wont this processor dominate above all if overclocked. with no stock fan if 4.6ghz is with the max with a non stock fan or water cooling this processor could reach 5.0ghz or above and it has eight cores on top of that so i think its worth the money even if its not better than the intel core i7s out there
Great presentation, all of it is true, in multithreaded applications the 8150 surpasses 2600k performance, single threaded applications do suffer on 8150 however windows 8 now supports Core Parking feature and better utilization of AMD chips in general. Also the price is awesome, people obsess over synthetic benchmarks but in real world applications the 8150 is incredibly underrated and has been considered a failure, but the people who actually have used it know that it is very impressive.
I'm not a AMD or Intel fan, actually I use both of them. But one question:
You're talkin about multitasking on the fx-8150. Have you even looked at the anandtech review in your description? The i7 2600k is faster than the fx-8150 in almost every multithreaded application.
@lamiac2411 You didn't listen to the last part of what I said but in gaming the bulldozer actually BEATS the i5 and just barely beats the i7 in gaming as well but it depends on your preference most of the stuff that was used to bench mark this CPU or I should just about all of it I would never use and I also wouldn't plan on using crossfire or sli. And like I said THIS TIME ACTUALLY READ but anyways why would I want to downgrade to 4 cores when I could have 8?
You all are very stupid and naive to think the Fx-8150 is better than the i7 2700k or even the i7 2600k, you cant even compare the two in the same class. First off to all you idiots who think just that since it has 8 cores its better well you need to go and do some reading even if the Fx-8150 was more powerful there is no point because most games today only use 2 Cores, and the occasional 4 Cores, there is not one game out right now that uses 8! I Love AMD but they cant beat Intel.. No Question
Look at the power consumtion of an FX 8150 running at 4.8ghz.....which at that speed has an IPC comparable to a 2600k @3.6ghz and I promise you will not buy a bulldozer. Even if you could give 2 shits about power consumption. It is completely unacceptable. My 2600k @4.7ghz pulls 109W full load as per CPUZ. FX8150........OVER 450W!!! FUCK YOUR POWER BILL
@lamiac2411 yes but unless you are making a god damn physics project or trying to make a game like bf3 then you shouldnt get that much watts out of it and if u have a good psu thenthat shouldnt e a problem. Plus think about 8 CORE: 3.6 ghz x 8=28.8 ghz
4 CORE: 3.7ghz x 4=14.8 ghz see what I'm getting at ? I't also performs better in gaming than the i7.
@1SH0T2K1LLS Unless I'm doing a physics project what? I don't even think you know what your talking about to be honest. And no, I have no idea what your getting at. You don't just add up ghz and say look see, better performance. It doesn't work like that. Actually Ghz in terms of comparing AMD and INTEL cpu's is pretty irrelevant. Sandy bridge gets significantly more work done per clock than bulldozer. It performs better in gaming? What the hell are you smoking?
@1SH0T2K1LLS The bulldozer gets its ass kicked by i7's little bro the i5 in gaming. There are a few select games that just play nicer on AMD systems. Vice versa as well. But for the large majority Sandy bridge performs better in games. While using less power. And to say "well if you got a good PSU don't worry about it". Ya well I worry when my cpu alone is ripping through half my PSU. Especially in an SLI/XFX configuration.
@1SH0T2K1LLS My question to you is aside from running a server station; or a bunch of virtual machines. Why in the world would I use a processor that uses an insane amount of power when overclocked. Especially even when overclocked to the hilt performs on par or worse with an i7 at stock clocks. I can OC the i7 and blow away the bulldozer while consuming 350W less power doing it. It makes no sense.
You are completely leaving out the Phenom II chips which are far more recent than every cpu you listed except the 8150. Phenom II is faster than all those processors you listed and it trades blows with the 8150 depending on frequency. Get a Phenom II x6 you get 6 real cores where the bulldozer has 8 integer units and 4 fpu units which gives it less than impressive performance in some games. Phenom II is also more power efficient.
Super Pi is best at measuring core efficiency, many AMD users are saying that Super pi is crap because their CPUs sucks in that test. Intel Open libraries run same on AMD and Intel CPUs, Cinebench is superb test to mesaure brute power of CPU, but i think Frybench is better.
Superpi 1.5xs uses at best SSE2/3 which was replaced by SSE4,SSE5, FMA4,XOP,AVX...so it's useless like a rusty 100 year old gun firing blanks.(except for intel Fangirls i suppose)
FX 8150 can only win when aplication is extremy multithreade, in any other scenario 2600k will win, i liked video because i like how its presented, but 2600k is overall way faster CPU.
It really depends on what you mean by "extremely" multithreaded, most games or apps still run like core #1 render, core #2 logic/sound/network core #3 windows backgroundservices
I didn't contest the i7 being somewhat faster with contemporary apps but some of the benchmarks r really skewed in favor of Intel. i3,i5,i7 perform often with little difference.How come ?
Fuck passmark, its stupid test. There are many better benches, like Frybench, SiSoftware sandra, Cinebench 10 and 11.5 , Super Pi, Wprime and many others.
Right on, Superpi uses a 30 year old instruction set FPU x87 which accounts for like 5% space on the core and it's even single threaded.Cinebench uses the Intel OpenMP libraries....
Little difference? My old i7 920 will crush fx 8125 on 4.0 GHz, not mentioning my hexa i7 970 on 4.2 GHz that i own now. But its understandable that i7 970 will be faster its much more expensive, but problem for FX 8150 is that is bad value, you can get 2500k for less money and you will be faster in 50-70% situations, and for little more money you can get 2600k and you will be faster in 90% situations.
@4werr0n3 Well the simple answer to that is that they all use the exact same architecture. So a dual core Sandy bridge cpu like an i3, will perform exactly like a core i7 2600k with half of its cores taken away:) So in benchmarks that measure single or dual thread performance the i3 will perform almost just as well as the i7. The i7 may come slightly out on top due to increased L3. But measure multi threaded apps and the i7 is miles ahead. Benchmarks show that.
You couldn't be more wrong mate, Intel compilers are notorious for limiting AMD's capabilities, it's not as strait forward as most would like to admit.Second as long as a benchmark is closed source(the majority), there's no way in checking for vendor optimization.
@4werr0n3 I was just replying to the comment you made as to why the i3/i5/i7 perform similiar in benchmarks. It sounded as if you were saying skewed benchmarks were the reason for this when it is not
@4werr0n3 But to ad sir Intel compilers "were" notorius for crippling AMD cpu's. Do you think every review site and reviewer on the entire planet is going to purposely and knowingly throw AMD in the dirt? Plus all you have to do is "real world" benchmarks to recognize Intel cpu's are far superior in most tasks. Look at gaming or any other process that requires high IPC and you will see the results r exactly as benchmarks predicted they would be.
@ubuntupasztor you talking bullshit!!!! where he say that VM on virtual core not work? And you not have a AMD FX!!
I have a I7 and a AMD FX , I running windows 7 in vmware under Ubuntu it work smoother and better on my Amd 8-core , also many great programs not working well on virtual core!
