# New FX-8120 Bulldozer Pics & Benches hopefully in the next couple of hours!



## rubicsphere

So this is a friends build? Interested nonetheless. What mobo is being used?


----------



## matty0610

Who tagged it golden shower like the other thread? Also you need a source. The pics are hosted off a Russian photo bucket.


----------



## Kantastic

Test some popular games on top of synthetic benchmarks please.


----------



## MeQuerSat

One bench I'm very interested in is a x264 encode.
I could put up a test-video and the settings to do the encode.

Would be very appreciated.

*UPDATE: I put a x264-bench together, all you have to do is double-click "run_test.bat" and post the last line or screenshot (time/fps). Here is the link: http://www.mediafire.com/?ofnxcbpoy9hen9m

PS: It will only take ~2 minutes.*


----------



## Setzer

Golden shower, oh lol....
Source? XD


----------



## black96ws6

Getting closer!


----------



## matty0610

Why do i get the feeling this is gonna be one of those things where they show you a really sexy female and then all of a sudden BAM! Its a tranny.


----------



## el gappo

What's that psu? I'm scured.


----------



## Faint

Well, let's hope for the best.

Although, I do have to say that that motherboard is quite the looker.


----------



## IcyPimpHand

How did he get one?


----------



## matty0610

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *el gappo;15237067*
> What's that psu? I'm scured.


YEa it doesn't look all that great. Also el gappo. You better win that bulldozer challenge. I put down $250 on you.


----------



## Shame486

I'm pretty sure that RAM is wrongly set. Each stick should go to blue and blue instead of black and blue.


----------



## dave12

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *el gappo;15237067*
> What's that psu? I'm scured.


Scured of what I thought all SS's were good?


----------



## redhat_ownage

thats a sad looking psu


----------



## Dmac73

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *el gappo;15237067*
> What's that psu? I'm scured.


Seasonic


----------



## Don Karnage

Black what memory is the tester going to run? DDR3 1600? 1866? Get all his specs so i can run similar benchmarks with my 2500K to compare


----------



## rubicsphere

This will be the first time I see a BD on an 8 series mobo. Should be interesting.


----------



## Kantastic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *el gappo;15237067*
> What's that psu? I'm scured.


A Seasonic build.


----------



## Dranx

Where is the source? Or is this a friend and you are taking/posting the pics yourself?


----------



## matty0610

It looks like the board he is using is this.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131754


----------



## black96ws6

Definitely not mine! Source is someone else went down to that Ukraine store and picked one up to end all this speculation!

Of course, we all know that won't really happen until after official launch


----------



## matty0610

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shame486;15237086*
> I'm pretty sure that RAM is wrongly set. Each stick should go to blue and blue instead of black and blue.


It doesn't look like he can fit in the first slot cause of the cooler.


----------



## Cyclonic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rubicsphere;15237114*
> This will be the first time I see a BD on an 8 series mobo. Should be interesting.


Its not an 8 serie mobo, its the 990x evo board.


----------



## matty0610

black96ws6 update the first post with the type of mobo he is using. I'm assuming I'm right in my identification


----------



## 996gt2

Btw, do you have the original link to the source?

Btw the motherboard is an *Asus M5A99X EVO*

http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/AMD_AM3Plus/M5A99X_EVO/


----------



## linkin93

What a derpy cooler setup. Noob doesn't know how to change the mounting thingy


----------



## rubicsphere

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyclonic;15237154*
> Its not an 8 serie mobo, its the 990x evo board.


Woops. Is there a new BIOS for these boards? ie. BD optimized


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rubicsphere;15237114*
> This will be the first time I see a BD on an 8 series mobo. Should be interesting.


It's not an 8 series board though...


----------



## linkin93

Oh and the PSU is a seasonic in case you guys can't tell


----------



## 996gt2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GuardianDuo;15237196*
> Over 80 now.
> 
> And what is this "ALASKA" cooler with "REAL BREATHING EFFECT"?


*GlacialTech Alaska
*










http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/coolers/display/glacialtech-alaska.html


----------



## 996gt2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fuell;15237215*
> Then START the news thread in 30 mins... or when theres actually news. To start a thread in the news section to announce "news is coming soon" is silly...


It's already in the Rumors section, chill out. Benches will be up soon enough


----------



## rubicsphere

No SSD either this Windows install is gonna take 4ever


----------



## black96ws6

I edited the thread title since that seemed to bother some


----------



## matty0610

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rubicsphere;15237231*
> No SSD either this Windows install is gonna take 4ever


Paitence young padawan.


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rubicsphere;15237231*
> No SSD either this Windows install is gonna take 4ever


lol


----------



## Cyclonic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *black96ws6;15237252*
> I edited the thread title since that seemed to bother some


Dont test crap like PI or something plz, Bf3 low rez testing plz.


----------



## Dmac73

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyclonic;15237274*
> Dont test crap like PI or something plz, Bf3 low rez testing plz.


Worst then PH2


----------



## Lex Luger

3d mark 06 cpu score would nice to know


----------



## Sickened1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyclonic;15237274*
> Dont test crap like PI or something plz, Bf3 low rez testing plz.


PI takes a few seconds, why not do it WITH Bf3. Infact, i say try just about everything..


----------



## pengs

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shame486;15237086*
> I'm pretty sure that RAM is wrongly set. Each stick should go to blue and blue instead of black and blue.


Yeah. He's going to end up running the ram in single channel mode. My AM3 M4A78T-E wants them just as the OP has them, but this board actually wants them staggered like an Intel.

@OP - Take a look at chapter 2.2.3 in the manual. You should try to move the left dimm one slot over. Hopefully your heatsink is high enough.


----------



## matty0610

Have him test it exactly like the 2600k


----------



## obsidian86

did you notice the seasonic psu


----------



## dave12

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *redhat_ownage;15237284*
> you mad bro?


You have one and some NDA? I haven't seen any posts or anything.


----------



## rubicsphere

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *matty0610;15237259*
> Paitence young padawan.


I will try. I'm still holding on to that last thread of hope with this guy. And +1 on the 3dM06 CPU score.


----------



## pursuinginsanity

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *el gappo;15237067*
> What's that psu? I'm scured.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *matty0610;15237082*
> YEa it doesn't look all that great. Also el gappo. You better win that bulldozer challenge. I put down $250 on you.


Guys, it's a Seasonic. See the logo?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *obsidian86;15237319*
> did you notice the seasonic psu


Oops. Didn't see your post. It's def a Seasonic though.


----------



## MeQuerSat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MeQuerSat;15237046*
> One bench I'm very interested in is a x264 encode.
> I could put up a test-video and the settings to do the encode.
> 
> Would be very appreciated.
> 
> *UPDATE*: I put a x264-bench together, all you have to do is double-click "run_test.bat" and post the last line (time/fps). Here is the link: http://www.mediafire.com/?dbvaqa5b5cn8bqt
> 
> PS: It will only take 2~3 minutes.


If someone with an i7 2600k @ stock could do that as-well, would be awesome for comparison.

An i5 2500k @ stock is welcome too of-course!


----------



## rubicsphere

8120 is in 2500k price range isn't it? That's a better comparison.


----------



## Dranx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MeQuerSat;15237379*
> If someone with a i7 2600k @ stock could do that as-well, would be awesome for comparison.


I'll test it on a 1090T @ stock, everything else in the system is at stock also.


----------



## pengs

If this guy can get BF3 running before the beta is shut down, I'd like to see people with Thuban X6's, 2500k's and 2600k's compare with him at low res (with a task manager screen showing CPU usage).


----------



## Dmac73

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pengs;15237419*
> If this guy can get BF3 running before the beta is shut down, I'd like to see people with Thuban X6's, 2500k's and 2600k's compare with him at low res (with a task manager screen showing CPU usage).


It's going to be terrible. Low res gaming will probably be BD's biggest downfall. I don't know why you guys want that. And not knocking BD, low res gaming is pointless. Unless you like your modern day games looking terrible.


----------



## Dranx

Completion of the test that was posted before.


----------



## MeQuerSat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dranx;15237468*
> [image]
> 
> Completion of the test that was posted before.


Thank you very much! I'll add it to the results.


----------



## lightsout

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MeQuerSat;15237379*
> If someone with a i7 2600k @ stock could do that as-well, would be awesome for comparison.
> 
> An i5 2500k @ stock is welcome too of-course!


Just for fun I did it with my 2500k at 4.7ghz.

Code:



Code:


encoded 879 frames, 6.97 fps, 8870.73 kb/s


----------



## Redwoodz

any benchmark not showing the actual cpu freq. in the benchmark is useless here.


----------



## MeQuerSat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lightsout;15237500*
> Just for fun I did it with my 2500k at 4.7ghz.
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> encoded 879 frames, 6.97 fps, 8870.73 kb/s


Awesome, more results is always better for comparison!
Thanks.

PS Is that 4700 MHz exactly?


----------



## Faint

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *giver660;15237530*
> It would be cool for those of us that are older than 13 if we could keep it on topic to avoid having the thread locked. I know it's hard for some of you but TRY to have a shred or respect for the OP.


This.


----------



## UbNub

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lightsout;15237500*
> Just for fun I did it with my 2500k at 4.7ghz.
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> encoded 879 frames, 6.97 fps, 8870.73 kb/s


You should try it out on stock. That way we can see stock vs stock assuming they are at stock.


----------



## MeQuerSat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *UbNub;15237546*
> You should try it out on stock. That way we can see stock vs stock assuming they are at stock.


That would help indeed.
The reason why I want to have stock vs stock results is simple: power consumption can be roughly estimated if everything is at stock. (thus performance/watt can be estimated too)


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I'd like to run that bench on my rig at stock but I'm at work... :/


----------



## Scorpion49

Subb'd for results.

I ran that little x264 test on my i5 [email protected], while playing a youtube video and global agenda on my second screen and got 7.02fps 8870.73kb/s

EDIT: find it interesting I got identical kb/s as the other guy a 4700mhz but more FPS.


----------



## Cyclonic

offtopic: Soz guys i just hate people that try to be cool with stuf they dont have.

Ontopic: Come on benchmarks
















Dont let that mem run single channel, bulldozer needs good mem.


----------



## dave12

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Krähe;15237574*
> Waiting for "trusted" site benchies, unfortunately "some guy from the Ukraine" doesn't fall into that category. Interesting though nonetheless.


I disagree. The Ukraine is crammed full of smoking hot chicks, if this guy is screwing around with BD instead of them he must be dead serious about PC Hardware.


----------



## black96ws6

Few more pics:


----------



## Vowels

*mashes f5 repeatedly*

Let's see what BD is capable of


----------



## Wishmaker

I am interested in these benches! ETA??


----------



## MeQuerSat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scorpion49;15237595*
> Subb'd for results.
> 
> I ran that little x264 test on my i5 [email protected], while playing a youtube video and global agenda on my second screen and got 7.02fps 8870.73kb/s
> 
> EDIT: find it interesting I got identical kb/s as the other guy a 4700mhz but more FPS.


The identical kb/s can be explained as you have the same cpu as him (which means same number of threads that x264 uses). The kb/s is the bitrate from the encoded video itself by the way. Only using a different number of threads (like the 6 core AMD Phenom II did) would result in a different bitrate.

The fact that you got more fps on a lower frequency is interesting however.


----------



## dave12

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scorpion49;15237624*
> I just spit coke all over my screen, thanks. Sig'd for awesomeness.










Just shooting for some levity while I wait for the benchs.


----------



## Scorpion49

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MeQuerSat;15237652*
> The identical kb/s can be explained as you have the same cpu as him (which means same number of threads that x264 uses). The kb/s is the bitrate from the encoded video itself by the way. Only using a different number of threads (like the 6 core AMD Phenom II did) would result in a different bitrate.
> 
> The fact that you got more fps on a lower frequency is interesting however.


Makes me wonder if his OC is not as stable as mine? Because I was running a ton of other stuff at the same time. Things that make you go









On topic, that is one fugly rig


----------



## pengs

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *black96ws6;15237636*
> Few more pics:
> 
> snip


You gotta fix the memory man, your going to be running in single channel mode.


----------



## scotty453

kk did the benchmark with my cpu @ 3.52 Ghz athlon II, if the x8 doesn't get double the score of this or time, then the benches are fake.


----------



## matty0610

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pengs;15237722*
> You gotta fix the memory man, your going to be running in single channel mode.


Read the posts. Its not his.


----------



## radaja

looks like he's using gigabyte sata cables on an asus MB,or maybe cheap yellow ukrainian knock off's.
either way i call shennigans on any results that he posts,i will wait for the official reviews that use real red asus sata cables with the CHV before i believe anything about BD


----------



## redhat_ownage

what makes you think this one is gonna be any better than any other results?
every one has been getting the exact same results.


----------



## MeQuerSat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *scotty453;15237731*
> kk did the benchmark with my cpu @ 3.52 Ghz athlon II, if the x8 doesn't get double the score of this or time, then the benches are fake.


Thank you, added.


----------



## xxbassplayerxx

Make sure he has this:

ftp://ftp.cpuid.com/misc/CPUID_AMD_FX_Reviewer_Kit.zip

That way we can get all the correct readings!


----------



## Wishmaker

Does anyone know how long we need to wait for the first results? I imagine the guy who has the rig needs to install Windows


----------



## Don Karnage

Making Hamburger helper and watching this thread. I can wait...


----------



## black96ws6

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Wishmaker;15237647*
> I am interested in these benches! ETA??


It depends on how long it takes Windows to install on a Bulldozer!









And then of course, d/l and installing the benchmarks and running them!

Someone PM'd me that I should put the benchmarks in the 1st post as well so we don't have to go searching for them, I'll definitely do that...


----------



## Buckaroo

Anyone actually tested with something other than an Asus mobo?


----------



## Cyclonic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *redhat_ownage;15237759*
> what makes you think this one is gonna be any better than any other results?
> every one has been getting the exact same results.


Why you even here ? I thought you had 1.

Come on benchies


----------



## MeQuerSat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *black96ws6;15237816*
> It depends on how long it takes Windows to install on a Bulldozer!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then of course, d/l and installing the benchmarks and running them!
> 
> Someone PM'd me that I should put the benchmarks in the 1st post as well so we don't have to go searching for them, I'll definitely do that...


Also don't forget to run the x264 benchmark I made (see first page post of me).
It will only take 2 minutes.


----------



## black96ws6

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxbassplayerxx;15237810*
> Make sure he has this:
> 
> ftp://ftp.cpuid.com/misc/CPUID_AMD_FX_Reviewer_Kit.zip
> 
> That way we can get all the correct readings!


Done, just sent him the link.


----------



## Don Karnage

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *black96ws6;15237816*
> It depends on how long it takes Windows to install on a Bulldozer!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then of course, d/l and installing the benchmarks and running them!
> 
> Someone PM'd me that I should put the benchmarks in the 1st post as well so we don't have to go searching for them, I'll definitely do that...


Put all the benches in the first post IMO along with 2600 and 2500K's with identical settings.


----------



## weebeast

This is going the good way! Can't wait for the results


----------



## GuardianDuo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MeQuerSat;15237768*
> Thank you, added.


Phenom II x4 @ 3.6GHz and 2.8GHz NB, it was like 4.06fps or something.
Sorry, I did it and then closed the window like 15 min ago.


----------



## nicksasa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *black96ws6;15237844*
> Done, just sent him the link.


Told him to fix his mem yet ?


----------



## Elis

He needs to turn the cooler 90 degrees and install the ram in Dual Channel mode or these will be the most pointless benchmarks ever . . . Also he needs to run the memory at the full 1866mhz.

If he can't get the memory in dual channel mode with that cooler, use the stock one just for benching at stock speeds.

Can I recommend a Cinebench run to compare to my X6

PHENOM II X6 @4063 MHz (4.07GHz)
Cinebench
Multi Core: 7.10
Single Core: 1.22

That's with the memory at 1600 9-9-9-24

This should be very interesting . . .


----------



## black96ws6

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MeQuerSat;15237046*
> One bench I'm very interested in is a x264 encode.
> I could put up a test-video and the settings to do the encode.
> 
> Would be very appreciated.
> 
> *UPDATE: I put a x264-bench together, all you have to do is double-click "run_test.bat" and post the last line (time/fps). Here is the link: http://www.mediafire.com/?dbvaqa5b5cn8bqt
> 
> PS: It will only take ~2 minutes.*


I will tell him but I barely know the guy and may be hesitant about clicking on a batch file, but I will definitely send him your link.


----------



## Elis

^ because its interesting and red tape would not help this situation?


----------



## Vispor

I can run any benches with my setup as long as its under 3.8ghz.

Sent from my MB611 using Tapatalk


----------



## scotty453

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Elis;15237871*
> 
> Can I recommend a Cinebench run to compare to my X6
> 
> This should be very interesting . . .


I do not recommend cinebench, it's compiled with the intel compiler or so i've been told.


----------



## MeQuerSat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *black96ws6;15237895*
> I will tell him but I barely know the guy and may be hesitant about clicking on a batch file, but I will definitely send him your link.


5 guys already have ran the test, they can back me up in saying it's a completely harmless batch file.
Thank you for sending him the link though!


----------



## Kvjavs

You should have him bench some games too.


----------



## Devilmaypoop

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *scotty453;15237915*
> I do not recommend cinebench, it's compiled with the intel compiler or so i've been told.


...

Phenom II X6s often beat Intel CPUs in it.


----------



## FLCLimax

request gaming benchmarks.


----------



## black96ws6

Okay guys here is the very latest:

black96ws6
We have two testers till now. First one blood_angel works in the computer store, so has nice hardware assortment. But he is totally non-interested, or just very lazy, cause made a few tests and disappeared.
And the second indicative_manager has quite poor hardware (ASUS M5A99X EVO SATA3 wich has no official support of fx-8120)
Only Gigabyte has updated their bios with official support of FX till now. So we have to wait untill someone tests subj on Gigabyte 990 motherboard.

black96ws6:
Also is it possible to turn the cooler 90 degrees and install the ram in Dual Channel mode?

Unfortunately no.
Only if using box cpu cooler, or 2gb kit with no radiators on it


----------



## scotty453

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Devilmaypoop;15237942*
> ...
> 
> Phenom II X6s often beat Intel CPUs in it.


Yeah, but in cinebench11.5 the results are way off what people would expect. (it's that one that has all these "revolutionary" intel technologies.)


----------



## Papas

Anyone else willing to bet that atleast one of the guests looking at this thread work for amd?


----------



## nicksasa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *black96ws6;15237961*
> Okay guys here is the very latest:
> 
> black96ws6
> We have two testers till now. First one blood_angel works in the computer store, so has nice hardware assortment. But he is totally non-interested, or just very lazy, cause made a few tests and disappeared.
> And the second indicative_manager has quite poor hardware (ASUS M5A99X EVO SATA3 wich has no official support of fx-8120)
> Only Gigabyte has updated their bios with official support of FX till now. So we have to wait untill someone tests subj on Gigabyte 990 motherboard.
> 
> black96ws6:
> Also is it possible to turn the cooler 90 degrees and install the ram in Dual Channel mode?
> 
> Unfortunately no.
> Only if using box cpu cooler, or 2gb kit with no radiators on it


Use the box cooler for stock tests and then the 2gb kit to look for a decent air cooling overclock.


----------



## Devilmaypoop

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *scotty453;15237965*
> Yeah, but in cinebench11.5 the results are way off what people would expect. (it's that one that has all these "revolutionary" intel technologies.)


Either Cinebench can't fully utilize Bulldozer, or Bulldozer does not perform.


