Introducing AMD's FX CPU. The BULLDOZER review you've been waiting for

«1

Comments

  • edited October 2011
    First!
  • edited October 2011
    mertesn wrote:
    First!

    SECOND!
  • fatcatfatcat Mizzou
    edited October 2011
    what was the i72600k system?

    and, going to assume both systems run stock speeds?
  • ketoketo Occupied. Or is it preoccupied?
    edited October 2011
    When you look at overclocking/cooling more in depth, please look at actual power usage. The numbers on the [H] review are shocking (no pun), but not really replicated elsewhere that I have seen. If true, it adds a whole extra level of negative to the 8150.

    Also...I think anyone looking at budget-to-mid level gaming is going to compare this moreso with a 2500K - I know I did (pricing was well known pre-release, and a general sense of performance as well, which appears to be validated now) - as they match up more closely $ for $. Some comparisons there would have been valuable. I know going vs 2600K is 'flagship vs flagship', and I do understand why that would be used in the rollout...just sayin.
  • edited October 2011
    When you look at it for what it is, Bulldozer is running right alongside Sandy Bridge while providing at least as good a value. That said, so was the Phenom II 1100t. When you break it all down for today's benchmarks, a Phenom II is still the dollar for dollar champion. This is not the leap forward the AMD faithful were counting on. I'm certain with software optimization this platform will shine, but for today I'm left scratching my head. Honestly, I'm disappointed AMD opted not to send out the FX-6100 for review. If you ask me, that chip is the best positioned in the whole FX desktop line. At $165 a 95 watt unlocked hex core is a novelty that I anticipate many builders will subscribe to. We will have to wait to see how that stacks up dollar for dollar, because that's where AMD is competing..... again..... I am finding it impossible to mask my contempt, I wanted AMD to knock the snot out of Intel.

    Hey fatcat, it's all about value brother!
  • LeonardoLeonardo Wake up and smell the glaciers Eagle River, Alaska
    edited October 2011
    "...given the known overclockability of the FX CPUs...." Yeah, it's known, and it's not that great, unless you compare to Phenom? Looks like many of the early leaks were accurate: Zambezi falls in between the Intel 2500 and 2600K, except for some games. Not all negative, the new chips are budget champions.

    Still though, I let out a gasp, "We waited four years for this!?"

    Thanks for you hard work, Mertesn. :)
  • LeonardoLeonardo Wake up and smell the glaciers Eagle River, Alaska
    edited October 2011
    "Bulldozer is running right alongside Sandy Bridge..." 450 Watts at 4.6GHz and still gets trampled by a year old, 4-core/8-thread, CPU using only 250 Watts at full load, overclocked to 4.8GHz. My choice of preposition would not be "alongside", rather quite "behind". Yes, some games and H.264 go very well with Zambezi.

    I am not a fanboy of any brands, but I was really hoping for AMD to seriously challenge Intel. Well, they have now, but only with price. They had no choice with that.
  • LeonardoLeonardo Wake up and smell the glaciers Eagle River, Alaska
    edited October 2011
    <cite class="ic-username">leonardo</cite> Guest

    Oh, that hurts! :wtf:

    (should've posted in the thread and not in the article comments)
  • fatcatfatcat Mizzou
    edited October 2011
    Hey fatcat, it's all about value brother!

    If I have an Audi R8(intel) and a Chevy Camaro(AMD) sitting in front of me, sorry, but I'm gonna drive the Audi

    Regardless if I could buy 4 Camaro's for the price of one R8 ;)
  • edited October 2011
    fatcat wrote:
    If I have an Audi R8(intel) and a Chevy Camaro(AMD) sitting in front of me, sorry, but I'm gonna drive the Audi

    Regardless if I could buy 4 Camaro's for the price of one R8 ;)

    I know, I was actually poking fun at myself.

    Let it be said, this one time I have at least been semi critical of AMD. It may never happen again.

    One thing I do wonder. Why is there not a real multitasking benchmark on the market? I think it would be interesting to run multiple instances of popular applications until the system hangs? I think that is a missing real world scenario. I'm running a game in windowed mode, listening to music while re encoding a movie and simultaneously having a conversation over skype. I'd like to see a benchmark that keeps adding application workload until the system hangs. I know it seems elaborate, but that I think is lost in the benchmarks, what chip actually multitasks better in a real world scenairo? Some syntetics give a good indication of multithreaded performance, but what I want to know is how much can I do at once before the chip cries uncle?
  • edited October 2011
    I know that many people over the web are complaining because AMD FX is no crushing Intel Sandy Bridge in performace, but i'm just happy that AMD is once again competitive on the high end side, where intel dominated alone for too many years!
    I think this is the first step for AMD to surpass intel, i just hope to not be disappointed in the future.
  • mertesnmertesn I am Bobby Miller Yukon, OK
    edited October 2011
    fatcat wrote:
    what was the i72600k system?

    and, going to assume both systems run stock speeds?