Houdini Chess Engine Rybka chess Engine on a I7 you can use only 4 core if you use 8 then it playing worse , on a my amd fx I can use 8-core it worke fine :)
@ubuntupasztor And you are correct. The sandy bridge i7 is technically a 4 core cpu with 2 threads running on each cpu. Intel's chip is way more efficient and until there are applications and games where 8 cores are needed, I will wait for intel to make an 8 core. In my task manager it shows 8 threads and for most games and apps only 2 or 4 are being used. Intel rules again.
@oldsk8r Faboys like to bash on HT. But then when we look at the results the 4 HT threads of the 2600k r faster than the 8 threads bulldozer produces. I thought it was supposed to be 80% more effecient than HT? Lol. HT has come a long way and is far more advanced than the older days. And with IVY it will just be that much more effecient. I like the way Intel is going. Giving us wicked power and speed while using very little power
@TheNorbi80 standard it is ok, on OC it is a moster for gaming , when windows 8 is out we wil get more extra power, amd fx is not a bad cpu! and OC is easy on this cpu :)
AMD FX 8 Core are strong at ALU processing and weak in FPU processing as FPU are shared between 2 Cores.
Unless there is a way which AMD do is to spread the Threads to different Module
(Core 0,Core 2,Core 4,Core 6) and "disable" the (Core1,3,4,7) to be use so that FPU cap/bottleneck can be improve on most games/programs that uses FPU.
Windows 8 have a new feature that shutdown unused core/threads. I believe Windows 8 and AMD FX is optimize.
@Katana2040 for 3D modeling/rendering, imo, you may want to focus your dollars more towards a great video card, something that the software you are using can take full advantage of, and RAM and then based on the amount of money you have left you may want to go with whichever processor you can afford...
@knowbyte what the hell did i just watch. your like the conspiracy theorist that says the holocaust didn't happen except what your saying that contradicts everything i've ever heard makes sense (if indeed it's true.)
I have never heard about I5 2600 and dont talk shit about a CPU you probably never tested. I myself prefer AMD over Inter even if Intel are little faster. I dont support criminal companies as Intel
OK, well Intel has more performance.... but don't try to compare a horse to a car because both are different, as many people say " it depends on what you do " and yes the fx is sorta a fail but you have to understand that windows 7 isn't optimized to use the bulldozers architecture but when windows 8 comes out we will see the true performance of amd, bulldozer and the fact that we are only talking about cpus for gaming is just ridiculous what about the gfx cards form amd/nvidia?
Its totally fucked up how this is the first video which talks about the actual pros and cons of the amd fx cpu, everyone else just sticks a finger up their ass and says "well its slower at using single and dual core based software so it sucks dick"
Bulldozer 6100 now 105 pounds VS intel i3 2120 105 pounds. After you overclock the 6100 to 4ghz or more it crushes the intel if you like to have several jobs doing at the same time, and lets face it everyone these days open a ton of windows and aps and have all sorts going on.
@Blake2423 Saying that 4 cores with hyper-threading is the same as having 8 cores without hyper-threading is similar to saying that 8 cores with 4 shared FPUs is the same as 8 cores with 8 dedicated FPUs, imo
You don´t like little electricity consumption? And bro it is 8 Integer Clusters. Not really full cores. An i3-2100 beats FX-8150 in most games. Single Thread for the win, unless you run a server with heavy multithread integer loads. For most applications, you need a strong floating point unit as well, also fast big caches. L1 Data Bully Cache suxx. Latencies are very high. Bulldozer is not a gaming cpu. So AMD was making a joke :-)
You don´t like little electricity consumption? And bro it is 8 Integer Clusters. Not really full cores. An i3-2100 beats FX-8150 in most games. Single Thread for the win, unless you run a server with heavy multithread integer loads. For most applications, you need a strong floating point unit as well, also fast big caches. L1 Data Bully Cache suxx. Latencies are very high. Bulldozer is not a gaming cpu. So AMD was making a joke :-)
bulldozer was released before it was complete, ipc overall lacks. still remember that it's a completely new architecture, hopefully piledriver will be a lot better. the biggest difference between intel i5/i7 and sandy bridge is 32 compared to the last gen 45nm cpu:s, the ipc only improved by about 15%. both sandy bridge and bulldozer oc high, the b2 steppiing suffers from high power consumption but hopefully that will be fixed with higher steppings.
Speaking from personal experience, I just recently made the switch from an FX-8120 (OC 4.2ghz) to an i7 2600k (stock for now). All I can say so far is that I've noticed no difference in general use and heavily threaded apps like handbrake. However, in games, the i7 blows the 8120 out of the water. But I think the FX 8 cores is definitely going to be the better buy for people who don't even bother with PC games. But I wanted the best of both worlds so I switched.
@soiledBL00D Intel kiddy????ive been using amd cpus since the mid 90s and computers sinse 1982 so who the kiddie? you just show more ignorance lmao ive always supported amd but enough is enough.But i can see with you its a German ego thing SIGH.
@yumidad This has 8 physical cores. As with everything, "it's the software, stupid!" (that's a saying, I'm not calling you stupid lol). They need to optimise the task scheduler within Windows to get the best performance from this entirely new architecture. It's like how when new generations of GPU's come out the performance isn't all that much better than the previous ones, but as time goes on and the drivers mature the gap becomes bigger and bigger. They just kind of slipped with the drivers.
@TalesOfWar Yes chap but the problem is even with the task scheduler you will only see a 1-2% increase,at the end of the day the bulldozer SADLY is a huge let down and i wish it wasnt the case.
Yea 4.6 overclocking on air cooled AMD vs my i72600k overclocked air cooled 5.3 gigz........Hmm decisions decisions...............O and my OC is 72 hours stable prime 95
I think AMD giving us and 8 Core for future applications that will use it for a cheap price is a great buy . I love AMD They work great why is everybody so upset who is Intel to you they pay your bills? They raise your kids? No I choose who works great and who is the cheapest bang for buck.
I personally recommend FX-4100 with and SSD drive My buddy is really happy with it.
Core 2 Quad was more future proof than Core 2 Duo, because it was much faster when the extra 2 cores are utilized
However, FX-8150 is not going to be future proof like Core 2 Quad because FX-8150 doesn't have an advantage over i7 2600 in multi-threaded applications that use all the 8 cores.
Even against the cheaper i5 2500, FX-8150 is barely faster than i5 2500 when all cores are used.
@maroom1 Ya your right in the real world bench marks....
But bring it home a use it and you'll be amaized how smooth how fat it runs.
Yes Intel I5 is great as far as it's bench marks but I have friends who own them and I7's to and they work well don't get me wrong but the AMD is really really cheaper and fly's everything just runs great and smooth and bang for buck man long term upgrades I rather go AMD play edit etc... and upgrade at like 1/3rd the price.
@Mortedignus You also can't dual socket those Xeons, which kind of defeats the purpose of Xeons if you ask me. The whole point is they scale like a mother and allow you to address insane amounts of RAM. It'll be more stable over the long term than the i5/7 though, but you're missing the main advantage of such a CPU without the dual socket support.
