Support NeoGAF

[Hazaro]

Cheers fiest.

I guess the musing of 2500K<8150<2600K might fall in line.
If the OC capability scales from water to air on good 24/7 voltages it looks very similar in clock for clock and might have a bit of an edge there.

Now if the 8120 is just as capable at $230 then we have a good value proposition... until Ivy Bridge hits.

The best news should be for a well priced 4120 chip for gaming imo.

 

[catmincer]

Awesome! Looks like I can upgrade from my PII 840

 

[AwesomeSauce]

Cheers fiest.

I guess the musing of 2500K<8150<2600K might fall in line.
If the OC capability scales from water to air on good 24/7 voltages it looks very similar in clock for clock and might have a bit of an edge there.

Now if the 8120 is just as capable at $230 then we have a good value proposition... until Ivy Bridge hits.

The best news should be for a well priced 4120 chip for gaming imo.

Hazaro, it looks like you might be updating the pc builds soon ;-)

Really curious to see more reviews on Bulldozer before I start planning my simple upgrade.

 

[Rodney McKay]

Alright, so I have a MSI 790x-g45 AM3 motherboard in my computer.

Is it known yet which AM3 motherboards will work with these chips or what the effects will be if they are compatible?

I built my computer a few years back and I currently have a Athlon 2 X4 640 3.0GHz processor (not overclocked) and a Sapphire Radeon 5770 1GB card.

Would I see better gaming performance gains by upgrading to the cheapest one of these Bulldozer CPUs or upgrading to a better graphics card? I'm thinking of spending around $200 on upgrades for my PC and I'm not sure where I would see the best gains.

 

[·feist·]

The best news should be for a well priced 4120 chip for gaming imo.

I couldn't agree more. I've felt for a while now that the FX-4xxx line could be nearly as important for AMD's bottom line as the Fusion, and server parts. For normal users, and entry level gamers using ~$80-150 GPUs, or even on-board in some cases, I think it can be promising due to the overclocking possibilities. I've been very vocal about how surprised I am that more people aren't taking issue with Intel's new CPU, and chipset product strategy. Really unfortunate how severely they've limited what options consumers have, unless they pay more for the "right" product. Even for budget builds, it's been very difficult recommending any Intel that isn't a 2500K/2600K, or P67/Z68, because of how much the lower priced s1155 options will hamper the long term viability of your PC.

Simplifying things, the FX-4000 line gives you two compute units, capable of four threads. With that you have a 2CU/4T AMD part (or 2CU/4C/4T) going against the lower end, non-K Intels of the 2C/4T, and 4C/4T variety. Where the AMDs may falter in some areas, they should be able to compensate somewhat with far greater overclocking ability. Of course, that's at the expense of power consumption, and leaving out QuickSync, and other Sandy Bridge iGPU benefits. Once Trinity comes online with its iGPU+Piledriver cores, it'll be interesting to see how that, and the FX-4000s are positioned against comparable Intels.

http://www.donanimhaber.com/islemci...esil-Bulldozer-mimarisi-icin-ilk-detaylar.htm

edit:

Alright, so I have a MSI 790x-g45 AM3 motherboard in my computer.

Is it known yet which AM3 motherboards will work with these chips or what the effects will be if they are compatible?

I built my computer a few years back and I currently have a Athlon 2 X4 640 3.0GHz processor (not overclocked) and a Sapphire Radeon 5770 1GB card.

Would I see better gaming performance gains by upgrading to the cheapest one of these Bulldozer CPUs or upgrading to a better graphics card? I'm thinking of spending around $200 on upgrades for my PC and I'm not sure where I would see the best gains.

The major motherboard brands have released compatibility lists months ago. The lists, and various compatibility issues, are on the first two pages of this thread. Gains depend on whether the titles you primarily play are CPU, or GPU bound. With a bit of overclocking, your current CPU can handle a more powerful GPU, and give you good results in most titles, but a lack of cache does hurt.

