Anybody considering an AMD Bulldozer?

DaMaN · Post by **DaMaN** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:40 pm

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested

The bang for the buck looks good compared to Intel.

Anybody considering it?

Post by **FlyingPenguin** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:54 pm

They were talking about that on last week's This Week In Computer Hardware (TWICH) podcast. Bulldozer has a lot going for it and compared favorably to Intel's i5/i7 products.

A lot depends on what you are doing. For gaming I really don't think you'll see a difference between Bulldozer and i7 for the most part since most games are more dependent on GPU as long as you have a decent CPU under the hood.

If you plan on doing intensive computational work, like transcoding, I think I'd still go Intel.

DaMaN · Post by **DaMaN** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:57 pm

True, I think the Bulldozer would be a hella' good folder though a lot cheaper than an i7. I am still using my Intel Q9550 happily.

wvjohn · Post by **wvjohn** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:01 pm

Review at AT says the I7 totally owns bulldozer - it's got 8 cores, sort of, Win 7 doesn't know how to use them and the clock is lower - just slightly better than their last CPU but not in the same league with Intel right now.

Lmandrake · Post by **Lmandrake** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 10:29 pm

This is the Fuhrer's view:

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/SArxcnpXStE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

DaMaN · Post by **DaMaN** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 10:54 pm

Lmandrake wrote:This is the Fuhrer's view:

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/SArxcnpXStE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I never get tired of those vids....lol

Executioner · Post by **Executioner** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 11:25 pm

I've seen so many of those vids, but where does the original come from? Was it a movie?

DaMaN · Post by **DaMaN** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:30 am

wasn't it from the Valkyrie movie with Tom Cruise?

Post by **FlyingPenguin** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 7:21 am

The movie is "Downfall" from 2005: http://www.amazon.com/Downfall-Hitler-E ... 341&sr=8-1

It's a German film with English subtitles.

Those vids are how a lot of people are discovering the movie, which is why it's funny that the studio tried to have them all pulled.

normalicy · Post by **normalicy** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 10:23 am

Like FP said, you won't notice a tangible difference if you're playing games. The one thing AMD does have going for it is the fact that their motherboards tend to be noticeably cheaper as well. So the package deal makes it more palatable.

Believe it or not, I'm still running and E8400 in my main rig & just can't justify upgrading. Albeit, I have it overclocked to 3.4ghz. The HD 5870 I have keeps my games humming along just fine & I just never have any slowdown on any of the games I play. Even at max settings. So, every time that I consider upgrading to the newest generation CPU/mobo I end up passing because it's money that I could use on stuff that I'd rather have (like a working printer).

b-man1 · Post by **b-man1** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:38 pm

looks like my 1090T and E8500 are safe for a while longer.

ZYFER · Post by **ZYFER** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 8:59 am

Lets be honest, what they hell were they thinking? It is pretty bad when you can't beat your own processors... Yet alone the competition. I mean, they couldn't figure this out from their own testing that it wouldn't even match up? Releasing it with these results is really worse than not releasing it at all, or delaying it further. They probably just lost a good 15% of its customers.

I've been running my E6850 for over four years now. It still does a great job. Though I'd like to bump it up to a quad core, the cost of a Core 2 Quad is as much or more than a new i5, so that isn't happening. I don't understand why people still charge so much for an older CPU, people won't pay that much so it just sits netting them no money at all.

Pugsley · Post by **Pugsley** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:04 pm

You know what.. they are doing things a bit differently... if code were written for it IT would be way faster then other stuff... they are trying to push a change on how computers do things for the better. Now weather or not this catches on has yet to be seen.

What really needs to happen is to get off the X86 platform and on to something new.

CaterpillarAssassin · Post by **CaterpillarAssassin** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 8:34 pm

ZYFER wrote:I've been running my E6850 for over four years now. It still does a great job. Though I'd like to bump it up to a quad core, the cost of a Core 2 Quad is as much or more than a new i5, so that isn't happening. I don't understand why people still charge so much for an older CPU, people won't pay that much so it just sits netting them no money at all.

They keep the prices high because they are not being made anymore. The guy who has a board, ram, etc. who doesn't want to replace everything will buy those older high end CPU's. They are still a little cheaper than the original prices. Same thing goes for DDR3 vs DDR2, or even DDR1.

I am not considering a Bulldozer. I waited for it to come out before purchasing, and I am let down. As much as I feel like they are trying to reinvent the way things are done, I don't want to put my eggs into that basket. Its really quite simple to me. Spend $280 on a bulldozer CPU, or $315 on an i7 2600. The bulldozer is about as fast as my Phenom II 955 x4, except in select tests where it matches an i7. In some tests, it is even slower. The $35 difference is worth it to see much better performance in all areas.

I think I will wait for Ivy Bridge and see how that is before I take the plunge.

ZYFER · Post by **ZYFER** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 10:37 pm

I know that is their justification, but if it doesn't sell it doesn't matter. The price difference is marginal really, and you end up with a newer chipset.

The point to this is that code isn't written for it. Master the existing code and get people to optimize their stuff for you. You think these results will inspire people to apply the effort? If you want people to code for your processor, then you stick it in a game console like the CELL for the PS3.

If you want a platform to mature, it has to be a performer out of the gate. People aren't going to buy with the hope that in the future it will be better. If people do not buy it, it will die off before it has a chance to mature. Ask Intel how well their Itanium worked out. Or did we have to wait for the rest of the world to catch up and code for that one too?

As with many others, I waited and was disappointed. I waited awhile for AMD's offerings before I went with the Core 2 as well. I know they are good at pricing, but most people don't want to buy two computers to make up the difference.