Alright so I watched the NewEgg video where they released Bulldozer and announced its features and its new world records. But I've heard talk of its shitty benchmarks. I haven't found any reliable, post release ones, so I turn to my fellow GB readers. What are your thoughts on the record breaking CPU?

-Ghooble

It's not a record breaking CPU. It's a failure. You didn't look very hard.

looked at HardOCP and Guru3d's benchmarks and seems like the 8150 8 core is just somewhere in between the 2500k and 2600k in terms of Performance... nothing breakthrough about it so far other than it's an 8 core for less than 300$.

From the few reviews I've seen it seems that its better than previous AMD releases, but still not on par with Intel in most benchmarks. Even though I prefer Intel, I want AMD to succeed so tech gets better and cheaper, we don't want any one company to dominate too much.

It's not even a real 8 Core CPU. It's a 4 core CPU with tweaks to floating point and needs AVX compiles to be competitive with the 2500K. It loses in every single threaded test.

@SeriouslyNow: According to their plaque it set 2 records sir. First 8 real core desktop cpu, and highest clock achieved on a desktop cpu of 8.42ghz. So apparently, YOU didn't look very hard..

-Ghooble

@Ghooble said:

@SeriouslyNow: According to their plaque it set 2 records sir. First 8 real core desktop cpu, and highest clock achieved on a desktop cpu of 8.42ghz. So apparently, YOU didn't look very hard..

-Ghooble

I know about those bullshit marketing 'records' (yes even Guiness was involved) but in terms of real world benchmarks it's doing poorly. Anantech, Guru3d and so on. Look it up. Don't come at me with marketing because I'm not interested.

@SeriouslyNow: I understand that it's doing poorly, after actually sitting down and having time to read a lengthy benchmark review but do you really believe Guiness was involved? I'm not entirely convinced that they could be because if it's not an official record, and this is all marketing, then wouldn't Intel have a backlash and be on the offensive and claiming they still have it? This is all speculation but AMD would have needed to get Guiness and Newegg involved on it, which I suppose is feasible but that's a lot of effort. (Also as a side note: Why did you have to be so angry in your previous posts? This thread was just meant as a discussion and you turned it into a hostile debate. If you are an Intel "fanboy" please leave your bias at the login screen, as all of us should, because it doesn't further the discussion in any positive way.)

-Ghooble

It's quite disappointing though if they were to drop the price of the 8150 to around $200, I would assume it might be a much more compelling offer for some. Even if they did that, personally, the wait wouldn't be worth the final product, but at least things wouldn't look so grim as they do now.

More like shitdozer, m i rite guize?

They missed the boat by about two years, the i5/i7 has been killing it in all that time. The 2500K, in particular, is a great CPU at a great price.

@SeriouslyNow said:

It's not a record breaking CPU. It's a failure. You didn't look very hard.

That's good to hear. I'm glad I invested in Intel, as per usual.

Its a cheap cpu that beats the intel APU thats pretty much it. I can build a budget PC for $400 using fusion cpus, nonetheless its still about $600 with a good videocard mayb $500 if you have no taxes.

I have to say, I'm really torn on this subject. The FX8150 should have been a much better CPU, but when you look into the reviews in closer detail you see people testing it with 1333mhz RAM when its native FSB speed is 1866mhz, or they are using nVidia chips and then testing it for single core performance whilst complaining about how 8 cores use more power. You'd never see a car journalist review a car with a V8 engine and then try and run that car on one cylinder or complain how this engine uses more fuel than a V4 engine.

Also I have seen reiviews where an AMD Phenon II X4 975BE (a 4 core CPU with the same clock speed) beat the FX8150 in some tests, how can this be possible? As it stands yes the FX8150 is performing better than theh Phenom II X6 1100T but this should be beating it across the board, I'm very dissappointed that it doesn't. On the other hand it does seem to perform well for the price and in many games tests it has beaten the 2600k so I might just wait until the FX8170 hits the shelves before I make my mind up.

@TheKeyboardDemon said:

I have to say, I'm really torn on this subject. The FX8150 should have been a much better CPU, but when you look into the reviews in closer detail you see people testing it with 1333mhz RAM when its native FSB speed is 1866mhz, or they are using nVidia chips and then testing it for single core performance whilst complaining about how 8 cores use more power.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-21.html

The second part might be of interest. As per usual, very little performance difference in real world applications with faster RAM.

Anand's review used 1600Mhz RAM. Nvidia have been out of the chipset market for a while now, so not sure what you're on about there (Unless you mean GPUs? In which case, it's entirely irrelevant and has no real effect on CPU performance).

X-bit and numerous other sites all have similar results. No foul play here, AMD is just not doing enough in the desktop space. Utterly disappointing.

@Contro said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

It's not a record breaking CPU. It's a failure. You didn't look very hard.

