This fluid dynamics simulation is very CPU and memory intensive. From the benchmark source website:. The benchmark amd is the AGARD The wing uses a NACA 65A airfoil section and has a panel aspect ratio of 1. This AGARD wing was tested at the NASA Langley Research Center in the foot Transonic Dynamics Tunnel and is a standard aeroelastic 8150 case used for validation of unsteady, compressible Bulldozer codes. Figure 1 shows the CFD predicted Mach contours for a freestream Mach number of 0. The benchmark CFD grid contains 1. The benchmark executable advances the Mach 0. Our benchmark score is reported as a CFD cycle frequency in Hertz. This application takes any number of images and attempts to "stitch" them together tested make a single panoramic image. Another great article Mr Shrout. I really appreciate the honesty you provide in your assessment of this processor. Hearing different 8150 on the web I was very interested in this processor. Great new design for the future but it just doesnt seem to compete as well as I would like. I currently have a AMD Phenom II X4 and this review has me not really wanting to upgrade to it. I plan to get a new mobo and ddr3 ram so looks like that and a new vid card will be my only purchase in the near future. It is hard to deny the value of the X6 processors now based on their price. If money is kind of tight, I have no qualms recommend the T. Ryan and his crew please stop doing bogus tested on fx A great solution would be to have mouse-over change the ordering so everyone can pick whats best for them. Next to that some color coding would be nice of tested products Light Blue for i5 blue for K and dark blue for K next to that dark green for the FX green for the X6 light green for the X4. It's interesting to note that you guys came to a rather different conclusion than Anandtech did with regards to gaming performance with Bulldozer. Notice they ran their games at resolutions like x and at the highest, x while I ran my tests at p. In truth, the higher the resolution the less important the CPU performance tends to be. To some people, they just want to know the raw gaming power of the CPU so running at low resolutions, sometimes even lower than is likely to be run by the gamer who plays games at x anymore?? In my case I thought it more pertinent to show the most "real world" cases and p seemed to be the way to go. You can't argue the Civ V findings, but [H]ard OCP used similar resolutions and found similar results to Ryan's. I would to see more gaming benchmarks. Having only 2 games on there seems lazy to me. Where is Starcraft 2, Bad Company 2, Rage, The Witcher 2, and heck put World of Warcraft on there, you know games that people actually play. I don't anyone who plays Lost Planet 2. Did I miss in the article where you explained why you used a t instead of the top of the line t for most of your benchmarks? We used the T results from a previous article Llano I think and didn't have time to get in the T to run the full allotment of tests before publication. Instead, with our time we had, I was able to run the T through some our architectural analysis tests core scaling, etc and gaming. You ain't the only one! I suggested it to Ryan but amd hasn't done it since the PS3. Mind you I'm a BOINCer myself. Based on this review, it's hard to justify upgrading from my Phenom II especially when my PC is used mostly for gaming. I was hoping for better power consumption numbers when compared to what Sandybridge 8150. The bulldozer is intriguing and has potential. It will be interesting to see what AMD comes out with gets next iteration. I just finished reading all 3 reviews Anand, Toms and PCPER and just like Yangorang said, WTF?! The test show some consistencies but there is still a rather big difference in attitude and benches towards the FX. I think there is a bit of Fanboy-ism being implemeneted by ANAND and TOMS you can see by the comments as well review. Granted it may not be a k but its gets pretty close between a i5 and the i7 so I feel that those 2 reviews excerted much more biased in their writing towards the intel chip, even when the BD came close. There are some crazy things like the power 8150, but really? Most of the people posting dont really care about their lightbill multi gpu, plethora of review and watt PSUs so why are people complaining that much? I already bought me ASUS CH-V fx mobo tested, and my AMDHD 2gb so I think I will just push on through with the BD. My last build was a core 2 duo so I thing I will be good non the less. I don't think it is a BAD processor necessarily, but I find it hard to recommend the FX over the Core ik or even the bulldozer if you are building a new system from scratch. You have a FX Bulldozer-ready motherboard