    Everything was at stock speeds. The motherboard is an ECS P67H2-A2. Everything else is the same.
  • TimTim Southwest PA
    edited October 2011
    Not impressed with the AMD. At best it is tying the i7, and once Ivy Bridge comes out, you can forget it, even with the Windows 8 optimization for the AMD.
  • TimTim Southwest PA
    edited October 2011
    And if the new AMD is the "Bulldozer", why does that silver oval medallion thing show a scorpion on it instead of a bulldozer?
  • _k_k P-Town, Texas
    edited October 2011
    F@H ppd please. SMP at least, would be nice to see a few steps for -bigadv. Though the real speed of it would be seen in Ubuntu(pref. 10 but 11 works).
  • mertesnmertesn I am Bobby Miller Yukon, OK
    edited October 2011
    _k_ wrote:
    F@H ppd please. SMP at least, would be nice to see a few steps for -bigadv. Though the real speed of it would be seen in Ubuntu(pref. 10 but 11 works).

    I'm working on F@H. It'll be under Windows though.
  • BuddyJBuddyJ Dept. of Propaganda OKC
    edited October 2011
    Without coming off sounding like an AMD apologist, I think it's premature to call the chip a failure. The architecture behind Bulldozer is pretty intense stuff by the sound of things. It looks like it'll take optimization by both AMD and coders to fully make use of the chip's potential.

    I think of it as the Koenigsegg CCXR... Yes, the car runs on pump gasoline. But if you fill it with E85 or pure ethanol, the power bumps up to 1,064 hp thanks to the optimization of a cooler burning, more detonation resistant fuel. Until Bulldozer has something better to run, its potential can't really be fully explored.

    So I'm cautiously optimistic.

    Great job mertesn.
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI
    edited October 2011
    I feel the exact same way, Pete.
  • LincLinc Bard Detroit
    edited October 2011
    Leonardo wrote:
    Oh, that hurts! :wtf:
    Fixed with database voodoo just for you ;)
  • LeonardoLeonardo Wake up and smell the glaciers Eagle River, Alaska
    edited October 2011
    Not impressed with the AMD. At best it is tying the i7
    Not even close to the 2600K, but trading a few punches with the 2500K, until you overclock and until you measure power consumption. In my opinion, AMD is not back in the enthusiast market. I could get excited about the FX 8150 it were priced at $150-175.
    The architecture behind Bulldozer is pretty intense stuff by the sound of things.
    A lot of people said the same about the first generation Fermis, and the AMD fans mocked that argument mercilessly, and justifiably.
  • PetraPetra Palmdale, CA USA
    edited October 2011
    Interesting results... If nothing else, it's a step in the right direction for AMD.
  • csimoncsimon Acadiana
    edited October 2011
    Great article Mert. Kudos to you.
    I have a good understanding now why benchmarks were not released earlier. I hope this chip finds it niche real soon. I'd like to find one in OEM style for now to save a few bucks.
  • UPSLynxUPSLynx :KAPPA: Redwood City, CA
    edited October 2011
    Tim wrote:
    And if the new AMD is the "Bulldozer", why does that silver oval medallion thing show a scorpion on it instead of a bulldozer?

    That is actually a fine point. If that belt buckle had a bulldozer on the front, I'd wear the hell out of it.
  • ThraxThrax Professional Shill, Watch Slut, Mumble Hivemind Drone Austin, TX
    edited October 2011
    Bulldozer + AMD 990FX + AMD Radeon HD 6000 Series = Scorpius platform. Please see the scorpius constellation.
  • mertesnmertesn I am Bobby Miller Yukon, OK
    edited October 2011
    UPSLynx wrote:
    That is actually a fine point. If that belt buckle had a bulldozer on the front, I'd wear the hell out of it.
    It's a well-known fact that Austin, TX uses scorpions for construction as the city made bulldozers illegal in the late 1970s. That's why a bulldozer isn't on the buckle.
  • edited October 2011
    Let me echo, great review Nick. You explained some of the architectural differences many sites did not bother with. Well done.

    I believe enough in AMD that I went ahead and purchased a 990FX board and I decided on the FX-6100 because something tells me that thing is going to overclock really nice.

    There is nothing bad about the platform at all. It's still as good as anything in the budget enthusiast territory. I desperately wanted to call it a landslide victory for the first time since the days of the Athlon 64. I just wanted to be at a point where I did not have to explain it to people any longer. To be able to say, here you go, AMD is every bit as good, in fact its much better, this set of benchmarks tells you everything you need to know.... Instead, I'll continue to defend their position with the deft and cunning that I have for years :D. I know what the story is and why it matters. Without AMD enthusiast computing would not exist as we know it today. AMD's very presence in the market is essential to thwart the tyrannical rule of any single chip maker. I've supported AMD without fail since my first Slot A Athlon, and will continue to do so as long as they produce competitive product.

    We shall see how the FX-6100 fares in a few days.
  • fatcatfatcat Mizzou
    edited October 2011
    suprised no one has unlocked the 2 cores on the FX-6100 yet :p
  • kryystkryyst Ontario, Canada
    edited October 2011
    Great review and it's a good foothold for AMD to get back into the game.

    The biggest red flag I'm seeing is that they keep saying 'fix through software'. I'm sorry but they should be fixing these issues at the hardware level. Software patching can only get you so far if the underlying hardware has issues. It's just a constant change of fresh band-aides at that point.

    Video cards everyone has begrudgingly accepted that you need new drivers - hell people look forward to it. But the CPU shouldn't require software patches for it to work right.
  • RyderRyder Kalamazoo, Mi
    edited October 2011
  • csimoncsimon Acadiana
    edited October 2011
    Ryder wrote:

    I'm just speculating here, but I don't think they had any stock to begin with. Probably just anticipating the arrival so that customers will just wait longer to get it through them rather than move on to some place else.
Sign In or Register to comment.