That's good to hear. I'm glad I invested in Intel, as per usual.

No, it's not good to hear. Lack of competition is nothing but bad news for consumers.

@SlasherMan said:

Nvidia have been out of the chipset market for a while now, so not sure what you're on about there (Unless you mean GPUs? In which case, it's entirely irrelevant and has no real effect on CPU performance).

I was talking about the Scorpious platform, AMD have told us that the Scorpious products are designed to be used with AMD 9-series chipset motherboards and the Radeon HD 6000 series graphics cards, so it seems natural to look at those products grouped together to test AMDs claims. That was also my point about testing with 1866mhz RAM, if people had tested the products witin the original design parameters then we could test AMD's claims fully, and that's what I want to see. Now I don't think that this will automatically then achieve the 980x beating results that we were promised back in January, but I do think it will be a more complete and comprehensive test.

@TheKeyboardDemon: God I hope so because my heart sank when I read the reviews

-Ghooble

@Ghooble said:

@SeriouslyNow: I understand that it's doing poorly, after actually sitting down and having time to read a lengthy benchmark review but do you really believe Guiness was involved? I'm not entirely convinced that they could be because if it's not an official record, and this is all marketing, then wouldn't Intel have a backlash and be on the offensive and claiming they still have it? This is all speculation but AMD would have needed to get Guiness and Newegg involved on it, which I suppose is feasible but that's a lot of effort. (Also as a side note: Why did you have to be so angry in your previous posts? This thread was just meant as a discussion and you turned it into a hostile debate. If you are an Intel "fanboy" please leave your bias at the login screen, as all of us should, because it doesn't further the discussion in any positive way.)

-Ghooble

I'm no fanboy but the failure of Bulldozer has been well publicized. That was my point. And frankly, the way you shaped the discussion from the start seems to indicate that you were trying to deny reality.

@TheKeyboardDemon said:

@SlasherMan said:

Nvidia have been out of the chipset market for a while now, so not sure what you're on about there (Unless you mean GPUs? In which case, it's entirely irrelevant and has no real effect on CPU performance).

I was talking about the Scorpious platform, AMD have told us that the Scorpious products are designed to be used with AMD 9-series chipset motherboards and the Radeon HD 6000 series graphics cards, so it seems natural to look at those products grouped together to test AMDs claims. That was also my point about testing with 1866mhz RAM, if people had tested the products witin the original design parameters then we could test AMD's claims fully, and that's what I want to see. Now I don't think that this will automatically then achieve the 980x beating results that we were promised back in January, but I do think it will be a more complete and comprehensive test.

I get where you're coming from, but if I'm honest and a bit blunt, you're grasping at straws here.

Nothing but marketing and PR. "Hey, buy matching AMD parts from AMD!" I will bet you anything that the end result is no different regardless of what type of GPU is being used (and as I've previously shown, even with their 1866 RAM spec). This isn't some MMO where a matching set nets you bonus stats, hardware doesn't work that way. Neither Dragon nor Leo magically worked miracles for Phenom II, this isn't going to be any different.

I was rooting for AMD all along, I wanted them to be back in the game big time, I wanted to be able to recommend AMD CPUs again for something other than budget machines, but denying that this is anything but a disappointment for almost everyone is denying facts at this point. They will seriously have to reconsider their pricing structure if they actually want to compete.

@SeriouslyNow said:

I'm no fanboy but the failure of Bulldozer has been well publicized. That was my point. And frankly, the way you shaped the discussion from the start seems to indicate that you were trying to deny reality.

I think you have a good point, by adding the 'record breaking' part in to the question it does kind of unbalance any views people might bring in to the thread. I think a lead into a discussion should have had as many negatives points in there as it does positives or better still the question should be neutrally phrased with no indications of preference so as to let the participants make their own minds up.

@SlasherMan said:

I get where you're coming from, but if I'm honest and a bit blunt, you're grasping at straws here.

Nothing but marketing and PR. "Hey, buy matching AMD parts from AMD!" I will bet you anything that the end result is no different regardless of what type of GPU is being used (and as I've previously shown, even with their 1866 RAM spec). This isn't some MMO where a matching set nets you bonus stats, hardware doesn't work that way. Neither Dragon nor Leo magically worked miracles for Phenom II, this isn't going to be any different.

I was rooting for AMD all along, I wanted them to be back in the game big time, I wanted to be able to recommend AMD CPUs again for something other than budget machines, but denying that this is anything but a disappointment for almost everyone is denying facts at this point. They will seriously have to reconsider their pricing structure if they actually want to compete.