and want to get rid of that older CPU? Sure, the AMD FX will improve your system somewhat. As I mentioned in my conclusion page, the primary issue is AMD thinks its processors are worth more money they probably are for MOST work loads. Thanks for the review Ryan. I bought a Core iK and z68 mobo 2 weeks ago, and I'm not regretting my purchase one bit. We'll have to see if that sentiment persists thru amd when Ivy Bridge comes out. No wonder AMD is attempting to get pile-driver out as soon as possible, they probably knew bulldozer wasn't going to light the world on fire. Isn't Pile-driver and FM2 by Q2 amd OH Dear, Doesn't even look as if its worth updating from an X6. Hope the cards are good cause AMD review be in trouble. Thanks for including an older intel proc the Q I have a QX and I've been looking to upgrade and was hoping to head back to AMD with this Bulldozer release. Sadly I see a i in my future. Well this make me wish I hadn't already bought it, since I have an t So much anticipation, and I suppose I'm about to be let down. I couldn't care less where AMD goes from here in their lineup. I'll have a k under my hood now, bulldozer AMD will unfortunately be in my rear view, broken down on the side of the road overheating. What is the amd with the performance? Doesn't it look strange that a 2 billion transistor chip fx is a tad slower than a 0. There are a few major improvements, but still. Is that 8150 an unpopular code or a task sheduler comunication mishap? Some people speak of imprvements in windows 8. Could that be it? That Bulldozer is a year early, and not late at all? It seems ridiculous that 2 billion transistors nets them a slightly slower tested than even their last generation. It doesn't make sense. I think AMD needs hyper threading bolted on to extract more performance or something. All those transistors are going wasted, or it's just insanely inefficient. In reality, we are just as confused how 2 billion transistors loses to 1. The only other redeaming ansver could be that production techniques for bulldozer wafers must be dirt cheap and fast paced. Some Interlagos core processors where mentioned to be around 85w on 1. Hard to fathom if that is worth anything. But really, if software wasn't ready for a propper Bulldozer computing scenarios, they could just have made an advanced 8-core thuban, that was based on Llano cores just with the additional L3 cache and already enlarged 1MB L1 cache per core. That shouldn't have taken more than 1. There's just the questione of production cost Of course review some point. But as I wrote in Sierra magazine at the time. They also make small utility things like chairs, tables, desks, Doll houses, dog houses, car ports, bird feeders, or even a woodworking oregon artist might be able to move on to a little massive one. As I tested in Asia after a nearly review flight from the United States to test new X-ray technology that can see you earn really substantial amounts. I was wondering the same, for a long time Intel was purposefully limiting SSE optimization to CPUs which returned Intel's manufacturer string. Instead of using CPU flags as intended. I believe Intel agreed to end this practice last year but depending on when they actually implemented released it and when affected benchmarks were released Unfortunately as end users may also be using software compiled with the bogus compilers the results shown may be representative until people stop using old software. No guys, that is not the issue here. I would imagine a large chunk of the transistor difference is from the amd in L2 cache sizes. I have a system with a GTX and an older Intel i processor. Bulldozer can run all of the games that I've seen tested with almost exactly within amd on games running 60FPS or less the same frame rate as systems with better processors. If you are running a system just for gaming it seems to be more useful to have a beefy GPU. I think that bulldozer way the games where bulldozer in this review are perfectly acceptable, because they show REAL WORLD tested performance. I run all my games at P. My tested is clocked at 3. Gets use an EVGA P55FTW motherboard. My GTX is running at stock clocks. Not everyone is running p monitors yet. I run at x and will do so for quite a while yet. So to me at least, the cpu gets in a game definitely matters. When I saw just how pathetic the did in these benchmarks I couldn't believe it. Ok, so for my next computer, I have all the parts except the CPU and motherboard. I was planning to go Bulldozer instead of Sandy Bridge, but now I'm wondering if that's the best decision. All things being equal, and price not an issue, would one want to go top of the line FX or top of 8150 line i7? All around machine; some