 

[mercenar1e]

i just purchased an intel i5 2500k.. if i overclock it to 4.5 will it outperform the fx 8150?

should i return the items back to Amazon? it came out to 393..

 

[Hazaro]

Alright, so I have a MSI 790x-g45 AM3 motherboard in my computer.

Is it known yet which AM3 motherboards will work with these chips or what the effects will be if they are compatible?

I built my computer a few years back and I currently have a Athlon 2 X4 640 3.0GHz processor (not overclocked) and a Sapphire Radeon 5770 1GB card.

Would I see better gaming performance gains by upgrading to the cheapest one of these Bulldozer CPUs or upgrading to a better graphics card? I'm thinking of spending around $200 on upgrades for my PC and I'm not sure where I would see the best gains.

Feist gave a more indepth answer but here is mine.
Buy a beefy GPU.

I couldn't agree more. I've felt for a while now that the FX-4xxx line could be nearly as important for AMD's bottom line as the Fusion, and server parts. For normal users, and entry level gamers using ~$80-150 GPUs, or even on-board in some cases, I think it can be promising due to the overclocking possibilities. I've been very vocal about how surprised I am that more people aren't taking issue with Intel's new CPU, and chipset product strategy. Really unfortunate how severely they've limited what options consumers have, unless they pay more for the "right" product. Even for budget builds, it's been very difficult recommending any Intel that isn't a 2500K/2600K, or P67/Z68, because of how much the lower priced s1155 options will hamper the long term viability of your PC.

Simplifying things, the FX-4000 line gives you two compute units, capable of four threads. With that you have a 2CU/4T AMD part (or 2CU/4C/4T) going against the lower end, non-K Intels of the 2C/4T, and 4C/4T variety. Where the AMDs may falter in some areas, they should be able to compensate somewhat with far greater overclocking ability. Of course, that's at the expense of power consumption, and leaving out QuickSync, and other Sandy Bridge iGPU benefits. Once Trinity comes online with its iGPU+Piledriver cores, it'll be interesting to see how that, and the FX-4000s are positioned against comparable Intels.


http://www.donanimhaber.com/islemci...esil-Bulldozer-mimarisi-icin-ilk-detaylar.htm

Yeah the limitations on the 2100 to 2300 jump in price / overclocking limit is huge.

If clock for clock it can keep up and you can get 4Ghz for a $120 part with 4 threads you are in business on more budget minded gaming setups.
Just down to decently priced AM3+ boards.

 

[Rodney McKay]

The major motherboard brands have released compatibility lists months ago. The lists, and various compatibility issues, are on the first two pages of this thread. Gains depend on whether the titles you primarily play are CPU, or GPU bound. With a bit of overclocking, your current CPU can handle a more powerful GPU, and give you good results in most titles, but a lack of cache does hurt.

Feist gave a more indepth answer but here is mine.
Buy a beefy GPU.

Thanks for your help. It appears from MSI's list that my motherboard isn't even compatible with Bulldozer, so for the short term it looks like I should look into graphics cards.

 

[TheExodu5]

first Benchmark?
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

8 physical cores performing below a 2600? That does not bode well for 1/2 thread applications like Starcraft 2 one bit.

It's quad core performance is going to be roughly in line with an AMD Phenom II X4 965, which means it's not going to be an upgrade at all for gaming for many AMD owners.

 

[Tallshortman]

8 physical cores performing below a 2600? That does not bode well for 1/2 thread applications like Starcraft 2 one bit.

It's quad core performance is going to be roughly in line with an AMD Phenom II X4 965, which means it's not going to be an upgrade at all for gaming for many AMD owners.

That's obviously not the case. I'm not sure why you'd believe each core performs at the same speed as one that's several years old. Also, passmark is not considered a great benchmark in the first place.

 

[Wolf Akela]

Why not though? They only use synthetic benchmarks I believe, so numbers won't exactly reflect on practical usage.

 

[KKRT00]

Why is memory more expensive on i7 platform?

