VideoHelp Forum

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Consider supporting us by disable your adblocker or Try ConvertXtoDVD and convert all your movies to DVD. Free trial ! :)
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 17 of 17
Thread
  1. Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    the NDA has been lifted and here are all the video encoding benchmarks i could find:

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-17.html

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-15.html

    http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/10/12/amd-fx-8150-review/7

    http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1741/7/

    http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1741/8/

    http://hothardware.com/Reviews/AMD-FX8150-8Core-Processor-Review-Bulldozer-Has-Landed/?page=8

    http://hardocp.com/article/2011/10/11/amd_bulldozer_fx8150_desktop_performance_review/7

    http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=102&Itemi...&limitstart=17

    http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/bulldozer_benchmarked_and_analyzed_amd_back_game

    http://techreport.com/articles.x/21813/13
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/7

    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-8150_12.html

    http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=102&Itemi...&limitstart=17

    http://hothardware.com/Reviews/AMD-FX8150-8Core-Processor-Review-Bulldozer-Has-Landed/?page=8

    http://www.overclockers.com/amd-fx-8150-bulldozer-processor-review

    http://translate.google.com.sg/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&lay...2%3Fstart%3D14

    http://www.techspot.com/review/452-amd-bulldozer-fx-cpus/page9.html

    http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150-processor-review/14

    http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/processors/1287799/amd-fx-8150/2

    what an epic fail.
    Last edited by deadrats; 12th Oct 2011 at 03:41.
    Quote Quote  
  2. Originally Posted by deadrats View Post
    AMD probably dropped the ball by not going with a lower clocked processor but with a 5 module/10 core or 6 module/12 core offering
    Silicon real estate isn't free. Prices would have to go up more than proportionally. Not only do you get fewer chips per wafer because of the larger size but you get lower yields as well (the larger the area the more likely you are to get a crippling defect). That's why AMD introduced 3 core CPUs. To keep all those quads with one bad core from going to waste.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Hey deadrats, thanks for updating your post with all the benchmarks. I check Toms Hardware and Anandtech every day but Now I won't have to search for the others!
    Quote Quote  
  4. aBigMeanie aedipuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    666th portal
    Search Comp PM
    somehow intel already knew it. they have been pushing back release dates for faster chips for a while now as they saw no need(i.e. no competition).
    --
    "a lot of people are better dead" - prisoner KSC2-303
    Quote Quote  
  5. Member dragonkeeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by aedipuss View Post
    somehow intel already knew it. they have been pushing back release dates for faster chips for a while now as they saw no need(i.e. no competition).
    While this may be true, this is as close as they have been to Intel in years. If they are able to push the use of the additional instruction sets they gap will become a bit smaller.
    Future is beginning to look up for AMD. But atlas while i am an AMD fan. The performance bump of the i72600K that can be had for less than $100 is to good to pass up.
    Murphy's law taught me everything I know.
    Quote Quote  
  6. But you run 7-zip all day the FX-8150 is the CPU to have! It's probably good for x264 encoding in CRF and QP modes too.
    Last edited by jagabo; 12th Oct 2011 at 11:00.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    There were rumors about Bulldozer not living up to expectations months ago. Too bad they are true.

    Beating Intel would have been nice. but I didn't expect it. However I would have expected the Bulldozer CPU tomshardware tested to at least equal the fastest Phenom II x4 CPU in the test for single-threaded applications. Very disappointing.
    Last edited by usually_quiet; 12th Oct 2011 at 11:48. Reason: corrected name of website running the test report I read
    Quote Quote  
  8. Member dragonkeeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    However I would have expected the Bulldozer CPU tomshardware tested to at least equal the fastest Phenom II x4 CPU in the test for single-threaded applications.
    I would expect this to be a given considering the slower clock speeds. But if single threaded applications were able to take advantage of the new instruction sets the landscape might change.
    Murphy's law taught me everything I know.
    Quote Quote  
  9. Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    there is something to keep in mind; AMD's marketing department is responsible for a lot of misconceptions about Bulldozer. we've been told that each module is composed of two 128 bit integer units (ALU's) mated to a single 256 bit fpu. thanks to the thread scheduler AMD uses each ALU appears as a separate core and AMD has been marketing these cpu's as 4/6/8 core cpu's. this is misleading.

