Eiji said:
Hope the AMD Ninja's don't get him first!
He's replied once since, didn't say much at all, apart from essentially stating "just a few more days." So, no benches, at least until the NDA lifts.
http://semiaccurate.com/forums/showpost.php?p=137042&postcount=118
Dahakon said:
Some Dutch magazine had a review online premature accidentally.
http://translate.google.nl/translat...dware/componenten/processoren/fx-8150&act=url
Google Cache is our friend, translate too.
One point of interest: Cinebench 11.5 does
not give a 5.xx score for BD FX-8150
Original:
http://www.pcmweb.nl/hardware/componenten/processoren/fx-8150
*Since caches don't last:
AMD FX-8150
Thursday, October 6, 2011 - 15:56 | Jaap Veenstra
It took a while, but here it is: the brand new FX series from AMD. No botched Athlon core, but a new architecture code-named Bulldozer. We test the top-eight CPU cores at 3.6 GHz tap. Turbocharged 4.2 GHz or even 3.9. Delicious!
AMD called the Bulldozer different approach than the Phenoms. Bulldozer CPUs are built in modules, each containing two cores. AMD has therefore not only about cores, but also the number of modules that a processor exists.
Modular
Let us briefly explain which a module exists. As mentioned earlier, each commanded Bulldozer module two nuclei. These two 16KB L1 lodge each data cache and 64KB instruction cache. They share the data fetcher, decoder and L2 cache (2MB per module). Each module has an embedded scheduler to the instructions on the two cores distributed. Each module receives a 16-bit HyperTransport link. In case of octacore FX processor, there are four HT links.
The linked modules share L3 cache. With a quad core is 4MB, 6MB and one gets a hexacore octacore get 8MB. As much as the L2 memory is. Naturally, the modules share the memory controller. This is however still dual channel, but can now officially 1866 MHz DDR memory along.
The advantage of modular building, is that you can easily create a large line of processors can launch. AMD can now dual cores, quad cores, hexacores, octacores, etc release. Simply by one, two, three, four, or eight modules such linking. This is especially for the server market is particularly interesting. Moreover, a segment where AMD wants to hit back hard with Bulldozer.
Type HyperThreading?
You could say that the FX line uses a kind of hyper threading. However, hyper-threading does not work with two discrete nuclei. For example, there are four cores i7 2600K which can process eight instructions simultaneously. AMD actually uses eight cores, but they share certain parts of the CPU. Therefore you will not see perfect scaling. However, better than hyperthreading.
AMD also indicates that these modules in relation to work more efficiently and more powerful than hyperthreading. For programmers, it is also easier because they do not specifically take into account HyperThreading: there are simply eight cores available. Any application that multi-core programming, it can cope with these CPUs. When hyperthreading is not the case. Just look at the CPU load while playing games. In an i7 will see that only four threads in use.
Line-up
AMD currently has quite a few CPUs. We see three quad cores: the
FX 4100, FX and FX-4170 B4150. Then another hexacore: the FX-6100. And three octacores: the FX 8100, FX 8120 and FX-8150. There are of course models at. Example, a higher clocked FX-8170.
The new FX line works on all motherboards with socket AM3 + and a 900-series chipset. That's all pretty happy that, thanks to the postponement of AMD.
What about prices? We only have only seen U.S. dollars, but guess at launch at around 220 euros for the FX-8150, EUR 200 for the FX 8120, 190 euros for the FX-8100 and 180 euros for the FX-6120. These are competitive prices for octa-and hexacores!
High speeds
A case where AMD has been doing well, its clock speeds. Bulldozers are all over 3GHz. Partly thanks to a turbo mode. For example our test candidate to act out, the FX-8150: Standard on 3.6 GHz, touch it. With trubo on all eight cores, the speed to 3.9 GHz. The turbo four cores active, the clock speed to 4.2 GHz. These are not bad scores. Last year you had to pretty hard to overclock to those speeds with a quad core processor to get!
Overclocking Potential
Speaking of overclocking might wish you the news meegepikt: the FX-8150 has broken the world record for overclocking. The professional overclockers got more than 8.4 GHz processor. Now we have no liquid helium in the lab, but we have made an attempt with a fairly average cooling tower. The motherboard is an Asus Crosshair V with many delightful settings.
We have found that 5 GHz is feasible with excellent all four modules are enabled (eight cores so). We have 1.47 volts on the cpu needed it. This is a very respectable overclocking! Especially considering the fact that the first samples and the motherboard BIOSes often with premature work. The Asus is quite stable though.
Energy
Processor manufacturers are trying not only the CPU's faster, but especially energy efficient. A8 AMD is a very good example. The fastest in the series, the 3850 A8 is about as fast as one Phenom 940, but uses a fraction of the energy (38 watts in idle and just over 100 watts full load) and therefore offers a swift integrated GPU.
Bulldozer is an efficient processor. At rest, with a consuming HD5970, uses the platform 118 watts. We draw about 50 watts from the card, then we arrive at 68 watts for the CPU, motherboard, memory and hard disk. It's a bit more than that Sandy Bridge with a high-end motherboard comes out at about 40 watts using the GPU geïntegrerde. We stress the CPU then Aida64 consumption up to 238 watts: an increase of 120 watts, which is right, given the TDP of 125 watts.
