Bulldozer question. - Hardware & Software

I know everyone's opinions on Bulldozer, especially compared to the generations before them, but Micro Center is offering basically $50 off Newegg price for the FX 8120 for a total of $160 + tax. The reason why I want to upgrade is, well, my processor is this: [URL]http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Athlon+64+X2+Dual+Core+6400%2B[/URL] I think it's time for an upgrade, and already having 8GB of DDR3 I snagged from work (with manager's consent), I can basically pick up this processor and a motherboard for $200ish. I've been doing some reading and the reason why it's got poor performance in comparison to other multithreaded processors is because of how the multithreading is currently implemented - if 4 threads are being used, two modules are having both of their cores used as opposed to one core on each module. This can be fixed through a later patch. I know that the i5-2500k is the processor to have right now, but the 8 cores on the FX series would futureproof very well and it's significantly cheaper with this coupon and doesn't fall too far behind in performance (an amount negligible to me anyway.) So - at $160 - is it worth jumping on the Bulldozer platform from my shitty Athlon? It's finally getting to the point where my processor is clearly bottlenecking, so obviously I will want to upgrade.

[quote]I've been doing some reading and the reason why it's got poor performance in comparison to other multithreaded processors is because of how the multithreading is currently implemented - if 4 threads are being used, two modules are having both of their cores used as opposed to one core on each module. This can be fixed through a later patch.[/quote] Can I see some sources for this? Because if it were patchable, it would have probably been patched already.

Also at microcenter you can get an i5 for $170, so why not get that? [editline]11th January 2012[/editline] Nevermind apparently you cant get an i5 2500k for $170 at microcenter.

[QUOTE=Zerokateo;34164614]Also at microcenter you can get an i5 for $170, so why not get that?[/QUOTE] $180, and because this may be a better deal. @garrynohome: [url]http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-3.html[/url] Point of interest is at the bottom [QUOTE]In theory, AMD could benefit from the same thing. If Windows were able to utilize an FX-8150’s four modules first, and then backfill each module’s second core, it’d maximize performance with up to four threads running concurrently. This isn’t the case, though. According to Arun Kishan, software design engineer at Microsoft, each module is currently detected as two cores that are scheduled equally. So, in a dual-threaded application, you might see one active module and three idle modules—great for optimizing power, but theoretically less ideal from a performance standpoint.[/QUOTE] [editline]11th January 2012[/editline] I'm thinking long-term - as 8 cores should last me well over 6-7 years before something fantastic comes out then. Although I am unsure if AMD has any serious plans to continue their desktop line... in which case, maybe I should get the i5.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;34164724]$180, and because this may be a better deal. @garrynohome: [url]http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-3.html[/url] Point of interest is at the bottom [editline]11th January 2012[/editline] I'm thinking long-term - as 8 cores should last me well over 6-7 years before something fantastic comes out then. Although I am unsure if AMD has any serious plans to continue their desktop line... in which case, maybe I should get the i5.[/QUOTE] Thats dumb, AM3 socket is dead and now AMD has to make a new socket, 1155 socket still has plans for ivy bridge processors which are going to be similar in price to current sandy bridge processors, and those 8 cores aren't even being fully used and hell most applications dont even use more than 2 cores and some games still run on only 1. The bulldozer is a waste of money and if you were to get an AM3 socket cpu the best would be a 955 black x4 phenom. Also tomshardware barely knows that the fuck they are talking about, half of them tried to tell me I needed a 1000w PSU just to have a 570 and an i5.

Again - thinking long-term. It may be outperformed now but ideally in the future when more programs are multithreaded, it would really shine.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;34165114]Again - thinking long-term. It may be outperformed now but ideally in the future when more programs are multithreaded, it would really shine.[/QUOTE] In long term intel will probably have a 6 - 8 core processor for when more programs are multithreaded and then they will have a retardedly stupid 16 core for those who want to spend $1000 on a CPU, the bulldozer isn't going to get better just cause programs will use more threads/cores, And theres no point in having a program need more than 1 - 2 cores for at least the next 3 - 6 years and by then intels processors will get better and soon probably all of intels processors will end up having some form of hyper threading which basically doubles the ammount of cores in a sense.

[QUOTE=Zerokateo;34165170]In long term intel will probably have a 6 - 8 core processor for when more programs are multithreaded and then they will have a retardedly stupid 16 core for those who want to spend $1000 on a CPU, the bulldozer isn't going to get better just cause programs will use more threads/cores, And theres no point in having a program need more than 1 - 2 cores for at least the next 3 - 6 years and by then intels processors will get better and soon probably all of intels processors will end up having some form of hyper threading which basically doubles the ammount of cores in a sense.[/QUOTE] So what are you basing your information on? Everywhere I look I keep seeing "It doesn't benchmark well but performs well when doing real-world tasks."