Ps. I think that this is looking really good. If someone wants to buy a PC now, should buy good AM3+ motherboard, X2@X4 or just X4 phenom and good GPU and then when Piledriver will finally come out, and there will be more multi-core applications and games, should buy a 16 cores processor.

 

[chaosblade]

http://i.imgur.com/ZuJGv.png

Why is memory more expensive on i7 platform?

Probably a 12GB triple channel kit ($80+) versus a 8GB dual channel kit ($40+).

And I still think "buying for now" is better than buying with the intention of upgrading. Made that mistake with my current CPU since I thought my board would be compatible with BD, and it's not.

So... why aren't we comparing it with an i7-2600k instead?

I wondered that in response to the review on the last page. Don't really care how it compares to the i7 9xx series, show it beating the 2500k(/2600k) in tasks I care about (gaming, emulation) and I'll be interested.

 

[Wolf Akela]

So... why aren't we comparing it with an i7-2600k instead?

 

[TheExodu5]

That's obviously not the case. I'm not sure why you'd believe each core performs at the same speed as one that's several years old. Also, passmark is not considered a great benchmark in the first place.

It will be the case. Cut the numbers of cores used in half, and the bench results are 4300 or so. A little more if Passmark has some multithreading overhead. This CPU is barely going to be an upgrade for Phenom X4 owners for gaming. We'll see when the game benchmarks release.

 

[Horsemama1956]

Why not though? They only use synthetic benchmarks I believe, so numbers won't exactly reflect on practical usage.

They all heavily(and I mean heavily) favour Intel. No point in looking at benchmarks until reviews hit with gaming numbers.

 

[chaosblade]

It will be the case. Cut the numbers of cores used in half, and the bench results are 4300 or so. A little more if Passmark has some multithreading overhead. This CPU is barely going to be an upgrade for Phenom X4 owners for gaming. We'll see when the game benchmarks release.

955 is about 4300, I find it hard to believe there would be almost no clock for clock increases whatsoever, if anything decreases since BD runs at higher speeds.

Actual reviews should be a lot more relevant than Passmark scores.

/trying to be optimistic

 

[Datschge]

This CPU is barely going to be an upgrade for Phenom X4 owners for gaming.

Yes and no, I'm sure the improvements are mainly achieved through the much finer grained gating and overclocking support, both areas where AMD was significantly lagging behind Intel before. So when only few cores/modules are in use the overclocking/"turbo core" headroom is respectively bigger.

Basically this BD version is but one step toward splitting up the CPU is tiny parts which later can be more easily updated and reassembled for new designs like new Fusion variants with BD modules etc. In other words it's part of the company-wide move from the previous CPU style toward the much more flexible GPU style chip design development (pretty good anandtech article about the process). I personally think the first real result of that whole process (showcasing the power and consumption advantages of this approach) will be the chips integrating the upcoming GCN as transparent part of the CPU modules. I bet it still takes several years to get there though.

 

[Mudkips]

Looks real enough, but not a single model number or clock speed or whatnot on that box.

 

[BoobPhysics101]

I think I'll be snagging an FX4170. Should be priced really well and I don't really need more than a quad-core at this point, especially not for gaming. I'll put the money saved towards a nice Radeon 7950. A 4170 @ 4+ Ghz with a 7950 should be able to handle anything and everything on max (even Battlefield 3).

 

[Zombie James]

AMD-branded liquid cooling? Hmm...

 

[·feist·]

XFastest is usually straight up, and that would be a lot of trouble to go through for a hoax. Looks like the same exact water cooler AMD has been showing, minus the FX branding. I just assumed they were using an Antec KÜHLER H&#8322;O 920 since what's shown in those shots, and Antec's AIOs are both based on the same exact model.

Same pics in 800px × 531px:
http://i.imgur.com/psWfw.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/UB61U.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/E1gAM.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/cT3vk.jpg

Intel's RTS2011C AIO for LGA 2011 is a bit more customized than most. Of course, it's also backwards compatible with s1366, s1156, and s1155. You could even use it with an AMD build as long as you have the correct mounting bracket, or buy one from Asetek.