    Intel cpu's, since Bloomfield have had three 128 bit integer units per core, all three could do integer based math and one was used for Boolean evaluations (it was a dual purpose unit).

    AMD has been talking about bringing hyper-threading to its cpu's for a couple of years, but despite the fact that they have a cross licenses agreement with Intel they wanted a different HT strategy than Intel's, a more efficient strategy.

    the Bulldozer is what they came up with. if we view the Bulldozer benchmarks as 6 or 8 core cpu's, then the results are a let down; what we need to remember is that all Phenoms, since the first ones, had two alu's per core, Bulldozer just allows each integer unit to be seen as a separate core.

    keeping that in mind if we view the benchmark results as a hyper-threaded dual/tri/quad core cpu, the results no make sense and represent a good improvement over the previous generation of AMD cpu's (this view explains why an "8 core" Bulldozer is barely faster than a hexa core Phenom 2, if the same technology were applied to an X6, then it would look like 12 "cores" with a Bulldozer cpu and the benchmarks would be appropriately faster.

    i also have a feeling that were the Bulldozer to be benchmarked with apps that allow more than the default number of threads to be launched, that we would see some solid gains; my e7400 gains some decent fps when i manually change the number of threads from 2 to 3 to 4 using x264 from within avidemux and when using main concept's encoder from within Magix that allows to manually set the thread count, the fastest encodes are done with 5 or 6 threads.

    keeping in mind that AMD designed Bulldozer to be a server chip first and foremost, one has to wonder if we wouldn't see different results were the tests to be conducted manually setting the thread count to 16-24 on the "8 core" 8150.
    Quote Quote  
  10. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by dragonkeeper View Post
    Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    However I would have expected the Bulldozer CPU tomshardware tested to at least equal the fastest Phenom II x4 CPU in the test for single-threaded applications.
    I would expect this to be a given considering the slower clock speeds. But if single threaded applications were able to take advantage of the new instruction sets the landscape might change.
    Clock speeds were not officially available until today, so how would someone know clock speeds would be slower so as not to be disappointed when test results finally became available?

    Many existing single-threaded application will never be updated to use new instruction sets, so there is a ton of software in use that will never run as fast on a Bulldozer system as it did with some earlier AMD CPUs.

    I have an AMD system, so I am not an AMD basher. I'm just disappointed that performance is not better in this area, since I still use quite a few older single-threaded programs.
    Quote Quote  
  11. Member dragonkeeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    Clock speeds were not officially available until today, so how would someone know clock speeds would be slower so as not to be disappointed when test results finally became available?
    Perhaps it was all just speculation but the consensus has been that the bulldozer would have a slower clock speed, but the additional cores would make up for the reduction. (Single thread apps would not benefit) It was also speculated the slower clock speeds were the reasons for the delayed launch; supposedly AMD was trying to make the chip stable at higher clock speeds.

    Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    Many existing single-threaded application will never be updated to use new instruction sets, so there is a ton of software in use that will never run as fast on a Bulldozer system as it did with some earlier AMD CPUs.
    This is a given at some point in time we all have to give up apps we love sometimes even hardware. Many of us felt this when moving from Win98 to XP there were many sound cards, and video cards that didn't receive driver updates.

    Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    I'm just disappointed that performance is not better in this area, since I still use quite a few older single-threaded programs.
    I use to find this a nuisance when i migrated from a 3.2 Ghz AMD chip to my current 2.6 Ghz Phenom. But i endured and replaced my dated apps with new ones. But atlas this is not always doable I had to sstay on an older version of Auto cad for 6 yrs. because autocad 2007 didn't have support for my plotter, and i had to wait to 2010 to update autocad.

