AMD Bulldozer FX 8150p vs Intel i7-2600k for gaming

Who knows. I believe PCTuning is something to do with Obrovsky (OBR) - who recently suckered more than a few web sites with false Bulldozer benchmarks.

I kind of thought that the limited turbo on some of these parts was down to the power envelope/cooling. CPU speed rarely, if ever, comes free:


136 watts is probably pushing it a bit if your presenting your user with a stock AMD heatsink.

I've not the foggiest idea, but I have learned to look for things like this;

well B1 was rejected, we know this as there is a B2. and 2) if they tested the B2 stepping, why are they posting this? 3) I trust OBR as far as I can throw them. He has an ax to grind as I understand over some Radeon 6000 chips he was diss'd over.

This would be a non-starter in my book.

OK ,thanks a lot for you , red1776 and dividebyzero , now i will go to sleep , it is about 3:00 AM
in my country , see you later

and then some. i think that CPUZ stops at 136W. my 1100T is pushing 180w and my CPUZ reads: 136W oddly enough. This one might get the alleged Antec WC loop with it


See ya SKY, don't order anything just yet

8 x AA and loads of eye-candy will help load up the CPU. Triple channel memory running on tighter timings will most certainly come into play - much the same reason as the AvP @ 8xAA favours the X58 in the OC3D link I put up.

I don't think referencing a dubious three-month old "test" on an ES of a CPU that has since had a revision/respin is going to all that productive cionsidering we are 3-4 days away from getting the retail part reviews.

Not sure about that.
Some Ukrainian overclockers managed to buy a retail 8120 from their local tech store (Fixer?). CPU-Z reports the 8120 as 8130P unless you have the newest version (1.58.7 - gone out to reviewers in the last few days)
****image pulled from original site*****
Even if CPU-Z stopped at 136w, that would imply that the CPU is 136w minimum...maybe not so good

Not too sure about their system time !!!

mine has been stuck @ 136w for quite a few revisions, but I don't have the .7 rev.
That is odd, probably a new install with no updates i think or BD has in fact been laying around for three years!:haha:

You probably need to be on the reviewers list to get 1.58.7. Likewise these Ukrainian guys aren't reviewers so are probably stuck with the public BIOS downloads and not being emailed upgraded microcode - least I hope thats the reason I'm seeing Cinebench and AIDA memory benchmarks that suck donkey *****....if it isn't then I wouldn't be surprised to see Intel raise SB prices!*

(* Skystar will probably blame us for having to pay extra after putting off his theoretical purchase)

:haha: why is it always the guy "rocking" an Athlon II and a gt 9600 that is always gearing up for the top of the line beast?

Hope this isn't representative of the final performance. Lab501's "preview"

(FX-8150 percentages versus 2600K)
Handbrake -1.75%
IrfanView (graphics editing) -33.8%
Cinebench 11.5 -15%
AIDA 1.80 Memory (Read) -39%
AIDA 1.80 Memory (Write) -80%
AIDA 1.80 Memory (Copy) -17.5%
AIDA 1.80 Memory (Latency) -13.7%
AIDA 1.80 CPU (Photoworxx) -28.8%
AIDA 1.80 CPU (Sin/Julia) -78%
WPrime 32M -20%
3DMark11 -6.3%
3DMark11 (CPU Physics) -32.2%
Unigine Heaven 2.1 -7%
Resident Evil 5 -46.4%
H.A.W.X. -50.3%
SuperPi of course is much much worse

One consolation is that they did get it to 5G...



Well, I hope the news gets better from here on out

So whats your take on this? if this were true, they cant be releasing this. ( i know nothing of Lab 501)

nice , i have an (Athlon II and a gt 9600)=(old hardware) , but that doesn't mean that
I am not interested in the latest tech

:haha: I know SKY, I looked it up. just 'razz'in' ya, don't take offense. it's just fairly typical of someone taking a two generation leap to try and draw a concrete conclusion before the bits are released.

no problem :grinthumb

Their reviews are pretty much spot on, or have been in the past- which is the worrying aspect.
The Asus BIOS (9905) is the latest available and should be the BIOS that reviewers are using for benching now. Everything else in the reviews reads OK. Quality components, fast RAM, standard synthetic tests. Would have liked to see what the CPU's could do in a fully loaded gaming situation (i.e. late game Civ 5 or one of the Total War series)- I'm guessing that other reviews will cater for that as well as a raft of other apps.

Kind of wondering how they evaded the NDA...unless they didn't sign one and sourced a retail part, and Asus sent them the BIOS regardless.

If this is indicative of actual performance then I think you could assume a number of things;
1. The AMD BoD are mental defectives
2. Rory Read was put in charge to drive AMD's share price into the ground
3. AMD's guerrilla marketing/PR strategy would probably rank as the biggest ongoing FUD campaign in living memory
4. Don't list your Phenom II on eBay
5. AMD fanboys should be kept away from sharp objects and dangerous substances.

This close to launch I cannot believe that AMD is still playing some hide-the-true-potential-of-BD as some kind of strategy against Intel - believe it or not, this is the premise that most of the AMD-centric forums are clinging to; that AMD is deliberately seeding bad CPU's and bogus bad benchmarks as some kind of double-bluff and the TRUE potential of BD will be unmasked on the 12th.

Here's the Lab501 reviewers Q&A. Seems pretty unequivocal. If the quote about AMD calling reviewers and going into damage limitation mode is correct then that would imply that AMD haven't really tested their own CPU. Are funds so tight at AMD R&D that they cant afford to pull a Phenom II off the production line and pop for a 2600K/Z68 setup to test against???