Marketing or not, if someone makes a claim about their hardware, that claim should be tested, if there is a new HDD that a company claims will outperform an SSD on a 6gb/s connection you wouldn't expect reviewers to test it against another HDD on a 3gb/s connection, they would test the claim fully by testing all of the components within the 'marketing' specifications, then when the product fails or succeeds it is the product that was tested and not the guy in the marketing office that came up with the spin. On the other hand if they didn't follow the marketing guys spin then he will say, yeah of course those bad results are just because they didn't test it properly or he will claim victory if the test make his product look good.

@Ghooble said:

@TheKeyboardDemon: God I hope so because my heart sank when I read the reviews

-Ghooble

I hope so too, but at the moment, I think I have to agree with SlasherMan, I think that AMD have put more efford into delivering marketing spin then they have into delivering new ground breaking technology, right now all the benchmarks I have seen indicate that Bulldozer has a lower IPC than previous gen CPUs and that the only way to get round this is by overclocking the CPU, look at the massive leap in the results from even modest overclocks to see this for yourself. This means the FX8170 might be better, but I thnk the next gen of this chip is where we will see the design properly.

@SeriouslyNow said:

It's not a record breaking CPU. It's a failure. You didn't look very hard.

Came here to say this.

It's not even a case of too-high expectations. Admittedly some people were hoping it'd dethrone Intel, but realistically I don't think anyone would've been disappointed if AMD released a CPU that was slightly weaker than Intel's but good value.

The end result wasn't even close to that though. The flagship FX 8150 underperforms to the Core i5 2500K by 20-30% on average (and that's not even Intel's flagship), costs $40 more, and uses nearly DOUBLE the wattage. In certain tests, it even underperforms to its own last gen (Phenom II). Not good performance, not good power efficiency, not good value...not anything.

It's analagous to the GTX 400 series launch to the HD 5000 series, except about 3-fold worse.

BD fell flat on its face. No two ways about it. Not only that, but according to their roadmap they're only expecting 50% performance gains in the next 2 years. That's abysmal considering Intel could probably double its power in that time, and is already twice as powerful in the first place.

Anyone who can read a benchmark should have the common sense to not purchase any of this chaff. They're also too expensive to sell to the mainstream market. I would not be surprised at all if AMD loses at least 20% market share to Intel in the coming 1-2 years.

Bad news.  We need real competition.

I built my last PC build this summer around the release of the 8-core bulldozer CPUS (990fx motherboard). So needless to say I am disappointed with this release. BUT I am still going to upgrade to it because its cheap and performs better then the 6 core I am using. So I don't really mind dropping like 250 for 20% better performance.

@SeriouslyNow: Well I didn't mean to shape it that way, I was just trying to confirm what I heard. Though it is unfortunate that AMD failed so badly on this, I can't say that I didn't think it might happen.

-Ghooble

My thoughts are, I just bought an i7 2600K. That is all.

@AlisterCat said:

My thoughts are, I just bought an i7 2600K. That is all.

I think that was a bad move on your part, firstly the 2700k will be out very soon and secondly this is likely to have an impact on the 2600k price, lastly I have just seen reviews of the Bulldozer that has achieved some very different results. Now every review so far has relied on the review pack sent by AMD, this meant that they were using a 990 based mobo, an FX8150 and an nVidia GTX580 and not surprisingly they have all beed getting the same results. The guys at Hardware heaven used a different motherboard, they used a Sapphire HD6950 and 1866mhz ram and in many of the tests where the FX8150 had been losing it was either beating or matching the 2500k and also the 2600k in some of the tests as well.

These reviews seem to show the FX8150 in a somewhat better light, they have opted to test the CPU by electing to use their own choice of mobo and GPU instead of the GTX580 and Asus mobo sent to them by AMD, these were actaully posted on another forum so all credit to the OP for finding these, here they are:

Harware Heaven

Hard[OCP]

Legit Reviews

Now it looks like the marketing blurb might have had more to it than we had prevously thought!

@awe_stuck said:

Its a cheap cpu that beats the intel APU thats pretty much it. I can build a budget PC for $400 using fusion cpus, nonetheless its still about $600 with a good videocard mayb $500 if you have no taxes.

The fuck are you talking about? Intel don't have any APUs? Bulldozer is not Fusion. Bulldozer is the FX CPUs AMD formally announced like ~5 days ago, not the series of low end Fusion APUs AMD have been selling for like 2 months.

Tested has something on it. I don't know as much as I could, but it didn't sound overly promising. I wish intel had competition.

@TheKeyboardDemon said:

... and in many of the tests where the FX8150 had been losing it was either beating or matching the 2500k and also the 2600k in some of the tests as well.

This is precisely the conclusion every other website got to as long as we're talking about heavily multithreaded applications! Notice how every app the LegitReviews article used was an application that used 100% of all cores. And even then it's not always guaranteed to be consistent, just look at the x.264 benchmarks. Not only that, but the 2500k wasn't even included in every benchmark, which seems rather odd. It was there in some, missing in others.