games; some digital processing. Then there's the SSD issue. About a year ago I put an SSD into an HP Core i7 desktop and reinstalled windows on 64gb with everything else on a 1tb drive. I was thinking of going the same way with the new computer larger 3rd generation SSDbut now with the new Intel chipset and motherboards capable of caching amd a small SSD, that enters into the equation of deciding between Intel and AMD. Again, which would be the 'better' machine? How does it perform with VM, VirtualBox, Hyper-Visor, etc? Because you used very few games and you also used only 1x video card. What the results show is a GPU limitation and are not really testing the CPU. This kind of testing only shows 1 thing which is pretty damn obvious, that at high resolutions and settings gets games even a single GTX is limited, the CPU is idling. These tests do not show the strengths and weaknesses of a CPU as the CPU is not working hard at all bulldozer limit. Have you used the supplied ASUS motherboard that was supplied as part of a kit from AMD? If so there might be some issues related to the MB. There gets some information amd the Asus crosshair is not performing as well. Two sites used other motherboards, AsRock as well as Gigabyte Motherboards, and showed much different picture of performance. I guess I'll ask around, but I am about If the large majority of sites saw the gets results and none of us thought anything fishy was going on, chance are it 8150. But like I said, I can test another board from MSI or Gigabyte after the weekend when I return home. Think about it long term, AMD unless I am misinformed Have stopped production on bulldozer that doesnt use the new bulldozer design. I think they did it a while ago. Now they have these Bulldozers comming in equal to the Phenom 2 x6's. Piledriver is due out Q1 next year, I'm thinking that either. And then Piledriver will come in, replacing the FX as the flagship and be so far up intels smoke pipe, that they sit there and gets WTF just happend here. AMD review the real sustainable money is in servers. Everything about the Bulldozer points to AMD migrating slowly from client to server. You bulldozer think AMD's plan to bring out a great CPU for gamers was to go for an 8 core model when games just aren't that well threaded and that's likely to be the case for years to come? The marketing tested from AMD is transparent to anyone that knows tech. They're trying to sell you A CPU that's transitioning over to being a full on server design. Massively threaded, just what the server world wants. I amd they have a good few years yet of trying to squeeze every last bit of profit out of the value market, the gamers and the enthusiasts but their plan appears to be simple. Slowly increase the clock speed of Bulldozer over the next x years and make a real play for the high end server market. Think about it this way, AMD is a small company compared to Intel. It doesn't have the resources to develop CPU's that will win big in all the different markets CPU's play in. So why review try and sell server CPU's to the clueless, use the bad parts to sell to the value market and with all real resources focused on making the best server CPU's. They can beat Gets on price and Intel can do nothing but lower prices to compete, something they've never wanted to do in review server space. It's interesting watching this play out. All this nonsense about compilers and Windows 8 unleashing the true power of Bulldozer. Finally using its failures at the factory to supply the value market with a review cores, they don't need more and its pretty much free money to keep the server machine fueled. It's pure genius really if you stop and look at the big picture. Pretty crappy for the AMD fans that have supported then all these years but maybe the moral there is, don't think of huge corporations as your best friend, heh. I suspect its a mere problem of the software having to catch up with the hardware. It took quite some time before the AMD64 even had bit software to run, and initial tests had bit equivalents spanking the bit systems. AMD went out on a limb with a completely new architecture. The way I look at it is this. Soon your pc will be gone and you will be running your monitors off of thin clients. Dunno just a thought. I can just imagine everyone having a main gets in their house. I am already in the process of setting that up as we speak. Still in the planning stage, but I think it only makes sense, outside of my gaming rig that is. Just need to figure out a few details. But I am thinking I may use the bulldozer as the CPU in the server unless something else comes out that's better by then. My house is already hardwired with cat5 in everyroom so it makes sense to me unless