Get Your Rig Ready for the AMD FX Processor
http://blogs.amd.com/play/2011/10/06/getyourrigready/

2. Ensure you have the latest BIOS: To make sure you have the latest BIOS, plug in an AMD AM3 socket CPU (AMD Sempron™, AMD Athlon™ II or AMD Phenom™ II processor), check your BIOS and verify that with the manufacturer’s website. If the BIOS versions match, you are good to go. Otherwise, prior to installing your AMD FX CPU download the most up-to-date motherboard BIOS directly from the motherboard manufacturer (Uncertain of how to do this? There’s a wealth of YouTube videos with easy to follow instructions). If you do not have an AMD AM3 socket CPU, contact your seller for instructions. Here’s a sampling of BIOS instructions from a few top motherboard manufacturers:

• GIGABYTE: http://www.gigabyte.us/products/product-page.aspx?pid=3880#bios

• MSI: http://www.msi.com/product/mb/990FXA-GD80.html#/?div=BIOS

• ASRock: http://www.asrock.com/mb/download.a...m/mb/download.asp?Model=990FX Extreme4&o=BIOS

• ASUS: http://usa.asus.com/Motherboards/AMD_AM3Plus/M5A99X_EVO/#download

Follow these steps to be sure your PC is fully equipped to experience the unlocked and unrestrained power of AMD FX when the CPU hits the market this quarter.

More press. This video is in Italian, and the AMD portion is brief.

TGtech - iPhone 4S e Acer Aspire S3 ultrabook - TVtech
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QylawbJcpk#t=5m10s
http://www.hwupgrade.it/news/telefonia/iphone-4s-bavaglio-a-wikipedia-e-amd-fx-tgtech_38892.html

Corescn posted the FX 4170.
While their earlier B0 stepping benchmarks were unreliable, they also posted certain reliable Ivy Bridge, and Sandy bridge-E info before other sites.

&#21490;&#19978;&#40664;&#35748;&#20027;&#39057;&#26368;&#39640;&#30340;CPU-AMD FX-4170
http://www.corescn.com/thread-1688-1-1.html

CPUID Reviewer Kit for AMD FX Bulldozer
http://www.cpuid.com/news/47-cpuid_reviewer_kit_for_amd_fx_bulldozer.html
ftp://ftp.cpuid.com/misc/CPUID_AMD_FX_Reviewer_Kit.zip

For all who will review the new AMD FX processor, we've released a kit that includes some of our tools, and plus, all updated for the new AMD chip.

The kit includes :
- CPU-Z 1.58.7
- HWMonitor 1.18.5
- TMonitor 1.04
- HWiNFO32 & HWiNFO64 387.1390
- SIV 4.23 BETA-22
- AIDA64 Extreme Edition 1649

You can download the reviewer kit at that address.

Like coding? Instruction sets? Some Dark_Shikari thoughts on optimizations, XOP, FMA4, SSE2, AVX, etc.

DarkShikari / x264-devel
https://github.com/DarkShikari/x264-devel/commits/master

Bulldozer auf Weltreise (BD rollt an Part II)
http://www.planet3dnow.de/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4501020&postcount=562
http://www.planet3dnow.de/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4502029&postcount=585

 

[chaosblade]

Looks real enough, but not a single model number or clock speed or whatnot on that box.

Aren't model numbers and clock speeds usually just on a sticker?

Wouldn't bother with the liquid anyway, I already have an H50 that I plan to replace. If it's legit, it's good for people who would be interested in something like a 212+ since it should give equal or better cooling performance while being included with the CPU.

 

[Hazaro]

I think I'll be snagging an FX4170. Should be priced really well and I don't really need more than a quad-core at this point, especially not for gaming. I'll put the money saved towards a nice Radeon 7950. A 4170 @ 4+ Ghz with a 7950 should be able to handle anything and everything on max (even Battlefield 3).