The HardOCP benches are of games stressing the GPU, notice the choice of resolution and game settings. Granted, those are the more realistic scenarios one would probably face in a GPU-heavy game, however, you may as well be testing GPUs there. There is a reason why most sites test at lower settings and resolution, that's where CPU bottlenecks show most prominently and that's how you can tell which CPU is actually faster. You don't crank the AA and resolution and expect to still see the difference in CPU performance, do you?

And that last one, HardwareHeaven, are they for real? Not only is it the same thing with games as HardOCP, but they're a little bit lacking in the number of processors compared (no Thuban, no 2500k, etc..).

@TheKeyboardDemon said:

Now it looks like the marketing blurb might have had more to it than we had prevously thought!

Not really. Sorry.

I'll just wait for intel to make a better one.

@AlexW00d said:

@awe_stuck said:

Its a cheap cpu that beats the intel APU thats pretty much it. I can build a budget PC for $400 using fusion cpus, nonetheless its still about $600 with a good videocard mayb $500 if you have no taxes.

The fuck are you talking about? Intel don't have any APUs? Bulldozer is not Fusion. Bulldozer is the FX CPUs AMD formally announced like ~5 days ago, not the series of low end Fusion APUs AMD have been selling for like 2 months.

Either way its still a pile of shit.

How AMD has priced the FX-8150 gives you more insight into it's performance than anything else. If AMD really felt it was a part to compete with the 2600K, it wouldn't have priced it significantly lower (i.e. $250 vs $300). I was a little worried back in March when I purchased my 2600K thinking that I should wait until Bulldozer, but now I'm both relieved and somewhat disappointed. Yes, I didn't make a bad decision back then, but it kinda sucks that Bulldozer did not turn out to be what everyone thought it would be: i.e. a chip that would make AMD competitive again in the high-end CPU market. This is not to say that AMD hasn't done interesting things with the architecture, but at the end of the day it just simply doesn't perform as well as Intel's current architecture. And with Socket 2011/Sandy Bridge-E and Ivy Bridge on the horizon, the gap between AMD and Intel on the high-end will only get larger.

@SlasherMan said:

This is precisely the conclusion every other website got to as long as we're talking about heavily multithreaded applications! Notice how every app the LegitReviews article used was an application that used 100% of all cores. And even then it's not always guaranteed to be consistent, just look at the x.264 benchmarks. Not only that, but the 2500k wasn't even included in every benchmark, which seems rather odd. It was there in some, missing in others.

I'm not sure I understand your point, AMD release an 8 core CPU, Legit reviews conduct tests with heavily multithreaded applications to see how well the 8 cores perform together and you're saying what exactly? That this is a bad test? Surely the fact that it only did well in some tests and not all tests highlights both the strengths and weaknesses of the CPU/platform, or are you saying that we should ignore all the tests where the CPU/platform did well and just focus on those where it did badly?

@SlasherMan said:

The HardOCP benches are of games stressing the GPU, notice the choice of resolution and game settings. Granted, those are the more realistic scenarios one would probably face in a GPU-heavy game, however, you may as well be testing GPUs there. There is a reason why most sites test at lower settings and resolution, that's where CPU bottlenecks show most prominently and that's how you can tell which CPU is actually faster. You don't crank the AA and resolution and expect to still see the difference in CPU performance, do you?

Here you are saying that tests conducted in the 'more realistic scenarios' are not realistic despite then saying that this is the way the majority of gamers will be playing their games and to get a realistic measure of performance the tests should be conducted using settings that were only really relevent when we were playing on 15" CRT monitors not 22" or bigger 1080p monitors or moitors that go up to 2560x1600 resolutiions.

@SlasherMan said:

And that last one, HardwareHeaven, are they for real? Not only is it the same thing with games as HardOCP, but they're a little bit lacking in the number of processors compared (no Thuban, no 2500k, etc..).

I can tell you didn't read any of the articles I linked, I mean not even the introductions or the conclusions, these are the bits I read first by the way, if you had you would have seen this in the introduction to the article:

Today we get to see for the first time how the top model in AMDs new FX range of CPUs, previously known as Bulldozer, performs against the existing Intel equivalent as we put the two CPUs head to head.

@SlasherMan said:

@TheKeyboardDemon said:

Now it looks like the marketing blurb might have had more to it than we had prevously thought!

Not really. Sorry.

What do you mean not really? Do you mean once we disregard every good result that the platform has achieved? Or do you genuinely think that there is not one single area in which this platform can actually meet with expectations?

