Latest Bulldozer rumor: To be released at 12:00 Noon Eastern time on October 12 -- 8 days. We'll see

Bulldozer Oct 12

As the article mentions, now lets see the actual performance. Of course, I'll be buying one -- barring the very unforseen

Here is a contest to win a FX processor over at AMD.
See at the upper right hand corner.
http://sites.amd.com/us/promo/processors/Pages/operation-scorpius.aspx

no one look for Allen Wednesday, you wont find him, he'll be scouring the earth looking for a AM3+ CPU

PRICES LEAKED I dunno , this is probably old news to you guys

i7 COMPARISON LEAK

Thanks for the links.

The price is $275. The rumor was $245. Have to see what the normal discount places are asking.

Test is interesting. It was done by SiSoft itself with its own SiSoft test suite. There was a flap a few months back. Multiple companies (including AMD) pulled out of their relationship with SiSoft because SiSoft benchmarks are heavily weighted towards Intel products (i.e. not a fair test). They badmouthed SiSoft. Maybe this test (seemingly pitting a weak version of Bulldozer against a strong i7 -- did not give enough info on test setup) is a "retaliation" by SiSoft -- as Bulldozer did not fair well. Even if the test was at equal clocks, SiSoft benchmarks would favor Intel (not Intel's fault as far as I know)

Hopefully, the October 12 rumor will turn out to be true -- and we'll see where Bulldozer sits currently. I assume close to i7. Since the benchmarks are developed on Intel CPUs and then adjusted for AMD, I expect Intel to do a little better (not a lot) in benchmarks.

Meanwhile on the CINEBENCH score. My Phenom II X6 (hex core) is faster than the score they post ... hmmmmm .... now THAT would be disappointing (if true, may be due to difference in how Bulldozer handles floating point -- 4 full time fp or 8 part time fp threads vs 6 full time in Phenom II X6). BTW, my Phenom II is faster than older version i7-960 (8 part time threads in i7 vs 6 full time in Phenom) in CINEBENCH (don't know the Sandy Bridge comparison).

Anyhow, yes, I'll be "jumping on a Bulldozer" tomorrow -- if they are released for sale

Been keeping my eye on the Bulldozer for a while now. For $275 it better tear a big piece out of the i2600k clock for clock.
It's nice if it overclocks to 5ghz but if the per clock cycle performance stays behind Sandy Bridge it won't help us gamers
much. If the sub $200 BD's equal or better SB they could have a winner on their hands. AMD's position for the last few years
has always been playing catch up but at a better price performance equation. Why pay $1000 for 6 cores when $150 gives you
6 cores and 70% of the performance? When they charge $60 more than intells budget performance chip, the i2500k, are they not
changing that value/performance position?

O.K. reviews are out for the FX-8150.At Toms Hardware it doesn't look so good.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043.html

Here are some other ones.Not great either.Bulldozer doesn't seem to be great for gaming that is.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/har...sor-review.html

http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo//index...02&Itemid=1

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150-processor-review/1

Here are some more

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/1

http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=831&Itemid=63

It has a decent Passmark Score though
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8150+Eight-Core

A translation of a Dutch review: @ Tweakers.net

Hmmmmm....

Looks like my Phenom II 1100T equals or exceeds Bulldozer in most things important to me (per core per clock). Not at all what I expected. I expected a 10 to 20 percent (per core per clock) improvement.

Thus, my "first impression" is that Phenom II 1100T not only gives better "bang for buck", it also gives higher absolute performance (per core per clock) in many cases. I'll keep reading and see if a better "second impression" can be found.

Isnt it still early days and it will come into iys own with some tweaking etc?

Being an Engineering Scientist, I must face facts and I can't buy less performance than I already have. Being an AMD/ATI fan, I want to rationalize a purchase. Rationalization nearly always seems to triumph over a weak intellect

Actually, I do need another CPU right now for a different computer in the house. So, I have to pick something. Its between a Phenom II 980 ($155 today) and the Bulldozer FX8150 ($245? -- couldn't find it on Newegg yet).

Bottom line, it is tweaking and Windows 8 that Bulldozer needs.

The Bulldozer is said to OC to 4.8GHz on air and slightly higher on water (I have water) -- of course, it remains to be seen what OC can be had. On the other hand, my Phenom II is limited to 4.0GHz (stable in Prime95) -- I understand the 980 might hit 4.2GHz. At 4.8 GHz the Bulldozer should measurably out perform the Phenom II (per core). Unfortunately, it does not catch up to an OC i7-2600K at the high OC.

Also, some lack of scaling with extra cores is "blamed" on Windows 7 (a weak excuse) and it is claimed that Windows 8 will make proper use of the extra cores (I will be buying Windows 8 when it arrives).

Lastly (rationalization wise), I want to benchmark for myself in ways important to me and become "educated" regarding Bulldozer (being an AMD fan).

None of this means much for game FPS. Virtually all higher end CPUs perform nearly the same (can measure but not "see" the differences) in most games at high resolutions (and I run at 5760x1200).

Decisions, Decisions

Toms Benchmarks put the FX8150 Consistantly behind the i7, i5 and X6 1100T.... not so good...

Then when they drop the "CPU Benchmark Suites" to use programs (photoshop etc), the FX8150 Seems to Hang with i7 and in some test surpass it.

I think the FPU design might need a rework looking at the test results so far.

Here they are at newegg

http://promotions.newegg.com/AMD/113011/...1%2f118x118.jpg

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductLis...;name=FX-Series

and

Hitler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SArxcnpXStE

I'd Get the 8120 and OC, and save $60

I smiled out loud

Unfortunately, at the current $280 Newegg asking price, Bulldozer is a a choice I can't rationalize. Reminds me of the HD2xxx series (that I passed up) -- which did get corrected by HD3xxx. We'll see. Perhaps this is why the AMD Board fired the AMD CEO a few months back?

Anyhow, I'll go back to deciding what to do next. "Hitler" sums up my situation/evaluation very well -- except, unlike him, I'm smiling

To fill my need for a CPU this week, I ordered another Phenom II 1100T for $175. I imagine games and applications won't outrun it for a couple years or more. And, I saved $105 vs a similar performing Bulldozer (1100T represents relatively good bang for buck).

The very best "bang for buck" today is Phenom II X4 965 at $115 (in my opinion) -- and I gave it serious thought -- but the cost per core is similar to the 1100T.

I might just have to build me a Top-O-Line X6-1100T Rig

The power consumption does NOT look good either:



I think I'll stick with my overclocked i7 920 @ 3.5Ghz. It plays everything and does everything I ask of it!

some of the things i7 stomps teh FX in is because the i7 uses the onboard MiniGPU to help.

ie Audio/Video Transcoding, GPU's do it way faster than CPU (as I still use my 8800GTS to transcode my WMV-HD Files from MJPEG AVI, and it does it way faster than my current CPU).

But the FX CPU seems to do much better in applications that allow unlimited threads.

But that doesnt explain all the Dhry/Whet differences.. Either everyone got bad samples, or AMD really screwed up somewhere.... I wanna see if AMD defends themselves to some of these reviews..

All that power but they have a bottleneck somewhere... i'll wait a few revisions.. see what happens,.

and they better not say "Bulldozer was designed for Windows 8", because by time Win8 gets significant marketshare we'll be 3 or 4 generations past BD.

Wonder if this means prices on Intel won't fall like they might have? Rats...

In my reading, the BIG mistake (in my opinion) was this:

AMD deliberately did not increase the Instructions per Clock. Rather, they made a design decision to hold them the same or reduce them slightly to allow for higher clocks. Then, they did not get higher clocks (or, at least, enough higher). So, FAIL. Pretty much the same mistake Intel made with Pentium 4 (originally shooting for 10GHz if I remember correctly). Since AMD knew that history, one can't defend the decision.

What they should have done (and many thought they did) was go for higher performance than Phenom at the same clocks as Phenom and i7 -- with a small boost in clocks due to the smaller process.

well, newegg is reporting that 8150 is sold out.

its funny reading reviews and facebook comments on AMD's page, everyone is oblivious to the actual benchmarks claiming themt o be the best CPUs Ever, yada yada.

maybe they can change the instructions/clk for the next revision later next year.

TBH I'd Rather have 6 Threads and 2 GFX units.

I wonder how the FX-6100 compares to the x6 1100T since they are the same price point on new egg.

