Just wanted to say, awesome review gentlemen! Best Ive seen. May I ask that you do a review with sli/crossfire across 2-3 cards please?
Dammit with all the hype and excitement AMD kills it, I was looking forward to bulldozer. I feel dirty joining Intel, time to upgrade my ancient rig.
I had my eye on FX 6100, the only benchmarks I have seen averages lower than Phenom II 1100T. I ask myself WTF has AMD been doing, is this a Intel conspiracy? I always preferred the underdog but this is just sad. I will probably buy individual parts like memory, graphics, casing, psu, coolers first and wait for someone to post their own opinions before making my final decision.
For BF3 an X4 980 is actully faster than the i7/5's according to the beta benchmarks (and faster than an X6 1100T aswell). http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/448/bench/CPU_02.png Even an i7 2600k overclocked to 5.2ghz only matches a stock X4 980. http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/448/bench/CPU_01.png Either the beta isn't using SB properly OR the new engine just preferes AMD.
Pwning? are you looking at the same benches? clock for clock the p4 sucked even compared to the AthlonXP. It was Intels worst processor by far. The P3 was a far better chip and there was a time when 1ghz P3's were pwning 1ghz P4's. Sounds exactly like the Bulldozer vs Phenom fiasco now.
Dunno if you guys have seen this or not but this is a good comparison of the 8150 overclocked to 4.75Ghz vs the 2600K at 5.2Ghz in gaming. A lot closer than originally percieved - except for farcry 2. Need to look a little further into this I think. Check it out. http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/4350/amd_fx_8150_bulldozer_gaming_performance_analysis/index1.html
even if thats the case, look at the power draw of the 8150 at that clock speed. thats the main reason im not getting it.
What a pile of crap that analysis is, running mostly GPU limited games. Run the same benchmarks on a SLI or Crossfire configuration or try CPU demanding games like GTA4, BFBC2 and BF3 and watch the new AMD chip struggle like the pos it is.
yeah i get what you're saying, but its interesting none the less. i too would like to see a crossfire/sli comparison across the board of all of the 2010/2011 released games just to see how it goes. But just to see that it competes "fairly" well against the 2600K even when its clocked higher - this is good to see. I'd also like to see some more benches with a board that is not the crosshair.
Until you factor in its power consumption. The thing is, the FX-8150 wasn't supposed to 'compete fairly' as in around the same performance as i7-2600K, it's supposed to stomp it. At least that's what AMD had wanted us to believe. We don't need to get apologetic now. We need to spank AMD's arse until their logo goes all black and make all of their marketing lies come true.
im just as disappointed as the next guy when it comes to bulldozers performance, and especially the power draw - but seriously, is it just me or is there something hindering this processors performance? I don't think it's a case of lies, coz legally they just couldn't get away with that. I believe that if this processor was supposed to stomp the 2600k, surely it'd be priced higher - but its not. It's priced lower because its performance is lower. I think in time we will see the 8150's performance increase as they iron out the kinks that they should have sorted years ago - but unfortunately the power draw figures will remain sky high which sucks bigtime.
AMD has a great track record with marketing lies. Try Barcelona. I personally think they should just bring Thuban's manufacturing down to 32nm instead of prematurely getting BD out, no matter how long BD had been in gestation. That way PII could get lower TDP, and maybe even an X8 part. But no, AMD just had to get BD out.
I agree with you there, the Thubans should have had a die shrink rather than a premature release of BD, but looks like amd ran out of delays. I dunno, i just believe theres more to this story. Theres more performance to be unlocked i'm sure.