Why buy a 4170 when you can buy a lower end and clock it?

 

[Angelus Errare]

The packaging looks ace.

 

[BoobPhysics101]

Why buy a 4170 when you can buy a lower end and clock it?

I missed the 4150, that's what I'd get. The 4150/4170 have 8 MB of L3 cache while the 4100 only has 4 MB, so no bueno on the 4100.

The 4150 turbos out to 4 Ghz... I'd assume a 4.5, hell, even 5 Ghz constant overclock would be pretty easy/stable on basic air cooling. That's awesome, especially if the 41xx series slot in at just over $100 as I suspect it will (since 61xx and 81xx are covering $150-250 range).

 

[Hazaro]

I don't imagine the chips are binned very specifically, but I could be wrong.

 

[·feist·]

What a launch. B2Fs in review samples, and the retail channel (including the ones in this post, and this post). Complaints of not being allotted enough time with a review kit, relatively sparse kits, and an assortment of oddities. For AMD's sake, they should hope things go as well as possible. Nothing worse than needing to include an asterisk, or other addendum to a review.

Pricing in Fry's system:

I missed the 4150, that's what I'd get. The 4150/4170 have 8 MB of L3 cache while the 4100 only has 4 MB, so no bueno on the 4100.

The 4150 turbos out to 4 Ghz... I'd assume a 4.5, hell, even 5 Ghz constant overclock would be pretty easy/stable on basic air cooling. That's awesome, especially if the 41xx series slot in at just over $100 as I suspect it will (since 61xx and 81xx are covering $150-250 range).

Given how the arch is geared, the general performance envelope each FX should fall within, and what AMD has shown publicly, I don't see how any FX-4xxx would be a good long term match with an HD 7950-level card. That's regardless of whether they do indeed go with GCN, or still run VLIW4 for the next round of their top end GPUs. This isn't exactly a direct comparison, but I wouldn't run an i3 550 with a GTX 470, anymore than I'd combine an i3 2120 with 6970.


Corescn's FX-4170 benches:

&#21490;&#19978;&#40664;&#35748;&#20027;&#39057;&#26368;&#39640;&#30340;CPU-AMD FX-4170
http://www.corescn.com/thread-1688-1-1.html

SuperPI

Fritz Chess
http://i.imgur.com/MxwVW.jpg
3DMark Vantage
http://i.imgur.com/zekNh.jpg
AIDA 64
http://i.imgur.com/TM4Fl.jpg
wPrime
http://i.imgur.com/T9aer.jpg
7-Zip
http://i.imgur.com/nqOz6.jpg
Cinebench R11.5
http://i.imgur.com/LDNwk.jpg



Fixer FX-8120 listing (~1855 UAH/$229 US):

&#1055;&#1088;&#1086;&#1094;&#1077;&#1089;&#1089;&#1086;&#1088; AMD FX-8120 3.1GHz FD8120FRGUBOX BOX Bulldozer
http://fixer.com.ua/PC-Components/P...-8120_3_1GHz_FD8120FRGUBOX_BOX_Bulldozer.html

FX-8120 - &#1082;&#1072;&#1082; &#1080; &#1089; &#1095;&#1077;&#1084; &#1085;&#1091;&#1078;&#1085;&#1086; &#1091;&#1087;&#1086;&#1090;&#1088;&#1077;&#1073;&#1083;&#1103;&#1090;&#1100; &#1073;&#1091;&#1083;&#1100;&#1076;&#1086;&#1079;&#1077;&#1088;&#1099;
http://forum.overclockers.ua/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=42451