----------



## Transhour

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MeQuerSat;15237046*
> One bench I'm very interested in is a x264 encode.
> I could put up a test-video and the settings to do the encode.
> 
> Would be very appreciated.
> 
> *UPDATE: I put a x264-bench together, all you have to do is double-click "run_test.bat" and post the last line (time/fps). Here is the link: http://www.mediafire.com/?dbvaqa5b5cn8bqt
> 
> PS: It will only take ~2 minutes.*


i ran your little test on a 2.53ghz xeon 3440 (i7-860'ish nehalem) with HT enabled.

encoded 879 frames, 4.47 fps, 8879.09 kb/s

and with HT disabled:

encoded 879 frames, 3.67 fps, 8870.73 kb/s


----------



## Heavy MG

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Papas;15237980*
> Anyone else willing to bet that atleast one of the guests looking at this thread work for amd?


Out of 116 guests,who knows.


----------



## Arni90

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *scotty453;15237965*
> Yeah, but in cinebench11.5 the results are way off what people would expect. (it's that one that has all these "revolutionary" intel technologies.)


Uh, what?
Sandy Bridge review CB11.5
i5-750 matches the 975 BE in single-thread because of turbo and gets beaten in multi-thread.
2600k > 1090T > 2500k

I really don't see how Cinebench is skewed either way.


----------



## Cyrious

just ran that h264 test that was posted earlier in the thread, this is the result


----------



## black96ws6

Hmmn, they are trying to decide who to give access too, and it's getting late there (I think it's after midnight).

Here is what I asked, and the answer afterwards.
Quote:


> *bonya, do you have an estimate of how long it will be before we see some benchmarks? I'm assuming he has to install Windows, then download the benchmarking software and run it?*
> 
> Problem that owner still do not dicide who will hawe remote acess to computer. So maybe you will see results only tommorow ^ ^


I hope they do not quit for the night!


----------



## black96ws6

Here is the link, I have to go eat lunch now (I'm starving), I'll try to get back in 15 minutes or so and see where they're at...

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&twu=1&u=http://forum.overclockers.ua/viewtopic.php%3Ff%3D2%26t%3D42451%26sid%3De46b280c567603888e03c71eb36de587%26start%3D700&usg=ALkJrhjx_lzngtDnFlCLdVfg3c6_RWyzFg


----------



## theamdman

i want one....damn...


----------



## Evtron

Hope it's not as slow as your LS1


----------



## nicksasa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MeQuerSat;15237046*
> One bench I'm very interested in is a x264 encode.
> I could put up a test-video and the settings to do the encode.
> 
> Would be very appreciated.
> 
> *UPDATE: I put a x264-bench together, all you have to do is double-click "run_test.bat" and post the last line (time/fps). Here is the link: http://www.mediafire.com/?dbvaqa5b5cn8bqt
> 
> PS: It will only take ~2 minutes.*


----------



## MeQuerSat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyrious;15238116*
> just ran that h264 test that was posted earlier in the thread, this is the result


That was at 3250 MHz?
Thanks for doing the test, it's added.


----------



## Djmatrix32

If my understanding is correct most software will not use all cores even on 6 core cpus.


----------



## Cyrious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MeQuerSat;15238203*
> That was at 3250 MHz?
> Thanks for doing the test, it's added.


yep. If this board actually worked in getting my chip to 4ghz stable, i would re-set my memory for that and burn it at that speed.


----------



## mad0314

Heres another run of that test. Sig rig at stock speeds.


----------



## BallaTheFeared

If he decides to OC, here are my results at *5.2GHz*


----------



## Arni90

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MeQuerSat;15238203*
> That was at 3250 MHz?
> Thanks for doing the test, it's added.











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Djmatrix32;15238244*
> If my understanding is correct most software will not use all cores even on 6 4 core cpus.


Fixed it for you.


----------



## black96ws6

DUH! They gave me remote access!

Okay guys, wish me luck, looks like I'm the one doing the benchmarking!


----------



## dave12

If DH just posted their "official" review of the chip, wouldn't that suggest that the NDA period is over?


----------



## Don Karnage




----------



## Sickened1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *black96ws6;15238352*
> DUH! They gave me remote access!
> 
> Okay guys, wish me luck, looks like I'm the one doing the benchmarking!


Lets see it. Can you give us a CPU-Z shot with notepad?


----------



## dave12

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *black96ws6;15238352*
> DUH! They gave me remote access!
> 
> Okay guys, wish me luck, looks like I'm the one doing the benchmarking!


Win the game for OCN!


----------



## Bi2on

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *black96ws6;15238352*
> DUH! They gave me remote access!
> 
> Okay guys, wish me luck, looks like I'm the one doing the benchmarking!


----------



## matty0610

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *black96ws6;15238352*
> DUH! They gave me remote access!
> 
> Okay guys, wish me luck, looks like I'm the one doing the benchmarking!


RECORD THE BENCHMARKS! ok jk


----------



## SSJVegeta

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *black96ws6;15238352*
> DUH! They gave me remote access!
> 
> Okay guys, wish me luck, looks like I'm the one doing the benchmarking!


Nice!


----------



## Wishmaker

Do I have time to make myself popcorn????


----------



## xxbassplayerxx

Do you have streaming capabilities?


----------



## Intense

livestream it









edit: damnit bassplayer you ninjad me


----------



## Sickened1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxbassplayerxx;15238403*
> Do you have streaming capabilities?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Intense;15238407*
> livestream it


Please


----------



## matty0610

you have remote access you can live stream it and we can tell you what to do


----------



## black96ws6

I can't get in! I have the actual IP, I can see the russian login screen, but the pw that got me to this point is not working


----------



## Vispor

I did 3.6 in case they punch it up to 8150 speeds.


----------



## Xenthos

Just benching will do. I don't want a stream, just pics


----------



## black96ws6

Bassplayer I am going to PM you the login info, maybe you will have better luck?


----------



## supra_rz

is there a live stream ?


----------



## Blameless

Regarding Cinebench, can you attempt a benchmark with the number of threads forced to twelve? I have some hypotheses regarding the flex FPU.


----------



## mad0314

I wish F5 gave them a jolt so they would hurry up and do it themselves. F5F5F5F5F5F5F5


----------



## Chunky_Chimp

As a reminder; experience with/setting up your own hardware even if it's brand new stuff not released in North America yet IS NOT news, nor does saying that you'll hopefully have said stuff benched in the next couple hours qualify it as such.

Moved.


----------



## Fuell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chunky_Chimp;15238480*
> As a reminder; experience with/setting up your own hardware even if it's brand new stuff not released in North America yet IS NOT news, nor does saying that you'll hopefully have said stuff benched in the next couple hours qualify it as such.
> 
> Moved.


I win! jk.

OT/ Now wheres the benches... Plz no pi or anything x87 plz... we need some real info


----------



## black96ws6

Okay Bassplayer apparently got in, since he did and I didn't, I think he's more qualified to do these benches!

So good luck Bassplayer!!


----------



## Arni90

cinebench and the x264-bench first please.
Then fire up AIDA, PCMark7 and 3DMark11


----------



## Don Karnage

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vispor;15238430*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did 3.6 in case they punch it up to 8150 speeds.


It takes an hour for that to load. Just attach it to your post instead of linking from some slow hosting site


----------



## black96ws6

Also, Bassplayer, these guys are as anxious as we are. If you can stream it and send all of us the link, I can post it to them since it is their machine lol...


----------



## Xenthos

If the other thread is anything to go by. Bulldozer is a gigantic failure.

http://www.overclock.net/hardware-news/1137328-fx8150-official-review-donanimhaber-3.html


----------



## MeQuerSat

Big thanks to everyone doing and screenshotting the x264 test.
I'm adding them all.


----------



## scotty453

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MeQuerSat;15238565*
> Big thanks to everyone doing and screenshotting the x264 test.
> I'm adding them all.


If you don't mind me asking, adding them to what? a massive benchmark list?







i'd totally like to see it once you've compiled your list


----------



## Intense

stream it please bass


----------



## nicksasa

Will be interesting if bassplayer got in.


----------



## Arni90

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MeQuerSat;15238565*
> Big thanks to everyone doing and screenshotting the x264 test.
> I'm adding them all.


Where are you adding them? Link please?

On topic:
F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5


----------



## phibrizo

http://www.livestream.com/bassbench


----------



## black96ws6

Watch benches live!

http://www.livestream.com/bassbench


----------



## Blameless

X264 test run on a 4.2GHz Gulftown (sig system as of this post):


----------



## FiX

How did you get a chip already? Just wondering.. Not entirely sure when the release is ;P


----------



## Don Karnage

Just a random question. With all the reviews leaking out does that mean Anandtech and TPU will release there's at midnight?


----------



## FiX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *black96ws6;15238595*
> Watch benches live!
> 
> http://www.livestream.com/bassbench


Reached limit on viewers.


----------



## Don Karnage

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *black96ws6;15238595*
> Watch benches live!
> 
> http://www.livestream.com/bassbench


Access denied for me. Max viewers has been reached


----------



## SSJVegeta

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Don Karnage;15238602*
> Just a random question. With all the reviews leaking out does that mean Anandtech and TPU will release there's at midnight?


Depends when the NDA is lifted. Most say the 12th.


----------



## NoGuru




----------



## HanShotFirst

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *black96ws6;15238595*
> Watch benches live!
> 
> http://www.livestream.com/bassbench


Damn! Capped!


----------



## Allen86

Lol, max viewers reached, wow lame


----------



## MeQuerSat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *scotty453;15238580*
> If you don't mind me asking, adding them to what? a massive benchmark list?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i'd totally like to see it once you've compiled your list


Yes, I'm using Excel. Don't hate.
http://i.imgur.com/xmDiE.png


----------



## fluxlite

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Allen86;15238638*
> Lol, max viewers reached, wow lame


Yeah guys...stop watching it


----------



## WizrdSleevz

I'm at work post them here!! I can't watch live stream


----------



## Cyrious

someone stream the stream on justin.tv


----------



## Don Karnage

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MeQuerSat;15238640*
> Yes, I'm using Excel. Don't hate.
> http://i.imgur.com/xmDiE.png


Whoohoo i'm number 7


----------



## Allen86

He should just stream it on justin.tv, they dont have any crappy limits on "free" users over there I don't believe


----------



## MeQuerSat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless;15238598*
> X264 test run on a 4.2GHz Gulftown (sig system as of this post):
> [image]


Took the crown as of now, great result!


----------



## Wishmaker

If AMD goes into damage limitation mode and threatens reviewers then it will be bad for the industry. I hope anand, toms, xbit, etc will give us the courtesy of being honest!


----------



## Wishmaker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MeQuerSat;15238640*
> Yes, I'm using Excel. Don't hate.
> http://i.imgur.com/xmDiE.png


You did not add the Gulfie result which kicks ass!!!


----------



## Vispor

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MeQuerSat;15238640*
> Yes, I'm using Excel. Don't hate.
> http://i.imgur.com/xmDiE.png


I really hope I'm the 2nd fastest AMD build after the bulldozer gets benched.


----------



## Intense

ill stream the stream lmao


----------



## dave12

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Wishmaker;15238688*
> If AMD goes into damage limitation mode and threatens reviewers then it will be bad for the industry. I hope anand, toms, xbit, etc will give us the courtesy of being honest!


If that did happen, I wouldn't mind if reputable sites just posted a compilation of earth mover accidents as the official review.


----------



## MeQuerSat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Wishmaker;15238699*
> You did not add the Gulfie result which kicks ass!!!


Haha, not so fast.
Everything will be in there at the end.

That Gulfie does kick ass indeed.


----------



## Alatar

justin.tv stream

http://www.justin.tv/bassbench#/w/1883595104


----------



## matty0610

http://www.justin.tv/bassbench#/w/1883595104

NEW STREAM


----------



## SSJVegeta

Post the link to the bench MeQuerSat and I'll bench my E4500 @ 3.3.


----------



## black96ws6

Edit


----------



## Allen86

I think its kinda funny he's screen sharing with a computer that's being benched...taking resources ftw


----------



## lightsout

Can anyone actually make out whats on the screen in the stream lol????


----------



## NoGuru

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MeQuerSat;15238640*
> Yes, I'm using Excel. Don't hate.
> http://i.imgur.com/xmDiE.png


What benchmark is this? Can I have the link?


----------



## zomgiwin

http://www.justin.tv/bassbench/popout


----------



## MeQuerSat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SSJVegeta;15238739*
> Post the link to the bench MeQuerSat and I'll bench my E4500 @ 3.3.


See here:
http://www.overclock.net/amd-general/1137265-new-fx-8120-bulldozer-pics-benches.html#post15237046


----------



## mad0314

What am I looking at?


----------



## Transhour

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MeQuerSat;15237046*
> One bench I'm very interested in is a x264 encode.
> I could put up a test-video and the settings to do the encode.
> 
> Would be very appreciated.
> 
> *UPDATE: I put a x264-bench together, all you have to do is double-click "run_test.bat" and post the last line (time/fps). Here is the link: http://www.mediafire.com/?dbvaqa5b5cn8bqt
> 
> PS: It will only take ~2 minutes.*


did another test with overclock to 2600k stock speed of my xeon 3440 (figured it is closer to that with the HT than the 2500k







)










vcore is a tad high for this clock speed (i just downclocked my 4.0ghz profile to 3.4ghz to get the bench)


----------



## Derp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zomgiwin;15238753*
> http://www.justin.tv/bassbench/popout


The quality is so low, I can't see anything.


----------



## GuardianDuo

I now have proof for you, MeQuerSat!
Did it again while reading this thread.
Disregard the voltage, it's set to 1.35v in BIOS, that's CnQ causing CPU-Z's voltage thing to lag (was at 800MHz half a second before screenshot)










Also, I second Derp - is this even 240p?


----------



## csm725

Low quality stream. Bassplayer when you get results could you type them in big font in Word or something?


----------



## mad0314

All I can see is 6:04 PM...


----------



## bumsoil

heres my 980x at 4.6

ram is at 1600mhz 6-6-6-18 1T


----------



## FiX

If you need anything more to compare with


----------



## Wishmaker

The Gulfies are insane!!


----------



## matty0610

We can see you we just cant comment


----------



## pioneerisloud

Subbed.


----------



## Samurai Batgirl

Is this legitimate?








I'm excited!








And then watch it fail hard... *sigh*


----------



## FiX

Did I hear 0.888v?


----------



## Vispor

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FiX;15238874*
> Did I hear 0.888v?


That's what it sounded like to me, but I bet CnQ is on.


----------



## Arni90

https://join.me/743-658-418


----------



## Garvani

i dont know why he dosnt goto join.me and screencast so we can see the screen. it takes like 1 minute to get it up and running :/

edit: oh thank god!


----------



## black96ws6

Watch the actual SCREENS here!:

https://join.me/743-658-418


----------



## insyxion

bad quality


----------



## mad0314

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Samurai Batgirl;15238868*
> Is this legitimate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm excited!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then watch it fail hard... *sigh*


It is physically real. But unfortunately the owner of the computer set the DIMMs in the same channel, so it is running in single channel mode and it does not look like he is going to change it.


----------



## GuardianDuo

Wut is that, though? Says Phenom II X4 840 in the top right corner.

EDIT: OH GAWD SCREENTEARING
Oh, it's a stream of a stream, whoops.


----------



## MeQuerSat

If I would have posted this x264-bench in *any* other thread at *any* other time, I wouldn't have gotten nearly this much response.

Awesome!


----------



## pabloking

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MeQuerSat;15237046*
> One bench I'm very interested in is a x264 encode.
> I could put up a test-video and the settings to do the encode.
> 
> Would be very appreciated.
> 
> *UPDATE: I put a x264-bench together, all you have to do is double-click "run_test.bat" and post the last line or screenshot (time/fps). Here is the link: http://www.mediafire.com/?dbvaqa5b5cn8bqt
> 
> PS: It will only take ~2 minutes.*












2x2gb ram @ 1333Mhz 9-9-9-24 1T


----------



## FiX

https://join.me/743-658-418


----------



## knunez

hey I dont wanna thread jack but what would happen if I install an FX processor on my mobo without updating bios? I dont have any other processors to update the bios first with, mthis is my first build


----------



## Wishmaker

There are issues running benches. in LinX it would not use 100 % of the cores!


----------



## SSJVegeta

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MeQuerSat;15238755*
> See here:
> http://www.overclock.net/amd-general/1137265-new-fx-8120-bulldozer-pics-benches.html#post15237046


Here you go, E4500 @ 3.3GHz:


----------



## Don Karnage

Linx won't run on 8 cores? But i thought Bulldozer was just 4 cores with hyperthreading?


----------



## Heavy MG

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mad0314;15238812*
> All I can see is 6:04 PM...


I can't see anything,the only thing I can barely see is task manager in the upper right corner.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Don Karnage;15238937*
> Linx won't run on 8 cores? But i thought Bulldozer was just 4 cores with hyperthreading?


I heard someone say there was something in the cache that prevents any "hyperthreading" from happening.


----------



## Vagrant Storm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GuardianDuo;15238908*
> Wut is that, though? Says Phenom II X4 840 in the top right corner.
> 
> EDIT: OH GAWD SCREENTEARING
> Must be Bulldozer though because of the Task Manager showing 8 cores?


That is the local machine...the window you see below it is the remote control window of the machine getting benched


----------



## mad0314

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GuardianDuo;15238908*
> Wut is that, though? Says Phenom II X4 840 in the top right corner.
> 
> EDIT: OH GAWD SCREENTEARING
> Must be Bulldozer though because of the Task Manager showing 8 cores?


Hes controlling it remotely. The computer is somewher ein Ukraine.


----------



## pengs

He's running the BD machine through Teamviewer, his machine is the 840.


----------



## Don Karnage

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Heavy MG;15238941*
> I can't see anything,the only thing I can barely see is task manager in the upper right corner.


https://join.me/743-658-418


----------



## xxbassplayerxx

https://join.me/573-962-519


----------



## mingqi53

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *knunez;15238920*
> hey I dont wanna thread jack but what would happen if I install an FX processor on my mobo without updating bios? I dont have any other processors to update the bios first with, mthis is my first build


May or may not work. I would hold off on it until you know that the manufacturwr of your mobo will provide a bios update to support it.


----------



## Vispor

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Don Karnage;15238937*
> Linx won't run on 8 cores? But i thought Bulldozer was just 4 cores with hyperthreading?


So much win in this comment.


----------



## jetster735180

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Don Karnage;15238937*
> Linx won't run on 8 cores? But i thought Bulldozer was just 4 cores with hyperthreading?


You thought wrong dude!


----------



## Blameless

LinX using the latest binaries from the Intel Math Kernel Library?

Also, it takes a moment to fill the RAM before it it 100% utilization.


----------



## Epsi

Didnt see any 1100T on the list, here is one.


----------



## Garvani

join.me is already running from that machine.. now you have 2 up and running


----------



## Wishmaker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxbassplayerxx;15238958*
> https://join.me/573-962-519


Better quality!


----------



## mad0314

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Garvani;15238969*
> join.me is already running from that machine.. now you have 2 up and running


It was someone elses machine viewing his machine.


----------



## $ilent

bassplayer whats that link to? Your pc?


----------



## knunez

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mingqi53;15238959*
> May or may not work. I would hold off on it until you know that the manufacturwr of your mobo will provide a bios update to support it.


ok, but how would I even update the bios if i'm just turning on the computer for the 1st time and I can't update it before I install the fx processor


----------



## Cyrious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxbassplayerxx;15238958*
> https://join.me/573-962-519


can you run tripcode explorer as a benchmark and post the result?


----------



## bumsoil

lets see the x264 test on the bulldozer!!!