O.K. I have got some breaking news for you guys especially Allen.
Apparently a review site had some results that were completely different using a motherboard that other reviewers didn't use.The resulting differences were staggering to say the least.
It also looks like some fixes and other issues are being worked on as well.
Bulldozer looks as if it might have a great future if so.Obviously the initial public release presentations were catastrophic from most reviews and this is very bad PR.
Anyway be sure to check (read) this forum thread out.
Toms Hardware looks like they are highly interested in investigating this in another upcoming review.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/315775-28-asus-crosshair-giving-biased-results-bulldozer

and again here is the different review which views the FX-8150 in a highly positive way using the different motherboard.The resulting benchmarks are quite different (vastly better) using the ASRock 990FX Extreme4 instead of the Asus Crosshair V Formula (Socket AM3+) AMD 990FX/SB950 Chipset, BIOS 0813 motherboard used by all the other FX-8150 review sites.

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/12...troduction.html

Wow quite the difference.See their conclusion too.

http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/za...-990fxa-ud7/22/

its looking like maybe the mainboard design was hosed in all the reviews that used the press kit?

even the reviews that arent devastating, the i7 2600K constantly stomps it in Multi-Media thats to the GPU Cores (which are faster at Video Transcoding than Regular CPU cores)

Strange, I was wondering why it was "failing" so bad in the reviews, yet it was said over and over that it should be on-par with an i5 2500k (and the price was more to boot).

Now the question (at least for me) is how does it perform on an 890gx mobo?

What was AMD thinking, shipping a review kit without testing two samples? This new review restored my resolve to invest in a bulldozer system early next year. Phewww!

Bulldozer will become a good value for folks who don't already have a Phenom II X6 1100T.

I hope the newer news is more accurate than the initial reviews regarding OC -- they say 4.8GHz. I expected an easy 4.8GHz on air and 5.0 on water (which I have) but initial reviews were saying 4.4GHz (considering $280 price, not enough vs 1100T which is 4.0 to 4.2GHz depending on the particular CPU one gets in the box). Remember, per clock per core, Bulldozer is no better than 1100T. So, Bulldozer needs to be clocked higher.

When the price drops a bit, it will become a better choice. I would have bought one at around $240 (the initial price rumor).

I assume I'll be buying the next version (Piledriver), next year -- whenever. Supposed to be 10 percent faster. For now, for my secondary computer, I got an 1100T on sale. BTW, its not the money as much as the "principle" of the thing. I need at least 10 percent improvement to "rationalize" a purchase. But, logically, a person should not upgrade for any less than a 30 percent improvement (I think) -- maybe 50 percent makes more "dollars and sense".

Yeah, on a Q9400 on the game machine and a 4850e in the HTPC, so a Bulldozer and a 7000 card would do me nicely.

Techspot used ASRock 990 Fatality Edition. and every Bulldozer comes in Ahead of the Phenom IIs, and Ahead of the 2500/2600K a few times. Until we get to the game benchmarks, then i5/i7 take over again (thanks to the Aux GPU cores helping the CPU/GPU)

this is CLEARLY a mainboard/BIOS issue w/ the ASUS Boards.

http://www.techspot.com/review/452-amd-bulldozer-fx-cpus/page6.html

Here's a two part article giving some reasons why Bulldozer is "no real improvement" over Phenom II.

In a nutshell, not one big thing; rather, a lot of little design decisions did not work out.


Part 1

Part 2


That said, Bulldozer is a good CPU and will replace the Phenom II (no more Phenom II on sale after this Winter). However, its not a "great" CPU. A tough month for an AMD fan

Whats interesting is that in my travels across many tech forums I've come across quite a few threads started by new forum members who just happen to have the same revelation that you have just posted.
All written in a sort "awkward non-natural" style with certain key words...key words and phrasing common across the many.
there's that one on Tomshardware...there was another one on Anandtech.

Maybe I'm wrong....

well they pretty much told AMD how to fix the problem (i especially was shocked at the section about the Cache speeds).

guess I wait a bit for prices to drop and get a Phenom X6 setup to last me a few years, as my AthlonX2 is showing its age.

As an AMD fan I'm pretty disappointed too.

I'm only posting to suggest that the thread could be titled 'High noon at the OK Coral'. And AMD aren't the guys that walk away from it.

AMD seems pissed.

lets see if the next stepping fixes issue and hopefully they replace the Cache.

x6 1100Ts are down to $175 on NewEgg after PromoCode

3rd Party Overclocker sets new record... 8461.5MHz on the AMD FX-8150 CPU using an ASUS Crosshair V Formula..

AMD's Facebook didnt like my comment... lol..

i said " 8.46 GHz on AMD = 5.75Ghz on Intel, Increase the IPC to be on par with intel and I bet the CPU wont over clock to 8.4+ GHz anymore."