Personally I have yet to make my mind up, I really want to know what these new CPUs and the Scorpius platform are truly capable of, I want to understand this so that when Ivy Bridge comes out in a few months time I will see how Intel have improved on their platform and I will be asking the same questions and looking at the same tests for answers, I'm assuming that I should ignore the tests where the Ivy Bridge platform does well as no doubt they will be flawed just like the Bulldozer tests. However I will want to know about multicore/multithread performance, I'm interested in the results from FPU and video encoding tests, in seeing CPU utilisation across everyday tasks and for me the most important thing that I want from a gaming platform is gaming performance that tests the hardware in the same way I want to use it.

@TheKeyboardDemon said:

@AlisterCat said:

My thoughts are, I just bought an i7 2600K. That is all.

I think that was a bad move on your part, firstly the 2700k will be out very soon and secondly this is likely to have an impact on the 2600k price, lastly I have just seen reviews of the Bulldozer that has achieved some very different results. Now every review so far has relied on the review pack sent by AMD, this meant that they were using a 990 based mobo, an FX8150 and an nVidia GTX580 and not surprisingly they have all beed getting the same results. The guys at Hardware heaven used a different motherboard, they used a Sapphire HD6950 and 1866mhz ram and in many of the tests where the FX8150 had been losing it was either beating or matching the 2500k and also the 2600k in some of the tests as well.

These reviews seem to show the FX8150 in a somewhat better light, they have opted to test the CPU by electing to use their own choice of mobo and GPU instead of the GTX580 and Asus mobo sent to them by AMD, these were actaully posted on another forum so all credit to the OP for finding these, here they are:

Harware Heaven

Hard[OCP]

Legit Reviews

Now it looks like the marketing blurb might have had more to it than we had prevously thought!

No. Those 'reviews' use (not so) clever (less than 10%) margin of error, differences of settings (Civ 5 Intel 4 x AA vs AMD 2 x AA), ridiculous overclocks (beyond the scope of the average user which take advantage of the much higher base clock speeds to offer more bandwidth which has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THE CPU's actual performance benefits) and flowery, positive language BS to gloss over the fact that Bulldozer is beaten in almost every single instance soundly by Intel's 2500K and 2600K CPU. That marketing blurb has nothing to it at all and this is a desperate hackjob on behalf of some well paid AMD shills to try and get Bulldozer's sales moving.

@TheKeyboardDemon said:

I'm not sure I understand your point, AMD release an 8 core CPU, Legit reviews conduct tests with heavily multithreaded applications to see how well the 8 cores perform together and you're saying what exactly? That this is a bad test? Surely the fact that it only did well in some tests and not all tests highlights both the strengths and weaknesses of the CPU/platform, or are you saying that we should ignore all the tests where the CPU/platform did well and just focus on those where it did badly?

I'm saying that not every application is heavily multithreaded, many are still not. The fact of the matter is, Bulldozer has pretty bad per core performance, and that didn't show up in any of the tests they ran. It is even bested by the Phenoms in many such cases. The fact that it did well in some tests and bad in others (and being all of them were heavily multithreaded) if anything means the CPU's performance is in no way consistent, even in its supposed strong-point.

@TheKeyboardDemon said:

Here you are saying that tests conducted in the 'more realistic scenarios' are not realistic despite then saying that this is the way the majority of gamers will be playing their games and to get a realistic measure of performance the tests should be conducted using settings that were only really relevent when we were playing on 15" CRT monitors not 22" or bigger 1080p monitors or moitors that go up to 2560x1600 resolutiions.

I don't see how my point can be misconstrued the way you did. It's simple, to get a clear index of CPU performance in games, in those tests you generally need to lighten the GPU load and increase the CPU load. Looking at such benchmarks, you may as well say an i3 is equal to an i7, because at that resolution and settings there would indeed be no performance difference as long as the same GPU is being used. It's that simple.

The correct way to do this, IMO, is to have a benchmark of each type. One to get a picture of CPU performance, and another to get an idea of whether that translates to a realistic scenario in a game or not.

@TheKeyboardDemon said:

I can tell you didn't read any of the articles I linked, I mean not even the introductions or the conclusions, these are the bits I read first by the way, if you had you would have seen this in the introduction to the article:

Today we get to see for the first time how the top model in AMDs new FX range of CPUs, previously known as Bulldozer, performs against the existing Intel equivalent as we put the two CPUs head to head.

Then I can tell you didn't look at any of the benchmarks. I actually skipped the intros and conclusions in those articles but I absolutely read every benchmark. I do not see how Bulldozer can be called equivalent to the 2600k, in price or performance. If anything, it should have been paired against the 2500k, which is much closer to its price point.

@TheKeyboardDemon said:

What do you mean not really? Do you mean once we disregard every good result that the platform has achieved? Or do you genuinely think that there is not one single area in which this platform can actually meet with expectations?

Personally I have yet to make my mind up, I really want to know what these new CPUs and the Scorpius platform are truly capable of, I want to understand this so that when Ivy Bridge comes out in a few months time I will see how Intel have improved on their platform and I will be asking the same questions and looking at the same tests for answers, I'm assuming that I should ignore the tests where the Ivy Bridge platform does well as no doubt they will be flawed just like the Bulldozer tests. However I will want to know about multicore/multithread performance, I'm interested in the results from FPU and video encoding tests, in seeing CPU utilisation across everyday tasks and for me the most important thing that I want from a gaming platform is gaming performance that tests the hardware in the same way I want to use it.

As I said before, no one is ignoring the areas it does well in. It has been established already that multithreaded applications are Bulldozer's strong-point by every single review out there (which is why it's better suited to servers). However, on a desktop machine, applications come in many forms, many of them still rely on a single core or two and this is where Bulldozer starts choking. Per core performance still matters greatly here, and that's where it falls flat on its face. It is absolutely ridiculous to see the highest end Bulldozer fail against its lesser predecessors. I'm not even going into the high power draw issues, which when compared with both the 2500k and 2600k is abysmal considering the performance you're getting.

I'm still not sure what more you want. There is more than enough data out there to form a clear picture about this.

HardwareCanucks performance summary (base performance). Pretty much the only thing you have to see. 

@SeriouslyNow: @SlasherMan: Like a lot of people, I base my knowledge on the end results, I have never really understood what the benchmarks actually mean, so often it is the final round up results that matter more to me, on Tom's Hardware for instance, they have various comparitive tests the one I use most is the one that combines all the results into a single ranking and then looks at the relative performance which up until my last build worked fine, not so much on this build though. So in answer to the question, 'What more do I want?', what I really want is a balanced look at where the new CPU is doing well, where it is not doing well and how this will make or break a new build should someone go with it, and seeing someone say this is no good and then not explaining why doesn't help me get that, while reviews that show good performance in areas where other reviews show bad performance are just as confusing.

@SlasherMan: Your answers to my points in your last reponse have given more than the rest of thread and all of the 'random' benchmarks or commentaries from other forums, up until that I was starting to think that you just wanted to bash AMD or hate the platform, it doesn't look that way anymore.

@TheKeyboardDemon: Not buying it. On the one hand you're the guy talking about 'heavily multi-threaded tests' and on the other you're saying you need these things explained to you. Both can't be true.

@SeriouslyNow said:

@TheKeyboardDemon: Not buying it. On the one hand you're the guy talking about 'heavily multi-threaded tests' and on the other you're saying you need these things explained to you. Both can't be true.

Well yes, I was talking about heavily multi-threaded tests because that's what I understood the chip was made for, I was also confused about why being tested for single threaded operations was important, at least until SlasherMan pointed out how the average home user uses their PC at home and how this means that single threaded operations need a greater weighting in reviews than I had thought they needed. I can't actually think of any single threaded applications that I use where performance is an issue, I use MS Office for many tasks but I have found this to run well enough even on Netbooks, I browse the web using Firefox and IE and find this only occasionally gives me grief when the flash player crashes, I use Adobe Reader, iTunes, Mumble, I'm just starting to learn about Photoshop with my wife's student licence for CS5.1 (which is multithreaded) and I play games (my wife says too many, I say not enough!) and I plan to try using Pinnacle video editing software at some point, just to learn about it.

I'm still confused over how several people can essentially be running tests for the same things and be getting different results, I'd like to believe that some results are not being externally influenced to make it look better for one camp or another but I get the impression that some people think this. I can see what SlasherMan was saying about the HardwareHeaven and Legit Reviews tests, even about the CPU/GPU balance side of things as clearly tests have not been run at enough resolution settings (I can't believe that this has been down to time constraints either). But the thing that I am most confused about is how I can look at the same tests as everyone else and not see something that they can see, so I can only assume this means there is a gap in my knowledge, which frustrates me because I can't work out what I need to focus on to find the missing link.

Harddrives can change performance numbers easily, as can other components.

@TheKeyboardDemon: Well regarding your question about how different people running the same tests can be getting different results is because each cpu off the line has its own variations. Generally they aren't too extreme but they're there. I wish there was a 100% clone of the original for every single one but that wish I'm certain won't come true. So when you go to test something, even if you're using the same motherboard, ram, and cpu if they all have their mini variations it could stack to make a noticeable difference. At least that's what I assume is rearing its head here.

-Ghooble

@Ghooble said:

@TheKeyboardDemon: Well regarding your question about how different people running the same tests can be getting different results is because each cpu off the line has its own variations. Generally they aren't too extreme but they're there. I wish there was a 100% clone of the original for every single one but that wish I'm certain won't come true. So when you go to test something, even if you're using the same motherboard, ram, and cpu if they all have their mini variations it could stack to make a noticeable difference. At least that's what I assume is rearing its head here.

