AMD FX-8150 CPU: Bulldozer

**ShannonR** · 10-17-2011, 07:43 PM

I think its really strange that they hyped the crap outta the 8.4GHz record on liquid helium and how great it is yet it wont perform under normal usage..... I mean dont get me wrong ive gamed on LN2 before just to prove you could but im sure not gonna try it at 8+ GHz its just dumb not to mention those valids were only for a few seconds and im sure the chip wont last long at those speeds...

But I think if the marketing can take anything from this.... dont hype something up if 99+% of the population will never use it as your demo'ing it.... and especially if it sucks when used under conditions that 99+% of your customer base will use it.

**PP Mguire** · 10-18-2011, 09:07 AM

You figure they would have learned after doing the same thing for Phenom 1 and failing horribly. At least they got the price right some what.

**Rollo** · 11-16-2011, 12:56 PM

The Bulldozer is a server CPU totally unsuitable for gaming. HARDOCPs review of how it compares when in high end SLi rigs, and anyone's gaming benches have shown us that.

I had really high hopes for this CPU originally, but it ended uo another Phenom 1 launch as noted. You have to wonder if any other company would even have the stones to release a part that trails it's last offering in performance and costs more.

**PP Mguire** · 11-16-2011, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by Rollo

The Bulldozer is a server CPU totally unsuitable for gaming. HARDOCPs review of how it compares when in high end SLi rigs, and anyone's gaming benches have shown us that.

I had really high hopes for this CPU originally, but it ended uo another Phenom 1 launch as noted. You have to wonder if any other company would even have the stones to release a part that trails it's last offering in performance and costs more.

It really makes you wonder what they have been doing the past 5 years.

**Joshua_Mahr** · 11-16-2011, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by PP Mguire

It really makes you wonder what they have been doing the past 5 years.

Buying AMD and forgetting everything else. I must say though the A8 chips are great cheap steam rigs.

**Frag Maniac** · 11-16-2011, 08:29 PM

CPU speed records have always been mostly hype and little substance. It would be better were they to take a standard set of tests and compare performance, because at the end of the day, superior design can allow a lower clocked chip to outperform a higher clocked one.

That said, if you look at Anandtech's presentation on the speed record, they at least demonstrated it in a more sensible way, showing consumer level OCing with mere sealed WC units with a 5GHz result, on up to the world record.

Since the initial benches on review sites, I've heard several Bulldozer consumer claims that as long as the game you're playing is heavily quad threaded (like BF3), it competes quite well with Intel. Where Bulldozer really can't compete is in applications of dual threading or less.

When you look at it's price and the fact that games are getting more and more quad threaded, it's not entirely bad. It's also quite good of course at multi tasking. I still feel Intel is a better way to go though, they have a more well rounded approach to gaming and system performance, with nice supporting MB chipsets.

**PP Mguire** · 11-16-2011, 08:34 PM

90% of the games on the market right now are console ports so they will almost always be single threaded. Until we can get away from that little fact more cores will never be the answer in gaming.

**Frag Maniac** · 11-16-2011, 09:58 PM

Originally Posted by PP Mguire

90% of the games on the market right now are console ports so they will almost always be single threaded. Until we can get away from that little fact more cores will never be the answer in gaming.

That's only true if you count all games made since the inception of PC gaming. Take a tally of current gen games and the percentage is quite different. In PC tech it matters not how games were made ages ago, or which ones are still made with outdated tech, it only matters how the better ones are being made now. Not too many players care about old games when they choose PC parts. Most want to build them for next gen games.

It would have been more appropriate to argue that Intel CPUs are more backwards compatible threading wise, without any tradeoffs, but clearly the future is quad or more threaded games. I'm quite sure AMD knew before they went ahead with the production of Bulldozer that it wouldn't have stellar single or dual thread capability. They were probably counting on their low pricing, large anti Intel following and current gen games to do their advertising for them. It's the high tech quad threaded games that sell PC hardware, not ancient tech single threaded ones.