----------



## SSJVegeta

So the Bulldozer PC is not in Dual Channel RAM mode?


----------



## $ilent




----------



## FiX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SSJVegeta;15239013*
> So the Bulldozer PC is not in Dual Channel RAM mode?


Apparently its in single channel


----------



## Don Karnage

Just pulled a 4.89 in cinebench..


----------



## Wishmaker

4.89 in Cinebench!!! OMG!


----------



## Derp

4.89 cinebench? loooool? All cores were loaded 100% too.


----------



## pengs

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SSJVegeta;15239013*
> So the Bulldozer PC is not in Dual Channel RAM mode?


Nope


----------



## Am*

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxbassplayerxx;15238958*
> https://join.me/573-962-519


Can you please update the OP afterwards with screenshots? By the time I come back to this in about 5 hours, it'll get another 20 something pages of text.


----------



## Vagrant Storm

A 4.89 Cinebench...


----------



## Vowels

4.89 Cinebench? -_-


----------



## black96ws6

Cinebench result!


----------



## Ipwnnubletz

8120 = 4.89 In Cinebench.


----------



## Shame486

4.89 its preforming worse then in "leaks" lool, guess those were leaks that favored Bulldozer


----------



## mingqi53

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *knunez;15238995*
> ok, but how would I even update the bios if i'm just turning on the computer for the 1st time and I can't update it before I install the fx processor


Oh, I assumed you had an AM3 processor that you were upgrading from.. good question haha


----------



## Epsi

Ye that doesn't really looks promising...


----------



## bumsoil

i just got a 8.89 in cinebench.............. 4.89 is BAD


----------



## knunez

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mingqi53;15239082*
> Oh, I assumed you had an AM3 processor that you were upgrading from.. good question haha


haha yea, what should I do?
if it matters my mobo is a am3+ mobo


----------



## $ilent

4.89 is crap? Ive not used cinebench before..what other cpu does that score compare to?


----------



## nicksasa

4.89 is terribad, let's hope it increases once cinebench uses XOP & FMA4. It certainly did for x264


----------



## youra6

Doesn't a 2600k+ get around 9-10 on CB?


----------



## Don Karnage

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *youra6;15239094*
> Doesn't a 2600k+ get around 9-10 on CB?


2600K gets like 6.8 at 3.4Ghz


----------



## NoGuru




----------



## Modz

Can he run like 3dmark 11 or 06 or something?!


----------



## FiX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NoGuru;15239108*


Clean up those desktop items ;P


----------



## youra6

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Don Karnage;15239105*
> 2600K gets like 6.8 at 3.4Ghz


I mean't with a moderate overclock. Sorry


----------



## GekzOverlord

too bad I cant see the stream properly but bleh!


----------



## Derp

the x264 test is scoring off the charts.... what the hell?


----------



## FiX

Thats pretty good.


----------



## Xenthos

Horrible...


----------



## Vowels

x264 test apparently not done at the same resolution?


----------



## FiX

Did he launch it through the .bat?


----------



## matty0610

wow 92fps a second


----------



## Skrillex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *knunez;15239090*
> haha yea, what should I do?
> if it matters my mobo is a am3+ mobo


Latest bios ?


----------



## Derp

it was at 720p...


----------



## Don Karnage

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vowels;15239156*
> x264 test apparently not done at the same resolution?


This. The BD rig is encoding at 1024X768. The majority of us did it at 1920X1080


----------



## knunez

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Skrillex;15239177*
> Latest bios ?


but the thing is this is a fresh buid, I have no way to update my bios because I don't have an amd processor to run the PC and update the bios


----------



## born2bwild

Absolutely horrible Cinebench score, but ridiculously high x264 score...
What is up with this? Am I misreading something?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Don Karnage;15239190*
> This. The BD rig is encoding at 1024X768. The majority of us did it at 1920X1080


I see. Thanks for explaining. The results were confusing me...


----------



## Wishmaker

No wonder it scored so high. Can you guys redo the benches at 720p?


----------



## NoGuru

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Don Karnage;15239190*
> This. The BD rig is encoding at 1024X768. The majority of us did it at 1920X1080


YEah that is what mine was at


----------



## lollingtonbear

x264 test on 955 @ 3.6 (multiplier oc only)


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derp;15239142*
> the x264 test is scoring off the charts.... what the hell?


Not the same test, obviously.


----------



## Wishmaker

What is this glass bench???


----------



## Garvani

people redo yours at 720p! then we will have a baseline


----------



## Vispor




----------



## Am*

Can someone post some pics of the results? Firefox is choking my dinosaur PC with all these streams.


----------



## $ilent

2500k at 4.7Ghz gets 7.21 on cinebench.


----------



## MeQuerSat

The x264 test he used (~30 fps) is not the test I upped on the first page.
He's using an outdated one...

They are not comparable at all.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Garvani;15239243*
> people redo yours at 720p! then we will have a baseline


That's not how it works, he needs to run the test I upped. You can't compare it like that.


----------



## pengs

Something is off with the cinebench marks.


----------



## Wishmaker

Fritz running!


----------



## black96ws6

Another one:


----------



## NoGuru

720 and 1080p


----------



## Wishmaker

Fritz : 19.62/9417


----------



## black96ws6

Fritz:


----------



## MeQuerSat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NoGuru;15239319*
> 720 and 1080p


*Facepalm*

They are two completely different tests, changing your screen resolution has nothing to do with it...


----------



## pengs

fritz at 9k, yikes
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-2010/Logic-Fritz-Chess,2419.html


----------



## Wishmaker

LinX does not work, yet they are still trying!


----------



## FiX

Who says this is a fail? We have someone who doesnt seem to know what hes doing entirely (RAM in single channel, etc). Wait till the proper reviews are done, and then base your opinions. We'll know for sure in a week or two anyway.


----------



## NoGuru

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MeQuerSat;15239336*
> *Facepalm*
> 
> They are two completely different tests, changing your screen resolution has nothing to do with it...


Then why don't you explain what tests to run instead of being a hooser?


----------



## tpi2007

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 336 (110 members and 226 guests)










Nice thread! Rep+ To the OP: put the results as you have them in the original post so people can have a quick look at them more quickly. The thread is growing too big to go through all of it.

Cheers!


----------



## konspiracy

there must be a better bios coming or this is the next pentium 4
Im hoping amd has kept a special bios under wraps to keep everything under nda


----------



## Heavy MG

Anyone notice how Linx won't load the cores but wPrime does?


----------



## Wishmaker

12.542 WPRIME! SLower than my I7!


----------



## FiX

wPrime: 32M in 12.542secs


----------



## black96ws6

wprime:


----------



## 996gt2

*Can we please compile all of the results into one post for easy viewing?*


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MeQuerSat;15239281*
> That's not how it works, he needs to run the test I upped. You can't compare it like that.


Exactly right.

You need the same x264 build, the exact same source file, and the exact same encode settings.

Resolution is just one factor of many.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NoGuru;15239319*
> 720 and 1080p


Still not comparable.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Heavy MG;15239386*
> Anyone notice how Linx won't load the cores but wPrime does?


I suspect the Linpack binaries aren't detecting the CPU correctly.


----------



## Shame486

Did Prime 32mil on 2500k at 4.5Ghz, 9.67 not so off but still.


----------



## Wishmaker

Please post all the results in the op!!


----------



## NoGuru

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Wishmaker;15239391*
> 12.542 WPRIME! SLower than my I7!


All AMD benchmarks are slower clock for clock compared to Intel.


----------



## dave12

I just ran this Fryrender guy. What is the score? Samples, Passes?


----------



## Wishmaker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NoGuru;15239418*
> All AMD benchmarks are slower clock for clock compared to Intel.


It is still not 20 something seconds like in the ES previews! This is an improvement!


----------



## pengs

I just did 11 seconds in wPrime 32 1.55 w/ 4 threads


----------



## Wishmaker

Memory runs in dual channel mode!


----------



## FiX

Core speed changing between 3ghz and 3.4ghz?!


----------



## black96ws6

more wprime:


----------



## matty0610

Here is the CPU-z. The Cine bench score was at 4.89.


----------



## pengs

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Wishmaker;15239453*
> Memory runs in dual channel mode!


You mean it _is_ in dual channel mode?


----------



## dave12

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pengs;15239482*
> You mean it _is_ in dual channel mode?


Yes it is dual channel.


----------



## Shame486

And whats with bios drama?


----------



## Wishmaker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pengs;15239482*
> You mean it _is_ in dual channel mode?


Yeah. Typo! My bad


----------



## Heavy MG

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FiX;15239455*
> Core speed changing between 3ghz and 3.4ghz?!


It was throttling down to 1400Mhz too.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dave12;15239492*
> Yes it is dual channel.










??


----------



## stevevace2

Well guess im glad i gave up waiting on bd these scores seem bad









Its a shame i loved my 955be price for perfromance was great but now that i got some money 2500k is amazing


----------



## FiX

Im recording all the results in an Excel Doc


----------



## mingqi53

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *stevevace2;15239525*
> Well guess im glad i gave up waiting on bd these scores seem bad
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its a shame i loved my 955be price for perfromance was great but now that i got some money 2500k is amazing


How do these benchmarks compare to the i5-2500K benchmarks? I was waiting on Bulldozer, but these stats don't look too good so far..


----------



## Samurai Batgirl

I'm pretty sure he said he's running a lot more than just the benchies, so 12.542 seconds in WPrime doesn't sound to bad. Add to that the fact the CPU isn't overclocked and the memory is not fitted correctly and I think we may have a winner here.

Of course, that's just one benchmark of many.


----------



## 996gt2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mingqi53;15239537*
> How do these benchmarks compare to the i5-2500K benchmarks? I was waiting on Bulldozer, but these stats don't look too good so far..


They don't even look good compared to a Phenom II X6, much less a 2500K or 2600K...

It's really looking like Bulldozer is the new Pentium 4


----------



## Wishmaker

SuperPI Next. inb4 INTEL HAX!


----------



## dave12

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Heavy MG;15239520*
> It was throttling down to 1400Mhz too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ??


Proof is somewhere in the screen grab folder of when they opened cpuz. I'm sure it will be posted in a comprehensive edit of the op shortly.


----------



## Wishmaker

SuperPI 25.836!


----------



## black96ws6

Super pi


----------



## no1Joeno1

1M on superpi 25.836


----------



## Riskitall84

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Wishmaker;15239552*
> SuperPI Next. inb4 INTEL HAX!


25.836


----------



## G3RG

My cpu at 3.7ghz is 8 seconds faster with the same version of super pi =[


----------



## 996gt2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Riskitall84;15239573*
> 25.836


Lol my Athlon 64 @ 3.1 GHz did it in like 30 seconds.

*Way to turn back the clock 5 years, AMD!







*


----------



## Wishmaker

PiFAST NEXT


----------



## Cryptedvick

I don't usually post "Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread", but when I do, It has to be a record ... 346


----------



## black96ws6

pifast


----------



## mingqi53

I was thinking of upgrading from my PII X4 955 BE to Bulldozer.. but by the early looks of it not being too good... should I go the Intel route? i5-2500K?


----------



## Wishmaker

Another run of piFAST 46.72


----------



## Samurai Batgirl

Nevermind. We might not have a winner. Not like SuperPi matters, but it's not looking good.

@[email protected]


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Wishmaker;15239453*
> Memory runs in dual channel mode!


That's what CPU-Z says, but it may be miss-reporting things.

The Motherboard manual (the board is an M5A99X EVO) states says the config shown in the OP's pictures is single channel:










Not sure if the memory has been moved though.


----------



## BlackFox1337

has anyone bothered to look if the mobo supports BD? I looked at the Asus website and BD is not listed as a current supported processor. Even Newegg lists it as a Phenom/Athlon board, not one place does it OFFICIALLY list BD as being supported. Further investigation required.

Maybe this explains the weird bench results and cpu throttling?


----------



## mad0314

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mingqi53;15239623*
> I was thinking of upgrading from my PII X4 955 BE to Bulldozer.. but by the early looks of it not being too good... should I go the Intel route? i5-2500K?


Do you NEED to upgrade?


----------



## stevevace2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mingqi53;15239623*
> I was thinking of upgrading from my PII X4 955 BE to Bulldozer.. but by the early looks of it not being too good... should I go the Intel route? i5-2500K?


Yes the 2500k is amazing get a good chip and get an easy 5ghz oc
smash every game that has some cpu requirements.


----------



## mingqi53

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mad0314;15239642*
> Do you NEED to upgrade?


Well, I bought a new case for starters, so I do intend on upgrading in the near future. Was hoping Bulldozer would blow Intel away, or at least cause Intel to lower their prices to steal some of AMDs thunder.. but now it doesn't look like either is going to happen


----------



## dave12

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BlackFox1337;15239635*
> has anyone bothered to look if the mobo supports BD? I looked at the Asus website and BD is not listed as a current supported processor. Even Newegg lists it as a Phenom/Athlon board, not one place does it OFFICIALLY list BD as being supported. Further investigation required.
> 
> Maybe this explains the weird bench results and cpu throttling?


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131754

I thought it was this.


----------



## SSJVegeta

I do, but I'm waiting 6 months for Ivy Bridge.


----------



## MoRLoK

I dont belive it ... My old athlon x3 450 @ x4 b50 3.6 Ghz wPrime 32M - 12,869. 8120 BD should be C0 ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_FX_microprocessors

sorry for bad english


----------



## Dapman02

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mingqi53;15239664*
> Well, I bought a new case for starters, so I do intend on upgrading in the near future. Was hoping Bulldozer would blow Intel away, or at least cause Intel to lower their prices to steal some of AMDs thunder.. but now it doesn't look like either is going to happen


I was hoping it would sit in between the 2500k and the 2600k

this is depressing, I hope that something happens with it


----------



## FiX

Im done recording results.
Here is the doc if anyone wants to continue it.


----------



## BlackFox1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dave12;15239674*
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131754
> 
> I thought it was this.


You are right. It is that one. Didnt see the FX in there. Still curious that Asus does not list FX on its mobo webpage though. Referring to the CPU support list.


----------



## SSJVegeta

x264 1080p test next.


----------



## MeQuerSat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SSJVegeta;15239704*
> x264 1080p test next.


Current results (still awaiting BD):


----------



## Shame486

25gflops, nice.


----------



## Wishmaker

24GFLOPS! But the bench is broken







.


----------



## knoxy_14

24Gflops like a boss


----------



## Prox

Oh that linx run was great


----------



## Don Karnage

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MeQuerSat;15239715*
> Current results (still awaiting BD):


Damnit i've slipped to 12th


----------



## black96ws6

Linx


----------



## Liquidpain

Been working for last few hours, what did I miss?!


----------



## Diabolical999

lulz.

That's what it usually looks like when a girl joins OCN and says Hi.


----------



## Prox

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *black96ws6;15239741*
> Linx












What sort of space age technology has AMD invented? We can't let the Chinese get their hands on this!


----------



## mingqi53

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Liquidpain;15239744*
> Been working for last few hours, what did I miss?!


Check the original post, it's updated every now and then. Looks like overall Bulldozer is bombing (I got here late too)


----------



## pabloking

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MeQuerSat;15239715*
> Current results (still awaiting BD):


Athlon II X4 640 is at "stock" freq







3.0Ghz


----------



## robwadeson

261 guests, there's a bunch of traffic to OCN


----------



## knoxy_14

thats 24 gflops cant be right can it lol?


----------



## dave12

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mingqi53;15239761*
> Check the original post, it's updated every now and then. Looks like overall Bulldozer is bombing (I got here late too)


https://join.me/743-658-418


----------



## MeQuerSat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pabloking;15239762*
> Athlon II X4 640 is at "stock" freq
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.0Ghz


Ah, thanks. Will correct it.


----------



## Kvjavs

Man, what a let down.


----------



## MountainDewMadOScar

Ugh dat linx score.


----------



## rubicsphere

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *knoxy_14;15239766*
> thats 24 gflops cant be right can it lol?


To obtain that score the processor was clocking itself at 2.8 and I saw up to 18% load. Something is't going right for whoever is doing the stream.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MeQuerSat;15239715*
> Current results (still awaiting BD):


Might want to note that bumsoil isn't using HT.


----------



## Liquidpain

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mingqi53;15239761*
> Check the original post, it's updated every now and then. Looks like overall Bulldozer is bombing (I got here late too)


Got it.


----------



## MeQuerSat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless;15239790*
> Might want to note that bumsoil isn't using HT.


Added, thanks!


----------



## Wishmaker

3dmark


----------



## djriful

OMG... I want to fork my money out again for this CPU!


----------



## gtsteviiee




----------



## black96ws6

3dmark vantage coming up next!


----------



## Wishmaker

Hacked Vantage on that machine!


----------



## rubicsphere

It's only working with 4 threads.....


----------



## SSJVegeta

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Wishmaker;15239823*
> Hacked Vantage on that machine!


CORE lol


----------



## black96ws6

3dmark vantage error! Que the Simpsons "Technical Difficulties" graphic!


----------



## Diabolical999

Can you run AIDA64 on the memory real quick, please. In dual-channel.


----------



## redalert

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *black96ws6;15239839*
> 3dmark vantage error! Que the Simpsons "Technical Difficulties" graphic!


----------



## dave12

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Prox;15239860*
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqTU4wVvZL0
> 
> courtesy of some fine gentleman on the joinme chat.


lmao


----------



## black96ws6

Okay scratch vantage, Resident Evil 5 up next


----------



## alick

Is it doing good or bad as of now? I can't read it all my taptalk keeps crashing

Sent from my Nexus S


----------



## redalert

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alick;15239875*
> Is it doing good or bad as of now? I can't read it all my taptalk keeps crashing
> 
> Sent from my Nexus S


not good


----------



## dave12

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alick;15239875*
> Is it doing good or bad as of now? I can't read it all my taptalk keeps crashing
> 
> Sent from my Nexus S


I think not good is a fair assessment.


----------



## Wishmaker

Vantage does not work. They are installing Resident Evil.


----------



## djriful

I hate you, what with the Canadian can't sell what?


----------



## GTR Mclaren

8120....you will be mine....my CPU for 3 years is coming


----------



## rubicsphere

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Wishmaker;15239896*
> Vantage does not work. They are installing Resident Evil.


Do you think that all these software failures are an example of unoptimized microcode that could hobble performance as well?


----------



## doctorx

i am not understanding this... how the heck can you get a good benchmark using remote software for 3d? you could have a 30-50% penalty if it runs at all?


----------



## Wishmaker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rubicsphere;15239914*
> Do you think that all these software failures are an example of unoptimized microcode that could hobble performance as well?


Let us give AMD the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## 996gt2

I can just see the titles of the official reviews from Anandtech and other sites now:

*"Bulldozer gets Bulldozed"*


----------



## FiX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *doctorx;15239922*
> i am not understanding this... how the heck can you get a good benchmark using remote software for 3d? you could have a 30-50% penalty if it runs at all?


+1 You could in theory. We will all find out soon when its actually released and reviewed properly


----------



## Don Karnage

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *996gt2;15239926*
> I can just see the titles of the official reviews from Anandtech and other sites now:
> 
> *"Bulldozer gets Bulldozed"*


Think Anand will trash it? I hope so


----------



## Derp

RE5 getting like 45 FPS...... Something has to be VERY wrong.


----------



## Ruckol1

Instead of reading a million pages

is it gud ppl?


----------



## thatrodbloke

how much will it retail?


----------



## Mad Pistol

Something is going wrong. Is it just me, or does this motherboard not like BD? It may not even support it on the current bios.

Sent from my DROID X2! Mobile internet ftw!!!


----------



## black96ws6

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derp;15239946*
> RE5 getting like 45 FPS...... Something has to be VERY wrong.


