I dunno, maybe it isn't maybe it is we dunno, but from what I've read with how the core of the architecture works I could see where windows and other applications may be having issues with these chips, but at the same time these numbers we see could be correct, and Bulldozer really is just one big fail. I think that I'll wait awhile and see what happens, as my 1100T still does what I need it to, and see what AMD can do to fix what seems to be one big fail.
Well now that AMD has experiences with 8 core they should focus on improving that rather than adding more cores.. with the results such as performance/power usage its not very efficient. Even if they have lower performance, they should at least work on the power efficiency part
Im so disappointed. I purchased a new board a few months ago for bulldozer, now I cant bring myself to buy it. Looks like I may have to go intel.
Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if Intel laid off half their Ivy Bridge engineers this morning and told the rest to look for budget savings.
TBH I see this more as a media CPU rather than a gaming CPU. Hell it's damn close to the i7-965 in most of the tests, and my OCed 950 is on par with those. I don't think the massively parralleled architecture has done AMD any good here, whereas most stuff is better with fewer, faster cores. I'll be sticking with X58 for now, upgrade GFX (probably to Radeon 7k) in the near future and see what IB brings.
I wouldn't call myself an AMD fanboy but ever since I've been building my own rigs I've used there parts due to price / performance. Now its time for another upgrade but this time I'm going Intel (2600k FTW), I want AMD to succeed but I can't in my right mind build a high end gaming machine using a FX 8150. Good luck AMD but for this round I'm out.
Anyone want some pi? ~15-20% less performance per clock than AMD's own, let alone Intel. Reversed, Intel is over 100% faster, which is nuts. Even if it's not completely realistic it's putting a finger on a sore spot.
Total dissapointment, as a gamer this CPU is totaly useless for a long time to come. AMD have chosen a bad design by increasing cores instead of per core performance. Software will always be lagging too far behind to make the extra cores useful. I can definitely see these shine in the server environment and for encoders/compilers. But as a high end gaming system? No. I hope the next revisions with improved per core performance will make it a viable option, as it stands it is too slow and too expensive.
Shame, AMD have been out of it since Intel brought the Core2Duo's out, were ruling the roost before that, Athlons were great
AnandTech CPU benchmark graphs for added pain, I compared an i5-2500k to the FX-8150: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=434 The bottom line is that this architecture was meant to start scaling from 4.2GHz, but the manufacturing process at Global Foundries failed them and the best they got was 3.6Ghz, which makes it even slower than the old Phenom II's.
I was reading on AMD zone that if you disable the second core on each module the results are meant to be far better. I wonder if Hilbert could do this today before I pull the trigger on a 2500k
Gaming performance is real, real weak. Been looking at Anand and it's crazy how low it is, I know I won't be buying one. I wanted to, but with those numbers I just can't. It feels more like a server processor.