    I to am disappointed that it is not what i expected, while overall it is indeed an improvement over what they have been offering it's not much better than an i2500K. While costing slightly more, and the price of the i2500 will surely drop when intel introduces new chips in Dec.
    Last edited by dragonkeeper; 12th Oct 2011 at 19:25.
    Murphy's law taught me everything I know.
    Quote Quote  
  12. Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    i sent Anand Lal Shimpi an email asking him if he would run some additional benchmarks with x264 hd 4.0 and cinebench 11.5 but with manually setting the thread count to 16 and 24 threads; i think that Bulldozer may only really shine when the thread count is ramped up, higher than normal cpu's would use.
    Quote Quote  
  13. Originally Posted by deadrats View Post
    i sent Anand Lal Shimpi an email asking him if he would run some additional benchmarks with x264 hd 4.0 and cinebench 11.5 but with manually setting the thread count to 16 and 24 threads; i think that Bulldozer may only really shine when the thread count is ramped up, higher than normal cpu's would use.
    I hope he runs the tests. But I doubt there will be any difference. x264 already defaults to 1.5x the number of cores. In my experience that pretty much maxes out performance. Maybe going to 2x will get another half a percent. Beyond that thread juggling will probably decrease performance slightly.
    Last edited by jagabo; 12th Oct 2011 at 20:34.
    Quote Quote  
  14. Member dragonkeeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by deadrats View Post
    i sent Anand Lal Shimpi an email asking him if he would run some additional benchmarks with x264 hd 4.0 and cinebench 11.5 but with manually setting the thread count to 16 and 24 threads; i think that Bulldozer may only really shine when the thread count is ramped up, higher than normal cpu's would use.
    Keeping my fingers crossed.
    Murphy's law taught me everything I know.
    Quote Quote  
  15. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by dragonkeeper View Post
    Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    Clock speeds were not officially available until today, so how would someone know clock speeds would be slower so as not to be disappointed when test results finally became available?
    Perhaps it was all just speculation but the consensus has been that the bulldozer would have a slower clock speed, but the additional cores would make up for the reduction. (Single thread apps would not benefit) It was also speculated the slower clock speeds were the reasons for the delayed launch; supposedly AMD was trying to make the chip stable at higher clock speeds.
    Speculation and rumors are frequently wrong. It doesn't pay to put too much faith in them.

    Originally Posted by dragonkeeper View Post
    Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    Many existing single-threaded application will never be updated to use new instruction sets, so there is a ton of software in use that will never run as fast on a Bulldozer system as it did with some earlier AMD CPUs.
    This is a given at some point in time we all have to give up apps we love sometimes even hardware. Many of us felt this when moving from Win98 to XP there were many sound cards, and video cards that didn't receive driver updates.
    No kidding. However, I don't buy the latest and greatest hardware and software just because it is new. It has to work better than what I have. I was considering buying an AM3+ motherboard and CPU next year, but I won't bother now. I will either buy one of the last 95W AM3 four core CPUs in the next few weeks or wait for a faster A8.
    Quote Quote  
  16. Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    I hope he runs the tests. But I doubt there will be any difference. x264 already defaults to 1.5x the number of cores. In my experience that pretty much maxes out performance. Maybe going to 2x will get another half a percent. Beyond that thread juggling will probably decrease performance slightly.
    you know what it is, i sat and reread through all the reviews i could find and analyzed the results and charts and noticed that it didn't seem that in either pass 1 or pass 2 of the x264 benchmarks were all the cores of the 8150 maxed out, the processor also has huge L2 and L3 caches (AMD has said they wanted to go after the lucrative server and HPC markets, evidently that's where the big bucks are) and Bulldozer has a 4 wide decoder front end (per core) and they have added the ability to fuse certain instructions further down the pipeline (kind of like Intel has been doing since Conroe).

    maybe i just don't want to believe that a processor that was promised as far back as late 2009, got pushed back and features were removed again and again; i guess i'm hoping that there is a silver lining to the cloud, because i have to tell you, looking at prices of processors and motherboards from various sources, i think one would have to be crazy to build a Bulldozer based system over a SB based one, as things currently stand.
    Quote Quote  
  17. Member dragonkeeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    I don't buy the latest and greatest hardware and software just because it is new. It has to work better than what I have. I was considering buying an AM3+ motherboard and CPU next year, but I won't bother now. I will either buy one of the last 95W AM3 four core CPUs in the next few weeks or wait for a faster A8.
    I feel your pain.. I'm currently running a older Phenom x 4, the 9950 and have been waiting for AMD to cook up something worth while before taking the plunge on a new system.
    Murphy's law taught me everything I know.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads