring you money. Unlike BS synthetics and games which are meaningless.

Oh, right the "meaning part".
I don't look at everyones lives, what has a meaning and what does not.
I see that in todays software and i5 would serve me better than FX in 95% of occasions, and that's all I need, thank you.

 

[inf64]

Enjoy your gaming and mp3 conversion then. We that do some real work with our PCs will choose according to our needs.

 

[Mallibu]

So...
5% of software that FX is ahead --> Real work for real kids
95% of the rest software --> Meaningless gaming and mp3 conversion.
Tell me more about how most corporations and IT enviroments use AMD . Oh wait, they don't.
Your views are borderline ridiculus, sorry. I'm out.

 

[inf64]

Good,we may have some serious conversation in this thread from now on .

 

[guskline]

inf64, I'm curious, what multi-thread testing suites are available for me to compare the Bulldozer and SB? I like to pick a group to run and don't know where to start.

 

[inf64]

Check my previous post,I quoted myself to make it 5x more clearer to our friend Mallibu.
Cinebench ,mainconcept,x264 2nd pass ,povray,solidworks,C-ray,truecrypt,photoshop cs 5.1,handbrake,abbyy finereader,7-zip,excell 2010. There are more ,but these will do for start.

 

[Mallibu]

Good,we may have some serious conversation in this thread from now on .

You cannot have a serious conversation with your kind of logic. There are 50 benchmarks linked above that prove your opinion wrong, yet still you find a new "hide" in "YEAH BUT FX CAN BE USED IN APPS THAT MAKE PEOPLE MONEY NOT IN SOME HIPPIE PC THAT PLAY GAMEZ". Tell me more about you making money 7zipping and cinebenching all day long :sneaky:
For the last time, from an all-around performance prespective, which is what we were discussing here, i5 > fx and the proof is the 50 screenshots linked above.
Have fun :awe:

 

[inf64]

I thought you were out of this thread...

 

[pcsavvy]

And the band plays on while chaos reigns........

Did a little research, went to NE and checked out some prices:

For AMD
FX-8150--$189.99
FX-8120--$159.99

AMD m/b
Asus 990FX--$229.99
Asrock 990FX--$179.99

For Intel
I7-3930K--$569.99
I7-3770K--$339.99
I7-3570K--$229.99

Intel m/b

Asus P8Z77 -V Deluxe $269.99
Asrock Z68 Professional Gen3 $269.99


Here is an idea of pricing when going for the high end of AMD vs Intel. You can get more expensive boards or cheaper m/b or cpu's with Intel but that Asus AMD m/b was the most expensive board I could find at NE. Let us not kid ourselves for those who want the fastest gaming machine around and money is no object then Intel makes sense.
However if you have a tight budget, AMD makes sense in producing a balanced budget machine if you need more than a dual core and want to o/c.
Benchmarks, shmenchmarks, unless you know that each system had the exact same specs other than cpu and m/b and that each system was not tweaked to better enhance performance, how trustworthy are benchmarks.
Besides why should a person be comparing a dual core with a 6 or 8 core cpu.
It has been reported adneauseum about the shortcomings of FX vs the greatness of Intel. Unless someone has been sleeping under a rock or a total newbie to computers or hasn't read any of the threads that seem to devolve to said argument. Why oh Why do we need to rehash the argument over and over?
Maybe somebody could objectively list the pro's and con's of operating an AMD vs Intel and sticky to the top of this subject area and when somebody starts to devolve the thread, we could jump in and say see so and so for actual operating costs and info...:sneaky:

 

[batmang]

Anyone who thinks Bulldozer is good for raw CPU performance and gaming, is 100% jaded.
Sure, you can get a Bulldozer rig cheaper than a Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge rig, but if you have enough money for a SB or IB... would you really build a Bulldozer rig instead? I certainly wouldn't, unless I liked lack luster performance and high wattage use.

 

[guskline]

guskline

Seriously though, does Bulldozer "without looking at benchmarks" seem as slow as its made out to be ? Would you be able to tell a difference between it and your 2500k if you didn't know which machine you were running ?

Basically, Does it feel faster than you expected or slower than you expected, based on your honest opinion ?

Reason I am asking is because I came into a little dough, and may do the opposite of what you did. I may get a 2500k system to compare to the FX-8120 in my sig.

Boy a very tough question. Here's what I'm going to do. This weekend, I'm going to switch out the GTX680 from my Intel 2500k rig (both 2500ks are identically clocked just different mbs and the 3 monitor one has 2 GTX670s in SLI) below, rig 2 and put it in rig 3, the Bulldozer rig, AND I'm going to hook up the rig 3 box to the 28 inch Hanns G monitor and "game" for awhile. I'll then post my feelings. I only have COD MW3, Crysis2 and BF3 on the Dozer rig. Were you looking for a particular game? Hope that helps.

I can already tell you that the Bulldozer rig hooked up to a 23 inch monitor and a single 5850 is very smooth in gaming. Hard to tell the difference. BUT I'll put in the GTX680 and use the 28" monitor to narrow the gap. BTW the intel rigs have 520 ssds and faster secondary HDs so that might account for some of the difference. Let me close by saying that in most benchies so far the 2500k clocked at 4.5Ghz is faster but the Bulldozer 8150 at 4.5Ghz closes the gap. Also most of the benchies are single threaded.