@TalesOfWar The Xeon E3-1230 has the same power as the i7 2600 and is 50€ cheaper (German prices: i7 245€ - FX 225€ - Xeon 195€). It also works with every mainboard for the i7 2600. It has the best price-performance ratio of the three CPUs and is perfect for gaming systems etc. Unless you want to overclock your system.
2600k with HT enabled still outperforms the 8150 on almost every single multi threaded benchmark. Real world or synthetic. Hell the i5 beats the 8150. Also take into account even when overclocking the 8150 to 4.8 ghz it STILL loses to the i7 2600k. Once you OC the i7 GAME OVER Lol. It destroys the 8150. It's a dud. Hell even AMD techs admit htey were rushed and produced an inferior product. THe last gen phenom 2 beats BD clock-clock performance.
so much if that shit is totally made up. "by the end of all the new drivers, we're looking at a 100-200% increase in speed." thats total BS. Maybe, MAYBE 10-20%, not 200%. I hate it when people make stuff up. also, nice job pointing out that games and OSs are not optimized for those cores. whats the point of buying it if u are going to run those games. and they won't become optimized for the architecture anytime soon because no1 is going to buy a bulldozer!! I plan on getting Ivy Bridge- 22nm
The AMD FX-8150 does not contain true 8 cores(I owned the FX-8150) the is two execution units per module, yet still shares the same L1, and L2 cache(note intel cache trashing back in the day with HT). The same shit is happening with Bulldozer. I think you forgot to mention the enormous amount of wattage(I have hit 220 watts just on stock clock), lmao windows 8 benchs are not much better(5 -10 percent) Anyone who uses both(I have both) cpu's will notice the speed difference(2600k wins).
For one, the 2600K can also be overclocked to 4.6 GHz on INTEL'S stock heatsink... which is terrible compared to AMD's. This means that the the 2600K OC's better than the 8150. Moreover, since the 2600k's stock clock is 3.4GHz, a 4.6GHz OC would put it at a 35% overclockability frequency. And for your "abnormal home user" the bulldozer is also terrible in server applications (like virtual machines). 8 core bulldozer opteron loses pretty bad to a xeon 5670 and even the older, magny cores opteron
Another thing. If there were a list of the worst CPU launched in history, this FX-8150 would ocupy the 1ST PLACE. BULLDOZER = HUGE ENGENEERING FAIL. Every Enthusiast knows that. I use V-Ray render and although having i7 2600k 4 cores, it´s faster than FX-8150 with the "8" cores at 100%. Remember that 2 cores that use the same resources x 4 modules, don´t make Bulldozer particularly a true 8 core. Just a thought.
isn't the FX-8150 going to get better in the future and ie WIN 8 ?
also
can you link me an article or something about those modules ?
haven't really heard much about that, but if I understand this correctly the 8150 is not a true 8 core CPU ? Didn't AMD say something about that , saying that it IS a truly 8 core CPU? i dunno, the reason i'm asking is
i'm gonna build a new PC soon and this is a lot more confusing than it was a year or 2 ago :(
@x1c3x The AMD FX-8150 it´s not a "FULL" 8 cores because it has 4 modules with 2 cores each. Each module with two cores has only one FPU. AMD FX-8150 has only 4 FPUs for a total of 8 cores. A true 8 core CPU would have 8 FPU or 1 FPU per core. Then the the instruction decoder it´s shared between the two cores inside a module. This architecture bootlenecks the capabilities of an individual core. If each core had its own "FULL" resources, it would have performed much better.
@x1c3x And yes, it´s an 8 core CPU, but with each 2 cores (module), that use the same resources, like 1 FPU, shared L2 cache, shared instruction decoder....This creates a bootleneck for each core inside a module, because this shared functions, need to work for both cores. Buy a 2600k with 4 cores. It´s faster in heavy thread apps and WAY faster in games, because each i7 core it´s very very fast. It consumes way less power, and FX-8150 wont surpass i72600k in Win8. FX-8150 it´s a no.
@rcarkk amd fx-8150 is an epic failure. get the i7 2600k. if you are on a budget get the i5 2500k. the amd fx-8150 even lost to i5 2500k in some applications.
Weird video, for weird AMD fans. This video only talks abouts specs and excuses. Get over it. 2600k obliterates FX8150. Nobody runs 8 virtual machines.
@knowbyte well i am about to purchase a new processor and my budget is Rs 30,000 INR
thats almost 600US$ so which processor can i go for??
also the currently i am using is a core 2 duo
people here in India say intels are more reliable to buy as AMD processors are just for gaming purposes and they won't work for longer period which they mean to say that intel processors can be used lifetime but AMD'S may get damaged after few years so is that true??
@Swapneeiil lol, I want to say I am surprised but I am not. Intel marketing is much better than AMD. The fact that AMD fab 1 in Germany manufacturers the fx 8150, may alter your perception if you believe in a stereotype of Germans as being efficiency/reliability task masters...
Price/performance vise, it depends on your budget. Personally, reliability was never a concern for me between Intel and AMD. For me its always been price/performance, and AMD is so far beating Intel imo.
@Swapneeiil Intel is best because they not just provide perfomance but also a good durability. I am using intel i7 and its nice and even intel's older processors. My pentium lastet long until I got dual core in year 2009 and when i got dual core it worked perfect now i have i7. Go to wikipedia and see how much staff amd has. and compare it to intel. i7 MRP is 20,000 INR. Win 7 ultimate with i7 and 8gb ram. What else you need for a fast PC?
@AoeGeneral Intel also has over $20 billion in cash, and AMD is in debt around $10billion. So who may be charging too much for the technology?
Intel's current competitive pricing is only because AMD exists. If AMD decides not to produce processors to compete against Intel anymore, then the third world countries might be the first ones to see a massive price increase, due to Intel's monopoly. And then everyone may cry why they supported Intel. Something to think about. :)
@knowbyte Well dude, AMD already said that they won´t do processors anymore leaving INTEL all the pie. The inminent increase of prices is coming sooner than expected.
@Ijohanfree I believe AMD is not going to "compete" with Intel anymore in the cpu market, they are still going to be manufacturing processors
This statement, btw, imo, has something to do with internal company politics and the vision that left with Hector Ruiz the former CEO of AMD...I think it was his "battle cry" to compete against Intel on the CPU forefront...and now that he has left, so has the effect of his "battle cry"...
@knowbyte Interesting point. You just made a case for me choosing intel over amd which wasn't a tough one anyway. Why would you choose a processor of a company that is in debt?...Intel is better thus making money and prospering to make more money and better products...I really don't mind spending maybe 50 to 100 bucks more on a product that I use for thousands of hours....