The video card is a 6790?


----------



## Don Karnage

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thatrodbloke;15239949*
> how much will it retail?


Tank guys says

FX6100 X6 - $204.99
FX8120 x8 - $236.99
FX8150 x8 - $259.99


----------



## reflex99

btw, for whoever is maintaining that x264 bench thingie spreadsheet, i ran it on my X2 555, pic in spoiler:


Spoiler: click for pic yo'











[/URL]


----------



## alick

Maybe this is just a bad dream and we will wake up to a better bench tomorrow lol ¤_¤

Sent from my Nexus S


----------



## dave12

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *doctorx;15239922*
> i am not understanding this... how the heck can you get a good benchmark using remote software for 3d? you could have a 30-50% penalty if it runs at all?


Using teamviwer causes half hour wprime runs?


----------



## Don Karnage

Please let Anandtech post there review at Midnight


----------



## Wishmaker

This is getting too much for me. I am looking forward to some other benches .... Adios!


----------



## doctorx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dave12;15239966*
> Using teamviwer causes half hour wprime runs?


I actually tried to use it at work and the whole system slowed to a crawl... so yes possible.


----------



## Cyrious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MeQuerSat;15239715*
> Current results (still awaiting BD):


wow i be dead last. I feel oh so special

EDIT: i saw that they managed to get linx to run on it, on a very good day my e5300 can pull the same. yes, i know there is a mountain of optimizations and bug fixes that need to be implemented. Even so, this is not good at all


----------



## 996gt2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Don Karnage;15239944*
> Think Anand will trash it? I hope so


Well, Anandtech's title for their review of Phenom I was "A Somber Farewell to K8"...and Phenom I at least managed to outperform K8.

Bulldozer, on the other hand, seems to be having trouble even beating Phenom II.


----------



## black96ws6

Res Evil


----------



## regimen

Yea, something is definitely not right... Here, we see an i7-980x doing over 100fps with a 6790 in Res. Evil 5: http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/3982/sapphire_radeon_hd_6790_1gb_video_card_review/index6.html

Of course, with all of the screen sharing he's got going on, plus god only knows how many of what other apps, every single score we'll see from this is going to be low....


----------



## Ivan TSI

They are streaming the Benches?


----------



## dave12

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *doctorx;15239987*
> I actually tried to use it at work and the whole system slowed to a crawl... so yes possible.


I have no faith in anything that comes out of DH, but this is syncing up with their results fairly well. Something clearly isn't right here, I'm trying to be hopeful that something isn't BD.


----------



## doctorx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ivan TSI;15240023*
> They are streaming the Benches?


yea... which i would say colors the benches in a negative light.


----------



## Derp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *black96ws6;15239955*
> The video card is a 6790?


Which is capable of double the performance we are seeing on this BD in the RE5 bench. Something is wrong.


----------



## dave12

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ivan TSI;15240023*
> They are streaming the Benches?


https://join.me/743-658-418


----------



## pengs

http://youtu.be/ee925OTFBCA?t=13s


----------



## allupinya

can i get in on the fun?

4.64ghz x6 1090t


----------



## Caspersky

AMD deserves many awards for their efforts


----------



## yuksel911

make aida memory bench...


----------



## doctorx

Quote:



Originally Posted by *allupinya*


can i get in on the fun?

4.64ghz x6 1090t


nice... my 1090T wont go over 3.9Ghz and be stable.


----------



## SSJVegeta

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Cyrious*


wow i be dead last. I feel oh so special

EDIT: i saw that they managed to get linx to run on it, on a very good day my e5300 can pull the same. yes, i know there is a mountain of optimizations and bug fixes that need to be implemented. Even so, this is not good at all


Glad I got your E5300 beat


----------



## black96ws6

AIDA coming up


----------



## beers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derp;15240030*
> Which is capable of double the performance we are seeing on this BD in the RE5 bench. Something is wrong.


Run it outside of Teamviewer/VNC and it will substantially improve.

Remote viewing applications are CPU intensive, attempting to process your video stream into that many chunks requires a significant portion of processing power.


----------



## CryWin

So what are the chances that AMD has held some type of required bios data from the motherboard manufacturers that result in extremely poor performance?


----------



## Armand Hammer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dave12;15239887*
> I think not good is a fair assessment.


More like the understatement of the year









This is so far a monumental disaster for AMD, no doubt about it, only a delusional fanboy would deny it.

But maybe as others have suggested there is something missing, maybe a bios update is required to get them running properly and this guy doesn't have that bios. Or maybe we're all being trolled by this guy.

Oh well AMD fanboys can live in hope I suppose


----------



## doctorx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *beers;15240106*
> run it outside of teamviewer/vnc and it will substantially improve.
> 
> Remote viewing applications are cpu intensive, attempting to process your video stream into that many chunks requires a significant portion of processing power.


+1


----------



## black96ws6

Aida


----------



## dave12

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *doctorx;15240119*
> +1


How is that even possible? The computer is in some guys house in the Ukraine and no one is in front of it.


----------



## Ruckol1

So it is supposed to release tomorrow? Will there be reviews released at midnight


----------



## tpi2007

Quote:



Originally Posted by *beers*


Run it outside of Teamviewer/VNC and it will substantially improve.

Remote viewing applications are CPU intensive, attempting to process your video stream into that many chunks requires a significant portion of processing power.



This.

The guy could have set up a another PC with a webcam or camera doing the streaming. Like this the results are only interesting because we get to see a live bench of a new CPU. But the results are not representative.


----------



## Cyrious

Quote:



Originally Posted by *SSJVegeta*


Glad I got your E5300 beat










Hey hey hey, if i was running at 4ghz i would solidly crush you. Im just not going to switch back to my trusty gigabyte board so i can roflstomp your e4500 into the ground


----------



## mingqi53

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Armand Hammer*


More like the understatement of the year









This is so far a monumental disaster for AMD, no doubt about it, only a delusional fanboy would deny it.

But maybe as others have suggested there is something missing, maybe a bios update is required to get them running properly and this guy doesn't have that bios. Or maybe we're all being trolled by this guy.

Oh well AMD fanboys can live in hope I suppose










From what it looks like, they're streaming from the computer that's running the benchmarks.. so all these benchmarks might not be the most accurate representation of the Bulldozer's performance


----------



## Philistine

Which x264 benchmark program is this?










I'd like to run it on my x6 1090t to make a comparison.


----------



## Mad Pistol

Ok. Time to stop this mess any sort of video streaming /encoding /broadcasting is a CPU drain. This session is a waste of time. I no longer have interest in this thread.

Sent from my DROID X2! Mobile internet ftw!!!


----------



## black96ws6

Alright gang that's most likely it, I've been on here most of the day so I am going to take a break!


----------



## SSJVegeta

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyrious;15240164*
> Hey hey hey, if i was running at 4ghz i would solidly crush you. Im just not going to switch back to my trusty gigabyte board so i can roflstomp your e4500 into the ground


Coulda, woulda, shoulda


----------



## jrbroad77

Why are all these reviewers noobs? DDR3 1333 is junk. Should've done 1866 and clocked it higher. Also any proof he's running the latest BIOS? AND.. benching with anything besides windows Aero and other programs running = fail.


----------



## allupinya

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *doctorx;15240055*
> nice... my 1090T wont go over 3.9Ghz and be stable.


suprised it would even boot @ 4.6ghz, back at 4.3 now.


----------



## dave12

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Philistine;15240185*
> Which x264 benchmark program is this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to run it on my x6 1090t to make a comparison.


Its in the first few pages of the thread.


----------



## MeQuerSat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *reflex99;15239958*
> btw, for whoever is maintaining that x264 bench thingie spreadsheet, i ran it on my X2 555, pic in spoiler:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: click for pic yo'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/URL]


Added.


----------



## stevevace2

the streaming is on a diffrent computer !


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yuksel911;15240046*
> make aida memory bench...


The already did.

About 10GB/s overall and ~53ns latency on dual-channel DDR3-1333 CL9.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jrbroad77;15240204*
> Why are all these reviewers noobs? DDR3 1333 is junk. Should've done 1866 and clocked it higher. Also any proof he's running the latest BIOS? AND.. benching with anything besides windows Aero and other programs running = fail.


DDR3-1333 shouldn't perform noticeably slower than 1333 in real-world tests.

Also DDR3-1866 is considerably more expensive. I tend to put 1333 or 1600 in most of my builds unless something else is on sale.


----------



## danttruong

So what's the verdict? Is bull dozer as good as sandy?


----------



## dave12

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *black96ws6;15240198*
> Alright gang that's most likely it, I've been on here most of the day so I am going to take a break!


Thanks for what you did here.


----------



## pengs

Well, there are a lot of background tasks going on and Teamviewer uses a bit of CPU too. Even if you minus that fact, the scores are only going to get better by a fraction.


----------



## stevevace2

so far its worse than phenom II


----------



## radaja

Quote:



Originally Posted by *black96ws6*


Alright gang that's most likely it, I've been on here most of the day so I am going to take a break!


i cant believe you haven't received hardly any reps for the work you did today,well done my friend


----------



## Blameless

x264 test is running now (the OCN one).

Moment of truth...


----------



## badatgames18

the benchmarks are bad.. compared to a 2600k.. is it overclocked? stock? underclocked?


----------



## Evil Penguin

Quote:



Originally Posted by *danttruong*


So what's the verdict? Is bull dozer as good as sandy?


In this stream...
It would be lucky to outperform a 1090T.


----------



## pengs

All the video encoding to join.me is happening on an Athlon II 840 system that is running Teamviewer with the 8120 on the other side, so the BD system is relatively free of conjestion but it still has to deal with what Teamviewer uses.


----------



## dave12

Quote:



Originally Posted by *badatgames18*


the benchmarks are bad.. compared to a 2600k.. is it overclocked? stock? underclocked?


Stock and not in the best position for benching, but exceedingly poor all around.


----------



## mingqi53

Quote:



Originally Posted by *pengs*


All the video encoding to join.me is happening on an Athlon II 840 system that is running Teamviewer with the 8120 on the other side, so the BD system is relatively free of conjestion but it still has to deal with what Teamviewer uses.


Ah okay thanks for the explanation


----------



## FiX

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Philistine*


Which x264 benchmark program is this?










I'd like to run it on my x6 1090t to make a comparison.


http://download1199.mediafire.com/a3.../x264.test.zip


----------



## Philistine

Quote:



Originally Posted by *allupinya*


can i get in on the fun?

4.64ghz x6 1090t











Wow. Your running almost 1GHz faster than me and it only nets an additional 1.23fps. I would have expected a larger improvement.










Quote:



Originally Posted by *FiX*


http://download1199.mediafire.com/a3.../x264.test.zip


Thanks!


----------



## GanjaSMK

So is the consensus that BD really isn't much of a performance upgrade by any means? At best it's marginal if anything?


----------



## Caspersky

It was great antiadvertising


----------



## nicksasa

5.28FPS on that x264 benchie :/ But BD doesn't have 3DNOW and this version doesn't have XOP & FMA4 yet so ...


----------



## Armand Hammer

Quote:



Originally Posted by *AK-47*


I've lost interest ever since i seen *OPs zionist bookmarks*screw him


Huh?


----------



## Cyrious

Quote:



Originally Posted by *SSJVegeta*


Coulda, woulda, shoulda

















http://www.overclock.net/intel-cpus/...l#post14261745

I need to get me an EP45-UD3, 8GB of DDR3-1600, and a Corsair H50 or better so i can really make my chip fly.


----------



## Kand

I saw it. It got 5.something FPS on the x264 test.

Wasn't keen enough to screen though.


----------



## dave12

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Armand Hammer;15240287*
> Huh?


Handful of Isreali news sites in OP's browser is causing a dick to be a dick.


----------



## badatgames18

so the 8150 is the exact same thing but higher binned and greater base clock?

if it is.. i might be dissapointed


----------



## jrbroad77

Why is everyone making excuses for poor benchmarking procedure? If someone benched an i7-2600k like this, and then benched an i5-2500k properly, the i5 would be faster. Basically you're not winning any HWBot categories benching like this regardless of how good your cooling(LN2 whatever)/"golden chip" etc. I'd like to see someone say otherwise.


----------



## Blameless

I managed to get a screen of the x264 test. Given what's running at the same time, 5.5 fps seems like it would happen on a clean FX-8120P system:










Not impressive, but not terribly unexpected, nor especially disappointing. Looking at 2500k level multi-threaded performance out of the FX-8120P.


----------



## danttruong

so BD is not as good as hype? Damn..i was waiting to buy this cpu.


----------



## CaPoX

Something must be wrong here and otherwise this is a JOKE!


----------



## Philistine

Quote:



Originally Posted by *dave12*


Handful of Isreali news sites in OP's browser is causing a dick to be a dick.


lol


----------



## yuksel911

big dissapointment ...


----------



## badatgames18

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Blameless*


I managed to get a screen of the x264 test. Given what's running at the same time, 5.5 fps seems like it would happen on a clean FX-8120P system:










Not impressive, but not terribly unexpected.


where is my magnifying glass









edit: nvm got it fixed


----------



## Armand Hammer

Quote:



Originally Posted by *mingqi53*


From what it looks like, they're streaming from the computer that's running the benchmarks.. so all these benchmarks might not be the most accurate representation of the Bulldozer's performance


Hmmm perhaps you have a point but how much dfference would that seriously make to the benches? 10-20%?


----------



## Vagrant Storm

Just remember that was at Stock...so any thing you compare it to must be at stock as well.

Here's hoping the overclocking goes better

They were streaming from a different machine...that same machine was remote desktoping into the the FX 8120 rig. So if there was any cut into perfromance it might have been 5%, but likely nothing


----------



## Sickened1

Whats this i keep hearing of reviews being released tonight?


----------



## drizek

Quote:



Originally Posted by *dave12*


Handful of Isreali news sites in OP's browser is causing a dick to be a dick.


The Israeli news sites are fine. I think the one thats kind of scary is the "Rapture Ready" bookmark.


----------



## Blameless

Honestly the x264 bench isn't too bad.

It's as fast as a stock 2500k, maybe slightly faster.


----------



## fishhawk

I think it will be very interesting to see what happens once BD realy hits the real world insted of only bits and peices here and there. I,m sure there will be pages unpon pages of benchys to read.


----------



## shrekdaklown

i wanna see benchmarks done on a full bd system with the proper drivers etc... then i will decide


----------



## Philistine

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sickened1;15240379*
> Whats this i keep hearing of reviews being released tonight?


Just rumors.


----------



## dave12

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *drizek;15240384*
> The Israeli news sites are fine. I think the one thats kind of scary is the "Rapture Ready" bookmark.


I was thinking he was talking about HGTV, but it was still uncalled for.


----------



## pyra

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Armand Hammer;15240356*
> Hmmm perhaps you have a point but how much dfference would that seriously make to the benches? 10-20%?


Probably a lot less, there's been a lot of occasions the CPU usage has gone hovered around the 1-4% mark. whatever programs they have running are not effecting the benchmark that much.


----------



## nicksasa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless;15240395*
> Honestly the x264 bench isn't too bad.
> 
> It's as fast as a stock 2500k, maybe slightly faster.


And that's without XOP & FMA4, go take a look on the forums supposedly it's a lot faster. + BD has no 3DNOW. Still, the other scores are pretty horrible.


----------



## yuksel911

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/21024/amd_fx_8120_bulldozer_cpu_makes_e_tailer_appearance/index.html


----------



## xPwn

Well, My friend has an ES sample (FX-8150), so i ran the bench on it and here is what i got:


----------



## yuksel911

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldo...20FX-8120.html


----------



## FiX

Quote:



Originally Posted by *xPwn*


Well, My friend has an ES sample (FX-8150), so i ran the bench on it and here is what i got:


Engineering Sample
Stock

Being compared to:
Overclocked final release i7 chips.


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Blameless*


Honestly the x264 bench isn't too bad.

It's as fast as a stock 2500k, maybe slightly faster.


Yeah, twice the cores is the only concern there.

It would seem to be a niche multithreading processor.

For about the same price you get what the i5 can do, but lose out quickly with less threaded applications.

If this is priced over $180 retail, you're paying too much.


----------



## nicodemus

Quote:



Originally Posted by *drizek*


The Israeli news sites are fine. I think the one thats kind of scary is the "Rapture Ready" bookmark.


i know it might be scary for you, but there are lots of people in the world with different ideas than you.







let's try and be ok with that, yeah?









OT: i'm interested in seeing passmark scores and FPS from game benchmarks under a reasonable OC. that should give us a fair idea of how the chip will perform.


----------



## MeQuerSat

Green bar is FX8120
This is without right drivers and BIOS.
Could be completely different after AMD releases additional drivers.
There was also a slight TeamView overhead.


----------



## Vagrant Storm

Quote:



Originally Posted by *xPwn*


Well, My friend has an ES sample (FX-8150), so i ran the bench on it and here is what i got:
its fake xD just edit processor name in registry


That is pretty much spot on with what we saw tonight on the Stock 8120...so your fake guess is actually right


----------



## xPwn

Quote:



Originally Posted by *FiX*


Engineering Sample
Stock

Being compared to:
Overclocked final release i7 chips.


No, I mean use the score as a reference. I never read the OP just wanted yall to see ;P


----------



## allupinya

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Philistine*


Wow. Your running almost 1GHz faster than me and it only nets an additional 1.23fps. I would have expected a larger improvement.










Thanks!


idk, maybe that 1fps demands alot, still beat out alot of 2500ks tho


----------



## xPwn

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Vagrant Storm*


That is pretty much spot on with what we saw tonight on the Stock 8120...so your fake guess is actually right










I should have made the text a tad lighter.


----------



## yuksel911

http://fixer.com.ua/PC-Components/Pr...Bulldozer.html


----------



## AMD_Freak

looks like the bulldozer has dug a huge hole and needed a sandy bridge to find its way out


----------



## MR KROGOTH

If anybody believes this,

please dont breed.


----------



## Allen86

heres stock 2.4 q6600


----------



## shrekdaklown

my x264 test on my sig rig


----------



## allupinya

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MeQuerSat;15240460*
> Green bar is FX8120
> This is without right drivers and BIOS.
> Could be completely different after AMD releases additional drivers.
> There was also a slight TeamView overhead.


feels good being the only red in a sea of blue!


----------



## Blameless

Quote:



Originally Posted by *nicksasa*


And that's without XOP & FMA4, go take a look on the forums supposedly it's a lot faster. + BD has no 3DNOW. Still, the other scores are pretty horrible.


x264 doesn't support these yet, and it's uncertain what sort of performance boost they would provide anyway.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *BallaTheFeared*


Yeah, twice the cores is the only concern there.

It would seem to be a niche multithreading processor.

For about the same price you get what the i5 can do, but lose out quickly with less threaded applications.

If this is priced over $180 retail, you're paying too much.


Retail prices look like they will be between $205 and $225.

Practical OCing with retail processors is still up in the air, but if they can do within a few hundred MHz of what people have been seeing, it won't be that bad of an upgrade.


----------



## xd_1771

Quote:



Originally Posted by *MeQuerSat*


Green bar is FX8120
This is without right drivers and BIOS.
Could be completely different after AMD releases additional drivers.
There was also a slight TeamView overhead.











The FX 8120 has a default speed of 3.1Ghz, not 3.4Ghz...


----------



## robwadeson

whats up with all these modded version of 264h benchies?


----------



## Starbomba

Hell, if the LinX and SuperPi benches are true, then my measly i3 beats BD. And hell, it's a glorified dual core with HT!