Hard to believe this isn't some very early April Fool's prank.

:haha:
It is almost inconceivable that this is what is going to be released. It crossed my mind about the NDA. weather they signed one or not, they are on the permanent 'do not send' list at any rate. If they got stiffed on the review pak, that would explain it. Either that, or this thing is awfully good at something. Something is bizarre here, the Lens2, and WCCF's who post anything with 'Bulldozer' in the heading and posting on the hour are not picking up on it. Or 3, there will be another delay on Monday.
....or John Fruehe has lost his damn mind.

I think it is ( he said while specifically not pre-ordering) the damage created by releasing this chip in that alleged condition is so undeniably monstrous compared to just delaying, even until Vishera/piledriver, (or another respin) its just not possible that this fact got by the entire corporation of AMD.

...Meanwhile on a street in Melbourne, Steve is looking in on this thread and snickering for one reason or the other....:haha:

Apparently the AIDA version (1.80) used in the Lab501 review doesn't support BD according to a member over at Anand's forums (w/links)...so not all bad news!

And with that, I'll be signing off for the night. Rugby World Cup quarter-finals are in the history books (as is my char-grilled scallops and tiger prawns in cider and calvados beurre blanc for eight) and I'm still not halfway through my Guinness allotment for the night -my guests keep wondering why I keep sneaking off to be with the computer ( non-tech people - wouldn't know Bulldozer from Tonka toy) nytol

Great!...I'm eating popcorn, definitely not cool Chef!:haha:
I suspect the whole thing is related to that. I think 501 got stiffed, and this is their parting shot. I have noticed that nobody has picked up on the story (or posted/linked it).

Sorry about that chief- I forgot about dining habits in the U.S. - hope you're using real butter.

Not too sure how the Lab501 scene plays out. Most sites would have their own reviews in the works so I doubt that they would comment on someone elses...I'd also suspect that commenting on it would also break NDA (as would discussing the NDA itself). Add in the fact that it's still the weekend in most of the world- and most sites don't add content and I wouldn't be too sure about non-comment equalling bs story.

I think most sites will steer well clear of this "preview", and likely any others that pop up between now and when NDA lifts...and afterwards it wont matter, you'll be able to either add them to the Unreliable/Shill category, or.....

What is interesting is that a guy from Nordic Hardware was very quick to debunk the "AMD has a super secret AGESA/Microcode that it wont release to reviewers until the 12th" scenario that is being propogated at XS forums (amongst others -TPU, Anand, S|A)

The reviewer -Monstru, as I noted earlier has a good pedigree. Their earlier graphics cards reviews were top notch...and here's a picture to go along with the name ( winning the MSI Overclocking 2011 title)

Maybe there's one hell of a BIOS or Win7 patch in the works, but somehow I can't see it being in effect in time for reviews to take note unless it's a hurried footnote/edit to the main review. At this stage its either:
1. AMD playing it's cards incredibly close to its chest for no apparent reason other than to p1ss off reviewers (I really don't think any level of performance is going to alter Intel's pricing unless AMD has many, many millions of these chips ready for retail)
2. AMD are releasing a product with half-as*ed support -which we know just doesn't happen, right?

Either way, performance has a loooooong way to go before it matches up with AMD's marketing:



BTW: This thread seems to have garnered five times the page views that the Weekend Open Forum thread has - not bad for a speculative conversation.

...of course.
It looks like an all or none proposition. while my $250-300 isn't going anywhere until the NDA comes off. it is inconceivable to me that they are advertising the above, and releasing something that under performing to the under performing previous generation. I guess to believe that this is what this release is and or this review, you have to believe that...
1) Amd is releasing a CPU line that is much slower than it's predecessor...
2) A site that was obviously was not invited to the party (review sample kit) just happen to 'accidentally get sent a 8150p (in lieu of what? i would like to know)
3) AMD is actually calling reviewers to find out what the results are because they couldn't afford or get their hands on i2600k platform. (Lab501 forum you linked)
4) Disregarded the NDA (even if they didn't sign one) but cared enough to black out the SKU/model #, and by the way, isn't the Stepping under that box as well? (Lab501 review)
5) didn't know that V1.80 of AIDA64 does not support BD (Annandtech you linked)
6) The decision to release a horrendous disaster got cleared/by the entire AMD Corporation, new CEO, Marketing director and all.
6a) somehow came to the conclusion that releasing this and exposing the sub (way underground) performance was a better idea than simply adding an additional 5 month delay to the already 3 year stall.
you get the idea.
BTW...the blueish pixels on the guys thumb look suspiciously like extra pixels from a lasso procedure...:haha::evil: okay, thats a bit Jesse Ventura.
I did wonder as they shipped the review sample kits with CVF if the update is included with it, and not the 'accidentally' shipped 8150P L5 got.
I have been itching to see what the full potential of 4x OC'ed 6950's can do. I am buying a CPU on the 12th and if its actually this , then a i2600K it is.I have supported AMD over the years when they had a PP advantage, and even while it evaporated and became a mythical tag-line for fan-boys, but if this is actually representational of the one they would like to ship to my door, that will put a wrap on the AMD era for me. but i find it just short of impossible to believe the set of circumstances and epically bad (and I don't throw that word around like some) decision making that would have to come together for the 'Lab501 chip' to make it to market.

and no participation...interesting. I guess a lot of TS'ers like to watch:evil: