Thank you Makaveli. Couldn't have said it better. When I get home tonight, I'm going to install the GTX680 and play some games on the Bulldozer. Then i'm going to download the benchies that infa64 mentioned and run them on the Bulldozer with the GTX680 and the 2500k with the GTX680 and post the results. Time permitting I'll have some more info to post by tomorrow. Thanks again for your post.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.
Thank you Makaveli. Couldn't have said it better. When I get home tonight, I'm going to install the GTX680 and play some games on the Bulldozer. Then i'm going to download the benchies that infa64 mentioned and run them on the Bulldozer with the GTX680 and the 2500k with the GTX680 and post the results. Time permitting I'll have some more info to post by tomorrow. Thanks again for your post.
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.
Thank you Makaveli. Couldn't have said it better. When I get home tonight, I'm going to install the GTX680 and play some games on the Bulldozer. Then i'm going to download the benchies that infa64 mentioned and run them on the Bulldozer with the GTX680 and the 2500k with the GTX680 and post the results. Time permitting I'll have some more info to post by tomorrow. Thanks again for your post.
Seriously I think your the only one trying to pick a fight in this thread, and its getting pretty annoying.So, if i recommend an Intel CPU (and i have so many times) im Intel biased???
What everyone knows what AtenRa is ???
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.
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.
Ouch. I am waiting for an answer to this, AtenRa!
*grabs popcorn*
IDK. Hm, well it does ok against the 2500k, which is all anyone ever wanted it to beat.
I wonder how well/not well those programs are multithreaded. Why can it keep neck and neck with the best intel chips at BF3 but nothing else??? Maybe BF3 just isn't fully loading each core.
My impressions are that the Bulldozer 8150 is NOT this horrible monster that some take relish in portraying it as. Is the 2500k more power efficient? YES Is the 2500K better on synthetic gaming marks? For the most part yes. If you buy the same GPU/HD etc would you notice it? In my limited testing no.
A coworker and I came to a similar conclusion not too long ago after comparing our PCs, using each others' PCs for work and gaming for several days. We both at the time had Crossfire HD5850s, 74GB Raptor HDs and both had our CPUs clocked at 4.0GHz, his an i7 920, mine a PII X4 965. The conclusion for us at the time was that there was no discernible difference between the two at all, not in gaming, not in desktop use. It just wasn't there. If someone didn't tell you the specs of the machines, you would have thought they were the same - they were even in the same Antec P183/CP-1000 combo with the same LCDs.
So, in your case the tech has moved on. We now have Bulldozer and Sandy Bridge instead of Deneb and Bloomfield but I suspect it's much of the same.
That's a good point, but not the whole truth.
Sure it is. I don't think you understand how this personal experience thing works. That is my and my coworkers' personal experience. It may not be directly relate-able to what YOU have experienced but by no means does it make it untrue. :thumbsup:
Mallibu: I understand your comments but fast car slow car might not be the best comparison. How about Very fast and not as fast. The 8150 at 4.5 Ghz in rig 3 below is fast. BTW mallibu have you actually used a Bulldozer 8150 or is your analysis based upon what you have read?
Vic: How about those 5850s in CF AMAZING. One of the best purchases I ever made.
Easily the best GPU setup I have ever used. I keep thinking about upgrading them but haven't found a reason to yet. They eat up anything.
I'm not jaded, but I'm considering building an AMD FX-8150 rig over an Intel i5-3570K Ivy Bridge. I don't really game a lot anymore and instead use more productivity aps. For some reason I just want to play around with 8 cores. I know it's not going to be the fastest rig around and I know I'll only be saving $75, but I'm still thinking of going AMD.
I haven't fully decided yet though and Intel's Smart Response has me on the fence.
soccerballtux, to answer your question, at stock the 8150 CANNOT stay close to the 2500k. At high OCs the gap narrows but in most cases doesn't close. I think you would have to push the 8150 to nearly 5Ghz to take the lead on single threaded apps. The point of my thread is that at 4.5 Ghz each (8150 is base 3.6 and 2500k is base 3.3) the performance is close enough that you don't notice it in most cases especially when I used the GTX680. Synthetic benchmarks still have the 2500k winning most single threaded benchmarks but the gap over the 8150 is narrow. The real problem is that to get to 4.5 Ghz on the 8150 you have power and thermal problems. You need a strong PSU and most likely a liquid cooler. The 2500k is much more power efficient and you can use a cooler such as the Hyper212+ with no problem. Also you should have a quality AM3+ mb with a 990FX chipset for max OCs. If Piledriver can improve thermals and efficiency with a slight improvement in IPC maybe the gap with the 2500k will narrow more.
The 8150 was originally designed to run at a higher clock speed to stay competitive with the SB but to keep within the thermal package it was clocked at 3.6/3.9/4.2. As you ramp up the clock speed I notice in most benchmarks the gap between it and my SB 2500k narrows somewhat but never closes in most benchmarks (exception Cinebench 11.5 the 8150 leads at 4.5Ghz but it should with a 4 core advantage!).This does not make sense to me. At stock, the 8150 is 0.3ghz higher clocked than the 2500K but you say it cannot compete. Then you say when both are at 4.5ghz, the 8150 is competitive. How can the gap narrow (or as you claim, disappear) when the 2500k is faster at a lower clock and overclocked more to the same final clock? When both are overclocked is there some other kind of bottleneck? I just dont see how taking a slower chip and overclocking it less can suddenly bring equal performance.
This is a follow up to all of the above posts. When I started this thread I hopefully made it clear that I was going to try to give an unbiased opinion of my experience of the 8150 as opposed to my 2500ks ( and to a lesser degree my 1100T). Along this "journey" I upgraded both the case and cooling.
My thoughts. If you are building from scratch, a decent z77 mb (in the price range of the Asus Sabertooth 990fx $180) plus a 3570k will cost $40 more than a 8150 plus the sabertooth. SPEND the extra dough! To get the Bulldozer to run close enough to my 2500k, which is slightly slower than the 3570k you have to have high end cooling (spent @$114 for Corsair H100) and ramp up the clock speed which requires a beefier PSU. I am not posting this to "BASH" the 8150. I jumped on it when it dropped to $170. Not the best money move I ever made but considering my "thirst" to try it myself coupled with a solid 990FX mb and two "unused" 5850s I decided to make the move. If you are not a computer nerd like me who loves playing with different combos and only have the $$ for 1 new build, primarily for gaming, I have to recommend an Intel build. The gap, all things considered is too wide. If you have a 1100T on a 990FX mb wait for the PileDriver if not the Steamroller unless you are anxious to see what an "8 core" is like. The 8150 does have better memory handling than the 1100T.
I'll keep playing with this rig to try and "tweak" it some more. I'll try to run benchmarks if you want and I can get them for free. ( Just ran 3Dmark11 on the 8150 rig and it scored 7318 in performance mode).
Thanks for reading.