Bulldozer tested

[Arclight]

And it falls a bit short. :hmmm:

Under heavily threaded workloads it can generally measure up to the top Intel chips, but under a lightly threaded load it falls short of even AMD's own previous architecture.

Personally I pretty much only care about gaming performance; that's the heaviest load I throw at this thing, so that's where I'm looking for the highest performance. And in that scenario it's really a bust at this point in time.

Shame. :-?

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


...

So what do you do if you're buying today? If you have an existing high-end Phenom II system, particularly an X4 970 or above or an X6 of any sort, I honestly don't see much of a reason to upgrade. You're likely better off waiting for the next (and final) iteration of the AM3+ lineup if you want to stick with your current platform. If you're considering buying new, I feel like the 2500K is a better overall part. You get more predictable performance across the board regardless of application type or workload mix, and you do get features like Quick Sync. In many ways, where Bulldozer is a clear win is where AMD has always done well: heavily threaded applications. If you're predominantly running well threaded workloads, Bulldozer will typically give you performance somewhere around or above Intel's 2500K.

...

[richardphat]

Can't say a word about the performance. All I have done until now was read.
But from what I read, anyone that do multitask this might be something worth to check.

Wonder if it does something significant, if you fraps while you play on different CPU's. Never done that, since I am stuck with an old generation of Athlon.
Never bother to search it until this idea come by writting this :DL

[Arclight]

Aye, it seems to really depend on what you throw at it. It can be right up there with the Intel 2500K and 2600K, but in a lot of scenarios (lightly threaded applications, gaming for example) it falls short. If you look at single-thread performance at the "core" level it's actually slower than the preceeding Phenom II.

According to that article the problem is that these chips just don't make enough clocks. There's trouble at the manufacturing plants with the new 32nm process, resulting in them not clocking as high as AMD might have hoped. It's something that can be resolved over time; we might see the "real" performance of these with the refinements in next year's Piledriver, but by that time Intel will have come with something new as well.

I really hope AMD does well though. Market becomes a mess if Intel is given free reign. :nope:



I think Frapsing while gaming still counts as lightly-threaded. Does well enough on older multi-cores, though the performance impact really depends on the game. :hmmm:

[the_tyrant]

Intel all the way

My damn AMD laptop burns my pants. The exact same model with an Intel CPU does not, a different model with the same CPU over heats too.

my other computer is based on Intel Xeon. I have a microscopic hosting company, and one of the servers we rented is an Opteron. There is no conclusive way for me to test, but it seems like at the same tasks my Xeon is just much better than the Opteron.

[kiwi_2005]

Intel Xeon here as well and wat a beast its is. All my computers I own before were running AMD cpus except for one intel celeron from way back which was a dud of a cpu from day one. It use to be AMD for gamers Intel for every else I don't know if its still like that as I'm so far behind in the cpu department that I had to google Xeon before I brought this pc :D I'm an Intel fan now my next pc be buying this Christmas is going to be running Intel cpus.