AMD is recently under new management. Now, AMD is laying off roughly 10 percent of the roughly 12000 staff members according to AMD. Some big names had already left of their own volition -- it is rumored. Hopefully, the best creative minds remain.

AMD says it is improving profits for shareholders and freeing up cash for "investment".

Obviously, not good for the folks fired. But, will it move AMD in the right direction? We'll see.

I post this here because, logically, it could be a result of Bulldozer not being a "finished product". Like a popular simulation released "too soon", it was promising but disappointing to fans. Hopefully, next year's planned Bulldozer upgrade will be a "finished product".

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/fx-8150-bulldozer-record-overclocking-speed,13903.html#commentaire

Record is now 8.58Ghz

Until he posts Video/Screens of Cleared CPU Stress tests.... who cares..

My neighbor can run CPUs at 6GHz on Air, but they'll fail stress tests, but he has enough time to take CPUZ Screenshots before it locks up.

Agree. High overclocks on liquid nitrogen are interesting to see as they give some indication of potential. However, what matters are OCs that can run any of the Prime95 torture tests in Windows 7 for at least a couple hours (serious folks need 24 hours to be fully convinced). Opinion of course

Read more rumors that next Spring's (?) version of Bulldozer will be 10 to 15 percent faster -- implied per clock. If so, that might be enough for this AMD fan to buy one. If that 15 percent means its just clocked 15 percent faster in stock form, probably won't mean much to someone who OCs.

i want IPC Performance.. on par or above Intel's.

Wishful thinking...

An actual AMD roadmap slide I saw (assuming it was not a fake), indicates a new version every year for roughly the next three years. Each version to be 10 to 15 percent faster than that previous. So, I believe its their actual "plan". Doing it will probably be easy now that they have a baseline part. However, will that be higher stock clocks or higher IPC or both combined somehow -- and, what will Intel achieve with their 22nm CPU process during that period?

I don't worry that AMD will actually catch Intel. They probably won't for a long time (in computer years). Rather, I want them to stay close -- say 10 or 20 percent slower (which should not be "visible" in games) -- while selling 20+ percent cheaper

Im prolly gonna get the 2nd or 3rd gen Bulldozers, if they are better.

Looks like the server BDs are doing ok...

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/interlagos-bulldozer-opteron-16-core-valencia,13984.html

price changes for AMD.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-processor-cpu-llano-price-drop,14010.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/AMD-APU-Z-Series-ARM-Tegra-3,14114.html

doesnt seem like good news for Bulldozer fans.

Shipments Stopping for PhenomII/AthlonIIs?

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-cpu-apu-athlon-phenom-Llano-Bulldozer,14173.html

Microsoft released a Windows 7 patch that properly detects Bulldozer cores and schedules them correctly (this is already a feature in Windows 8). Bulldozer performance increased 2 to 7 percent. However, the patch caused unforeseen problems in some computers; so, the patch was removed.

Hopefully, Bulldozer users will get the full performance they paid for prior to Windows 8.

whats another 9 months.

Taken down for the time being: @ AnandTech.

... And some early performance numbers from SweClockers showing the potential, but also the downside to the early patch: linky

A mini-update:

Well, the first Bulldozer is coming down in price, so it starts to get interesting on a price/performance basis. Its what I would buy today -- if I did not have what I already have.

An updated "Bulldozer" is on the road map according to articles this week (based on AMD FAD conference call). Between Windows 8 improvements (public beta due soon) and a rumored 10 to 15 percent improvement in the CPU itself, it should compete with Sandy Bridge. If Ivy Bridge doesn't really perform a lot better, things could be closer for AMD.

Interestingly, its believed that AMD's APU aimed at notebooks (4 core CPU and large GPU on one chip) will be preferred over the Intel Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge parts. AMD ULV Trinity wins on graphics performance and power consumption (according to AMD FAD report). So, in the near future, notebook buyers might be ending-up with AMD in their notebook.

AMD Trinity also wins for those millions who want a basic desktop for cheap.



AMD ULV Trinity

AMD to Win Ultrabook Market???

edit: Mis-Read your post, i thought it said updated Bulldozers are coming out this Week, lol..

I'll Prolly just buy what I had planned, and if its a big difference, oh well, but im sure there wont be any big leaps until AM4 Socket/Boards come out.