How did the AMD Bulldozer become the Faildozer?

[11Chad]

How has it earned that title?
Heating issues?
Power Consumption?

[Faces of Death]

Because AMD hyped the ♥♥♥♥ out of it and it didn't exactly deliver like they said. So they shot themselves in the foot with that.

That being said, i'm using the 8150 and i couldn't be happier.

*edit* Though for people who aren't satisifed, it's simple to overclock, so as long as you have good cooling you can get some great performance at half the price of other CPUs

[_I_]

they were designed with servers in mind
many vm's or lots of multitasking

most newer games use 2-3 cores, not many will make full use of a quad-oct core systems

when they were released they beat the pants off intel xeon in server settings
but couldnt compete with the i5/i7 for gaming, other than the price

and some pair a 125w cpu with a borad that cant handle it properly overclocked
using a weak power phase on the bord can start it on fire if it isnt cooled properly
or asus, gigabyte and asrock boards know their limit and underclock/undervolt the cpu to save the vrm's
(very few biostar, msi, ecs boards have vrm protection)

the 8150 will be close to the pii x4 965 for most games

[ZeekAncient]

Yea but a there is a lot of games coming out that are making use of more than four cores.

Battefield 3 for one is very multithreaded and makes use of all the cores you have. Benchmarks Ive seen show BF3 loving the 8 cores of the 8150. In fact AMDs x6 and 8 core FX procs perform much better in BF3 than Intel procs. But overall that is almost irrelevant since the game is so GPU intensive, and NOT so much CPU intensive.

While that is just one game, the point is that developers are soon going to be making use of all the cores that CPUs have in upcoming games, so Bulldozer may have some breath left in it. If developers program effectively.

[[☥] - CJ -]

The fact that the 8core isnt even a true 8core?

And all the problems that require a BIOS update or Windows Hotfixes to Fix.

pretty much sums it up.

[Τhe Rolling Cheese Wheel]

I wouldn't want to own anything outside Phenom II from AMD. All their CPU line after Phenom II's are a joke.

[volkov956]

too bad no one has doen any tests on the 8 core and disabling the 4 slave cores and see how IPC is but then again i didnt keep my FX cpu long enough since it was slower then my Phenom 2 in that rig

[ZeekAncient]

Diposting pertama kali oleh The Rolling Cheese:

I wouldn't want to own anything outside Phenom II from AMD. All their CPU line after Phenom II's are a joke.

Diposting pertama kali oleh volkov956:

too bad no one has doen any tests on the 8 core and disabling the 4 slave cores and see how IPC is but then again i didnt keep my FX cpu long enough since it was slower then my Phenom 2 in that rig

Yea I put my Phenom II 1100t on an AM3+ board last year thinking I would upgrade to Bulldozer when it came out. Well to my dismay the FX 8150 came out and performed worse than my 1100t. I love my 1100t but I want to upgrade next year. AMD has nothing better, yet. Piledriver 8350 looks like it might be good, but if it isnt, its off to Intel, which means broken bank :(

I don't think that FX procs are as bad as everyone says. I mean with all the hotfixes and updates, WIndows 8, and all that, it is on par with Phenom II. But the point of a new generation of CPUs is to be better than the last.

FX have their qualities but like everyone says are designed with servers and multithreaded apps in quantity without the cost. Which is actually great for businesses and the like, who want to save money. So in that area Intel can't even really touch AMD. Gaming is a different story though.

[my dude]

All of the above.

[blinnbanir]

The biggest reason in simple terms is integer cores being used as an architecture without a significant increase or lack thereof of deicated Cache for each core individually.

[GRATS]

Diposting pertama kali oleh _I_:

they were designed with servers in mind
many vm's or lots of multitasking

most newer games use 2-3 cores, not many will make full use of a quad-oct core systems

when they were released they beat the pants off intel xeon in server settings
but couldnt compete with the i5/i7 for gaming, other than the price

and some pair a 125w cpu with a borad that cant handle it properly overclocked
using a weak power phase on the bord can start it on fire if it isnt cooled properly
or asus, gigabyte and asrock boards know their limit and underclock/undervolt the cpu to save the vrm's
(very few biostar, msi, ecs boards have vrm protection)

the 8150 will be close to the pii x4 965 for most games

Your first two lines being said, they still under perform less cored intels with server & multitasking & vm's =/

and even AMD's old chips out performed them

[JumpingJack]

Lets not foget people that the difference between Intel & AMD is vast. Just in terms of company size , resources , development, employees, and R&D the differences are huge. Its like comparing a supermarket giant to a corner shop.

Intel will always be the leading CPU manufacturer due purely to the amount of resources and money they can throw at design and development of cpu's. Despite what many think about AMD they do produce very good cpu's & apu's for the price,when all factors are considered.

I own a FX8120 and for me it performs just as i expected and is not a "faildozer" to me. The programs and games i use function perfectly and with ease. Games are smooth and no bottlenecks, and running with professional programs have increased my workflow by more than double.

Does it run hot ? No , it sits at sub 30c most of the time and hovers around 40-45c when under load.

Do i need a Nuclear power station to run it ? No , infact i believe it use's less power than a i5 2500K

Does it deserve it's "faildozer" title ? Yes and No. Yes because it was overhyped to be something it wasn't. And no because, depending on your needs the FX line of cpu's can be an affordable and very effective desktop solution.

Intel might be the biggest fish in the sea, but it is also the most ruthless and i won't support a company that shafts the little guy ( AMD ). FX cpu's can be good but it depneds on what you want to achieve.....

[rotNdude]

It really isn't a faildozer, it just doesn't improve performance in gaming with the Intels when you look at benchmarks clock for clock nor does it do better than their previous architecture. It's a new architecture that hasn't received proper reviews for what it should do best at. The architecture is new with the integer units and it has had problems because of that.

[Dark Lord Satan Visit Your Bum]

Because Intel fanboys have a habit of bashing anything not Intel. Bulldozer has its issues, but it's still a decent CPU.

[Τhe Rolling Cheese Wheel]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Dirtman73:

Because Intel fanboys have a habit of bashing anything not Intel. Bulldozer has its issues, but it's still a decent CPU.

nope :\ http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

The best AMD isn't even in top 10.

What I tell all my friends who build PCs. If you want quality and performance go intel, if you want something to get you by and on a rather tiny budget, go AMD.

AMD was awesome back in the day, but times have changed. Intel is just kicking AMD's butt in the modern era.

[_I_]

explain this
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8150+Eight-Core&id=263