[QUOTE=Protocol7;34165206]So what are you basing your information on? Everywhere I look I keep seeing "It doesn't benchmark well but performs well when doing real-world tasks."[/QUOTE] Well that's completely wrong, because sites like Bit-Tech use real programs for benchmarks that reflect real world performance and bulldozer was still slow. The only people who say it performs well in real world tests are people suffering from buyers remorse because they're stuck with it. [editline]11th January 2012[/editline] [quote]I'm thinking long-term - as 8 cores should last me well over 6-7 years before something fantastic comes out then. Although I am unsure if AMD has any serious plans to continue their desktop line... in which case, maybe I should get the i5.[/quote] Haha, I don't think any processor will ever last 7-8 years, you'll go mad with how slow it is by that point. It's not even like an 8 core, It's a quad core with 8 threads, and you'll regret buying it because developers aren't going to waste their time making their game take advantage of the 8 threads on AMD's failed CPU line.

[QUOTE=garrynohome;34165351]Well that's completely wrong, because sites like Bit-Tech use real programs for benchmarks that reflect real world performance and bulldozer was still slow. The only people who say it performs well in real world tests are people suffering from buyers remorse because they're stuck with it.[/QUOTE] Because most benchmarking programs base performance off of floating point operations, and Bulldozer has 2 less FPUs than the Phenom II but 2 separate integer cores, so when it comes to programs that aren't heavy on floating point operations it should be theoretically faster. I'm not heavy on gaming anymore either and rather using VMs, SolidWorks, Photoshop, Visual Studio, etc, so, for me, I think Bulldozer would be most cost effective.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;34165435]Because most benchmarking programs base performance off of floating point operations, and Bulldozer has 2 less FPUs than the Phenom II but 2 separate integer cores, so when it comes to programs that aren't heavy on floating point operations it should be theoretically faster. I'm not heavy on gaming anymore either and rather using VMs, SolidWorks, Photoshop, Visual Studio, etc, so, for me, I think Bulldozer would be most cost effective.[/QUOTE] Cost effective? Are you serious? You brought up "long term" earlier in the thread. Here's why this makes no sense. [QUOTE=Protocol7;34165114]Again - thinking long-term. It may be outperformed now but ideally in the future when more programs are multithreaded, it would really shine.[/QUOTE] If you're going to mention long term thinking and cost effectiveness I'll bring up the point that the 8 [b]thread[/b] Bulldozer chips use nearly 50% more power than an i5-2500K and i7-2600K. So really you're thinking short term if you buy a slower processor because it's less money, but lose that savings eventually because of electricity costs. [quote]Because most benchmarking programs base performance off of floating point operations, and Bulldozer has 2 less FPUs than the Phenom II but 2 separate integer cores, so when it comes to programs that aren't heavy on floating point operations it should be theoretically faster.[/quote] Ok I'm done. You're ignoring what I'm saying completely. I say that they used real programs so it's not limited like benchmarking programs, and you just say it's unfair because benchmarking programs focus on FPOs. Go buy and eventually regret your Bulldozer. [url]http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/10/12/amd-fx-8150-review/1[/url] It loses in synthetics, and loses in the real world. All while consuming a lot more electricity. I hope it's worth the initial $100 savings that you will lose from energy costs.

[QUOTE=garrynohome;34165551]Cost effective? Are you serious? You brought up "long term" earlier in the thread. Here's why this makes no sense. If you're going to mention long term thinking and cost effectiveness I'll bring up the point that the 8 [b]thread[/b] Bulldozer chips use nearly 50% more power than an i5-2500K and i7-2600K. So really you're thinking short term if you buy a slower processor because it's less money, but lose that savings eventually because of electricity costs. Ok I'm done. You're ignoring what I'm saying completely. I say that they used real programs so it's not limited like benchmarking programs, and you just say it's unfair because benchmarking programs focus on FPOs. Go buy and eventually regret your Bulldozer. [url]http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/10/12/amd-fx-8150-review/1[/url] It loses in synthetics, and loses in the real world. All while consuming a lot more electricity. I hope it's worth the initial $100 savings that you will lose from energy costs.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/7[/url] I don't know. It seems more useful for what I'm doing and my current processor draws the same amount of power so I wouldn't lose money, moreso than I am already. It only seems to [I]seriously[/I] lack in single-threaded performance and multithreaded performance either is negligibly worse or better. Either way it's still a serious improvement over my current processor. And I'm still not "set" on getting a Bulldozer, I'm just doing a lot of my own research and finding that people are giving it bad flak for things that are not important to me. I just want an upgrade to my processor, that's all. The most CPU intensive game I've ran recently is Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood. If you can find some benchmarks for that, I'll look into the i5, but across a new motherboard + the processor itself, it costs a LOT more upfront than I want. PS: Sorry if I'm coming off a stubborn, I just want to make a *very* informed decision.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;34163979]This can be fixed through a later patch.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.techpowerup.com/158534/New-Windows-7-Bulldozer-Patches-Available..html[/url] [quote]According to the AMD blog these patches seem to offer little more then a 10% boost[/quote]

[QUOTE=reapaninja;34167930][url]http://www.techpowerup.com/158534/New-Windows-7-Bulldozer-Patches-Available..html[/url][/QUOTE] Glad to know it's available, and 10% is pretty substantial. Don't think it fixes the singlethreaded performance though.