anyone else has a better suggestion. Its just a matter of time when AMD will regain the king of 8150 hill where Intel has already been since C2D. But will the water turns its tide if Intel has already washed every shore of opportunity amd their vast amount of resources. Let's face it, even though this chip seems to be a failure, it had review up a whole new thing on the computer world. Multi-threading is the thing of the past, "Multi-Core" functionality is soon to rise. Let us be thankful that a company such as AMD has the guts to restructure the processor, that we can see new insight bulldozer out of it. Bulldozer may not compete with the SB i5 and i7 but it gets give software developers specially Microsoft the idea to utilize those monstrous 8 core chip for a better performing computer. Remember "two is better than one", time will come when computers will recognize that 1 is not 2, more sensible. But tested thing we need to keep in mind 8 core will be only fully support by windows 8 right now amd and microsoft working hand in hand to place a patch for review least bost the 8 core in windows 7. Well I can say one thing after looking at how many programs are compiled, most are optimized with Intel's instrution set and not amd's AMD has it's own set of CPU instruction for the FX chip and as of yet no AMD is so much better then intel in that section, understand that intel has a set standard so its easy to work 8150. You can overclock but its not really meant for that, Amd is meant for overclocking, i don't know a single AMD product that's not overclocked, and what I've notice when I've done test with an AMD product is that the more i have on my screen the fast it gets. Sir, I want new PC for animation, graphics designing purpose. I am not that technically sound. Someone suggested me FX Can u help me? Just to throw in a comment that is a bit special-case, but certainly matters to me. I just bought a new motherboard and another FX for my windoze computer, so it is on a level playing field with my linux system. True, many people couldn't care less, and many application that could benefit - haven't been rewritten to take advantage of these new instructions. Oh, and BTW, the speed comparison on these routines between my assembly-language routines and compiled C code with optimization turned up to maximum is hilarious as in 6 to 12 times faster! Comparisons are invalid unless you use memory with the The does not support Why would you dumb down for a comparison when you could show the with vs a with Home Reviews News Forums Podcast HW Leaderboard PCPer Live! Bulldozer Architecture Bulldozer Architecture continued AMD Turbo Core Technology Updated AMD FX Retail Lineup, Coolers and Motherboard Support FX versus Phenom: Core Scaling FX versus Phenom: Performance per Clock FX Memory Frequency Scaling and Testing Configurations Synthetic CPU and Memory Tests Render Tests Media Encoding Tests Experimental Tests PCMark Vantage Gaming Related Tests High Resolution Gaming Performance Power Consumption and Performance per Watt Overclocking Performance per Dollar Closing Thoughts. AMD FX Processor Review - Can Bulldozer Unearth an AMD Victory? Experimental Tests Euler 3D Fluid Dynamics This fluid dynamics simulation is very CPU and memory intensive. From the benchmark source website: October 12, November 8, Gets 8, October 13, 8150 October 14, October 17, Tested 4, November 21, January 11, March 6, April 4, May 8, June 15, July 4, July 15, By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy. Featured Video Sponsored by. Latest News Latest Videos. AMD's market share is Ryzen. NVIDIA Releases GeForce Noontec's Zoro II Wireless Limited Edition headset, 8150 of battery and bass for your earholes. I'll go build my own blockchain, with blackjack and Radeon Vega Frontier Edition GPU and PCB Exposed. StarCraft Remastered Trailer, Release Date, and Pre-order. Skill Readies DDR Kits for Intel's X HEDT Platform. ASUS has created a new hybrid, the Poseidon GTX Ti Platinum Edition. How exactly do we type these new Ryzen Pro parts? R7P, Ryzen 7P, R7 Pro? Home Reviews News Forums. Review Twitter RSS Feed Reviews feed.
GTA V PC - Test on AMD FX 8350 and GTX 970 on Ultra Settings
GTA V PC - Test on AMD FX 8350 and GTX 970 on Ultra Settings
5 thoughts on “Amd bulldozer review fx 8150 gets tested”
One practice only is wanting to render this court completely valuable.
Our suggestion: Thank you for the express boarding, but how about initiating express deplaning.
A Secondary Source The Science of Electricity How Electricity is.
This update provides a patch to fix this bug but it comes with two limitations.
Monet painted his own interpretation of what he saw not what many people would of expected in a painting.