Assorted pics, including 2,089px × 1,567px res:
http://i.imgur.com/Uk3wC.jpg

http://forum.overclockers.ua/downlo...id=bfd9ef50e25cb5c9409f0a619aef77ff&mode=view

http://forum.overclockers.ua/downlo...id=bfd9ef50e25cb5c9409f0a619aef77ff&mode=view

http://forum.overclockers.ua/downlo...id=bfd9ef50e25cb5c9409f0a619aef77ff&mode=view

http://forum.overclockers.ua/downlo...id=bfd9ef50e25cb5c9409f0a619aef77ff&mode=view

http://i.piccy.info/i7/37908d3853bec79ad3d1be2a747bfe49/1-5-526/34580629/bulcinebench.jpg

http://i.piccy.info/i7/dacae6ac6190868902625d7038eedd71/1-5-526/23714635/bulaida.jpg

http://i.piccy.info/i7/81cb78dcbf2de115cd7abe3e59448d05/1-5-526/14209676/bulprime.jpg

http://i.piccy.info/i7/810ef125393ec3557bcdaa6c3e718225/1-5-503/15736729/bul4600.jpg

http://i.piccy.info/i7/4f4c82bd38088d8e694698161a61426e/1-5-524/61487816/bul4500.jpg

http://i.piccy.info/i7/3af9c457947de796d9b6e678e3ad4450/1-5-525/20849910/bulrar.jpg

 

[1-D_FTW]

I don't know about the rest, but the SuperPi score sucks big time.

 

[chaosblade]

Getting a little more optimistic, looking forward to 81xx benches and OC results, that 8120 is looking tempting.

I don't know about the rest, but the SuperPi score sucks big time.

That's the low end CPU.

 

[1-D_FTW]

Getting a little more optimistic, looking forward to 81xx benches and OC results, that 8120 is looking tempting.


That's the low end CPU.

A 4170 with a TDP of 136 watts shouldn't get roasted by my old Q9400.

 

[chaosblade]

Didn't see the wattage, that's pretty high for a "dual core and a half" CPU. Maybe the rumors about the water cooler and heat issues are true.

 

[Gvaz]

20 seconds for a brand new 4 core?

My tricore at 3.7 does 19.2 @ 1M

I was syched at the price but now...

 

[BoobPhysics101]

Given how the arch is geared, the general performance envelope each FX should fall within, and what AMD has shown publicly, I don't see how any FX-4xxx would be a good long term match with an HD 7950-level card. That's regardless of whether they do indeed go with GCN, or still run VLIW4 for the next round of their top end GPUs. This isn't exactly a direct comparison, but I wouldn't run an i3 550 with a GTX 470, anymore than I'd combine an i3 2120 with 6970.


Corescn's FX-4170 benches:

&#21490;&#19978;&#40664;&#35748;&#20027;&#39057;&#26368;&#39640;&#30340;CPU-AMD FX-4170
http://www.corescn.com/thread-1688-1-1.html

SuperPI

Fritz Chess
http://i.imgur.com/MxwVW.jpg
3DMark Vantage
http://i.imgur.com/zekNh.jpg
AIDA 64
http://i.imgur.com/TM4Fl.jpg
wPrime
http://i.imgur.com/T9aer.jpg
7-Zip
http://i.imgur.com/nqOz6.jpg
Cinebench R11.5
http://i.imgur.com/LDNwk.jpg

You're breaking my heart, man. Guess it's six or octo core.

Core 2 Quads and Phenom II's are putting down better CPU scores than the FX4170 on Vantage... maybe I should just get a Phenom II quad-core and wait for Piledriver. TBH CPU is a low priority for me, I'm one of those with the belief that true bottlenecking comes from the GPU, hence why I'm not really interested in a 2500K or FX8120 because I'd rather throw that money into a bad-ass GPU.

 

[Gav47]

I don't imagine the chips are binned very specifically, but I could be wrong.

So do you think there's a chance of unlocking cores in the lower tier processors? I remember loads of people doing that with the Phenom 555.

 

[Mudkips]

Not only is Super Pi a terrible benchmark, it's a terrible benchmark that is single threaded.
Hell, it doesn't even fucking use SSE unless you use a hacked together version of it.