-Ghooble

I think that is only part of the problem, another part will no doubt be the software, some coding just suits some CPUs better than other coding. The same is true of some games, Crysis 2 for instance runs better on nVidia cards than it does on ATI cards.

The biggest issue is the spread of results and the different means in which the CPU was tested, Hardware Heaven did the CPU benchmark on 3D Mark 11 at Extreme settings while Hardware Canucks did the test at Performance settings, Hardware Heaven shows the CPUs as being almost level with a 20 point difference, Hardware Canucks puts the 2600k about 2000 points about the FX8150. And that's just one example, Benchmarks that I used to rely on are starting to look completely random, adding to the general confusion, so right now the only thing that's really clear is that the Bulldozer has not met with expectations, I'm not sure that means it has completely failed, but fairly certain that it is not an outright success either.

@Ghooble said:

@TheKeyboardDemon: Well regarding your question about how different people running the same tests can be getting different results is because each cpu off the line has its own variations. Generally they aren't too extreme but they're there. I wish there was a 100% clone of the original for every single one but that wish I'm certain won't come true. So when you go to test something, even if you're using the same motherboard, ram, and cpu if they all have their mini variations it could stack to make a noticeable difference. At least that's what I assume is rearing its head here.

-Ghooble

I think that is only part of the problem, another part will no doubt be the software, some coding just suits some CPUs better than other coding. The same is true of some games, Crysis 2 for instance runs better on nVidia cards than it does on ATI cards.

The biggest issue is the spread of results and the different means in which the CPU was tested, Hardware Heaven did the CPU benchmark on 3D Mark 11 at Extreme settings while Hardware Canucks did the test at Performance settings, Hardware Heaven shows the CPUs as being almost level with a 20 point difference, Hardware Canucks puts the 2600k about 2000 points about the FX8150. And that's just one example, Benchmarks that I used to rely on are starting to look completely random, adding to the general confusion, so right now the only thing that's really clear is that the Bulldozer has not met with expectations, I'm not sure that means it has completely failed, but fairly certain that it is not an outright success either.

@Geno: Geno, Y u always make me feel like a noob xD

-Ghooble

@Geno said:

3DMark 11 is a graphics benchmark. The reason why the results are so markedly different is because on Extreme settings the GPU becomes the bottleneck, equalizing CPU performance. On Performance, the CPU are the bottlenecks and that's where the results delineate. I'm not sure why HH tested with Extreme, as they're usually a fairly reliable review site, but perhaps they're not used to testing CPUs. Some amount of random deviation accounts for the differences in results from different websites, but the main reason is because of different testing methodologies. Different sites will use different methods with different system setups with different programs. Some of the testing methodologies, like the HH example given above, are erroneous or unmeaningful. Generally for CPU benchmarks you want to look at tests with a) base clocks, b) mix of multi and single threaded apps, and c) minimum setting game benchmarks. I chose the HC example previously because HC has testing methodology down pat for both CPU and GPU, always testing for the most relevant areas.

I was talking specifically about the tests they ran on the CPU, with 3d Mark they usually only look at the Physics scores to see how well the CPU does, but when tested at Extreme this seems to even the results favouring the Bulldozer by putting it closer to the i7, at first glance I coudn't see that. But when I looked again more closely I could see that it is getting 1782 points in a physics test where my Phenom II X4 965BE was getting around 4000 I started wondering why, this is one of those things that I had been missing, I usually look at the results and assume that the tests were conducted in a fair, open and honest way, but it looks like some sites are cherry picking results to make the Bulldozer look better than it really is and not, as I was thinking, doing it the other way round to favour the competition. Before I noticed this I did notice how the scores on Hardware Heaven had the i7 getting 1762 and the Bulldozer was at 1782 all I saw was a 20 point difference, which is close right? Then on the Hardware Canucks the Bulldozer is behind by a shade under 2000 points, why? Because they ran the test at Performance settings and I guess I really wanted the Hardware Heaven site to be right, but I don't think you can put a difference as big as 4600+ points down to random deviation, and SlasherMan has already tried to point out how some of the findings on Hardware Heaven were not

@SlasherMan: I now see why you think we should disregard the Hardware Heaven tests, their approach is flawed and inconsistent when examined in the context of how other sites have tested the same products. I'm just glad I'm not in a hurry to buy a CPU at the moment, my rig is running fine as it is and I was not planning any upgrades until after Ivy Bridge hits the shelves, there was a time when I would have seen the Hardware Heaven review and then just bought the CPU.

@SeriouslyNow said:

@Ghooble said:

@SeriouslyNow: According to their plaque it set 2 records sir. First 8 real core desktop cpu, and highest clock achieved on a desktop cpu of 8.42ghz. So apparently, YOU didn't look very hard..