Real life performance
But how the processor performs standard speed now? We set the FX-8150 in the socket of an Asus Crosshair V and put a 4GB DDR3-1600 Memory (7-7-7-20). If we use an HD5970 GPU (dual gpu). The operating system, Windows Ultimate 64-bit, standing on a WD Velociraptor.
We run both benchmarks for CPU, GPU, and as for the entire system. Of course we are curious about how the bulldozer is performing compared to the i5 i7 2500 and 2600: the alternatives from Intel. AMD puts the FX-8150 to the i5 line. Both in terms of price and performance.
We start with Cinebench-10. And here we get a core 4074 issues. Approximately 1.5 times less than an Intel core so (both the 2600 and the i5 i7 2500 get about 5800 points. An 'old' i7 965 is around 4900 points)
But the bulldozer hits back hard in the multi-CPU test. Here we see 20615 points. A multiplication of 5.06. We had expected a bit more honest, more close to six times. Perhaps the faster memory to work out better. Yet five times faster is not bad: a hyperthreaded i7 gets just four times. In addition, a very nice score 20,615 points: it is 2000 points more than an i5 2500K and 2000 points less than the more expensive i7 2600K. 11.5-in Cinebench scores Bulldozer with 6.01 points and between the i5 and i7 2500K 2600K in: get the i5 and i7 5.37 6.73 gets points on our test platform. I7 965 sits on a 5.73 points.
Going to 3DMark Vantage, we see a CPU score of 19,119. A perfect score in the top segment. Again between the i5 and i7 in. I7 gets around 22,500 points on the CPU. The total score is an nice 21949 points. Less than an i7 with this card comes out around 25,500. However: every game is without problems on super high detail and resolution to play with this system.
In 3DMark 2011 scores 6616 points in total AMD. Again, neat and a good sign that the processor can feed data to the HD5970. For comparison also take an i7 965 with the HD5970: 7385 points, roughly equivalent to a 2600K i7 with that GPU. Tag is a still faster. With an i5 you're at about the same level as the FX-8150.
Gaming
AMD focuses FX platform especially for gamers. Gamers with separate graphics cards will work, sometimes in CrossFire. We turn therefore take the Dirt3 benchmark at 1920 by 1080 and every detail. The HD5970 has to work hard and certainly not limited by the CPU.
The FX-8150 gets 105 fps on average in this test with a minimum of 75 fps. An incredibly good score, considering the load this game can give both the cpu and gpu. If we look at our platform with the 965-i7 Nehalem CPU, then we - of course with the same settings - at 93 fps and a minimum of 71 fps. Definitely good to play, but lower than the FX-8150.
We turn then still Mafia II. A very CPU-intensive game. There we see that the new platform averaged 68.3 fps able to render. Nehalem setup squeezed out, 76 fps. Just over the Bulldozer. Perhaps some help here 6GB memory.
Finally, even the cpu-intensive game Far Cry 2. We run a loop on a full-HD with all settings at maximum and direct X 10 on. The AMD FX-8150 renders an average of 111 fps and a minimum of 23 fps. I7 126 fps compared to 965 puts it, and a minimum of 75.2 fps. Here you see a bit more powerful Intel cores than AMD.
Conclusion
Conclusion The FX-8150 is an excellent processor from AMD in particular on price / quality convincing. He comes easy with the i5 in 2500 - he is actually slightly faster - and sometimes comes close to the i7 2600K during multi-threaded instruction. Not bad for 220 Euros. Also on the gaming field newcomer know without a doubt convince. The CPU is powerful enough to be a very swift GPU data needs. That leaves the benchmark Dirt3 see. For Intel CPU-intensive games is still ahead. If we look at overclocking potential, we can only conclude one thing: Bulldozer overclocks well. Combine that with not too expensive motherboards and you have a very nice price for a very rapid system
Advantages
Eight cores
High clock speeds
Fri economical [Very??]
Price
AMD FX-8150: 3.6Ghz/4.2Ghz, 125W TDP, 8 Cores, 8MB L3 Cache, AM3+, 1866+ Mhz Memory Support
AMD FX-8100: 2.8Ghz/3.7Ghz, 95W TDP, 8 Cores, 8MB L3 Cache, AM3+, 1866+ Mhz Memory Support
AMD FX-6100: 3.3Ghz/3.9Ghz, 95W TDP, 6 Cores, 8MB L3 Cache, AM3+, 1866+ Mhz Memory Support
AMD FX-4170: 4.2Ghz/4.3Ghz, 125W TDP, 4 Cores, 8MB L3 Cache, AM3+, 1866+ Mhz Memory Support
AMD FX-B4150: 3.8Ghz/4.0Ghz, 95W TDP, 4Cores, 8MB L3 Cache, AM3+, 1866+ Mhz Memory Support
AMD FX-4100: 3.6Ghz/3.8Ghz, 95W TDP, 8 Cores, 4MB L3 Cache, AM3+, 1866+ Mhz Memory Support