@oldsk8r same reason someone would choose to buy a Malibu over a Corolla...if its a reliable product at a competitive price, its a good deal regardless of whether the company is in debt or not, imo
neither do I, otoh, if I know that I can save money and get similar reliability then I don't care about the brand...both a Malibu and Corolla will take me from A to B in similar comfort and reliability, but with the Malibu, it seems money can be saved...so why not save money? imo
wont this processor dominate above all if overclocked. with no stock fan if 4.6ghz is with the max with a non stock fan or water cooling this processor could reach 5.0ghz or above and it has eight cores on top of that so i think its worth the money even if its not better than the intel core i7s out there
shoman621 2 days ago
you guys are forgetting that AMD-FX was made for an OS that wasnt released yet.
windows 7 was made for i7
but windows 8 is made for FX.
when Win8 hits you fanboys will all cry about it too. intel fanboys are worse then XBOX fanboys.
samljer 3 days ago
That was totally mind bogglajing!
romefox 5 days ago
Great presentation, all of it is true, in multithreaded applications the 8150 surpasses 2600k performance, single threaded applications do suffer on 8150 however windows 8 now supports Core Parking feature and better utilization of AMD chips in general. Also the price is awesome, people obsess over synthetic benchmarks but in real world applications the 8150 is incredibly underrated and has been considered a failure, but the people who actually have used it know that it is very impressive.
romefox 5 days ago
@romefox That makes decent sense to me...
Thanks for your feedback and your support!!! :)
knowbyte 5 days ago
your such an idiot who the fuck is going to run servers. your just a poor jealous asshole. most of us are gamers and we need the best!
ELBOMB4RO 5 days ago
iv managed to do 4.2 on on air ;)
jeenormus 6 days ago
its gonna .... SHAY AY AY AY AYNE :) <3
inOVERDRIVE95 1 week ago
I'm not a AMD or Intel fan, actually I use both of them. But one question:
You're talkin about multitasking on the fx-8150. Have you even looked at the anandtech review in your description? The i7 2600k is faster than the fx-8150 in almost every multithreaded application.
morpheus1st 1 week ago
@morpheus1st
aaa...yes I did...
uhm, not every...
and the show is not over till the fat lady (Windows 8) sings...
imo...
knowbyte 1 week ago
i love you :D
have my babies
emmer951 1 week ago
@emmer951 Thanks for the feedback and support!!!
we could try, but we may not succeed...unless you have a uterus...cuz I don't...at least the last time I checked...
knowbyte 1 week ago
Nice Comparacion!!!! :D
deyvit25 1 week ago
@deyvit25 Thanks for your feedback!!! :)
knowbyte 1 week ago
@lamiac2411 You didn't listen to the last part of what I said but in gaming the bulldozer actually BEATS the i5 and just barely beats the i7 in gaming as well but it depends on your preference most of the stuff that was used to bench mark this CPU or I should just about all of it I would never use and I also wouldn't plan on using crossfire or sli. And like I said THIS TIME ACTUALLY READ but anyways why would I want to downgrade to 4 cores when I could have 8?
1SH0T2K1LLS 2 weeks ago
shit T-Bag likes the Bulldozer
je187u 2 weeks ago
You all are very stupid and naive to think the Fx-8150 is better than the i7 2700k or even the i7 2600k, you cant even compare the two in the same class. First off to all you idiots who think just that since it has 8 cores its better well you need to go and do some reading even if the Fx-8150 was more powerful there is no point because most games today only use 2 Cores, and the occasional 4 Cores, there is not one game out right now that uses 8! I Love AMD but they cant beat Intel.. No Question
sean5478 2 weeks ago 3
@sean5478 battlefield 3
emmer951 1 week ago
@sean5478
BF3 can use 8 cores, idiotttttttttttttt.
Your point is invalid, fudge off fanboy.
str1ka1 4 days ago
@sean5478 i animate in 3ds max, and 8 cores on the FX blows the I7 we have at work out of the water, dont be such a fanboy.
samljer 3 days ago
So could i run a hackintosh comfortably alongside windows 7 on the 6 core or 8 core AMD chip?
abzhussain 2 weeks ago
Look at the power consumtion of an FX 8150 running at 4.8ghz.....which at that speed has an IPC comparable to a 2600k @3.6ghz and I promise you will not buy a bulldozer. Even if you could give 2 shits about power consumption. It is completely unacceptable. My 2600k @4.7ghz pulls 109W full load as per CPUZ. FX8150........OVER 450W!!! FUCK YOUR POWER BILL
lamiac2411 2 weeks ago
@lamiac2411 yes but unless you are making a god damn physics project or trying to make a game like bf3 then you shouldnt get that much watts out of it and if u have a good psu thenthat shouldnt e a problem. Plus think about 8 CORE: 3.6 ghz x 8=28.8 ghz
4 CORE: 3.7ghz x 4=14.8 ghz see what I'm getting at ? I't also performs better in gaming than the i7.
1SH0T2K1LLS 2 weeks ago
@1SH0T2K1LLS Unless I'm doing a physics project what? I don't even think you know what your talking about to be honest. And no, I have no idea what your getting at. You don't just add up ghz and say look see, better performance. It doesn't work like that. Actually Ghz in terms of comparing AMD and INTEL cpu's is pretty irrelevant. Sandy bridge gets significantly more work done per clock than bulldozer. It performs better in gaming? What the hell are you smoking?
lamiac2411 2 weeks ago
@1SH0T2K1LLS The bulldozer gets its ass kicked by i7's little bro the i5 in gaming. There are a few select games that just play nicer on AMD systems. Vice versa as well. But for the large majority Sandy bridge performs better in games. While using less power. And to say "well if you got a good PSU don't worry about it". Ya well I worry when my cpu alone is ripping through half my PSU. Especially in an SLI/XFX configuration.
lamiac2411 2 weeks ago
@1SH0T2K1LLS My question to you is aside from running a server station; or a bunch of virtual machines. Why in the world would I use a processor that uses an insane amount of power when overclocked. Especially even when overclocked to the hilt performs on par or worse with an i7 at stock clocks. I can OC the i7 and blow away the bulldozer while consuming 350W less power doing it. It makes no sense.
lamiac2411 2 weeks ago
It doesn't have 8 cores.
SFseis 2 weeks ago
Im new to AMD chips, but a quick question, what is better?
AMD Bulldozer FX 8150
AMD Athlon 64 FX
AMD Athlon 64 X2
AMD K6
thanks for the great video
RenkoTrader 2 weeks ago
@RenkoTrader imo, definitely the FX 8150 from the lot in your comment...
knowbyte 2 weeks ago
@knowbyte you convinced me to buy an intel :) -not a joke
ioioio1980 2 weeks ago
You are completely leaving out the Phenom II chips which are far more recent than every cpu you listed except the 8150. Phenom II is faster than all those processors you listed and it trades blows with the 8150 depending on frequency. Get a Phenom II x6 you get 6 real cores where the bulldozer has 8 integer units and 4 fpu units which gives it less than impressive performance in some games. Phenom II is also more power efficient.
Protoking 2 weeks ago
1:04 He said doodoo.
bedofrazorsqwerty 3 weeks ago
I love this video, your voice has just convince me! haha! great
detroid89 3 weeks ago
Super Pi is best at measuring core efficiency, many AMD users are saying that Super pi is crap because their CPUs sucks in that test. Intel Open libraries run same on AMD and Intel CPUs, Cinebench is superb test to mesaure brute power of CPU, but i think Frybench is better.