 

[Hazaro]

Wow that Super Pi score is stupid slow. The wPrime result being more inline just tells me the single core speed is shit? Maybe SuperPi just used 1 module instead because of the way the OS handles it?

Getting a little more optimistic, looking forward to 81xx benches and OC results, that 8120 is looking tempting.


That's the low end CPU.

a $120 part should compete vs the 2C/4T Intel 2100 at $120.

Granted it might be an ES, but even so the single core speed is abysmal if those benches are true.

I certainly hope it offers a better product at $100 or $120. I can't imagine it not being a large leap over the Athlon x4's.

 

[Paddling Ghost]

7-Zip
http://i.imgur.com/nqOz6.jpg

My Phenom II 920 scores 2766/9885 MIPS running this test, so I wouldn't want to upgrade to another quad core really.

 

[Mudkips]

Wow that Super Pi score is stupid slow. The wPrime result being more inline just tells me the single core speed is shit? Maybe SuperPi just used 1 module instead because of the way the OS handles it?

Super Pi is single threaded. Super Pi does not use multiple cores.
Super Pi doesn't even use SSE. Super Pi is shit.

The thing to look for is how multi-threaded performance scales compared to single-threaded performance, and how multi-threaded performance scales when going from 4 to 8 cores (or 3 to 6, or 2 to 4) in various workloads. There are only 4 FPUs, but each can run as two 128-bit FPUs or one 256-bit FPU.

If you have a single-threaded workload that you want to be fast, then buy a dual core sandy bridge or quad core bulldozer, and then overclock it. No one really cares about single threaded performance anymore.

 

[Hazaro]

Super Pi is single threaded. Super Pi does not use multiple cores.
Super Pi doesn't even use SSE. Super Pi is shit.

The thing to look for is how multi-threaded performance scales compared to single-threaded performance, and how multi-threaded performance scales when going from 4 to 8 cores (or 3 to 6, or 2 to 4) in various workloads. There are only 4 FPUs, but each can run as two 128-bit FPUs or one 256-bit FPU.

If you have a single-threaded workload that you want to be fast, then buy a dual core sandy bridge or quad core bulldozer, and then overclock it. No one really cares about single threaded performance anymore.

That's exactly what I'm interested in. A ~$120 chip that can be better as a gaming chip than a 2100.
More so than the 8150/8170 right now.

Also, I guess I just took for granted the scaling of the cores. Didn't think there might be some troubles about that in benchmarks, only user applications / gaming.

 

[PGamer]

Looks like some Romanian hardware site has an early review of the FX-8150:

http://lab501.ro/procesoare-chipseturi/amd-fx-8150-bulldozer-preview

 

[Zombie James]

Looks like some Romanian hardware site has an early review of the FX-8150:

http://lab501.ro/procesoare-chipseturi/amd-fx-8150-bulldozer-preview

Those are some pretty disappointing numbers...

 

[PGamer]

Some benchmarks:

 

[nomis]

One some of those, lower is better, on some higher is better. I'm too stupid and lazy to tell which.

 

[Zombie James]

One some of those, lower is better, on some higher is better. I'm too stupid and lazy to tell which.

(s) = seconds, so in those charts lower is better.

 

[Kyaw]

One some of those, lower is better, on some higher is better. I'm too stupid and lazy to tell which.

The 8150 is pretty much beaten by 2600k.

Pretty disappointing really.

 

[nubbe]

Disappointing. Will be a x79 platform when I upgrade

 

[Duxxy3]

Wow - not lookin good.

 

[Hazaro]

Still waitin on that 25 page anandtech review.

 

[DeFiBkIlLeR]

Those results are shockingly bad if accurate....

It's performing more like a 4 core CPU with Hyperthreading, than a true 8 core CPU.

It's Instructions Per Cycle is actually lower than the Phenom II...

I'll wait for the results on Weds, but if confirmed, i sure as hell wont be sticking with AMD for my next upgrade in January.

Terribly dissapointing....