I was still playing on a Pentium 4 rig only a year ago, and I know first hand how inadequate they are even for games several years old. Do you honestly think a single core rig would be acceptable to most gamers by today's standards? Even if they were still made and had the per core speed of todays CPUs, no one would bother with them. I'm also glad I skipped dual core completely, because a lot of the top games now are quad threaded.

**PP Mguire** · 11-16-2011, 10:56 PM

Originally Posted by PP Mguire

90% of the games on the market right now are console ports so they will almost always be single threaded. Until we can get away from that little fact more cores will never be the answer in gaming.

Originally Posted by Frag Maniac

That's only true if you count all games made since the inception of PC gaming. Take a tally of current gen games and the percentage is quite different. In PC tech it matters not how games were made ages ago, or which ones are still made with outdated tech, it only matters how they're being made now. Not too many players care about old games when they choose PC parts. Most want to build them for next gen games.

It would have been more appropriate to argue that Intel CPUs are more backwards compatible threading wise, without any tradeoffs, but clearly the future is quad or more threaded games. I'm quite sure AMD knew before they went ahead with the production of Bulldozer that it wouldn't have stellar single or dual thread capability. They were probably counting on their low pricing, large anti Intel following and current gen games to do their advertising for them. It's the high tech quad threaded games that sell PC hardware, not ancient tech single threaded ones.

I was still playing on a Pentium 4 rig only a year ago, and I know first hand how inadequate they are even for games several years old. Do you honestly think a single core rig would be acceptable to most gamers by today's standards? Even if they were still made and had the per core speed of todays CPUs, no one would bother with them. I'm also glad I skipped dual core completely, because a lot of the top games now are quad threaded.

Check the bold chief. I said right now, meaning games of today. There are only a hand full of games that properly utilize more than 2 cores, and even then it's iffy. The future may be multithreaded games, but by the time we actually start seeing true multithreaded Bulldozer will be a failure of the past. The only way we will see games truly take advantage of PC power is when the current consoles take a hike and the new ones come in. Please show me an example of a game that fully utilizes a quad-core CPU at 80-100% CPU usage in game. I haven't found a single one. There ARE games that benefit from having 4 overclocked cores, but not to the extent we would like. Supreme Commander is one such game.

**Frag Maniac** · 11-16-2011, 11:24 PM

I'm well aware of what you said, and you can drop the tired "chief" BS already. Look at ANY top rated current gen AAA PC game today, you honestly think most are still single threaded? Begs the question then why you bothered buying a quad core CPU. Do you never check Task Manager (or any other utility that can show similar stats) to look at core usage when running the latest tech games? Every game I've installed lately shows 4 cores being utilized. That's quad threading "chief".

I should have known discussing anything at length with you typically ends up with your failed attempts at purporting yourself as some kind of genius. You get some things right kid, but you're so incredibly off on others it's laughable.

**Rollo** · 11-17-2011, 12:41 AM

Originally Posted by Frag Maniac

I'm well aware of what you said, and you can drop the tired "chief" BS already. Look at ANY top rated current gen AAA PC game today, you honestly think most are still single threaded? Begs the question then why you bothered buying a quad core CPU. Do you never check Task Manager (or any other utility that can show similar stats) to look at core usage when running the latest tech games? Every game I've installed lately shows 4 cores being utilized. That's quad threading "chief".

I should have known discussing anything at length with you typically ends up with your failed attempts at purporting yourself as some kind of genius. You get some things right kid, but you're so incredibly off on others it's laughable.

If you could list the games that are heavily threaded, I've been trying to kill my buyers remorse on my 990X lately. Seems to me my 2500K has 99% of the performance for 20% of the price.

I agree with the other guy, just not much cpu multithreading going on now outside of a few RTS games.

**PP Mguire** · 11-17-2011, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by Frag Maniac

I'm well aware of what you said, and you can drop the tired "chief" BS already. Look at ANY top rated current gen AAA PC game today, you honestly think most are still single threaded? Begs the question then why you bothered buying a quad core CPU. Do you never check Task Manager (or any other utility that can show similar stats) to look at core usage when running the latest tech games? Every game I've installed lately shows 4 cores being utilized. That's quad threading "chief".

I should have known discussing anything at length with you typically ends up with your failed attempts at purporting yourself as some kind of genius. You get some things right kid, but you're so incredibly off on others it's laughable.

Originally Posted by Rollo

If you could list the games that are heavily threaded, I've been trying to kill my buyers remorse on my 990X lately. Seems to me my 2500K has 99% of the performance for 20% of the price.

I agree with the other guy, just not much cpu multithreading going on now outside of a few RTS games.

Exactly this. It is YOU who wants to argue with ME. I have a quad core because it was a cheap Core i transition coming from an AMD Tri-Core AND I used to be a reviewer and needed better hardware. When I had an i3 530 it played all my games fine. I got my i5 back because I was able to RMA it. If it wasn't for that, I'd still be on an i3. BF3 doesn't take 100% CPU, Metro2033 doesn't take 100% CPU, MW3 doesn't take 100% CPU, L.A. Noire doesn't take 100% CPU, Skyrim doesn't take 100% CPU, 3DMark doesn't take 100% CPU, and the list goes on. Yes, I do check my usage quite a bit on newer games to see if a CPU bump in speed would help in performance, or if my GPU would be lacking or not. If it wasn't for that, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. It is widely known that over 90% of today's games don't fully utilize a multi-core CPU. If they did, Bulldozer probably wouldn't be such a flop compared to Intel's 200 dollar master piece (2500k).

It is already known discussing any matter with you results in bashing considering every time I put you in your place you get butt hurt. Now, where is that quad-core utilization I requested? Oh wait, you can't give it to me because it doesn't exist. Just because a game off loads certain aspects (physics, audio, ect) on to a different core doesn't mean it's multi-threaded. A game utilizing 100% of a quad core CPU (each core is 25%) means it is programmed to take full advantage of the CPU and is truly multi-threaded. There are NO games that make my CPU go to 100%, not even Supreme Commander which has its gains on more cores and higher clocks. Even then, that game requires a separate program to use more than 2 cores. Not even Dice's precious Frostbite 2 fully utilizes my CPU.

**Joshua_Mahr** · 11-17-2011, 03:16 PM

I doubt it is fast enough to get the bonus.

**Frag Maniac** · 11-17-2011, 09:05 PM

Play any one of the AAA shooters or shooter/RPG hybrids made lately and you'll see 4 cores being used, it's not hard to check for. I swear Bjorn is full of people that don't have a clue. RTS only, LOL.

**Rollo** · 11-18-2011, 01:20 AM

Originally Posted by Frag Maniac

Play any one of the AAA shooters or shooter/RPG hybrids made lately and you'll see 4 cores being used, it's not hard to check for. I swear Bjorn is full of people that don't have a clue. RTS only, LOL.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...k_9.html#sect0

Games are not among the applications that create well-paralleled multi-threaded load that is why six computational cores of the new LGA 2011 processors are way more than necessary.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5091/i...gh-end-alive/6

Most games have a tough enough time stressing more than four cores, so the move to the 3960X won't do much for gaming in most cases

What the 3960X doesn't do is make your gaming experience any better or speed up the majority of desktop applications

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...review-23.html

When it comes to gaming, and particularly with regard to most modern games, LGA2011’s extra cores don’t really come into play. Only in the most CPU-centric games like those based on Valve’s Source engine can we really see some noticeably gains, but they are few and far between.

Errrr....yeah. Us foolish noobs are totally oblivious to the heavily threaded revolution going on in gaming that will make the BeefDozer the thing to have. :-|