Leopardxt 3 weeks ago
@Leopardxt
Cinebench's 11.5 OpenMP doesn't support AMD NUMA.
Superpi 1.5xs uses at best SSE2/3 which was replaced by SSE4,SSE5, FMA4,XOP,AVX...so it's useless like a rusty 100 year old gun firing blanks.(except for intel Fangirls i suppose)
4werr0n3 3 weeks ago in playlist Liked videos
@4werr0n3
XOP is like physx, it will be never used in mass scale, the truth is FX 8150 sucks and that is where all story ends.
Leopardxt 3 weeks ago
AMD needs to sort out power consumption but i agree, even the core i3 2125 is sometimes faster than an i5 in games.
4werr0n3 3 weeks ago
I love your video! Thank you for your insight! I always liked AMD over intel. Amd is the way to go.
MrPlaidFace 3 weeks ago
@ubuntupasztor Thanks bro!
oldsk8r 3 weeks ago
Bro, I totally agree with you. Very good video and motivation, I subscribed.
slowshowuploads 3 weeks ago
Also FX 8150 doesnt really have 8 cores, it has 4 module, 2 cores per module.
Leopardxt 3 weeks ago in playlist Liked videos
FX 8150 can only win when aplication is extremy multithreade, in any other scenario 2600k will win, i liked video because i like how its presented, but 2600k is overall way faster CPU.
Leopardxt 3 weeks ago in playlist Liked videos
@Leopardxt
It really depends on what you mean by "extremely" multithreaded, most games or apps still run like core #1 render, core #2 logic/sound/network core #3 windows backgroundservices
4werr0n3 3 weeks ago
@4werr0n3
I mean 3d rendering, 3d marks and some other stuff, and even in these situations i7 2600k will mostly win.
Leopardxt 3 weeks ago
@Leopardxt
I didn't contest the i7 being somewhat faster with contemporary apps but some of the benchmarks r really skewed in favor of Intel. i3,i5,i7 perform often with little difference.How come ?
4werr0n3 3 weeks ago
@4werr0n3
Little differcne, my old i7 920 will crush fx 8125 on 4.0 GHz, not mentioning my hexa i7 970 on 4.2 GHz that i own now.
Leopardxt 3 weeks ago
@Leopardxt
Crush ?? The i7 920 is not even sandy bridge n it's barely better than the 1100T / worse if you take pwr consumption into consideration.
Passmark: i7 970 = 9'917, FX 8150 = 8'250,1100T = 6,205, i7 920 = 5'511...
You call that crush ?
4werr0n3 3 weeks ago
@4werr0n3
Fuck passmark, its stupid test. There are many better benches, like Frybench, SiSoftware sandra, Cinebench 10 and 11.5 , Super Pi, Wprime and many others.
Leopardxt 3 weeks ago
@Leopardxt
Right on, Superpi uses a 30 year old instruction set FPU x87 which accounts for like 5% space on the core and it's even single threaded.Cinebench uses the Intel OpenMP libraries....
4werr0n3 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@4werr0n3
I made some mistakes in last post.
Little difference? My old i7 920 will crush fx 8125 on 4.0 GHz, not mentioning my hexa i7 970 on 4.2 GHz that i own now. But its understandable that i7 970 will be faster its much more expensive, but problem for FX 8150 is that is bad value, you can get 2500k for less money and you will be faster in 50-70% situations, and for little more money you can get 2600k and you will be faster in 90% situations.
Leopardxt 3 weeks ago
@4werr0n3 Well the simple answer to that is that they all use the exact same architecture. So a dual core Sandy bridge cpu like an i3, will perform exactly like a core i7 2600k with half of its cores taken away:) So in benchmarks that measure single or dual thread performance the i3 will perform almost just as well as the i7. The i7 may come slightly out on top due to increased L3. But measure multi threaded apps and the i7 is miles ahead. Benchmarks show that.
lamiac2411 2 weeks ago
@4werr0n3 It has nothing to do with benchmarks being "skewed"
lamiac2411 2 weeks ago
@lamiac2411
You couldn't be more wrong mate, Intel compilers are notorious for limiting AMD's capabilities, it's not as strait forward as most would like to admit.Second as long as a benchmark is closed source(the majority), there's no way in checking for vendor optimization.
4werr0n3 2 weeks ago
@4werr0n3 I was just replying to the comment you made as to why the i3/i5/i7 perform similiar in benchmarks. It sounded as if you were saying skewed benchmarks were the reason for this when it is not
lamiac2411 2 weeks ago
@4werr0n3 But to ad sir Intel compilers "were" notorius for crippling AMD cpu's. Do you think every review site and reviewer on the entire planet is going to purposely and knowingly throw AMD in the dirt? Plus all you have to do is "real world" benchmarks to recognize Intel cpu's are far superior in most tasks. Look at gaming or any other process that requires high IPC and you will see the results r exactly as benchmarks predicted they would be.
lamiac2411 2 weeks ago
@ubuntupasztor you talking bullshit!!!! where he say that VM on virtual core not work? And you not have a AMD FX!!
I have a I7 and a AMD FX , I running windows 7 in vmware under Ubuntu it work smoother and better on my Amd 8-core , also many great programs not working well on virtual core!
Houdini Chess Engine Rybka chess Engine on a I7 you can use only 4 core if you use 8 then it playing worse , on a my amd fx I can use 8-core it worke fine :)
msn140 3 weeks ago
@ubuntupasztor And you are correct. The sandy bridge i7 is technically a 4 core cpu with 2 threads running on each cpu. Intel's chip is way more efficient and until there are applications and games where 8 cores are needed, I will wait for intel to make an 8 core. In my task manager it shows 8 threads and for most games and apps only 2 or 4 are being used. Intel rules again.
oldsk8r 3 weeks ago
@oldsk8r Faboys like to bash on HT. But then when we look at the results the 4 HT threads of the 2600k r faster than the 8 threads bulldozer produces. I thought it was supposed to be 80% more effecient than HT? Lol. HT has come a long way and is far more advanced than the older days. And with IVY it will just be that much more effecient. I like the way Intel is going. Giving us wicked power and speed while using very little power
lamiac2411 2 weeks ago
THAT WAS THE BEST VOICE EVAR !!! SICK VIDEO BRO :)
inOVERDRIVE95 3 weeks ago
Hehe, nice vid mate.
Leopardxt 3 weeks ago
I agree amd fx the best, good video 5 stars, I have the fx- 8120 8-core
msn140 3 weeks ago
@msn140 Are you satisfied with it????How's it at gaming???WEI???
TheNorbi80 3 weeks ago
@TheNorbi80 standard it is ok, on OC it is a moster for gaming , when windows 8 is out we wil get more extra power, amd fx is not a bad cpu! and OC is easy on this cpu :)
msn140 3 weeks ago
AMD FX 8 Core are strong at ALU processing and weak in FPU processing as FPU are shared between 2 Cores.
