Go Back   Hardware Canucks > HARDWARE > CPU's and Motherboards

    
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #161 (permalink)  
Old October 13, 2011, 06:55 PM
chrisk's Avatar
Folding Captain
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: GTA, Ontario
Posts: 7,406

My System Specs

Default

Hell yeah if you are a hard-core AMD fan or fanboy then by all means buy this chip. Still will run anything out there, and who are us to tell folks how to spend their money. It won't be my money any time soon, but if the AMD fans can send some cash to the company to keep her going strong then that si good for the rest of us.
__________________
Fold for team #54196
Reply With Quote
  #162 (permalink)  
Old October 13, 2011, 07:05 PM
Killswitch's Avatar
Allstar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Sault Ste Marie, Ontario
Posts: 839

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisk View Post
Hell yeah if you are a hard-core AMD fan or fanboy then by all means buy this chip. Still will run anything out there, and who are us to tell folks how to spend their money. It won't be my money any time soon, but if the AMD fans can send some cash to the company to keep her going strong then that si good for the rest of us.
Absolutely. If I had an AM3+ mobo and a quad core cpu I'd go for an FX-8150. Sadly there's no point otherwise.

EDIT: I think AMD shot themselves in the foot with this architecture. Two partial cpu cores that share resources to make one "module" does NOT equal two cores..... so IMO the FX-8150 isn't an 8 core processor. I'm not sure what it actually is.

To me it's a quad core with some extra crap tossed in there an attempt and imitate an i7's Hyper-Threading at the hardware level.

Last edited by Killswitch; October 13, 2011 at 07:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #163 (permalink)  
Old October 13, 2011, 07:20 PM
techman95's Avatar
MVP
F@H
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: TEXAS
Posts: 322

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killswitch View Post
Absolutely. If I had an AM3+ mobo and a quad core cpu I'd go for an FX-8150. Sadly there's no point otherwise.
just ganna wait till either i kill my 1090T or the prices come down alot or either the revamp (8170) actually pulls some thing from this in a positive sense, but who knows there are hardcore fanboys out there that are already selling the 8150 out (bless their hearts)
Reply With Quote
  #164 (permalink)  
Old October 13, 2011, 07:53 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: midland, ontario
Posts: 519
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killswitch View Post
EDIT: I think AMD shot themselves in the foot with this architecture. Two partial cpu cores that share resources to make one "module" does NOT equal two cores..... so IMO the FX-8150 isn't an 8 core processor. I'm not sure what it actually is.

To me it's a quad core with some extra crap tossed in there an attempt and imitate an i7's Hyper-Threading at the hardware level.
Nooooo hyperthreading by intel is the extra crap they have thrown out to & intels isn't even realy a hardware its only a extra data executable!!

Let me put it to some folks in a automotive aspect to those whom understand engines ....

Intels aproach is like having single overhead cam's over a piston but has 2 fuel injectors ... adds more fuel, but due to 1 valve can not get the efficency out of the extra injector & is less powerful & efficient.

AMD's Buldozer is like having the dual overhead cam's over the piston which the 2 valves opening & closing provide more effecency & power to the engine cause of it.

Let me also remind folks of what back in the day Intel them themselves tried to do ala what amd has done with Buldozer ..... Hello Pentium D ..... And how where those chips ..... if i remember correctly the same as what peaple are slingin bout the bulldozers .... Only diffrence between now & then is I think AMD's design is better then intels attempt back in the day ...

Also lets further understand that aspect of things from amd's side right now ... say they can put up to 6 core's in a die w/ graphics or 8 w/o ..... making a reference to my earlier example ... a 6 modualed die would be a 12 headed/core & of course a 8 would be 16 headed/core's.

IF yields can come up, clocks go up, cores increase while power consumption goes down .... then amd's gamble may not pay off now ... but in the future it will.
Reply With Quote
  #165 (permalink)  
Old October 13, 2011, 08:14 PM
ern88's Avatar
MVP
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 283

My System Specs

Default

Ya, Have at it. If you don't mind sub par performance. And a Higher power bill. The FX-8150 fits the bill!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #166 (permalink)  
Old October 13, 2011, 08:15 PM
Killswitch's Avatar
Allstar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Sault Ste Marie, Ontario
Posts: 839

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by terrybear View Post
Nooooo hyperthreading by intel is the extra crap they have thrown out to & intels isn't even realy a hardware its only a extra data executable!!

Let me put it to some folks in a automotive aspect to those whom understand engines ....

Intels aproach is like having single overhead cam's over a piston but has 2 fuel injectors ... adds more fuel, but due to 1 valve can not get the efficency out of the extra injector & is less powerful & efficient.

AMD's Buldozer is like having the dual overhead cam's over the piston which the 2 valves opening & closing provide more effecency & power to the engine cause of it.
That's what I said. AMD is doing trying to do hyper-threading at the hardware level.

It's not and NEVER will be more efficient either. Why? More hardware in the CPU that needs power to operate. Intel beat AMD to the better idea/tech and they can't copy it, only imitate or try to come up with a better idea.
Reply With Quote
  #167 (permalink)  
Old October 13, 2011, 08:20 PM
EmptyMellon's Avatar
MVP
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 434

My System Specs

Default

Had BD Zambezi been a true SNB killer, people would been falling head over heal to get their hands on one and all the e-tailors would be be charging even more then now (cashing in on the craze). Instead the bandwagon has rolled off the other side of the hilll and the enthusiast community was caught standing with their mouths and eyes wide open stairing at marketing train wreck that the general public is completely clueless about. And like Intel of the past, AMD is simply going on with business instead of making a big deal out of it like some (non-HWC) tech forum members that call for AMD to close up shop and the like (blaming JF-AMD). If AMD will truelly be able to refine the process even a bit by the time FX-8170 will hit then great, if not there is always the Piledriver architecture or Intel's SNB-E.
Reply With Quote
  #168 (permalink)  
Old October 13, 2011, 08:35 PM
Killswitch's Avatar
Allstar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Sault Ste Marie, Ontario
Posts: 839

My System Specs

Default

More isn't always better

Classic example - Remember the Radeon 2900XT? It had MONSTER specs compared to the 8800GTX... 512 bit bus etc.... but yet the 2900XT wasn't all that great.
Reply With Quote
  #169 (permalink)  
Old October 13, 2011, 09:13 PM
EmptyMellon's Avatar
MVP
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 434

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killswitch View Post
More isn't always better

Classic example - Remember the Radeon 2900XT? It had MONSTER specs compared to the 8800GTX... 512 bit bus etc.... but yet the 2900XT wasn't all that great.
Hence it would be an interesting excise to see how would a die-shrink of the Thuban affect the performance/power agains the present 45nm design - yet AMD is looking to phase it out ASAP, while Intel is still selling their Pentiums, go figure.
Reply With Quote
  #170 (permalink)  
Old October 13, 2011, 09:58 PM
Killswitch's Avatar
Allstar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Sault Ste Marie, Ontario
Posts: 839

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmptyMellon View Post
Hence it would be an interesting excise to see how would a die-shrink of the Thuban affect the performance/power agains the present 45nm design - yet AMD is looking to phase it out ASAP, while Intel is still selling their Pentiums, go figure.
It may be wise for AMD to keep Phenom II's in production for a bit longer yet seeing how the 6 cores of the Thuban is so close in performance to "8 cores" in Bulldozer.

I agree. Perhaps a die shrink and even some tweaking for a "Phenom III" might have been the way to go. The X6 was closing in on Intel's top dogs compared to X4's. The Phenom II does contain some decent architecture, and true CPU cores.... not one core with part of another one mash into it. Sorry, the module idea has me pissed. Either way, AMD probably just didn't want to see the last few years of R&D go down the crapper. They likely felt obligated to release BD.

Makes me wonder how a 32nm Phenom II X8 would fare.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AMD Phenom II X4 980 Black Edition Processor Review Comment Thread SKYMTL CPU's and Motherboards 12 May 3, 2011 07:27 PM
Intel Core i7-980X Gulftown Processor Review Comment Thread SKYMTL CPU's and Motherboards 103 September 23, 2010 02:21 PM
BFG GTX 260 Review Comment Thread SKYMTL Video Cards 33 November 15, 2008 11:26 PM
BFG GTX 280 OCX Review Comment Thread SKYMTL Video Cards 15 August 19, 2008 09:07 PM