----------



## Blameless

Quote:



Originally Posted by *MeQuerSat*


Green bar is FX8120
This is without right drivers and BIOS.
Could be completely different after AMD releases additional drivers.
There was also a slight TeamView overhead.











Stock speed is 3.1GHz on the FX-8120P, but it was running between 3.2 and 3.4GHz in most of the tests, with the single threaded tests occasionally hitting the max turbo of 4GHz.

I think you should list the stock 3.1GHz speed however, as thats what the rest of the stock CPUs you have are showing, even if they have a turbo.


----------



## fishhawk

Quote:



Originally Posted by *MR KROGOTH*


If anybody believes this,

please dont breed.


Agreed!!


----------



## xd_1771

*I should remind all thread participants that what JF-AMD has stated in the Bulldozer Pre-Launch FAQ applies in the same way here. No benchmarks released before the lift of NDA will be representative of the final product, and there would be several reasons as to why.*


----------



## Don Karnage

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Blameless*


x264 doesn't support these yet, and it's uncertain what sort of performance boost they would provide anyway.

Retail prices look like they will be between $205 and $225.

Practical OCing with retail processors is still up in the air, but if they can do within a few hundred MHz of what people have been seeing, it won't be that bad of an upgrade.


The lab review said that a 8150 @ 4.8ghz was pulling 268w. Am I wrong to think you'll need high end water to cool it at that speed ir will a D14 suffice?


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Starbomba;15240564*
> Hell, if the LinX and SuperPi benches are true


LinX is dependent on Intel libraries that likely haven't been updated to work correctly on BD, while SuperPi is a single threaded x87 bench with almost zero relevance in real world performance.

I'm looking at Cinebench and x264 as the most relevant benches shown so far.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Don Karnage;15240595*
> The lab review said that a 8150 @ 4.8ghz was pulling 268w. Am I wrong to think you'll need high end water to cool it at that speed ir will a D14 suffice?


A Noctua NH-D14 would be borderline, but it is capable of moving that amount of heat.

For the record my i7 970 at 4.2-4.3Ghz puts out about 250w, and I have used an NH-D14 on it without real issues.

Good water would obviously be better.


----------



## MeQuerSat

Quote:



Originally Posted by *xd_1771*


The FX 8120 has a default speed of 3.1Ghz, not 3.4Ghz...


Yes, it should be 3100 MHz.
Typo.

*This is without right drivers and BIOS.
Could be completely different after AMD releases additional drivers.
There was also a slight TeamView overhead.*

Correct:


----------



## robwadeson

Quote:



Originally Posted by *xd_1771*


*I should remind all thread participants that what JF-AMD has stated in the Bulldozer Pre-Launch FAQ applies in the same way here. No benchmarks released before the lift of NDA will be representative of the final product, and there would be several reasons as to why.*


And people can expect 50% performance boost with the final product


----------



## 996gt2

Quote:



Originally Posted by *xd_1771*


*I should remind all thread participants that what JF-AMD has stated in the Bulldozer Pre-Launch FAQ applies in the same way here. No benchmarks released before the lift of NDA will be representative of the final product, and there would be several reasons as to why.*


*Right, because a BIOS update will give a 50% performance boost!*


----------



## xd_1771

^ I can tell you that without a doubt the amount of programs running in the background are going to affect the benchmark results by a significant amount (I encode a lot myself).


----------



## xxbassplayerxx

Alright guys, I'll be uploading the screens I took during the feed in about two hours.


----------



## Don Karnage

Quote:



Originally Posted by *996gt2*


*Right, because a BIOS update will give a 50% performance boost!*


This. There's no magical 50% bios coming folks. If you believe there is i have some magic beans i'd love to sell you.


----------



## MeQuerSat

Quote:



Originally Posted by *xd_1771*


^ I can tell you that without a doubt the amount of programs running in the background are going to affect the benchmark results by a significant amount (I encode a lot myself).


I do too and you're absolutely right.


----------



## 996gt2

Quote:



Originally Posted by *xd_1771*


^ I can tell you that without a doubt the amount of programs running in the background are going to affect the benchmark results by a significant amount (I encode a lot myself).


This is only one of many leaks today, and they all show pretty much the same thing. These benches were done by reliable sources (such as Monstru @ Lab501 in Romania). I realize the results in this particular thread are lower than usual because of background programs running, but even without those tasks running it still performs about the same as a Thuban.

So much for 5 years of R&D.


----------



## Vagrant Storm

Quote:



Originally Posted by *MR KROGOTH*


If anybody believes this,

please dont breed.


Well...we all saw it happen in real time. Hundreds of people were viewing the feed. Kind of hard to fake it all. The only probablem was that we weren't possitively sure that the memory was single or dual channel, but even if it was in single channel...going to dual channel would not have done enough. There wasn't a single test that was done that would have been stressing memory bandwith. Though I did not watch them all, but all the ones I saw it would not have mattered one bit. Even if they were...dual channel ussually only get about a 10% performance boost

And the only background program was the remote service. I have one running now on my work PC with a C2D dual core cpu and it is bouncing between 1 and 3% ussage. Plus I am sure that most of that 1-3% is actually all the junk network services we have running (like a time sync program and such)

Again...this was pretty much the real deal folks.


----------



## CaPoX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xd_1771;15240673*
> ^ I can tell you that without a doubt the amount of programs running in the background are going to affect the benchmark results by a significant amount (I encode a lot myself).


Correct, I wonder what the final/reliable results are


----------



## mingqi53

So what you're saying is, if a BIOS update doesn't give a 50% performance boost, and if running all those programs during benchmarks affect results..

We'll just end up with something in between the two. A 25% performance boost? Heh.


----------



## xxbassplayerxx

Haha I can see that the benches were already uploaded. I have a few images including CPU-Z and the like that I'll get up after Mass. I have to go play bass now


----------



## xd_1771

I logically don't see how AMD would bother releasing this CPU bundled with a liquid cooling kit (which has been confirmed, and several screenshots of the kit have shown up on the net), if IPS (instructions per second, not clock) would be no better than the K10 architecture. I'm not denying any of the results here; just saying.

BIOS updates _can_ improve performance, it's not unheard of.


----------



## Blameless

I saw CPU-Z and the AMD tweak utility running, with everything apparently detected and operating correctly. Even CnC and the Turbos looked like they were flawless.

I don't expect _any_ boost from a new BIOS, at all.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *MR KROGOTH*


If anybody believes this,

please dont breed.


I spent 2 hours watching the join.me streams and everything looked legit.

There were a significant number of background programs, but nothing crazy (CPU usage was still in the low single digit % when tests weren't running).

I do expect a mild improvement on a clean system, maybe ~10%.


----------



## 996gt2

Quote:



Originally Posted by *xd_1771*


I logically don't see how AMD would bother releasing this CPU bundled with a liquid cooling kit (which has been confirmed, and several screenshots of the kit have shown up on the net), if IPS (instructions per second, not clock) would be no better than the K10 architecture. I'm not denying any of the results here; just saying.


When Intel released the first Pentium 4s at 1.3 and 1.4 GHz, they were slower than the 1 GHz Pentium IIIs and Athlons of the era in many benchmarks. So it's not like it's never happened before.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *xd_1771*


BIOS updates _can_ improve performance, it's not unheard of.


Of course they can, but that magical BIOS update would have to give a >30% performance increase in order to be competitive with a 2600K.

And that *IS* unheard of.


----------



## Starbomba

I really do not expect a magic performance boost with everything polished up, nor it to reach Sandy Bridge performance, but the simple fact of getting 8 cores for $300 is what will make me buy it to make a BOINC rig.

And Thubans aren't too shabby themselves


----------



## Absauston

Quote:



I logically don't see how AMD would bother releasing this CPU bundled with a liquid cooling kit


Marketing gimmicks? Tin can, liquid cooling, world's best overclocker. Not that I am saying that this is true, but it is another perspective.


----------



## Don Karnage

Quote:



Originally Posted by *xd_1771*


I logically don't see how AMD would bother releasing this CPU bundled with a liquid cooling kit (which has been confirmed, and several screenshots of the kit have shown up on the net), if IPS (instructions per second, not clock) would be no better than the K10 architecture. I'm not denying any of the results here; just saying.

BIOS updates _can_ improve performance, it's not unheard of.


Amd is hoping people will buy it to overclock which is why they packaged the LCS in with the special edition 8150. Problem with that is sandy bridge doesn't need water to hit the same speeds the 8150 does.

Lab review spelled it out for everyone. At 4.8Ghz the 8150 pulled 268w. Anyone know how much a 2600K pulls at 4.8Ghz? 160w? 170w?


----------



## rubicsphere

There were several instances where I saw CPU usage at around 18% while benches were running as well as things using only 4 of 8 threads. Some benchmarks failed to even run. There was something going on that would cripple performance.


----------



## 996gt2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rubicsphere;15240799*
> There were several instances where I saw CPU usage at around 18% while benches were running as well as things using only 4 of 8 threads. Some benchmarks failed to even fun. There was something going on that would cripple performance.


Sure, but even if you add 50% to some of the results seen here, it's still not a very good showing


----------



## Cyrious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Don Karnage;15240788*
> At 4.8Ghz the 8150 pulled 268w.












thats more than my entire rig going full bore


----------



## xd_1771

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Don Karnage*


Amd is hoping people will buy it to overclock which is why they packaged the LCS in with the special edition 8150. Problem with that is sandy bridge doesn't need water to hit the same speeds the 8150 does.

Lab review spelled it out for everyone. At 4.8Ghz the 8150 pulled 268w. Anyone know how much a 2600K pulls at 4.8Ghz? 160w? 170w?


No modern CPU offering could realistically pull that much, not even anything less power efficient of the older generation. This value probably took into account other system components, and probably does not take into account PSU and VRM efficiency levels.


----------



## Vagrant Storm

Well...now that we know all about Bulldozer...what the heck are we going to talk about on OCN?


----------



## kevink82

SO..... what exactly is wrong with bulldozer? Encoding seems fine and gaming performance seems ok so far based on the few released benchmarks.

People nowdays i think just expect everything to be so special..... do remember bulldozer price compare to the upcoming sandy bridge-e.......


----------



## Armand Hammer

Quote:



Originally Posted by *996gt2*


This is only one of many leaks today, and they all show pretty much the same thing. These benches were done by reliable sources (such as Monstru @ Lab501 in Romania). I realize the results in this particular thread are lower than usual because of background programs running, but even without those tasks running it still performs about the same as a Thuban.

So much for 5 years of R&D.


Exactly, the trends are all pointing in the same direction and it looks very bleak for AMD. They could have just die shrunk the deneb/thubans and would have pretty much got the same results.

This level of performance would have looked good 1-2 years ago but now it just looks poor. Still it could all be wrong and maybe BD will be better on release, I am prepared to admit that.


----------



## 996gt2

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Vagrant Storm*


Well...now that we know all about Bulldozer...what the heck are we going to talk about on OCN?


*Where to find good deals on 2500Ks and 2600Ks







*


----------



## Don Karnage

Quote:



Originally Posted by *kevink82*


SO..... what exactly is wrong with bulldozer? Encoding seems fine and gaming performance seems ok so far based on the few released benchmarks.

People nowdays i think just expect everything to be so special..... do remember bulldozer price compare to the upcoming sandy bridge-e.......


I'll leave that question up to the more experienced ocn members. Bad design perhaps?


----------



## Ruckol1

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Vagrant Storm*


Well...now that we know all about Bulldozer...what the heck are we going to talk about on OCN?


lol that was funny


----------



## savagebunny

To be quite honest, when I had my rig back home, I would still have steam, vent, mozilla, skype, afterburner, IDM and many others running in the background on my rig.

It BARELY affected my results, I wasn't shooting for world records but it was about 1-2% margin of error with programs in the background.

But also gotta count in, him running remote support which is also using 256 bit AES, so having to encrypt/decrypt will use CPU cycles, and the on-board NIC will use even more CPU cycles.

So even, if he went to a offline machine and took the processes to the minimum, he maybe would of gotten 4.93 in Cinebench for example. So really, this is what is going to be when he actually gets officially listed for sale.


----------



## fishhawk

No matter what-if Bd brings most of what they claim to the table when released, it will be a great upgrade at a very nice price. So i realy dont know why so manny are jumping the gun here and quite a few not even giving it a chance before it can prove its self.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Don Karnage*


Lab review spelled it out for everyone. At 4.8Ghz the 8150 pulled 268w. Anyone know how much a 2600K pulls at 4.8Ghz? 160w? 170w?


It's going to vary considerably from chip to chip.

My 2600k at 4.8GHz (which is near it's limit as it's not a great chip) is probably over 200w. I have to back it off to 4.5GHz to be comfortable cooling it with an Arrow.


----------



## xd_1771

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Don Karnage*


I'll leave that question up to the more experienced ocn members. Bad design perhaps?


This is your answer:

Quote:



Originally Posted by *xd_1771*


*I should remind all thread participants that what JF-AMD has stated in the Bulldozer Pre-Launch FAQ applies in the same way here. No benchmarks released before the lift of NDA will be representative of the final product, and there would be several reasons as to why.*


----------



## Armand Hammer

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Vagrant Storm*


Well...now that we know all about Bulldozer...what the heck are we going to talk about on OCN?


SB-e and how much better it will be than SB?

How quick AMD can get Piledriver out and forget about BD?


----------



## Don Karnage

Quote:



Originally Posted by *fishhawk*


No matter what-if Bd brings most of what they claim to the table when released, it will be a great upgrade at a very nice price. So i realy dont know why so manny are jumping the gun here and quite a few not even giving it a chance before it can prove its self.


It's not bringing what they claimed to the table at all. There have been 4 reviews and they're all poor.


----------



## Dmac73

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevink82;15240847*
> SO..... what exactly is wrong with bulldozer? Encoding seems fine and gaming performance seems ok so far based on the few released benchmarks.
> 
> People nowdays i think just expect everything to be so special..... do remember bulldozer price compare to the upcoming sandy bridge-e.......


A) Encoding is OK but BAD for 8 cores...........

B) Gaming performance at @ high resolution on GPU bottlenecked games = POINTLESS, NO SIGNIFICANCE. The leaked low res FPS scores for BD are plain bad.

C)Yes, price = performance. Thank you. When i said this a week ago, magically somehow every AMD fanboy decided that 2011 was the year that price doesn't = performance and you get magical 400$ performance for ~240$. Right.


----------



## $ilent

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Don Karnage;15240862*
> I'll leave that question up to the more experienced ocn members. Bad design perhaps?


Consdering it costs $100 million to produce a new CPU architecture, they obviously skimped out when it came to paying the bill


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xd_1771;15240840*
> No modern CPU offering could realistically pull that much, not even anything less power efficient of the older generation. This value probably took into account other system components, and probably does not take into account PSU and VRM efficiency levels.


Once you start reaching the upper limits of what a chip can do, power consumption skyrockets.


----------



## Don Karnage

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xd_1771;15240886*
> This is your answer:


Yeah i just don't buy it XD. 4 reviews in 3 days and they've all been poor. Too much hype and none of the benchmarks to back it up. Prerelease or not. The reviews were done with retail chips.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Armand Hammer;15240894*
> SB-e and how much better it will be than SB?
> 
> How quick AMD can get Piledriver out and forget about BD?


SB-E is just sandy bridge with 2 more cores. What i want to see is the E5 Xeon's with 8 core's.


----------



## willibj

The eagerness of certain individuals to jump to the conclusion of Bulldozers failure whilst insistently remaining unconcerned with all of the potentially fallacious and spurious conditions of pre-release, unconfirmed, unsolicited, counter-to-AMD's-explicit-conditions-of-release benchmarks that show absurdly low performance levels is a perfect representation of cognitive bias and ultimately, fanboyism in action.

Your desires to accept the failures in joyful glee and without appropriate, objective skepticism, when the actual release is mere days away is indicative of your preconceptions you bring to the table.

As many have explicitly stated again and again and again, for numerous reasons, nothing pre-release can be considered representative, and logically shouldn't be. All your postures and confident assertions of the failures of Bulldozer are illogical, hyperbolic, rhetorical nonsense.

Stop kidding yourselves. If you're on here repeating the notion that untrustworthy benchmarks are the pre-release nails in Bulldozer's coffin, days before release, given all the official context provided, then you are unequivocally suffering blind fanboyism.

State the same thing, if true, after release, when the conditions are satisfied, and I'll support you, as will all other level headed, rational, objective people.

But until then, stay your tongue or realize what you are based upon how you approach these benchmarks and your response to such. Fanboys, be it pro one brand or anti another. Accept it. Deal with it. Stop thinking yourself the height of objective commentary, and lose the self-satisfied, ego-centric delusions - everyone is sick of it.

End rant. Peace.


----------



## rubicsphere

Quote:



Originally Posted by *996gt2*


Sure, but even if you add 50% to some of the results seen here, it's still not a very good showing










This is true. I'm not trying to defend BD because at this point I think it's pretty obvious it's not at the level we all suspected. However, I can feel more comfortable that retail performance should be higher than what we have seen thus far.


----------



## Dmac73

Quote:



Originally Posted by *$ilent*


Consdering it costs $100 million to produce a new CPU architecture, they obviously skimped out when it came to paying the bill










Exactly, this was a design to SAVE money and use WHAT money they have. AMD's budget isnt exactly forgiving. They have no where near the funds to recruit the technology to design something faster clock for clock than Intel's latest and greatest. That takes loads of resources. They opted for more cores for less money. As far as marketing is concerned its not a half bad strategy. 4ghz 8 cores is a seller to the unknowing, which happens to be the huge majority.


----------



## Don Karnage

Quote:



Originally Posted by *willibj*


The eagerness of certain individuals to jump to the conclusion of Bulldozers failure whilst insistently remaining unconcerned with all of the potentially fallacious and spurious conditions of pre-release, unconfirmed, unsolicited, counter-to-AMD's-explicit-conditions-of-release benchmarks that show absurdly low performance levels is a perfect representation of cognitive bias and ultimately, fanboyism in action.

Your desires to accept the failures in joyful glee and without appropriate, objective skepticism, when the actual release is mere days away is indicative of your preconceptions you bring to the table.

As many have explicitly stated again and again and again, for numerous reasons, nothing pre-release can be considered representative, and logically shouldn't be. All your postures and confident assertions of the failures of Bulldozer are illogical, hyperbolic, rhetorical nonsense.

Stop the BS. And stop kidding yourselves. If you're on here repeating the notion that untrustworthy benchmarks are the pre-release nails in Bulldozers coffin, days before release, given all the official context provided, then you are unequivocally suffering blind fanboyism.

State the same thing, if true, after release, when the conditions are satisfied, and I'll support you, as will all other level headed, rational, objective people.

But until then, stay your tongue or realize what you are based upon how you approach these benchmarks and your response to such. Fanboys, be it pro one brand or anti another. Accept it. Deal with it. Stop thinking yourself the height of objective commentary, and lose the self-satisfied, ego-centric delusions - everyone is sick of it.

End rant. Peace.


That whole rant was a walking Facepalm

Quote:



Originally Posted by *rubicsphere*


This is true. I'm not trying to defend BD because at this point I think it's pretty obvious it's not at the level we all suspected. However, I can feel more comfortable that retail performance should be higher than what we have seen thus far.



Lab review and the one in this thread was done with retail chips so how do you expect performance to get better with the same exact chips?


----------



## 996gt2

Quote:



Originally Posted by *xd_1771*


*No modern CPU offering could realistically pull that much*, not even anything less power efficient of the older generation. This value probably took into account other system components, and probably does not take into account PSU and VRM efficiency levels.


*Really now?*

Once you start overclocking, the power consumption goes up greatly.
*
Even a 2600K @ 5 GHz will draw somewhere around 250W by itself. * One of the moderators on Anandtech personally tested this in a very comprehensive thread. Total system power draw during LinX at 5 GHz was around 350W. If you take into account the fact that the GPU is not stressed during LinX and that the other components would draw about 100W max, you get a CPU draw of around 250W.

I would not be at all surprised if Bulldozer drew 250+ W at 5 GHz, especially considering AMD's 32nm process tech is not as mature as Intel's.










Source: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2195927


----------



## rubicsphere

Quote:



Originally Posted by *willibj*


The eagerness of certain individuals to jump to the conclusion of Bulldozers failure whilst insistently remaining unconcerned with all of the potentially fallacious and spurious conditions of pre-release, unconfirmed, unsolicited, counter-to-AMD's-explicit-conditions-of-release benchmarks that show absurdly low performance levels is a perfect representation of cognitive bias and ultimately, fanboyism in action.

Your desires to accept the failures in joyful glee and without appropriate, objective skepticism, when the actual release is mere days away is indicative of your preconceptions you bring to the table.

As many have explicitly stated again and again and again, for numerous reasons, nothing pre-release can be considered representative, and logically shouldn't be. All your postures and confident assertions of the failures of Bulldozer are illogical, hyperbolic, rhetorical nonsense.

Stop the BS. And stop kidding yourselves. If you're on here repeating the notion that untrustworthy benchmarks are the pre-release nails in Bulldozers coffin, days before release, given all the official context provided, then you are unequivocally suffering blind fanboyism.

State the same thing, if true, after release, when the conditions are satisfied, and I'll support you, as will all other level headed, rational, objective people.

But until then, stay your tongue or realize what you are based upon how you approach these benchmarks and your response to such. Fanboys, be it pro one brand or anti another. Accept it. Deal with it. Stop thinking yourself the height of objective commentary, and lose the self-satisfied, ego-centric delusions - everyone is sick of it.

End rant. Peace.


Amazingly put.


----------



## fishhawk

Cant beleive what peolple realy expected out of Bd,lol. And only going by a couple of leaked benchies. Time to enter a different thread, this one is like beating a dead horse lol.


----------



## Acefire

Here is mine if your still collecting Data.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:



Originally Posted by *996gt2*


*Really now?*

Once you start overclocking, the power consumption goes up greatly.
*
Even a 2600K @ 5 GHz will draw somewhere around 250W by itself. * One of the moderators on Anandtech personally tested this in a very comprehensive thread. Total system power draw during LinX at 5 GHz was around 350W. If you take into account the fact that the GPU is not stressed during LinX and that the other components would draw about 100W max, you get a CPU draw of around 250W.










Source: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2195927


Yep, power consumption curves are pretty crazy.

Older chip, but still relevant:










There are damn good reasons top end OCing boards have VRMs that can deliver upwards of 400w.


----------



## gdmk

http://www.chiphell.com/thread-275994-1-1.html
something interesting


----------



## $ilent

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dmac73;15240949*
> Exactly, this was a design to SAVE money and use WHAT money they have. AMD's budget isnt exactly forgiving. They have no where near the funds to recruit the technology to design something faster clock for clock than Intel's latest and greatest. That takes loads of resources. They opted for more cores for less money. As far as marketing is concerned its not a half bad strategy. 4ghz 8 cores is a seller to the unknowing, which happens to be the huge majority.


See thats it, Intel is smart in that they know smart people like us demand good performing processors and are willing to pay upwards of a thousand £/$ for a processor, whereas AMD would be lucky to have an employee using thier 50% discount card to buy anything over $300


----------



## Vagrant Storm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *willibj;15240934*
> The eagerness of certain individuals to jump to the conclusion of Bulldozers failure whilst insistently remaining unconcerned with all of the potentially fallacious and spurious conditions of pre-release, unconfirmed, unsolicited, counter-to-AMD's-explicit-conditions-of-release benchmarks that show absurdly low performance levels is a perfect representation of cognitive bias and ultimately, fanboyism in action.
> 
> Your desires to accept the failures in joyful glee and without appropriate, objective skepticism, when the actual release is mere days away is indicative of your preconceptions you bring to the table.
> 
> As many have explicitly stated again and again and again, for numerous reasons, nothing pre-release can be considered representative, and logically shouldn't be. All your postures and confident assertions of the failures of Bulldozer are illogical, hyperbolic, rhetorical nonsense.
> 
> Stop the BS. And stop kidding yourselves. If you're on here repeating the notion that untrustworthy benchmarks are the pre-release nails in Bulldozers coffin, days before release, given all the official context provided, then you are unequivocally suffering blind fanboyism.
> 
> State the same thing, if true, after release, when the conditions are satisfied, and I'll support you, as will all other level headed, rational, objective people.
> 
> But until then, stay your tongue or realize what you are based upon how you approach these benchmarks and your response to such. Fanboys, be it pro one brand or anti another. Accept it. Deal with it. Stop thinking yourself the height of objective commentary, and lose the self-satisfied, ego-centric delusions - everyone is sick of it.
> 
> End rant. Peace.


But this is after release...appearently in eastern Europe and West Asia it has been released or let out anyway. It is really hard to not believe it when you view it with your own eyes...in a real time feed. I take no glee in it...but I can't deny what I witnessed...of which numbers I will not comment on till the NDA is lifted on in my area of the world.


----------



## rubicsphere

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Don Karnage;15240951*
> Lab review and the one in this thread was done with retail chips so how do you expect performance to get better with the same exact chips?


Regardless of it being retail or not it was obviously not performing correctly. Like I said before some benches failed to even start, the load on the CPU was hardly ever 100%, clock speed were stuck at 2.8Ghz for the majority of the video, etc. How could you not expect it to perform better when things run smoothly as intended?


----------



## 996gt2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rubicsphere;15241016*
> Regardless of it being retail or not it was obviously not performing correctly. Like I said before some benches failed to even start, the load on the CPU was hardly ever 100%, clock speed were stuck at 2.8Ghz for the majority of the video, etc. How could you not expect it to perform better when things run smoothly as intended?


I've said it before and I will say it again. A BIOS update has never given a 30+% performance increase, so this is not going to happen for BD.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:



Originally Posted by *gdmk*


http://www.chiphell.com/thread-275994-1-1.html
something interesting


Better OCing is certainly possible with a new BIOS, but better performance at the same clock speeds is extremely unlikely.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *rubicsphere*


Regardless of it being retail or not it was obviously not performing correctly. Like I said before some benches failed to even start, the load on the CPU was hardly ever 100%, clock speed were stuck at 2.8Ghz for the majority of the video, etc. How could you not expect it to perform better when things run smoothly as intended?


I don't know what you were watching.

A few benches did not run, namely LinX, but the clock speeds looked fine, and load in the multi-threaded tests was where it should have been.


----------



## Don Karnage

Quote:



Originally Posted by *rubicsphere*


Regardless of it being retail or not it was obviously not performing correctly. Like I said before some benches failed to even start, the load on the CPU was hardly ever 100%, clock speed were stuck at 2.8Ghz for the majority of the video, etc. How could you not expect it to perform better when things run smoothly as intended?


Try this one

http://lab501.ro/procesoare-chipsetu...ldozer-preview


----------



## $ilent




----------



## xd_1771

^ I should point out that several ASUS AM3 board beta BIOS claiming AM3 support were released in the same way: ASUS recommended that the beta BIOS not be used with an AM3 chip, so you couldn't simply flash it and consider yourself FX-ready. Although some BIOS may support both Phenom II and FX chips, a BIOS for the FX chips only may be the most optimal choice. This may also be why several GA-990XA-UD3 club members who have attempted to update to bios F9A with AM3 Phenom II chips have had problems. F9A updates the CPU AGESA code.


----------



## rubicsphere

Quote:



Originally Posted by *996gt2*


I've said it before and I will say it again. A BIOS update has never given a 30+% performance increase, so this is not going to happen for BD.


Nor do I expect it to, but performance increases are increases no matter the magnitude. At this point I don't even care how real these are I just want all the speculation to end and come 10/12 hopefully the madness will cease


----------



## kzone75

Quote:



Originally Posted by *996gt2*


I've said it before and I will say it again. A BIOS update has never given a 30+% performance increase, so this is not going to happen for BD.


Well, the latest F5A BIOS for updating the AGESA 1.1.0.0 code on my UD3 gave me a 99% decrease. It stops at "loading operating system". So anything is possible..


----------



## rubicsphere

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Don Karnage;15241060*
> Try this one
> 
> http://lab501.ro/procesoare-chipseturi/amd-fx-8150-bulldozer-preview


Read it countless times. The only explanations are either:

1. Actual performance
2. JF stated that only final silicon will be release to ppl who sign NDA.

With #2 I know these guys have retail BD, but maybe they are missing a BIOS that won't, or can't, go live to the public until NDA is over. And yes I understand they are very respected members of the OCing community.


----------



## Vagrant Storm

Quote:



Originally Posted by *rubicsphere*


Regardless of it being retail or not it was obviously not performing correctly. Like I said before some benches failed to even start, the load on the CPU was hardly ever 100%, clock speed were stuck at 2.8Ghz for the majority of the video, etc. How could you not expect it to perform better when things run smoothly as intended?


Clocks were bouncing between 3.1 and 3.4...which in its self is a little wierd, but I don't know how the CPU is supposed to work. It could be normal for a stock FX 8120.

The only time the CPU wasn't 100% was that LinX test that didn't really work. The tests that weren't using 8 threads of course weren't puting the total CPU ussuage up to 100%, but the cores that were used were at 100%

Hooo boy...I can't wait to see the forsale threads here on OCN in the coming weeks. I am going to get myself a few cheap AM3+ mother boards.


----------



## Heavy MG

Quote:



Originally Posted by *xd_1771*


*I should remind all thread participants that what JF-AMD has stated in the Bulldozer Pre-Launch FAQ applies in the same way here. No benchmarks released before the lift of NDA will be representative of the final product, and there would be several reasons as to why.*


In case someone hasn't seen this.
Inb4JFworksforAMDsohecan'tsayitsucksexcuse.


----------



## Diabolical999

Quote:



Originally Posted by *$ilent*












pebkac.


----------



## xd_1771

Quote:



Originally Posted by *kzone75*


Well, the latest F5A BIOS for updating the AGESA 1.1.0.0 code on my UD3 gave me a 99% decrease. It stops at "loading operating system". So anything is possible..










F5A to the 990FXA-UD3 seems to be like F9A to the 990XA-UD3. It may be one of those BIOS versions more suited for the FX processor but not at all for previous gen processors, similar to as pointed out in this post.


----------



## lightsout

Quote:



Originally Posted by *xd_1771*


This is your answer:


So you think its impossible that someone could get their hands on one that doesn't care about an nda? Or are they not releasing bioses/drivers that will let the cpu go to its full potential.


----------



## willibj

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Vagrant Storm*


But this is after release...appearently in eastern Europe and West Asia it has been released or let out anyway. It is really hard to not believe it when you view it with your own eyes...in a real time feed. I take no glee in it...but I can't deny what I witnessed...of which numbers I will not comment on till the NDA is lifted on in my area of the world.


1) apparently ... enough said.
2) it's not officially released, a condition explicitly stated by AMD. 
3) you witnessed a spurious event with your own eyes. The point you are still missing is that what you witnessed with your own eyes may have been faulty, so your accepted anecdotal evidence could also be faulty. Again, given the context stated by AMD, wait the few days for official benchmarks.

As it stands now, the rationalizations you provided are still the expressions of preconceived notions clutching at straws to perpetuate a premature conclusion.

The whole, fundamental point of objectivity and rationality is to accept the stated required conditions. Nothing provided as examples of Bulldozers performance so far qualifies, period. It doesn't matter where they're from, there are too many spurious variables pre-release.

seriously, is it that hard to wait until the pre-stated conditions are satisfied before making judgement?

Every statement on BD prior to such is, again, hyperbolic, rhetorical nonsense. Patience is a virtue, and it also separates the fools from the pack.


----------



## DayoftheGreek

Quote:



Originally Posted by *996gt2*


*Really now?*

Once you start overclocking, the power consumption goes up greatly.
*
Even a 2600K @ 5 GHz will draw somewhere around 250W by itself. * One of the moderators on Anandtech personally tested this in a very comprehensive thread. Total system power draw during LinX at 5 GHz was around 350W. If you take into account the fact that the GPU is not stressed during LinX and that the other components would draw about 100W max, you get a CPU draw of around 250W.

I would not be at all surprised if Bulldozer drew 250+ W at 5 GHz, especially considering AMD's 32nm process tech is not as mature as Intel's.

http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj163/idontcare_photo_bucket/Intel%20Core%20i7-2600K/i7-2600KPower-ConsumptionwithH100NT-H1.png[IMG]

Source: [URL=http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2195927]http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2195927[/URL]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Interesting graph. If you extrapolate that graph upwards and continue on its exponential fit, it looks like at 5.5GHz a 2600k would consume around 500W or more. I'm just eyeballing it, but I can't image it using that much. Do we have any legit power consumption benchmarks with that much OC?


----------



## ninjagordy

hmmmmm....... im gonna sit back and wait a few days before i decide if its good or bad, either way....if its faster than my 1090T @ 4.1ghz and is not expensive...... ill grab one.... kinda pointless not to since i ditched my intel **** and bought a whole am3+ ready platform awaiting bulldozer....


----------



## Dmac73

Low res gaming scores: BD can barely break 100FPS on RE5 with a Matrix 580.



















Are those games Intel biased too? This may be be a better representation of single threaded performance than sPi for BD.


----------



## $ilent

^JF-AMD didnt really answer anything in that thread, all he basically asked and answered was:

Q. Will BD be able to do this....
A: Dont bother asking because I dont know

Q. Will BD be this expensive....
A. Dont bother asking because im not going to answer.

Q. Will BD be released at....
A. Refer to previous answer.

Glad im not AMD fan otherwise i would be well irritated, The questions everyone is blatantly asking were just avoided totally.

Oh and also at the request for pre sale benchmarks by answering "This will only stall sales", to me thats just another way of saying "The chips are pretty crap, but we obviously dont want people to know that until they've bought the chips and it will be too late for refund".


----------



## radaja

Quote:



Originally Posted by *xd_1771*


I logically don't see how AMD would bother releasing this CPU bundled with a liquid cooling kit (which has been confirmed, and several screenshots of the kit have shown up on the net), if IPS (instructions per second, not clock) would be no better than the K10 architecture. I'm not denying any of the results here; just saying.

BIOS updates _can_ improve performance, it's not unheard of.


to me this WCing bundle points more towards AMD knowing that OCing will be needed to be competitive?
and that doesnt make me happy at all,but since they will all be less than $250 i cant complain
i wonder how much the WCing bundled BD will be....maybe $300


----------



## willibj

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Don Karnage*


That whole rant was a walking Facepalm


Nice rebuttal. Seriously. Well argued. Very rational points, dissection and explanation.


----------



## rubicsphere

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ninjagordy;15241170*
> kinda pointless not to since i ditched my intel **** and bought a whole am3+ ready platform awaiting bulldozer....


Hahaha I did the same thing: http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=1896924

I still have the $ in my paypal from selling my Intel parts awaiting FX release.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *willibj;15241166*
> Every statement on BD prior to such is, again, hyperbolic, rhetorical nonsense. Patience is a virtue, and it also separates the fools from the pack.


And when your version of patience gets you nothing but the same answers three months later than everyone else, I assume you'll acknowledge yourself as the fool the pack left behind?


----------



## Heavy MG

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Don Karnage*


That whole rant was a walking Facepalm

Lab review and the one in this thread was done with retail chips so how do you expect performance to get better with the same exact chips?


Very thorough response.









Quote:



Originally Posted by *willibj*


Nice rebuttal. Seriously. Well argued. Very rational points, dissection and explanation.


IKR?

Quote:



Originally Posted by *$ilent*


^JF-AMD didnt really answer anything in that thread, all he basically asked and answered was:

Q. Will BD be able to do this....
A: Dont bother asking because I dont know

Q. Will BD be this expensive....
A. Dont bother asking because im not going to answer.

Q. Will BD be released at....
A. Refer to previous answer.

Glad im not AMD fan otherwise i would be well irritated, The questions everyone is blatantly asking were just avoided totally.

Oh and also at the request for pre sale benchmarks by answering "This will only stall sales", to me thats just another way of saying "The chips are pretty crap, but we obviously dont want people to know that until they've bought the chips and it will be too late for refund".


It's called an NDA,in other words it means you have to shut up and not say anything until a certain date.
People will go looking for reviews then make a informed decision,it's not like there won't be any legit reviews when it releases.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Dmac73*


Low res gaming scores: BD can barely break 100FPS on RE5 with a Matrix 580.



















Are those games Intel biased too? This may be be a better representation of single threaded performance than sPi for BD.


I'd call those excel sheets moot,it even said in the translation that some of them were mixed up.

You Intel guys are having a field day with this thread,bashing what anyone else has to say and insisting that these "leaks" are factual. Just wait until more reviews on the 12th,if it sucks keep cheering with your blue team comrades,if not take the crap flinging to the PM's.


----------



## denial_

Quote:



Originally Posted by *$ilent*


Oh and also at the request for pre sale benchmarks by answering "This will only stall sales", to me thats just another way of saying "The chips are pretty crap, but we obviously dont want people to know that until they've bought the chips and it will be too late for refund".


----------



## Don Karnage

Quote:



Originally Posted by *willibj*


Nice rebuttal. Seriously. Well argued. Very rational points, dissection and explanation.


I have nothing to refute nor do i care to waste time typing up a response that you're not going to listen to anyway. There's mounds of data staring everyone in the face that BD is a failure yet they turn a blind eye to it. You want to wait till TPU and Anand come out with the reviews? Be my guest. Going to be the same data that's already out there.


----------



## $ilent

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Heavy MG*


It's called an NDA,in other words it means you have to shut up and not say anything until a certain date.
People will go looking for reviews then make a informed decision,it's not like there won't be any legit reviews when it releases.


So why not just create a thread called "Dont bother asking about BD due to the NDA" instead of making a thread full of unanswered questions...its just pointless reading.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Blameless*


And when your version of patience gets you nothing but the same answers three months later than everyone else, I assume you'll acknowledge yourself as the fool the pack left behind?


----------



## willibj

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Blameless*


And when your version of patience gets you nothing but the same answers three months later than everyone else, I assume you'll acknowledge yourself as the fool the pack left behind?


No, my patience will still be logically and rationally justified for adhering to the previously stated conditions required for legitimated benchmarking results. How would it be any different from what I've already stated, that I will accept and support any conclusion that is legitimate and official. Everything prior to such is necessarily not such.

And lets not forget we are talking 3 days not 3 months.

"My version of patience"? What, the one that doesn't jump to conclusions that absolutely contradict the explicit required conditions stated by AMD, the product manufacturer in question, whose product we are debating pre-release?

*IF* the results shown now are correct, then it will be unfortunate, but also, technically, a coincidence. If the results are different, then what?

Patience is still the virtue, and logic dictates that we wait for the official, substantiated benchmarks. That's a zero-sum policy, and objectively you must know this.


----------



## Dmac73

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Blameless*


And when your version of patience gets you nothing but the same answers three months later than everyone else, I assume you'll acknowledge yourself as the fool the pack left behind?


Truely golden.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *willibj*


And lets not forget we are talking 3 days not 3 months.

*IF* the results shown now are correct, then it will be unfortunate, but also, technically, a coincidence.


Anyone interested acknowledged the leaked benchmarks of 3 months ago as a very good possibility of being true, as even then a lot of them were from people that were credible in the past. Also the fact that leaks happen like that. It's inevitable, it is expected, it happened.

And no, not a coincidence. That is actually the opposite. It would have been fact, the entire time. Your logic probably can't be swayed but there was no coincidence my friend.


----------



## Heavy MG

Quote:



Originally Posted by *$ilent*


So why not just create a thread called "Dont bother asking about BD due to the NDA" instead of making a thread full of unanswered questions...its just pointless reading.


Did you even bother reading his "pointless" thread?
A lot of it was just answering questions that people kept filling his inbox over.
@Dmac,i noticed your personal attack b4 it was deleted,keep it up dude


----------



## Don Karnage

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Heavy MG*


Did you even bother reading his "pointless" thread?


The Bulldozer blog thread?


----------



## denial_

Is it only me or this whole thread is totally pointless? Rumors are rumors, period


----------



## Heavy MG

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Don Karnage*


The Bulldozer blog thread?


No his other sticky'd thread answering questions that people couldn't seem to read so kept bothering him about.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *denial_*


Is it only me or this whole thread is totally pointless? Rumors are rumors, period










Apparently the Intel fans seem to take these "leaks" as a fact as usual.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *$ilent*


Yes I read it, in fact when you open up that thread the frist 4 or 5 questions just talk about not answering questions due to "fear of sales stalling"aka not letting people find out the product is a load of crap.

BD pre launch FAQ - http://www.overclock.net/amd-cpus/11...aunch-faq.html


Exactly,it was repeat questions he was sick of answering,he can only say what he is allowed to say.
Please fill me in how it is " a load of crap". 
Just because they don't spill the beans like Intel doesn't mean it's a "load of crap".


----------



## $ilent

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Heavy MG*


Did you even bother reading his "pointless" thread?
A lot of it was just answering questions that people kept filling his inbox over.
@Dmac,i noticed your personal attack b4 it was deleted,keep it up dude










Yes I read it, in fact when you open up that thread the frist 4 or 5 questions just talk about not answering questions due to "fear of sales stalling"aka not letting people find out that the products due to be sold are a load of crap.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Don Karnage*


The Bulldozer blog thread?


BD pre launch FAQ (that aren't answered) - http://www.overclock.net/amd-cpus/11...aunch-faq.html


----------



## Don Karnage

Quote:



Originally Posted by *$ilent*


Yes I read it, in fact when you open up that thread the frist 4 or 5 questions just talk about not answering questions due to "fear of sales stalling"aka not letting people find out that the products due to be sold are a load of crap.


What did amd think would happen when benchmarks got released? Sales wouldn't stall?


----------



## Blameless

Quote:



Originally Posted by *willibj*


And lets not forget we are talking 3 days not 3 months.


I posted my best guess to BD performance, based on what was known at the time, almost 3 months ago.

It wasn't much off the results that have been shown so far, including todays demonstration. I was maybe slightly opitmistic (I said the fastest Bulldozer FX would match the 2600k in heavily threaded tasks and lose significantly in single threaded ones; I'd find the half dozen posts, but most of them are from now deleted threads).

So yeah, three months.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *willibj*


What, the one that doesn't jump to conclusions that absolutely contradict the explicit required conditions stated by AMD, the product manufacturer in question, whose product we are debating pre-release?


No, the one that apparently makes you think AMD controls space-time to the extent that it can go back and change the properties of hardware that was built weeks or months ago.

What AMD does or says is utterly irrelevant. These chips exist, they cannot be unmade, Bulldozer cannot be undone, the cat is out of the bag.

There is no magical fix that is going to dramatically change the performance figures we have see from a half-dozen different sources, which while may not all be perfect, are all painting a similar picture.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *willibj*


IF the results shown now are correct, then it will be unfortunate, but also, technically, a coincidence.


A coincidence? Hardly.

An FX-8120P performing like an FX-8120P is not a coincidence. In fact, it may even be intentional.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *willibj*


If the results are different, then what?


If overall consensus of results is markedly different then I'll have to start believing in magic, or evil conspiracy theories.


----------



## jrbroad77

these types of threads are what make people leave OCN, thinking it's just like Tom's Hardware. .. then again, maybe it is.


----------



## $ilent

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Heavy MG*


Please fill me in how it is " a load of crap". 
Just because they don't spill the beans like Intel doesn't mean it's a "load of crap".


Well you watched the video...this thing performs worse in benchies than AMDs current best offering. So you would literally have to be mentally ******ed to sell your hardware and buy these new 8 core chips. People have been aking such a big song and dance over these new BD chips, and I am one of those people who have been saying for months that BD will not be as good as people think, and it seems I am correct.

Call me a Intel fanboy all you want, but when im presented with two different processors at very very similar prices and one is miles better than the other, im just making the smart choice when I go with Intel.

If by some divine miracle AMD decide to spend some money on research and not be so tight fisted in the next decade or so, and thier new offerings are better than Intels sure ill buy the AMD chips.

But until then, ill stick with the obvious better choice.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Don Karnage*


What did amd think would happen when benchmarks got released? Sales wouldn't stall?


Well people obviously arent gonna get excited when they see the garbage benchmark results. Still...even if the new AMD chips turned out to be no better than the old athlon X2 series, people would still buy them if they were told the price is right.

Honestly, some people need to wake up and smell the crap being pushed in thier face! As of this moment now in UK you can get a 2500k for Â£167, and a 1100T for Â£150. You would be mental if you were to "go cheap and save a few quid" by buying the 1100T, when the intel chip is so so much better in every aspect.


----------



## tpi2007

Quote:



Originally Posted by *xd_1771*


F5A to the 990FXA-UD3 seems to be like F9A to the 990XA-UD3. It may be one of those BIOS versions more suited for the FX processor but not at all for previous gen processors, similar to as pointed out in this post.



What ? Is that a widespread problem ? That would in itself be a catastrophe. AMD said in a blog post that people preparing for Bulldozer should update to the latest BIOS (presuming, of course they were using a current generation AMD CPU). If they can't fix that problem, then AMD might as well have released Bulldozer in a different socket. I sure hope it's just a temporary problem that can and will be fixed with a BIOS update.


----------



## Don Karnage

Quote:



Originally Posted by *$ilent*


Well people obviously arent gonna get excited when they see the garbage benchmark results. Still...even if the new AMD chips turned out to be no better than the old athlon X2 series, people would still buy them if they were told the price is right.

Honestly, some people need to wake up and smell the crap being pushed in thier face! As of this moment now in UK you can get a 2500k for Â£167, and a 1100T for Â£150. You would be mental if you were to "go cheap and save a few quid" by buying the 1100T, when the intel chip is so so much better in every aspect.


Thats the problem with consumers. They're utterly moronic. They see 6 cores and think it has to be faster. Its the same reason amd is pushing 8 cores. Mindless consumers will be like "Wow 8 cores" and buy it without blinking an eye.


----------



## radaja

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Don Karnage*


Thats the problem with consumers. They're utterly moronic. They see 6 cores and think it has to be faster. Its the same reason amd is pushing 8 cores. Mindless consumers will be like "Wow 8 cores" and buy it without blinking an eye.


exactly








AMD will be just fine if these performance numbers are true


----------



## Heavy MG

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Don Karnage*


Thats the problem with consumers. They're utterly moronic. They see 6 cores and think it has to be faster. Its the same reason amd is pushing 8 cores. Mindless consumers will be like "Wow 8 cores" and buy it without blinking an eye.


Either way,no day to day application is going to use 6 or 8 cores.
If you're so quick to think that these results confirms BD is crap without waiting a few more days for actual reviews,you might as well leave the thread now.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *tpi2007*


What ? Is that a widespread problem ? That would in itself be a catastrophe. AMD said in a blog post that people preparing for Bulldozer should update to the latest BIOS (presuming, of course they were using a current generation AMD CPU). If they can't fix that problem, then AMD might as well have released Bulldozer in a different socket. I sure hope it's just a temporary problem that can and will be fixed with a BIOS update.


So the whole BIOS thing isn't an excuse? lol.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Heavy MG*


Either way,no day to day application is going to use 6 or 8 cores.


Ever run 7-zip or WinRAR?


----------



## $ilent

Quote:



Originally Posted by *rubicsphere*


I don't see why people are so concerned with how others choose to spend their hard earned money.


Its not that, its just irritating to see hundreds of threads about BD all the time, its obviously nothing to get excited about.


----------



## Don Karnage

Quote:



Originally Posted by *$ilent*


Its not that, its just irritating to see hundreds of threads about BD all the time, its obviously nothing to get excited about.


There's something we overlooked. Sandy Bridge E will be out in 5 weeks.


----------



## Heavy MG

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Blameless*


Ever run 7-zip or WinRAR?


I've only used 7-Zip a few times,but yeah I've used winRAR,but 7-Zip and WinRAR aren't exactly the only applications you're going to use everyday.
The only other thing I have that can actually use 6 cores is BFBC2. I have yet to try out the BF3 beta to see how many cores it uses.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *radaja*


exactly








AMD will be just fine if these performance numbers are true


If bankruptcy and closing their CPU division is just fine,then yeah they'll do just fine.
Mass chaos will ensue from the enthusiasts and power users,probably the reviewers too if this turn out to be true,which will turn everyone away from even considering a FX CPU. Those fancy tin boxes will just collect dust on retail shelves.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Don Karnage*


There's something we overlooked. Sandy Bridge E will be out in 5 weeks.










Because everyone can afford a $500+ CPU. IB will have nearly the performance of SB-E.


----------



## SSJVegeta

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Don Karnage*


There's something we overlooked. Sandy Bridge E will be out in 5 weeks.










I'm looking forward to Ivy Bridge more.


----------



## Don Karnage

Quote:



Originally Posted by *SSJVegeta*


I'm looking forward to Ivy Bridge more.


As am i but i want to see how much the 8 core Xeon's are going to be. If they're under 1400 i might just splurge


----------



## beers

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Heavy MG*


If bankruptcy and closing their CPU division is just fine,then yeah they'll do just fine.
Mass chaos will ensue from the enthusiasts and power users,probably the reviewers too if this turn out to be true,which will turn everyone away from even considering a FX CPU.


That's a bit blown out of proportion..

Also, I'm sure you've used more than one application at a time?


----------



## Kantastic

How does it fold?


----------



## Blameless

For the record, I believe the results shown today, in the tests that appeared to be working correctly, will prove to be largely accurate.

I also still plan on purchasing an FX-8150P to replace either my 555BE or 955BE.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Heavy MG*


I've only used 7-Zip a few times,but yeah I've used winRAR,but 7-Zip and WinRAR aren't exactly the only applications you're going to use everyday.


My point was that they are the kinds of applications that many people often do use every day, and they are very heavily threaded.

Personally, I use many well threaded apps very frequently. Not everyone does, but most people make at least some use of them.


----------



## Samurai Batgirl

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Acefire*


Shut up! Are you all on your period this week?


I don't have those.









On topic...I really hope all this was just like a bad chip and the fact that he had a live stream going along with teamviewer....

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Kantastic*


How does it fold?


Also this.


----------



## Don Karnage

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Blameless*


For the record, I believe the results shown today, in the tests that appeared to be working correctly, will prove to be largely accurate.

I also still plan on purchasing an FX-8150P to replace either my 555BE or 955BE.


I'm unfortunately going to pass on the 4100/990FX rig i was going to buy unless MC has them for 79.99 then i will def buy one.


----------



## Heavy MG

Quote:



Originally Posted by *beers*


That's a bit blown out of proportion..

Also, I'm sure you've used more than one application at a time?


You're right,but the APU alone can't keep them afloat,not to mention at the moment a $100 Llano outperforms BD.
Even with multitasking,the core load will usually only spread to 4 cores.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Blameless*


For the record, I believe the results shown today, in the tests that appeared to be working correctly, will prove to be largely accurate.

I also still plan on purchasing an FX-8150P to replace either my 555BE or 955BE.
.


Why would you replace your 555BE or 955BE with something that is worse?

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Don Karnage*


I'm unfortunately going to pass on the 4100/990FX rig i was going to buy unless MC has them for 79.99 then i will def buy one.


I think you should wait and see until Anand,Tom's,MaxPC,etc. posts reviews,but MC will probably have them lower than retail price.


----------



## mickeyfuqinp

Quote:



Originally Posted by *willibj*


You mistake me for another, I never made that comment about having children.

And your analysis of my intellect, sophistication, vocabulary and intentions are irrelevant, as well as incorrect.

You continue to miss the point that even though everything you saw may be correct, that there are potentially software/hardware variables, bios conflicts, underperforming hardware issues, etc etc, that are affecting the results that are yet to be dealt with.

These would not be your fault, at all, but would all the same make all of the results thus far inconclusive. You can have a hundred corroborating test results, all showing the same results. If there is a fundamental flaw due to their being pre-release, then they are all equally flawed.

Can you guarantee such is not the case? No. Unequivocally not.

Can you guarantee that the chips out there are legit retail chips? No. You cannot, because as we know, it is still pre-official release.

Can you guarantee that the bios releases out there are working correctly? No.

This line of reasoning continues all the way through the combinations of hardware and software.

As such, the wisest move is to simply wait for the official date of release.

After that go to town, say what you want. Until then, you are speaking of an unreleased product, and you simply cannot verify or validate that which you conclude from these spurious benches.

The fact that you need to post such conclusions dogmatically, and defend their illogical presumptions emphatically highlights the preconceived notions you wish to perpetuate. The gleeful reactions to your premature conclusions of failure highlight the fanboyism - perhaps not you specifically, but others are falling into this trap without question or second thought.

Look - if Bulldozer is making the same results in the post-release benches, and AMD has naught to say about it that isn't marketing fluff, I'll be all over them like a rash too and saving for potentially Ivy Bridge.

I'm not fanboy. I am acutely logical. Conclusions prior to validated evidence is illogical. End of discussion.



Quote:



Originally Posted by *jrbroad77*


these types of threads are what make people leave OCN, thinking it's just like Tom's Hardware. .. then again, maybe it is.



Quote:



Originally Posted by *rubicsphere*


I don't see why people are so concerned with how others choose to spend their hard earned money.



Where did all you reasonable people come from?
i was starting to get a bad impression on OCN..


----------



## radaja

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Heavy MG*


If bankruptcy and closing their CPU division is just fine,then yeah they'll do just fine.
Mass chaos will ensue from the enthusiasts and power users,probably the reviewers too if this turn out to be true,which will turn everyone away from even considering a FX CPU. Those fancy tin boxes will just collect dust on retail shelves.


wow,just wow?are you a drama major?
AMD will be fine,their cpu division will be fine,and with a little luck and some new revisions and architecture tweaks FX might take the lead in the desktop market(i doubt it though)


----------



## Blameless

The only thing that has surprised me about the results of any of the BD tests so far is how disappointed some people seem to be.

The real world, well threaded, tests that were shown still have BD competitive with Intel CPUs in the same price range.

The 8120 tested today easily keeps up with a 2500 in x264, and very nearly matches it in Cinebench (if the circumstances of the test are taken into consideration). Given OCing reports that have BD more or less matching SB, these chips aren't that bad a deal.

Of course they probably won't be such a good idea for gamers, but anyone who does nothing but play games should already have a 2500k if they were even considering a 200-250 dollar chip.


----------



## Heavy MG

Quote:



Originally Posted by *radaja*


wow,just wow?are you a drama major?
AMD will be fine,their cpu division will be fine,and with a little luck and some new revisions and architecture tweaks FX might take the lead in the desktop market(i doubt it though)


I do realize people will still buy it even if it doesn't turn out well.
With the rumors going around,AMD is apparently wiping their hands of the whole mess and scrapping Komodo for the Vishera platform for 2012 instead of going with another Bulldozer revision.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Blameless*


The only thing that has surprised me about the results of any of the BD tests so far is how disappointed some people seem to be.

The real world, well threaded, tests that were shown still have BD competitive with Intel CPUs in the same price range.

The 8120 tested today easily keeps up with a 2500 in x264, and very nearly matches it in Cinebench (if the circumstances of the test are taken into consideration). Given OCing reports that have BD more or less matching SB, these chips aren't that bad a deal.

Of course they probably won't be such a good idea for gamers, but anyone who does nothing but play games should already have a 2500k if they were even considering a 200-250 dollar chip.


For encoding people would love the FX,but the issue is FX has already been marketed to the gamers,who look for the best bang for the buck processor.


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Blameless*


The only thing that has surprised me about the results of any of the BD tests so far is how disappointed some people seem to be.

The real world, well threaded, tests that were shown still have BD competitive with Intel CPUs in the same price range.

The 8120 tested today easily keeps up with a 2500 in x264, and very nearly matches it in Cinebench (if the circumstances of the test are taken into consideration). Given OCing reports that have BD more or less matching SB, these chips aren't that bad a deal.

Of course they probably won't be such a good idea for gamers, but anyone who does nothing but play games should already have a 2500k if they were even considering a 200-250 dollar chip.


I agree with just about everything you say, this was no different.


----------



## radaja

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Heavy MG*


I do realize people will still buy it even if it doesn't turn out well.
With the rumors going around,AMD is apparently wiping their hands of the whole mess and scrapping Komodo for the Vishera platform for 2012 instead of going with another Bulldozer revision.
For encoding people would love the FX,but the issue is FX has already been marketed to the gamers,who look for the best bang for the buck processor.


at this point we really dont know what AMD has planned about anything,heck we cant even figure BD out yet


----------



## Seronx

Quote:



Originally Posted by *radaja*


at this point we really dont know what AMD has planned about anything,heck we cant even figure BD out yet










It borked

Vishera isn't


----------



## Dmac73

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Heavy MG*


I do realize people will still buy it even if it doesn't turn out well.
With the rumors going around,AMD is apparently wiping their hands of the whole mess and scrapping Komodo for the Vishera platform for 2012 instead of going with another Bulldozer revision.
For encoding people would love the FX,but the issue is FX has already been marketed to the gamers,who look for the best bang for the buck processor.


Don't want to start a pissing contest. That's not what im here to do.









With that said, they marketed this to the all around enthusiast, with gaming being one of them. And not just gaming, but "ultra" high resolution gaming. Ya know, the gaming that's GPU bottlenecked anyways. Just saying.


----------



## willibj

Quote:



Originally Posted by *mickeyfuqinp*


Where did all you reasonable people come from?
i was starting to get a bad impression on OCN..


There are more of us than one would realize upon a quick perusing of the forums - as is the case in most open forums in life, those who shout the loudest, the most frequently, and with the strongest, immovable convictions are actually a minority with an agenda and an obliviousness to their own fallaciousness.

These discussions on BD have been painful to watch - fanboyism on all sides, flaming to challenge the best/worst known to the interwebs, conclusion jumping, logically fallacious rationalizations, preconceived notions posed as objective analysis ... the list is practically endless.

And it's funny how seemingly objectionable the calls for patience are to some. Is it that hard to wrap ones head around the concept of waiting until the official release of a product that the manufacturer has specifically stated will not be represented in any released benches until such a time?

It really doesn't matter what is released prior to such, or how accurate it "was" or not - all conclusions made beforehand are necessarily spurious and invalid until seen in retrospect post official-release. These conditions are explicitly stated, and there's been nothing official to the contrary. Why would anyone believe or accept differently without skeptical analysis?


----------



## Khaotik55

Quote:



Originally Posted by *willibj*


There are more of us than one would realize upon a quick perusing of the forums - as is the case in most open forums in life, those who shout the loudest, the most frequently, and with the strongest convictions are actually a minority with an agenda and an obliviousness to their own fallaciousness.