10% from being able to make proper use of half of it's cores really doesn't seem like a lot and it won't save it's faults

[QUOTE=reapaninja;34168367]10% from being able to make proper use of half of it's cores really doesn't seem like a lot and it won't save it's faults[/QUOTE] With only the 4 FPUs is it able to address all 8 integer units at the same time for an application?

Just dont get a fucking bulldozer and get an ivy bridge when they come out.

I think that at the beginning of the year, it might be best just to rough through it until we see what the next series of processors are like, price/performance wise.

Looks like if I'm going AMD I'd be better off with the Phenom X6 1100T.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;34170799]Looks like if I'm going AMD I'd be better off with the Phenom X6 1100T.[/QUOTE] Yeah but WHY are you sticking with AMD? As much as I like to be for the underdog, Intel is best at the moment. Sandy bridge is simply better and Ivy Bridge is coming out soon.

[QUOTE=1solidsnake2;34174429]Yeah but WHY are you sticking with AMD? As much as I like to be for the underdog, Intel is best at the moment. Sandy bridge is simply better and Ivy Bridge is coming out soon.[/QUOTE] Less expensive upfront and I don't need raw power.

Holy shit dude a fucking i3 2100 will perform almost as well as an AMD 6 core and its CHEAPER, You're jewing yourself out of a good computer by doing this. ( And I'm jewish so I believe I have to right to saying jewing )

[QUOTE=Zerokateo;34177973]Holy shit dude a fucking i3 2100 will perform almost as well as an AMD 6 core and its CHEAPER, You're jewing yourself out of a good computer by doing this. ( And I'm jewish so I believe I have to right to saying jewing )[/QUOTE] In *single-threaded* applications. I don't use a lot of those. I already have a dual core processor anyway, why would I want to upgrade to another? If I'm gonna upgrade it's gonna be at least a quad core.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;34178000]In *single-threaded* applications. I don't use a lot of those. I already have a dual core processor anyway, why would I want to upgrade to another? If I'm gonna upgrade it's gonna be at least a quad core.[/QUOTE] Because when you get the money for a better processor you can upgrade from the i3 2100 to an i5 2500k or i7 2600k cause they will be using the EXACT same socket, Or an ivy bridge which would be EVEN better.

[QUOTE=Zerokateo;34178358]Because when you get the money for a better processor you can upgrade from the i3 2100 to an i5 2500k or i7 2600k cause they will be using the EXACT same socket, Or an ivy bridge which would be EVEN better.[/QUOTE] So I'm trying to save money and get a processor better suited to my needs - and you're telling me to upgrade to a $100 dual core processor so I can upgrade to another $200 processor later? Solely because the best advantage of the Intel processors is singlethreaded performance, where AMD has always lacked severely.

Why are you guys still trying to convince an AMD fanboy that Intel is better? Stop bumping the thread and let him buy what he wants, it doesn't affect you if his purchase is bad.

Contrary to popular belief, I'm no AMD fanboy, I just don't see the sense in buying an i3 to buy an i5 later. Might as well just buy the i5 for the extra $100 or so. Regardless, the original intent of this thread was to know if the FX-8120 was good for the price of $160. I do plan on overclocking and the benchmarks I keep finding, as well as some of the benchmarks posted in this thread, show that the Bulldozer will have better performance for things that I use often. On the same note the Phenom X6 seems to be hitting the same marks at the same price as the i5, so if Micro Center has that $50 off motherboard with a purchase of an i5 deal, I'll be getting that, because that nets me the same savings as the FX-8120 coupon I have. I'm just trying to find what's the best bang for my buck - I'm a dealhunter, and I like to research my decisions. [editline]12th January 2012[/editline] Looks like I found my $50 motherboard deal: [url]http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/46f4da69#/46f4da69/27[/url] I'll probably be picking up an i5 then.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;34179663]Contrary to popular belief, I'm no AMD fanboy, I just don't see the sense in buying an i3 to buy an i5 later. [B]Might as well just buy the i5 for the extra $100 or so.[/B][/QUOTE] so ... ... ... do?

[QUOTE=:smugspike:;34183432]so ... ... ... do?[/QUOTE] I didn't say I wasn't going to, I was saying he was stupid for telling me to get the i3 so I can get something better later. Especially considering my current CPU is shit. I'd be setting myself up for another early upgrade.

First you wanted a bulldozer, then you were told it was bad, then you wanted the Phenom X6 1100T, which someone then said was worse in comparison to an i3 2100, then you said no, you wanted a quad+ core, so then the i5 was recommended. It still honestly makes perfect sense to me if you were going to get a processor that outperforms your current one, the lowest pricing for best performance available being an i3, no need to get frazzled about it. I think he was just considering the i3 because it seemed your price range was around there, since you were aiming for the bulldozer at around, what, $180 to begin with? [editline]12th January 2012[/editline] Makes perfect sense if you just go through and sequentially reread your own bloody thread. :I