Unless there is a way which AMD do is to spread the Threads to different Module
(Core 0,Core 2,Core 4,Core 6) and "disable" the (Core1,3,4,7) to be use so that FPU cap/bottleneck can be improve on most games/programs that uses FPU.
Windows 8 have a new feature that shutdown unused core/threads. I believe Windows 8 and AMD FX is optimize.
maplesingapore 4 weeks ago
Good video, man. Would this be a good chip to go with for building a 3D modeling/rendering machine?
Katana2040 4 weeks ago
@Katana2040 for 3D modeling/rendering, imo, you may want to focus your dollars more towards a great video card, something that the software you are using can take full advantage of, and RAM and then based on the amount of money you have left you may want to go with whichever processor you can afford...
knowbyte 3 weeks ago
@knowbyte Right on, man. Thanks!
Katana2040 3 weeks ago
@knowbyte what the hell did i just watch. your like the conspiracy theorist that says the holocaust didn't happen except what your saying that contradicts everything i've ever heard makes sense (if indeed it's true.)
systemofadumb1 3 weeks ago
thats awesom vid
FaMiization 4 weeks ago
You make a damn good video, sir.
soule187 4 weeks ago
@soule187 :)
Thanks for putting a smile on my face and your support!!!
knowbyte 4 weeks ago
its obvious an 8-core is better than 4-core.
paulocelestial 1 month ago
you are idiot! Bulldozer loses even intel core i5 2600.
HanSinist 1 month ago
@HanSinist
I have never heard about I5 2600 and dont talk shit about a CPU you probably never tested. I myself prefer AMD over Inter even if Intel are little faster. I dont support criminal companies as Intel
TigerArmy1962 3 weeks ago
OK, well Intel has more performance.... but don't try to compare a horse to a car because both are different, as many people say " it depends on what you do " and yes the fx is sorta a fail but you have to understand that windows 7 isn't optimized to use the bulldozers architecture but when windows 8 comes out we will see the true performance of amd, bulldozer and the fact that we are only talking about cpus for gaming is just ridiculous what about the gfx cards form amd/nvidia?
joka115 1 month ago
LOOOOOOOL ahahaha "hear me stock heatsink"
joka115 1 month ago
lol mind bogelinging :D
Sitnubs 1 month ago
i was hoping to see you running VM as a i`m a developer i was thinking to get the buldozer for the extra cores which means more VMs.
m2020eg 1 month ago
Comment removed
160kamran 1 month ago
Its totally fucked up how this is the first video which talks about the actual pros and cons of the amd fx cpu, everyone else just sticks a finger up their ass and says "well its slower at using single and dual core based software so it sucks dick"
aingaran2003 1 month ago
Very creepy, but entertaining.
roguehavikk 1 month ago 9
@roguehavikk :D
knowbyte 1 month ago 3
Bulldozer 6100 now 105 pounds VS intel i3 2120 105 pounds. After you overclock the 6100 to 4ghz or more it crushes the intel if you like to have several jobs doing at the same time, and lets face it everyone these days open a ton of windows and aps and have all sorts going on.
SuperMangn 1 month ago
the 8150 has eight cores and can only do eight threads while the 2600k has 4 cores but can still handle eight threads
Blake2423 1 month ago
@Blake2423 Saying that 4 cores with hyper-threading is the same as having 8 cores without hyper-threading is similar to saying that 8 cores with 4 shared FPUs is the same as 8 cores with 8 dedicated FPUs, imo
knowbyte 1 month ago
@knowbyte 4 cores with 8 threads vs 8 cores with "only" 4 FPUs and 8 threads.
rcarkk 1 month ago
@Blake2423 threads is different than physical cores buddy.
sacraty8 1 month ago
Hey is that Frank Zappa
PAPPABIATCH 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You don´t like little electricity consumption? And bro it is 8 Integer Clusters. Not really full cores. An i3-2100 beats FX-8150 in most games. Single Thread for the win, unless you run a server with heavy multithread integer loads. For most applications, you need a strong floating point unit as well, also fast big caches. L1 Data Bully Cache suxx. Latencies are very high. Bulldozer is not a gaming cpu. So AMD was making a joke :-)
Manner1a 1 month ago
You don´t like little electricity consumption? And bro it is 8 Integer Clusters. Not really full cores. An i3-2100 beats FX-8150 in most games. Single Thread for the win, unless you run a server with heavy multithread integer loads. For most applications, you need a strong floating point unit as well, also fast big caches. L1 Data Bully Cache suxx. Latencies are very high. Bulldozer is not a gaming cpu. So AMD was making a joke :-)
Manner1a 1 month ago
@Manner1a several reputable tech websites claim that "...most applications DON'T need floating point units..."
knowbyte 1 month ago
the bulldozer is not a true 8 core, stop talking bullshit idiots
jager6903 1 month ago
bulldozer was released before it was complete, ipc overall lacks. still remember that it's a completely new architecture, hopefully piledriver will be a lot better. the biggest difference between intel i5/i7 and sandy bridge is 32 compared to the last gen 45nm cpu:s, the ipc only improved by about 15%. both sandy bridge and bulldozer oc high, the b2 steppiing suffers from high power consumption but hopefully that will be fixed with higher steppings.
adolf512 1 month ago
Speaking from personal experience, I just recently made the switch from an FX-8120 (OC 4.2ghz) to an i7 2600k (stock for now). All I can say so far is that I've noticed no difference in general use and heavily threaded apps like handbrake. However, in games, the i7 blows the 8120 out of the water. But I think the FX 8 cores is definitely going to be the better buy for people who don't even bother with PC games. But I wanted the best of both worlds so I switched.
advonspaandc5 1 month ago
The Intel 2600k has 8 threads it destroys the bulldozer in every way,hell you talk as slow as the bulldozer.
yumidad 1 month ago 2
@yumidad Haha Crap u Intel kiddy! our German AMD power is TRUE!
soiledBL00D 1 month ago
@soiledBL00D Intel kiddy????ive been using amd cpus since the mid 90s and computers sinse 1982 so who the kiddie? you just show more ignorance lmao ive always supported amd but enough is enough.But i can see with you its a German ego thing SIGH.
yumidad 1 month ago
@soiledBL00D Here you are watch this :) watch?v=SArxcnpXStE
yumidad 1 month ago
@yumidad Its funny but Intel Sucks^^ Its to expensive.AMD is good and cheap...the true processor^^
soiledBL00D 1 month ago
@soiledBL00D The bulldozer is some £50 more than a 2500k i rest my case
yumidad 1 month ago
@yumidad Hehe in Germany the bulldozer cost 219€.The i7 2600k 294€!
soiledBL00D 1 month ago
@yumidad i think you didnt get his point LOL
sacraty8 1 month ago
@yumidad threads are slower than physical cores :/
TCWxEchoCubed 1 month ago
@yumidad This has 8 physical cores. As with everything, "it's the software, stupid!" (that's a saying, I'm not calling you stupid lol). They need to optimise the task scheduler within Windows to get the best performance from this entirely new architecture. It's like how when new generations of GPU's come out the performance isn't all that much better than the previous ones, but as time goes on and the drivers mature the gap becomes bigger and bigger. They just kind of slipped with the drivers.
