AMD Bulldozer FX-8150

[CJ]

Well, it's finally out and bench marked. On the surface it appears to be fail cakes. However, some of the benchmarks are inconsistent. The i7 2600's and the high end i5's show to beat it in some game benchmarks, but when the res cranks it turns the other way. Also, I'm interested in it for rendering/raytracing. Initial tests show the 8 core BD to murder the high end i7's in rendering. Anyone have some benches to support this?

[roliath]

Where did you see it murdering the i7's in rendering? Anandtech showed it the other way same with H. Also, just curious if your comparing stock clocks or overclocked results.

[CJ]

Where did you see it murdering the i7's in rendering? Anandtech showed it the other way same with H. Also, just curious if your comparing stock clocks or overclocked results.

It was posted on one of the raytracing forums I read, it was not an official test, but he goes to say his 8150 is beating their 2600 by minutes in raytracing, and hours in full scenes.

Some of these benchmarks are poor (like anandtech uses) they usually use a 3 year old 3d studio (3dsm9) which is not optimized for multi-core, and they are not using vray. I want to see 3dsmax11/12 tests - which is where I'm hearing it has big gains.

[roliath]

It was posted on one of the raytracing forums I read, it was not an official test, but he goes to say his 8150 is beating their 2600 by minutes in raytracing, and hours in full scenes.

Oh yeah, most sites I visit didn't do any testing like that. If you have a link i'd be interested in looking at it.

Another con, is I feel it uses too much damn power for less performance for the mainstream crowd.

[roliath]

Here's another bench to support what you said.




although still not faster than my proc.. I want to upgrade my dad's box to sandy bridge but I think it'll be cheaper to go this route. I just want them to release some OEM procs without the heatsink since his box is already w/c'd.

[CJ]

Oh yeah, most sites I visit didn't do any testing like that. If you have a link i'd be interested in looking at it.

Another con, is I feel it uses too much damn power for less performance for the mainstream crowd.

Yeah it's a damn hog, 125w is what the specs say. It's specs and it's performance are two totally different things. For some reason I have a feeling it's a much faster CPU than its benchmarks are showing currently. I had been waiting on a BD for a long time, I just recently upgraded to an AM3+ board which supports the next gen. Debating whether or not to upgrade, or wait for later revisions.

[CJ]

Here's another bench to support what you said.




although still not faster than my proc.. I want to upgrade my dad's box to sandy bridge but I think it'll be cheaper to go this route. I just want them to release some OEM procs without the heatsink since his box is already w/c'd.

There we go, yeah thats a good test, it's literally riding the heels of their flagship for a hell of a lot less. This leads me to believe it's software optimization holding the BD back.

[CJ]

Here's another bench to support what you said.


although still not faster than my proc.. I want to upgrade my dad's box to sandy bridge but I think it'll be cheaper to go this route. I just want them to release some OEM procs without the heatsink since his box is already w/c'd.

I have a bunch of watercooling shit I'm about to sell on [H] if you might be interested.

[roliath]

Well there are issues with the way windows 7 scheduler and I think over time we may see some more improvements with BD but as of right now not so much. Even AMD suggests to change affinity to achieve best results.

yeah when you post the thread, shoot me a link.

[CJ]

Well there are issues with the way windows 7 scheduler and I think over time we may see some more improvements with BD but as of right now not so much. Even AMD suggests to change affinity to achieve best results.

yeah when you post the thread, shoot me a link.

change affinity?

[roliath]

change affinity?

Some people are reporting better performance by killing 4 of the cores (1/3/5/7) this was suggested by AMD as well. Or physically changing the affinity in multithreaded programs to use the 0/2/4/6 cores.

[LeXXon]

Some people are reporting better performance by killing 4 of the cores (1/3/5/7) this was suggested by AMD as well. Or physically changing the affinity in multithreaded programs to use the 0/2/4/6 cores.

Why buy a processor when you have to cut it back down? That would like taking a quad core and taking it back to a dual core.

[roliath]

Why buy a processor when you have to cut it back down? That would like taking a quad core and taking it back to a dual core.

Windows 7 task scheduler is one reason, too soon to market without enough time for software companies to make use of it is a maybe. Its been reporting Yields were way low too, give it a few months for BD to flesh out and we may see better performance but as of now I don't see one except in those ray trace benches CJ brought up. Handbrake is another one where BD shines, specifically on the second passes since thats the pass that multi-threaded. I am still curious on how most review sites are doing the Handbrake benches some show BD on top, some on bottom.
And I never said I bought one, nor am I going to; efficiency is too low for my taste. Power consumption is the biggest reason along with price/performance and I rather go with Sandy or 980X / 5650.