AMD Bulldozer is such a waste

[777flyer101 1]

Just saw some benchmarks and it is not really worth buying, either 8150 or 8120. I5 2500k is the way to go. I don't know why AMDs are still in business.

[VirginAus737 0]

If the 8150 was half the price then it would be better value for money, but its not and although it sounds very wierd, Intel has better value for money over the Bulldozer's.

[Humpty 751]

Agree a waste right now. Review's are mixed though. Imagine it is slower than a Phenom and bad on a single threaded application, the power consumption is huge , loads temps don't sound good. Don't know what AMD was thinking or is thinking with this chip. So much hype and what do users see is crap. Intel and the ###### must be ROFL. But being a new architecture the real performance will only be judged by a user himself. I always went with AMD as they always gave bang for the buck. Guess I will just upgrade to a Phenom or an i5 2500k in the near future.

[VirginAus737 0]

2500k I would say for an upgrade. But I saw a fair point somewhere. These are the first 8 core desktop CPUs. The first 4 core CPUs weren't that great either. AMD should just take it one fix at a time and try to knock over these problems until they have the perfect architecture.

[Humpty 751]

AMD is missing the point is the IPC as even OC'ing the Bulldozer it hardly shows any performance benefit. Though the new architecture may have real potential on later chips or the Zambezi may show it's true colors when applications start using more threads / cores or optimized for the Bulldozer architecture but I doubt anyone would wait for that to happen when people need speed. AMD is very very small in comparison to Intel and doubt they can spend a lot on R&D. Guess i5 2500k.

[777flyer101 1]

just look at the price, 279.99 USD, rofl!!! And all that money goes for somehow adjusting 8 cores on a processor, each slower than even 1/4th that of 2500k or 2600k.And for the first time I see Intel being cheaper and much much better (I mean better always).

[Humpty 751]

Bulldozer was never intended to compete with the i7 but certain tests on the review show that it matches don't know which tests were those. One of the members here @forum has ordered the fx-8120 (check in the mobo/hardware) now that would show how well she runs and FSX would be a good benchmark for the CPU but with bad IPC I have my doubts. I think the FX-4xxx series would be good value for money for normal desktop options.

[777flyer101 1]

Bulldozer was never intended to compete with the i7 but certain tests on the review show that it matches don't know which tests were those. One of the members here @forum has ordered the fx-8120 (check in the mobo/hardware) now that would show how well she runs and FSX would be a good benchmark for the CPU but with bad IPC I have my doubts. I think the FX-4xxx series would be good value for money for normal desktop options.

Let's wait for some benchmarks

[Humpty 751]

Screw your benchmarks. I can tell you using the FX in the turbo mode @ 4.2 ghz FLYS. NO OCing either! for 270.00 the most amazing investment I ever made in a CPU 20 yrs of simming! For those bashing the 8 core. Wait , there is a quad coming out with the same turbo numbers. For the Intel ######, It is making you sandy beaches much cheaper also!

I can say one thing you are an absolute ###### of AMD. No offence even I buy AMD products and can say that they perform and really like them. But look at the review's they are totally mixed. If AMD was on a new architecture since last few years at least they should have gone to the higher end chip performance. Don't they feel it's time not to play second fiddle to Intel ? I know they are not as big in finance. And if you say the FX-8150 price is the most amazing bargain then I am sorry to say you are wrong. I want per clock performance and so do users. The bulldozer may shine with apps using more than 4-6 cores but do you have those apps ? Maybe there apps which may use the 8 cores. Once the chip is in the hand of the users then we shall notice the potential. Let's wait and watch , else I will put a Phenom on my existing motherboard.

[cmeeks 8]

Screw your benchmarks. I can tell you using the FX in the turbo mode @ 4.2 ghz FLYS. NO OCing either! for 270.00 the most amazing investment I ever made in a CPU 20 yrs of simming! For those bashing the 8 core. Wait , there is a quad coming out with the same turbo numbers. For the Intel ######, It is making you sandy beaches much cheaper also!

Where do you come up with this nonsense? Turbo or no turbo, 4-core or 8-core, Bulldozer has terribly low IPC! So it's slower and yet it still manages to draw much more power than Sandy Bridge. Ivy Bridge will be out next year and the top chip will have a TDP of 77 watts!!! Compare that to 210 watts for the FX-8150. Perhaps a 4-core Bulldozer will be more along the lines of a 2500K regarding power consumption?

[Guest jahman]

...AMD is very very small in comparison to Intel and doubt they can spend a lot on R&D.

Which means they will continue to get smaller and smaller, (unless Intel makes some serious mistakes).. Cheers, - jahman.

[Humpty 751]

Which means they will continue to get smaller and smaller, (unless Intel makes some serious mistakes).. Cheers, - jahman.

Yep the way they are going they just may, Intel making mistakes in the near future I don't think so.

[dazz 69]

Let's hope Piledriver makes things better, at least with power consumption so the platform is reasonably efficient

[Humpty 751]

Let's hope Piledriver makes things better, at least with power consumption so the platform is reasonably efficient

Now I doubt that , just wondering what people maybe feeling when they bought the AM3+ board so they could later upgrade to the Bulldozer. And the Piledriver would be on the FM socket. Or if the new bulldozer chips come up with a very good performance till then that AM3+ socket is useless.

[dazz 69]

Now I doubt that , just wondering what people maybe feeling when they bought the AM3+ board so they could later upgrade to the Bulldozer. And the Piledriver would be on the FM socket. Or if the new bulldozer chips come up with a very good performance till then that AM3+ socket is useless.

Yes, it's a new socket, but that was known long ago. Sometimes it's necessary, and AMD had been supporting AM3 for long enough.Many people with AM3 boards got AM3+ in preparation for BZ, which makes no sense to me considering AM3+ would have no further upgrades.Now we need Piledriver to step up even if it's on a new socket, cause as it is now, Bulldozer is a complete flop. This is very bad for us consumersHopefully the power consumption issue is a manufacturing process/Global Foundaries thing and not the architecture's fault, and they can hone their 32nm by Piledriver