TalesOfWar 1 month ago
@TalesOfWar Yes chap but the problem is even with the task scheduler you will only see a 1-2% increase,at the end of the day the bulldozer SADLY is a huge let down and i wish it wasnt the case.
yumidad 1 month ago
Wow that video sucks and gives no real information. Come back with something tangible.
sudeley 1 month ago
IM NOT A FAN BOY BUT I GOTTA TELL YOU THAT AN I7 IS BETTER THAN A BULLDOZER BUT ITS ALSO MORE EXPENSIVE.AND AT GAMING INTEL IS DEFINETLY THE BEST.
ELBOMB4RO 1 month ago
cool video
YoungbuckRulz 1 month ago
i7 is overpriced as hell. And you aint getting a good enough CPU for your money. FX is kicking intels ass pro way
MikeTheKiller2212 1 month ago
You sound like Liddy from the game Redline Gang Warfare 2066
alexcool57 1 month ago
Oh god that weird part of youtube again...
AoDMADPenny 2 months ago
Yea 4.6 overclocking on air cooled AMD vs my i72600k overclocked air cooled 5.3 gigz........Hmm decisions decisions...............O and my OC is 72 hours stable prime 95
phantumgrey 2 months ago
@phantumgrey Look who i found again on this video lol...this guys weird..
AoDMADPenny 2 months ago
@AoDMADPenny lol
phantumgrey 2 months ago
@phantumgrey just saying that amd holds the record for overclocking.. 8.429GHz on bulldozer
retardedBananaXp 1 month ago
Comment removed
retardedBananaXp 1 month ago in playlist Liked videos
@retardedBananaXp Great.....how many people keep liquid nitrogen and dry ice at home for overclocking and gaming i wonder????
phantumgrey 1 month ago
@phantumgrey Not many, but that was not the purpose of this video, they just showing that the quality and technology is very good....
retardedBananaXp 1 month ago
@retardedBananaXp Yeah. With only 2 cores enabled!!!!
rcarkk 1 month ago
@phantumgrey "Stock" aircooling, not hyper 212 or noctua, just the fan that comes in the box
YaksAttack 1 month ago
EPIC VOICE!
RaiseTheFPS 2 months ago
I think AMD giving us and 8 Core for future applications that will use it for a cheap price is a great buy . I love AMD They work great why is everybody so upset who is Intel to you they pay your bills? They raise your kids? No I choose who works great and who is the cheapest bang for buck.
I personally recommend FX-4100 with and SSD drive My buddy is really happy with it.
Dorisequador 2 months ago
@Dorisequador For the future thing: They made the FX series to work best in Windows 8 and multithread applications
ThePhotory 2 months ago
@Dorisequador
Core 2 Quad was more future proof than Core 2 Duo, because it was much faster when the extra 2 cores are utilized
However, FX-8150 is not going to be future proof like Core 2 Quad because FX-8150 doesn't have an advantage over i7 2600 in multi-threaded applications that use all the 8 cores.
Even against the cheaper i5 2500, FX-8150 is barely faster than i5 2500 when all cores are used.
maroom1 2 months ago
@maroom1 Ya your right in the real world bench marks....
But bring it home a use it and you'll be amaized how smooth how fat it runs.
Yes Intel I5 is great as far as it's bench marks but I have friends who own them and I7's to and they work well don't get me wrong but the AMD is really really cheaper and fly's everything just runs great and smooth and bang for buck man long term upgrades I rather go AMD play edit etc... and upgrade at like 1/3rd the price.
Dorisequador 2 months ago
i still a AMD fanboy, but their processor suck. Fuck you man this is bulshit, IT HAS 8 PROCESSORS, 8 PROCESSORS YEAH IM A FAGGET fuck you.
read a benchmark
MrSaggat 2 months ago
i would choose the Xeon e3-1230: i7 2600 performance, i5 2500 price :)
(but you can't overclock the Xeon)
Mortedignus 2 months ago
@Mortedignus You also can't dual socket those Xeons, which kind of defeats the purpose of Xeons if you ask me. The whole point is they scale like a mother and allow you to address insane amounts of RAM. It'll be more stable over the long term than the i5/7 though, but you're missing the main advantage of such a CPU without the dual socket support.
TalesOfWar 1 month ago
@TalesOfWar The Xeon E3-1230 has the same power as the i7 2600 and is 50€ cheaper (German prices: i7 245€ - FX 225€ - Xeon 195€). It also works with every mainboard for the i7 2600. It has the best price-performance ratio of the three CPUs and is perfect for gaming systems etc. Unless you want to overclock your system.
Just use it as a normal desktop processor ;)
Mortedignus 1 month ago
epic fail
underdog9785 2 months ago
Fanboy?
rayzenoch 2 months ago
2600k with HT enabled still outperforms the 8150 on almost every single multi threaded benchmark. Real world or synthetic. Hell the i5 beats the 8150. Also take into account even when overclocking the 8150 to 4.8 ghz it STILL loses to the i7 2600k. Once you OC the i7 GAME OVER Lol. It destroys the 8150. It's a dud. Hell even AMD techs admit htey were rushed and produced an inferior product. THe last gen phenom 2 beats BD clock-clock performance.
lamiac2411 2 months ago
i5 is better than this cpu too check benchmark i would save the money and get i7 2700k
pajo500 2 months ago
thanks but max temp is still 62°c ^^
pajo500 2 months ago
so much if that shit is totally made up. "by the end of all the new drivers, we're looking at a 100-200% increase in speed." thats total BS. Maybe, MAYBE 10-20%, not 200%. I hate it when people make stuff up. also, nice job pointing out that games and OSs are not optimized for those cores. whats the point of buying it if u are going to run those games. and they won't become optimized for the architecture anytime soon because no1 is going to buy a bulldozer!! I plan on getting Ivy Bridge- 22nm
thetruthhasnoagenda1 2 months ago
The AMD FX-8150 does not contain true 8 cores(I owned the FX-8150) the is two execution units per module, yet still shares the same L1, and L2 cache(note intel cache trashing back in the day with HT). The same shit is happening with Bulldozer. I think you forgot to mention the enormous amount of wattage(I have hit 220 watts just on stock clock), lmao windows 8 benchs are not much better(5 -10 percent) Anyone who uses both(I have both) cpu's will notice the speed difference(2600k wins).
Atheist18505 2 months ago
that fucken triangle; intergrade to the respect of dx,dy,dz
AdolfHitlerVEVO 2 months ago
This video is annoying. I think this guy is retarded.
rcarkk 2 months ago
Look, I drew a picture.
That proves the AMD FX-8150 is better than the i7 2600K.
Give me a fucking break.
ppw00 2 months ago
you're fucking retarded
ThAt1guy51 2 months ago 7
For one, the 2600K can also be overclocked to 4.6 GHz on INTEL'S stock heatsink... which is terrible compared to AMD's. This means that the the 2600K OC's better than the 8150. Moreover, since the 2600k's stock clock is 3.4GHz, a 4.6GHz OC would put it at a 35% overclockability frequency. And for your "abnormal home user" the bulldozer is also terrible in server applications (like virtual machines). 8 core bulldozer opteron loses pretty bad to a xeon 5670 and even the older, magny cores opteron
jasonwupilly1997 2 months ago
actually you're an idiot ! :) Multi core idiot !