-Ghooble

I know about those bullshit marketing 'records' (yes even Guiness was involved) but in terms of real world benchmarks it's doing poorly. Anantech, Guru3d and so on. Look it up. Don't come at me with marketing because I'm not interested.

Apparently pretty interested with multiple replies to the thread, I take it you're an x-amd fanboi turned intel because AMD failed you? I am running an i-7 system now upgraded from an athlon x2. I personally don't care about who's who, I loved my amd chipset and they've always been the budget builders chip. So many people are stuck on i5 2500k this, i7 that, sandybridge this, etc, etc, etc. That people who don't know shit about computers or system building feel they need these unlocked processors for all of these overclocking features with no money or knowhow to overclock their hardware properly and keep it stable.

Obviously those who do make rave reviews and anyone who is like myself who just likes to buy the top shelf item and leave it stock and still is getting his money's worth although he's not getting .7 second calculation times in superpi. I think it runs photoshop and my video games well and that's all that matters.

People who want to build a solid system for cheap and don't know anything about overclocking should definitely be interested in these chips. New age performance, great price range and can handle memory and other functions a lot better than the last batch of their processors. Speed isn't everything but how it manages the tasks you need it to perform. Intel is king right now, but so are their prices.

Again I think these processors are great for people who are entry level computer enthusiasts looking to build a nice powerful machine on a budget, as long as the motherboard prices are also in a competitive range as opposed to 150-400 dollar intel motherboards I think these processors could have the success of the burger king whopper when they drop the price to 99c.

@SeriouslyNow said:

@Ghooble said:

@SeriouslyNow: According to their plaque it set 2 records sir. First 8 real core desktop cpu, and highest clock achieved on a desktop cpu of 8.42ghz. So apparently, YOU didn't look very hard..

-Ghooble

I know about those bullshit marketing 'records' (yes even Guiness was involved) but in terms of real world benchmarks it's doing poorly. Anantech, Guru3d and so on. Look it up. Don't come at me with marketing because I'm not interested.

Apparently pretty interested with multiple replies to the thread, I take it you're an x-amd fanboi turned intel because AMD failed you? I am running an i-7 system now upgraded from an athlon x2. I personally don't care about who's who, I loved my amd chipset and they've always been the budget builders chip. So many people are stuck on i5 2500k this, i7 that, sandybridge this, etc, etc, etc. That people who don't know shit about computers or system building feel they need these unlocked processors for all of these overclocking features with no money or knowhow to overclock their hardware properly and keep it stable.

Obviously those who do make rave reviews and anyone who is like myself who just likes to buy the top shelf item and leave it stock and still is getting his money's worth although he's not getting .7 second calculation times in superpi. I think it runs photoshop and my video games well and that's all that matters.

People who want to build a solid system for cheap and don't know anything about overclocking should definitely be interested in these chips. New age performance, great price range and can handle memory and other functions a lot better than the last batch of their processors. Speed isn't everything but how it manages the tasks you need it to perform. Intel is king right now, but so are their prices.

Again I think these processors are great for people who are entry level computer enthusiasts looking to build a nice powerful machine on a budget, as long as the motherboard prices are also in a competitive range as opposed to 150-400 dollar intel motherboards I think these processors could have the success of the burger king whopper when they drop the price to 99c.

@SeriouslyNow said:

Do me a favour and leave the attempted attacks out because they are meaningless. I am interested in the thread, but utterly disinterested in false bravado, biased benchmarks and marketing which outright lies to consumers.

Alright then... but I am not doing you any favors, you started the thread out attacking others. Just paying it forward. The prices will go down, they always go down.

@SeriouslyNow said:

Do me a favour and leave the attempted attacks out because they are meaningless. I am interested in the thread, but utterly disinterested in false bravado, biased benchmarks and marketing which outright lies to consumers.

Alright then... but I am not doing you any favors, you started the thread out attacking others. Just paying it forward. The prices will go down, they always go down.

@TheKeyboardDemon: Well, I'm glad you took another look at the data presented. I have no hate for either AMD or Intel, and as far as I'm concerned I have no corporate allegiances. I was genuine however when I said before that I was rooting for AMD and really hoping they would come through on everything they've promised, because the market REALLY needs it by now. I was a bit too hopeful perhaps, hoping that Bulldozer would perhaps be another Athlon 64, but I suppose that was foolish of me. The signs were all there even before the official reviews, AMD execs leaving right before launch, AMD starting to hype up Piledriver even before Bulldozer was out, the leaked benches which turned out to be factual, etc.

The sad thing is that their big comeback isn't going to happen in the foreseeable future if their current plans are anything to go by. Annual improvements of 10-15% to the architecture will not be enough to keep up with Intel I'm afraid.