In cinebench 11.5 the 2500k scores 7.01 but the Bulldozer score 7.38.

 

[guskline]

Anyone who thinks Bulldozer is good for raw CPU performance and gaming, is 100% jaded.
Sure, you can get a Bulldozer rig cheaper than a Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge rig, but if you have enough money for a SB or IB... would you really build a Bulldozer rig instead? I certainly wouldn't, unless I liked lack luster performance and high wattage use.

batmang, have you personally used an 8150 rig? It was soundly, and probably desrvedly so, bashed by the reviewing media. That has been so pervasive that people start making statements like you did such as 100% jaded. I don't want a flame war, and my purpose in posting is to give honest personal insight since I now own both 2 SB rig and a Bulldozer rig. I think I have given enough warnings to "newbies" that the SB/IB is better for gaming. I'm lucky enough to actually have both machine to compare. Honestly, I was so "anti Bulldozer" from what I read from the reviewers that I was somewhat surprised at its performance. A steady BUT smooth performer. That's why I asked if you have ever played around with a Bulldozer rig. You might be surprised.

BTW your rig has real quality parts and is undoubtably fast.

 

[inf64]

For gaming purposes there is no doubt that usually i5/i7 will have a clear advantage in numerous titles. In applications that are well threaded FX is no slouch though. Plus it clocks to 4.5-4.7Ghz on air (the only problem is power draw though;we have already did some calculations and the savings from power bill,year on year are not enough to justify the platform price difference though).

 

[Regs]

inf64, you can't argue that synthetic benchmarks are irrelevant, especially when the majority favor Intel's performance. Do you see the missing logic in the argument?

 

[inf64]

They are irrelevant for practical purposes. If you have FX performing better than i5 in numerous real world MTed applications but falling short in "MTed" sisoft,sysmark,pcmark,3dmark physics and similar BS benchmarks,something doesn't add up there. Intel has aclear IPC advantage and it shows in single/low threaded workloads,nobody is denying that since it's the fact. But FX does perform good in numerous MTed workloads and this is important to note also. People who deny this fact are in denial themselves.

 

[Hypertag]

However, claiming that i5-3470 OC would beat an FX8120/8150 in multi-threaded apps once Bullzoder is overclocked is plain wrong. And even in some games like BF3, the 2500K struggles to beat an FX8150 @ 4.5ghz. Let's not get all biased here. Intel processors are good, but sometimes you cannot overcome lack of raw performance, which is where $300-500 i7 CPUs come in, but that's a little bit absurd to start comparing an i7 to a $155-160 FX8120.

Now you are recommending Bulldozers? You claim not to be AMD biased, but you are recommending bulldozers? Everyone knows what AtenRa is. You pretend to be better than that, but you are the same.

 

[dastral]

Nobody said the FX is an all around better CPU than the 3470, but at those MT apps it is faster and cheaper. On the other hand, you are using a way more expensive 3570K (FX8120 $159 vs 3570K $229) to prove that it is faster in 1-2 threaded apps.

FX will beat Intel's offering on those MT apps "for a specific price point".
On this i agree, Intel can not offer anything that can beat a FX8120 for 159$ to use with MT apps.

I'm still curious to see i3-2120 vs FX4170 and FX6200 but this is bad news for AMD :
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-8120-6100-4100_6.html#sect0
Let's not forget that AMD can not even come close to a 3770K even less a i7....

So it boils down to "If you have around 175$ for a CPU and work with heavy MT, Bulldozer is the best buy".

 

[Makaveli]

Now you are recommending Bulldozers? You claim not to be AMD biased, but you are recommending bulldozers? Everyone knows what AtenRa is. You pretend to be better than that, but you are the same.

He wasn't recommending anything he was just point out some facts. The constant mud slinging in these threads when anyone mentions bulldozer is starting to get out of hand.

I personally wouldn't build a BD rig myself but you guys need to stop shitting on people that do. If they choose to then so be it. Are you paying for the rig no!!!

 

[Regs]

I personally wouldn't build a BD rig myself but you guys need to stop shitting on people that do. If they choose to then so be it. Are you paying for the rig no!!!

Agreed. If that is really the case inf has every right to defend his decision.

My only worry with AMD is that they had to drop their prices on their flag ship product to compete with Intel. The bottom line hurts when you completely miss a whole market segment.

 

[Mallibu]

Noone bashed anyone because he bought AMD. What anyone does with his money it's his buisness and only.
The conversation started when certain people tried to say that FX is a better buy than an i5 which is simply not true, sorry, as numerous benchmarks showed above.
As said a million times, FX is not a bad/useless/whatever CPU, it's just almost everyone would be better off with the i5, so no reasons to buy it.
Simple as that.

 

[Makaveli]

Noone bashed anyone because he bought AMD. What anyone does with his money it's his buisness and only.
The conversation started when certain people tried to say that FX is a better buy than an i5 which is simply not true, sorry, as numerous benchmarks showed above.
As said a million times, FX is not a bad/useless/whatever CPU, it's just almost everyone would be better off with the i5, so no reasons to buy it.
Simple as that.

And you have made your point its obvious you guys aren't going to agree anytime soon, so why keep adding more pages to this thread. I don't think the OP wanted this to turn into a Intel vs AMD thread he was just posting his real life experience with the build.