Z3ratulX 2 months ago
Comment removed
aspirem3802 2 months ago
Another thing. If there were a list of the worst CPU launched in history, this FX-8150 would ocupy the 1ST PLACE. BULLDOZER = HUGE ENGENEERING FAIL. Every Enthusiast knows that. I use V-Ray render and although having i7 2600k 4 cores, it´s faster than FX-8150 with the "8" cores at 100%. Remember that 2 cores that use the same resources x 4 modules, don´t make Bulldozer particularly a true 8 core. Just a thought.
rcarkk 2 months ago
@rcarkk Yes. No way the FX-8150 can even beat the i7-2600K!!!
aspirem3802 2 months ago
@rcarkk
how about the future ?
isn't the FX-8150 going to get better in the future and ie WIN 8 ?
also
can you link me an article or something about those modules ?
haven't really heard much about that, but if I understand this correctly the 8150 is not a true 8 core CPU ? Didn't AMD say something about that , saying that it IS a truly 8 core CPU? i dunno, the reason i'm asking is
i'm gonna build a new PC soon and this is a lot more confusing than it was a year or 2 ago :(
tnx
x1c3x 2 months ago
@x1c3x The AMD FX-8150 it´s not a "FULL" 8 cores because it has 4 modules with 2 cores each. Each module with two cores has only one FPU. AMD FX-8150 has only 4 FPUs for a total of 8 cores. A true 8 core CPU would have 8 FPU or 1 FPU per core. Then the the instruction decoder it´s shared between the two cores inside a module. This architecture bootlenecks the capabilities of an individual core. If each core had its own "FULL" resources, it would have performed much better.
rcarkk 2 months ago
@x1c3x And yes, it´s an 8 core CPU, but with each 2 cores (module), that use the same resources, like 1 FPU, shared L2 cache, shared instruction decoder....This creates a bootleneck for each core inside a module, because this shared functions, need to work for both cores. Buy a 2600k with 4 cores. It´s faster in heavy thread apps and WAY faster in games, because each i7 core it´s very very fast. It consumes way less power, and FX-8150 wont surpass i72600k in Win8. FX-8150 it´s a no.
rcarkk 2 months ago
@rcarkk yea i'm really disappointed in AMD this time.
Tnx for the reply :)
x1c3x 2 months ago
@rcarkk amd fx-8150 is an epic failure. get the i7 2600k. if you are on a budget get the i5 2500k. the amd fx-8150 even lost to i5 2500k in some applications.
aspirem3802 2 months ago
Weird video, for weird AMD fans. This video only talks abouts specs and excuses. Get over it. 2600k obliterates FX8150. Nobody runs 8 virtual machines.
rcarkk 2 months ago
8 Fiat 500 vs 4 Ferrari 458?
rcarkk 2 months ago
intel a shit
TOWAERlO 3 months ago
only a dumb person would buy amd over intel now.
xterminator069 3 months ago 2
i want real proof with real hardware in it
that 8150 is better at multitasking
i dont want to buy 4 cores it would easily reach its limits at multitasking
i might buy an 8170 when the prices lower
TOWAERlO 3 months ago
8150 cant even be comparable to the 2700k, barely even the 2500k. AMD even announced they wont be competing in CPUS with Intel anymore
crazyrod23 3 months ago
@crazyrod23 true they did say that, but wont be gone 100%
z34gtpz28 3 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
@z34gtpz28 Yeah, hopefully not. Or else Intel chips would probably skyrocket! Intel needs the underdog still
crazyrod23 3 months ago
@crazyrod23 amd is like oh well time to move on so if intel boost there prices up they might scare people away.
z34gtpz28 3 months ago
u can become a good narrator or story teller
licketh123 3 months ago
@knowbyte well i am about to purchase a new processor and my budget is Rs 30,000 INR
thats almost 600US$ so which processor can i go for??
also the currently i am using is a core 2 duo
people here in India say intels are more reliable to buy as AMD processors are just for gaming purposes and they won't work for longer period which they mean to say that intel processors can be used lifetime but AMD'S may get damaged after few years so is that true??
Well i am thinking of purchasing i7 2700 in tha
Swapneeiil 3 months ago
@Swapneeiil lol, I want to say I am surprised but I am not. Intel marketing is much better than AMD. The fact that AMD fab 1 in Germany manufacturers the fx 8150, may alter your perception if you believe in a stereotype of Germans as being efficiency/reliability task masters...
Price/performance vise, it depends on your budget. Personally, reliability was never a concern for me between Intel and AMD. For me its always been price/performance, and AMD is so far beating Intel imo.
knowbyte 3 months ago
@Swapneeiil Intel is best because they not just provide perfomance but also a good durability. I am using intel i7 and its nice and even intel's older processors. My pentium lastet long until I got dual core in year 2009 and when i got dual core it worked perfect now i have i7. Go to wikipedia and see how much staff amd has. and compare it to intel. i7 MRP is 20,000 INR. Win 7 ultimate with i7 and 8gb ram. What else you need for a fast PC?
AoeGeneral 2 months ago
@AoeGeneral Intel also has over $20 billion in cash, and AMD is in debt around $10billion. So who may be charging too much for the technology?
Intel's current competitive pricing is only because AMD exists. If AMD decides not to produce processors to compete against Intel anymore, then the third world countries might be the first ones to see a massive price increase, due to Intel's monopoly. And then everyone may cry why they supported Intel. Something to think about. :)
knowbyte 2 months ago 12
@knowbyte Well dude, AMD already said that they won´t do processors anymore leaving INTEL all the pie. The inminent increase of prices is coming sooner than expected.
Ijohanfree 1 month ago
@Ijohanfree I believe AMD is not going to "compete" with Intel anymore in the cpu market, they are still going to be manufacturing processors
This statement, btw, imo, has something to do with internal company politics and the vision that left with Hector Ruiz the former CEO of AMD...I think it was his "battle cry" to compete against Intel on the CPU forefront...and now that he has left, so has the effect of his "battle cry"...
knowbyte 1 month ago
@knowbyte Interesting point. You just made a case for me choosing intel over amd which wasn't a tough one anyway. Why would you choose a processor of a company that is in debt?...Intel is better thus making money and prospering to make more money and better products...I really don't mind spending maybe 50 to 100 bucks more on a product that I use for thousands of hours....
oldsk8r 1 month ago
@oldsk8r same reason someone would choose to buy a Malibu over a Corolla...if its a reliable product at a competitive price, its a good deal regardless of whether the company is in debt or not, imo
neither do I, otoh, if I know that I can save money and get similar reliability then I don't care about the brand...both a Malibu and Corolla will take me from A to B in similar comfort and reliability, but with the Malibu, it seems money can be saved...so why not save money? imo
knowbyte 1 month ago