AMD FX-Series (Bulldozer) & 990FX Chipset (AM3+) Discussion

[Nikon223]

Originally Posted by Ice009

So you think software developers would have been sitting around doing nothing with that kind of CPU power? Surely the software developers would have made use of it and adapted to it quicker.



You didn't really come off as a fanboy to me. I thought you were just looking at AMD because the usually have good value for money, unfortunately I think the 8150 is overpriced. It'd have to be around $200-$220 for me to even consider it.

What would you all price it at?

Well considering i game and encode with handbrake i would price it around $200. The 2500k beats it in nearly all games that have been tested so far. The 2500k is only $229 at PCCG.

[Ice009]

Originally Posted by itsmydamnation

NB overclock reduces memory and cache latency, two of the most important things for serial workloads.



its taken 10 years for programmers to even start to get a grip with the complexities of multithreaded workloads, so no they wouldn't come close.


maybe you should go try the SMP patch for quake 3

If the tech was around back then, then why couldn't they have adapted quicker? You think it'd take 5 more years to get to the same point as we are at now if the tech was available back then?

Obviously I don't know anything about programming so you'd have to explain it some more to me (if you can be bothered).

[gregpolk]

Originally Posted by Ice009

What would you all price it at?

Closer to the 2500k and I'd definitely grab one.

I haven't looked at much OCing of <8150 chips, but since these chips are unlocked, would you be best off going the cheapest 6/8 core and just OC? Or are the slower chips not reaching as impressive OC on stock/slightly increased voltages? 8120 could be a good buy.

[zehoo]

when o/c'd that's one power hungry cpu

[itsmydamnation]

Originally Posted by Ice009

If the tech was around back then, then why couldn't they have adapted quicker? You think it'd take 5 more years to get to the same point as we are at now if the tech was available back then?

Obviously I don't know anything about programming so you'd have to explain it some more to me (if you can be bothered).

the learning curve would have started earlier yes, but it still would have taken just as long. so all that time 60-70% off a I7 quad core would be doing nothing. the issues around programming are quite simple to explain really.

think of memory as an excel spread sheet, each cell holds data. now get 8 different people to start manipulating data without any concern about what another person is doing, pretty easy to see how it all will fall apart.

[Unframed]

Originally Posted by Ice009

So you think software developers would have been sitting around doing nothing with that kind of CPU power? Surely the software developers would have made use of it and adapted to it quicker.

So because 1 cpu series isn't being utilized every software company will update to utilize it? I doubt it. I still haven't seen much fully utilizing my 1055t.

[Ice009]

Originally Posted by Nikon223

Well considering i game and encode with handbrake i would price it around $200. The 2500k beats it in nearly all games that have been tested so far. The 2500k is only $229 at PCCG.

$220 is the most I'd pay, if it was $200 I'd consider getting one at that price point over the 2600K since I wanted it for encoding too. I don't know how AMD are going to sell many of these at their current recommended prices.

Originally Posted by gregpolk

Closer to the 2500k and I'd definitely grab one.

I haven't looked at much OCing of <8150 chips, but since these chips are unlocked, would you be best off going the cheapest 6/8 core and just OC? Or are the slower chips not reaching as impressive OC on stock/slightly increased voltages?

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/t...8150-tested/10

AMD indicated the FX-8150 was good for around 4.6GHz using air cooling, 5GHz using water cooling and beyond with more aggressive cooling methods. In our experience with the platform hitting 4.6GHz, stable, on a stock AMD HSF was not an issue. Moving beyond 4.6GHz on air saw a significant decrease in stability however. I could boot and run benchmarks at 4.7GHz but I'd almost always encounter a crash. I couldn't hit 5GHz on air.

I think Anand used the stock Air Cooler though, so if it does better with an aftermarket Air Cooler it could be better, if not Sandy Bridge would be better for Air Cooling overclocking. It also uses a lot of power when overclocked.

Anyone else read any reviews with good overclocks on air? A lot of people seemed to think it would overclock better on air than Sandy bridge, but I'm not so sure anymore, seems like Sandy bridge would be the way to go if you have a good air cooler or water cooler.

[machete]

Yup and that kinda OC is peanuts for SB.

[.Radiant]

Originally Posted by Ice009

If the tech was around back then, then why couldn't they have adapted quicker? You think it'd take 5 more years to get to the same point as we are at now if the tech was available back then?

Obviously I don't know anything about programming so you'd have to explain it some more to me (if you can be bothered).

Imo it'd be slightly quicker as they'd have 4 cores to work with off the bat compared to two. But don't quote me on that, they probably would have ramped up and be releasing 6-8 cores for mainstream use not too long after.

Just compare the q6600 (07 iirc) to an i5 2500k (this year) by todays standard. Games are just beginning to use quads, but would you rather be gaming on a q6600 or the 2500k?

[IMtech]

Y U DISAPPOINT ME AMD?

I hope further revision of BD have better yields/fixes... there has to be something wrong with their chips...

I can't believe my year old X6 can still run rings around the new BD...

[Smakked]

What a let down that was. Glad i Jumped ship a few months ago. They cant be happy with the release at all, they just had to get something out there and i feel it was rushed out again

[Jazz]

Originally Posted by TOX

If you have 2500k / 2600k money - Sandy Bridge is going to be an easy buy

If you have non "K" series money - FX-6100 looks like the one to buy

Also motherboards for AMD are a lot cheaper. Especially if you want to go dual VGA

You can get a native x16 / x16 AMD board for about $150 US cheaper then a NF200 equipped Z68 one.

This. Not every student / new family man can afford a K and the trimmings. If you ignore the "FX" moniker, its a good budget buy

[MrSmoke]

the performance per watt is pretty useless. Looks like 2500k for my ESXI server after all.

[NNNG]

I was expecting similar multithreaded results, but I wasn't expecting it to suck to the point where it loses to Phenom II in many single-threaded workloads - I thought it would at least have single-threaded performance somewhat better than Phenom II.

Wonder what the performance per watt of the 95 watt 8120 is - also hopefully piledriver improves the situation somewhat. In any case, I'm not waiting, 2500K time (well... after exams).

[dr_deathy]

I think they look ok, anyone who said they would smash current intel CPUs is a bit odd, but they havnt done bad at all.

I cant wait to pick up mine, will test how it goes and prob replace my i7 920, otherwise my ordering computer has a E6300 1.86GHz in it which is struggling under day to day multitasking.

the 2500K system i have was very boring, esp after the 1366 and 1156 systems.