These discussions on BD have been painful to watch - fanboyism on all sides, flaming to challenge the best/worst known to the interwebs, conclusion jumping, logically fallacious rationalizations, preconceived notions posed as objective analysis ... the list is practically endless.

And it's funny how seemingly objectionable the calls for patience are to some. Is it that hard to wrap ones head around the concept of waiting until the official release of a product that the manufacturer has specifically stated will not be represented in any released benches until such a time?

It really doesn't matter what is released prior to such, or how accurate it "was" or not - all conclusions made beforehand are necessarily spurious and invalid until seen in retrospect post official-release. These conditions are explicitly stated, and there's been nothing official to the contrary. Why would anyone believe or accept differently without skeptical analysis?


I like your big words.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Heavy MG*


Why would you replace your 555BE or 955BE with something that is worse?


The CPU shown today is a substantial improvement. A faster, higher clocked (and likely better overclocking), BD will be an even bigger improvement.

I do not give a toss about single threaded performance, and thats the only area my current AMD chips could compete.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Heavy MG*


For encoding people would love the FX,but the issue is FX has already been marketed to the gamers,who look for the best bang for the buck processor.


Obviously they are going to market it to everyone on the off chance that even markets it's ill suited to attract buyers.

Doesn't mean gamers _should_ pick one up.


----------



## willibj

Quote: 
   Originally Posted by *Khaotik55*   I like your big words.  
I like variety in self-expression, and the beauty in language in all forms - it should all be appreciated, from slang and colloquialisms to the height of verbosity.

Stephen Fry says it best:
  
 You Tube


----------



## Obakemono

Why are there two windows/desktops in those pics? Looks like someone was running a virtual machine.......


----------



## EVILNOK

Quote:



Originally Posted by *willibj*


_snip_ Conclusions prior to validated evidence is illogical. End of discussion.


I like the way you think.


----------



## willibj

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Obakemono*


Why are there two windows/desktops in those pics? Looks like someone was running a virtual machine.......


I believe that the PhII x840 was hosting the stream of the FX8150 being benched, though someone may correct me on that.

The benching was done via remote connection by a user on here for a computer built in the Ukraine.

i don't think a virtual machine was used at all.


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Yes it was done through remote connection.


----------



## beers

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Obakemono*


Why are there two windows/desktops in those pics? Looks like someone was running a virtual machine.......


Interwebz -> bassplayer on joinme (basically Teamviewer) -> FX rig over Teamviewer


----------



## Blameless

What make's AMDs validations better than anyone elses?

The maker of a product is the last party that you should go to when looking for an honest appraisal of that product.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *willibj*


Why would anyone believe or accept differently without skeptical analysis?


Why would use assume there hasn't been repeat and very skeptical analysis?

Information on BD has been coming in and been mutually confirmed and reinforced by a dozen different sources, some of them well respected and quite credible. They have been looked at individually and together; picked apart and analyzed; compared and contrasted with what AMD shown or let slip so far. It is neither unreasonable nor premature to draw some conclusions from this, especially considering the mass of precedent that has been reinforced by nearly every CPU release prior to this.

Your continued insistence on an ok from AMD to consider what is out there is absurd, and would be laughable if I didn't think you actually took it seriously.


----------



## Heavy MG

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Dmac73*


Don't want to start a pissing contest. That's not what im here to do.









With that said, they marketed this to the all around enthusiast, with gaming being one of them. And not just gaming, but "ultra" high resolution gaming. Ya know, the gaming that's GPU bottlenecked anyways. Just saying.


Well,not all games rely on just the GPU,and not all gamers a have a "ultra" high res or dual screen setup. But,an AMD graph slide featuring Battlefield 3 showed the FX came out just slightly ahead in a GPU limited situation.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Seronx*


It borked

Vishera isn't


Like radaja said,we don't even really know what BD is yet.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *willibj*


There are more of us than one would realize upon a quick perusing of the forums - as is the case in most open forums in life, those who shout the loudest, the most frequently, and with the strongest, immovable convictions are actually a minority with an agenda and an obliviousness to their own fallaciousness.

These discussions on BD have been painful to watch - fanboyism on all sides, flaming to challenge the best/worst known to the interwebs, conclusion jumping, logically fallacious rationalizations, preconceived notions posed as objective analysis ... the list is practically endless.

And it's funny how seemingly objectionable the calls for patience are to some. Is it that hard to wrap ones head around the concept of waiting until the official release of a product that the manufacturer has specifically stated will not be represented in any released benches until such a time?

It really doesn't matter what is released prior to such, or how accurate it "was" or not - all conclusions made beforehand are necessarily spurious and invalid until seen in retrospect post official-release. These conditions are explicitly stated, and there's been nothing official to the contrary. Why would anyone believe or accept differently without skeptical analysis?


Well said.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Obakemono*


Why are there two windows/desktops in those pics? Looks like someone was running a virtual machine.......


I believe it was a Team viewer window.


----------



## ninjagordy

in reality..... i remember shipping in a e6300 engineering sample from Hong Kong 3 weeks before the core duo release and running all sorts of benchmarks and over clocks that I could think of.... i only managed to get that chip to just shy of 3ghz and it was fast compared to anything else that was out at that time....

the bios i was on didnt fully optimise the cpu as it was a pre release beta bios and this definitely had an effect on the cpu.

i sold the e.s. on and bought the first retain version of the cpu with a proper bios released for the board and that chip got a 100% overclock which was fairly achievable and loads of people ended up getting this result, not only that, it benchmarked substantially better than the engineering sample i had.

now, whether or not this is going to be the case for bulldozer, i agree, its far to early to assume its a dud!! i am not an amd fanboy nor an intel fanboy, i am just another pc enthusiast that likes playing with the new stuff that comes out. i have had both 2500k and 2600k cpu's and they are definately blisteringly fast. i am currently running my 1090t at a conservative 4 ghz, i ran my sandys both at 4.5ghz as every one i have tried did that as you all know. in real life terms, i dont see any noticeable difference in day to day use. benchmark wise...theres a huge difference.....

i think everyone should stop the whole flaming each other , intel , amd etc etc and just wait and see how it turns out......

its gonna pan out one way or the other...that much is a certainty!!


----------



## methy

SHOW ME A CPU-Z !!! where is it?


----------



## willibj

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Blameless*


What make's AMDs validations better than anyone elses?

The maker of a product is the last party that you should go to when looking for an honest appraisal of that product.

Why would use assume there hasn't been repeat and very skeptical analysis?

Information on BD has been coming in and been mutually confirmed and reinforced by a dozen different sources, some of them well respected and quite credible. They have been looked at individually and together; picked apart and analyzed; compared and contrasted with what AMD shown or let slip so far. It is neither unreasonable nor premature to draw some conclusions from this, especially considering the mass of precedent that has been reinforced by nearly every CPU release prior to this.

Your continued insistence on an ok from AMD to consider what is out there is absurd, and would be laughable if I didn't think you actually took it seriously.


I take the fact that people are concluding about a technically unreleased product as laughable. What has been released so far may or may not be indicative of the actual release. We don't know that yet. It's really that simple.

As to your alleged "credible evidence" - you continue to flaunt potential misinformation. It can all agree with each other, but if it's not legitimate, then it means naught.

I would be saying the SAME EXACT THING if the results were amazing, showing BD destroying Sandy Bridge. Grain of salt.

After official release, and with proper, substantiated benches on confirmed hardware/software, all bets are off and any analysis can be objective. Until such time, no analysis is truly objective.


----------



## Dmac73

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Heavy MG*


Well,not all games rely on just the GPU,and not all gamers a have a "ultra" high res or dual screen setup. But,an AMD graph slide featuring Battlefield 3 showed the FX came out just slightly ahead in a GPU limited situation.


You've missed the point. Actually you flipped it, with all due respect.

Ultra high res is where BD will be okay, because you wouldn't notice the difference anyways. GPU limited.

On a more CPU bound game, your off much worst. SC2 will probably be terrible, and other games as well. Same can be said for gaming on lower resolutions, not like the FPS would be anywhere near unplayable... Actually, with a really good OC, you'll see better than Phenom 2. Architectually, it's still just no where near Intel stuff. Other than E-Peen, it doesn't really matter.

In all reality, it wont be a bad chip. Overclocked it will do well for it's price point and that's all that really matters. Hopefully the refinements and process enhacements will allow later steppings of Piledriver CPUs to easily hit 5.5ghz+ on air and more. That will be exciting.


----------



## Don Karnage

Rumor has it the Anandtech review drops after midnight. Not sure how credible it is tho.


----------



## 996gt2

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Don Karnage*


Rumor has it the Anandtech review drops after midnight. Not sure how credible it is tho.


Source of rumor? I have to stay up anyway to read some research papers for class


----------



## willibj

Quote:



Originally Posted by *ninjagordy*


in reality..... i remember shipping in a e6300 engineering sample from Hong Kong 3 weeks before the core duo release and running all sorts of benchmarks and over clocks that I could think of.... i only managed to get that chip to just shy of 3ghz and it was fast compared to anything else that was out at that time....

the bios i was on didnt fully optimise the cpu as it was a pre release beta bios and this definitely had an effect on the cpu.

i sold the e.s. on and bought the first retain version of the cpu with a proper bios released for the board and that chip got a 100% overclock which was fairly achievable and loads of people ended up getting this result, not only that, it benchmarked substantially better than the engineering sample i had.

now, whether or not this is going to be the case for bulldozer, i agree, its far to early to assume its a dud!! i am not an amd fanboy nor an intel fanboy, i am just another pc enthusiast that likes playing with the new stuff that comes out. i have had both 2500k and 2600k cpu's and they are definately blisteringly fast. i am currently running my 1090t at a conservative 4 ghz, i ran my sandys both at 4.5ghz as every one i have tried did that as you all know. in real life terms, i dont see any noticeable difference in day to day use. benchmark wise...theres a huge difference.....

*i think everyone should* stop the whole flaming each other , intel , amd etc etc and *just wait and see how it turns out......*

*its gonna pan out one way or the other...that much is a certainty!!
*










Logic win. + Rep for rationality.


----------



## Don Karnage

Quote:



Originally Posted by *996gt2*


Source of rumor? I have to stay up anyway to read some research papers for class










Nevermind









It was ninja'd out over at Anandtech forums.


----------



## jivenjune

Quote:



Originally Posted by *willibj*


No, my patience will still be logically and rationally justified for adhering to the previously stated conditions required for legitimated benchmarking results. How would it be any different from what I've already stated, that I will accept and support any conclusion that is legitimate and official. Everything prior to such is necessarily not such.

And lets not forget we are talking 3 days not 3 months.

"My version of patience"? What, the one that doesn't jump to conclusions that absolutely contradict the explicit required conditions stated by AMD, the product manufacturer in question, whose product we are debating pre-release?

*IF* the results shown now are correct, then it will be unfortunate, but also, technically, a coincidence. If the results are different, then what?

Patience is still the virtue, and logic dictates that we wait for the official, substantiated benchmarks. That's a zero-sum policy, and objectively you must know this.


I don't know where you come off ranting about patience when you already apparently have a 990FX motherboard. A patient, logical and perhaps coherent person would have and appropriately should have waited till an official review before buying a motherboard for a chip they knew absolutely--nothing--about.

If anything is clear, it is that you have a direct bias in all of this and as such, you have no right to lecture people on the notion of being a fanboy. Your stance was made clear the second you acquired that motherboard. You obviously have faith in this product and clearly want to see it succeed irregardless of everything that has been illustrated these last few days.

But hey, we're all clearly delusional, and the hundreds of people watching that live stream must have imagined it all, and a BIOS update will somehow amend the handful of "previews" or "reviews" we've seen in the past few days, and everything will be proven wrong in the next two or three days because AMD clearly has a winning CPU that can magically be amended within a two or three day period.

That kind of stuff happens all the time.


----------



## ninjagordy

Quote:



Originally Posted by *methy*


SHOW ME A CPU-Z !!! where is it?


lol.... it would have got ditched a loooong time ago.... along with the one for the 2.8ghz northwood i had over 4ghz on a vapochill.... spent years chasing numbers and a fortune as well.....

in real life general every day use for the average user theres not gonna be any noticeable difference. for a job specific application that uses the power then yes, it will be noticeable...this segment of the argument does have a relevant point, if you need the fastest processor for a viable reason then i can understand your concerns if you though bulldozer was going to shorten your production times. for everyday people surfing the web, gaming and doing your normal stuff.... waiting an extra minute while win avi converts your movie is not even going to get a frown...no one will be interested, what they will be interested in however is again, price performance, where sandy bridge might win on speed , bull dozer and amd again might win on price /performance....

hehe...seee youve got me involved now...lols


----------



## GatorLord

I'm betting that any company that makes great microprocessors for last 30 years is also shrewd enough to do a few things right. A few of them would be:

First, make a better microprocessor...this is fundamental to their business. You don't approve mega-scale projects without a bunch of REALLY smart folks agreeing that they're onto something...otherwise you'd see Phenom III and uptick of it's uarch. These guys know something and we'll all know it soon enough I'd imagine...that said, few plans survive first contact and bumps happen and will get leveled and moved past. BD will be better than PII and continue to improve...it is the way of things.

Second, they know their customer. Go to any review site and read the reviews on AMD processors. Forget about being an expert for a second and just read the reviews. They love them in the very, very high 90%. Fluke? They make chips for real people and the way real people use computers...not the Indy car set at the bench pits. Not hating, just saying. This thing will sell like hotcakes and people will love it. Watch and see.

Third, they know their competition and vice versa. Intel needs AMD like Coke needs Pepsi, they push each other for our, and their mutual benefit. Intel would rather crush a customer than it's only competitor. They both play rough, but deep down need each other. Nothing would be worse than a monopoly for us or Intel since the government would break it up under antitrust. BD won't be allowed to bring AMD down if Intel can help it...sounds weird, but down inside you know it too.


----------



## ninjagordy

Quote:



Originally Posted by *jivenjune*


I don't know where you come off ranting about patience when you already apparently have a 990FX motherboard. A patient, logical and perhaps coherent person would have and appropriately should have waited till an official review before buying a motherboard for a chip they knew absolutely--nothing--about.

If anything is clear, it is that you have a direct bias in all of this and as such, you have no right to lecture people on the notion of being a fanboy. Your stance was made clear the second you acquired that motherboard. You obviously have faith in this product and clearly want to see it succeed irregardless of everything that has been illustrated these last few days.

But hey, we're all clearly delusional, and the hundreds of people watching that live stream must have imagined it all, and a BIOS update will somehow amend the handful of "previews" or "reviews" we've seen in the past few days, and everything will be proven wrong in the next two or three days because AMD clearly has a winning CPU that can magically be amended within a two or three day period.

That kind of stuff happens all the time.



maybe he just thought...im gonna grab a top spec motherboard at this cheap price while i can.... sata 3 will be ideal for my ssd's....like me!!


----------



## Heavy MG

Quote:



Originally Posted by *jivenjune*


I don't know where you come off ranting about patience when you already apparently have a 990FX motherboard. A patient, logical and perhaps coherent person would have and appropriately should have waited till an official review before buying a motherboard for a chip they knew absolutely--nothing--about.

If anything is clear, it is that you have a direct bias in all of this and as such, you have no right to lecture people on the notion of being a fanboy. Your stance was made clear the second you acquired that motherboard. You obviously have faith in this product and clearly want to see it succeed irregardless of everything that has been illustrated these last few days.

But hey, we're all clearly delusional, and the hundreds of people watching that live stream must have imagined it all, and a BIOS update will somehow amend the handful of "previews" or "reviews" we've seen in the past few days, and everything will be proven wrong in the next two or three days because AMD clearly has a winning CPU that can magically be amended within a two or three day period.

That kind of stuff happens all the time.


What's in his sig should make no difference to the point he has proven.


----------



## willibj

Quote:



Originally Posted by *jivenjune*


I don't know where you come off ranting about patience when you already apparently have a 990FX motherboard. A patient, logical and perhaps coherent person would have and appropriately should have waited till an official review before buying a motherboard for a chip they knew absolutely--nothing--about.

If anything is clear, it is that you have a direct bias in all of this and as such, you have no right to lecture people on the notion of being a fanboy. *Your stance was made clear the second you acquired that motherboard.* You obviously have faith in this product and clearly want to see it succeed irregardless of everything that has been illustrated these last few days.

But hey, we're all clearly delusional, and the hundreds of people watching that live stream must have imagined it all, and a BIOS update will somehow amend the handful of "previews" or "reviews" we've seen in the past few days, and everything will be proven wrong in the next two or three days because AMD clearly has a winning CPU that can magically be amended within a two or three day period.

That kind of stuff happens all the time.


I astounded that I have to explain this, but here goes anyway:

I had a GA MA790XT UD4P for my old PhII x3 720 I bought that unlocked to a quad in 2009, running nearly 1.5v on the CPU 24/7.

It held back my RAM and NB overclocks. I presumed this initially to be my CPU being a C2 chip.

Eventually the Thubans were released, and I decided that as a cheap, effective, compatibly upgrade path I wanted a 1090t, well before I was expecting the FX Bulldozer series, and I eventually found one online, brand new and for quite cheap so I bought it.

Installed, and my MB was clearly the suspect for holding me back.

So I decided a new MB was in order, and I wanted to start pulling together a colour scheme in my case of black/white/grey.

990FXA-UD3 is an all black motherboard that allowed for a full OC, and is very well priced.

But no, of course, you should certainly conclude of your own accord that a purchase of a cross-platform piece of hardware that maximized my previous hardware's overclock capabilities and adhered to a colour scheme I wanted that also happens to be compatible is SOLELY purchased for the reason of upgrading to the FX cpu's in question.

Nice logic fail mate.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:



Originally Posted by *willibj*


I take the fact that people are concluding about a technically unreleased product as laughable. What has been released so far may or may not be indicative of the actual release. We don't know that yet. It's really that simple.


I fail to see what relevance an offical release has. I have samples of hardware that were _never_ officially released; it still exists.

Regardless, this chip was a retail sample, and there is little reason to doubt that.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *willibj*


As to your alleged "credible evidence" - you continue to flaunt potential misinformation. It can all agree with each other, but if it's not legitimate, then it means naught.


Nearly my exact sentiments regarding your insane level of skepticism.

As for legitimacy, again, what convinces you that AMD's, or any other manufacturer's, statements are more legitimate than tests done on a physical sample?

Quote:



Originally Posted by *willibj*


I would be saying the SAME EXACT THING if the results were amazing, showing BD destroying Sandy Bridge. Grain of salt.


I have no idea whether you are biased to a particular manufacture or not, but being biased to manufacture statements over actual community tests is a huge red flag.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *willibj*


After official release, and with proper, substantiated benches on confirmed hardware/software, all bets are off and any analysis can be objective. Until such time, no analysis is truly objective.


What makes this test less substantiated than any other? I can list the hardware and software that I saw, and it will be at least as complete a list as most tests don't by big name sites. There are other benchmarks, from other sources, on similar hardware that will reinforce these numbers.

It seems to come down to you saying "AMD has not given their stamp of approval to these tests, so they cannot be considered", and to such a statement I will always say "nonsense".


----------



## pioneerisloud

Alright guys....

OP has stated he's done for now. So I'm locking this down. If there are any new benchmarks done by OCN users, PM me to add them in here.

I'm sorry, but with the way some of you are acting, we cannot allow these threads to go too far off topic and become derailed.


----------



## pioneerisloud

Added a new link (courtesy of the OP), and a few more screenshots that were snapped thanks to xxbassplayerxx.

Thread re-opened for now. When the OP is done changing things, it will be locked down to prevent issues from coming up.

EDIT:
OP's done editing, thread locked again.


----------

