Technical > PC Hardware Discussion/Reviews > [My Review] Just got a Bulldozer 6 core, it doesn't seem so bad

[My Review] Just got a Bulldozer 6 core, it doesn't seem so bad

Re: [My Review] Just got a Bulldozer 6 core, it doesn't seem so

reply to gaara
Looks like a great deal! I might do a similar build, just to get my feet wet and have some fun.
--
My Site

reply to pog
Not sure which one you are talking about. There were many on that page.

Look for Antec, Seasonic, Kingwin.

If you want to research go to:

»www.jonnyguru.com/modules.php?na···atnum=13

A few very key things are the current on the 12v rail and the ripple on all the lines, lower the better. Computer parts hate ripple on the line and can cause many problems.

--
In need of a Vegas vacation.

sorry, copied the wrong link. meant this specific one... »www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a···17341016

edit: It seems decent enough, given the price especially! »www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/···ew/973/1

By the way, I wonder what supply OP used?

--
My Site

reply to gaara
So you did nothing but install windows and you want to review the performance of a CPU... rite.

Um pretty sure my core 2 would "doesn't seem half bad" in that same scenario.

Gona send you to this...

»Re: trying to relearn intel

No amd cpu recommendations at any price point from tomshardware.

reply to gaara
That's excellent value. Certainly these cpus can meet the vast majority of people's needs.

reply to matt5
I think the AMD CPU's are inferior to the Intel, but the marketplace has adjusted prices accordingly. This is a budget machine, and is a good value. It won't be an I7, it isn't intended to be.

reply to pog
It was easy enough to do. My goal was to get reasonable performance at low cost.

I still need a video card to play World of Warcraft. My motherboard only has room for a single slot video card. If I get a double slot, it covers a non-video slot (which is ok), but also covers the motherboard battery.

reply to gaara
Yet you would get more fps with a i3... (not sure why you keep saying i7, i7 is super high end, i5 is game, i3 is budget, pentium is just cause well... it still beats amds in gaming)

»www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gam···-10.html

Infact you could get more FPS with a pentium /facefloor

You get more fps with a 1090t lol pretty much based off that you would get more fps buying ANY cpu but an fx.

Your happy congratz, but loading windows and being like "this cpu aint slow" is a joke.

Get a i3 system play a game vs the FX, the FX will net you less FPS on average.

To be clear those benchmarks are using a 7970 graphics card. That is fine when one is wanting to show cpu differences but that isn't going to be the reality for most buyers and it isn't the reality here.

I still think it's interesting that the poster has an i7 system and this system and doesn't find this system a dud.

reply to matt5
Matt,
This is a budget PC ... I was expecting the AMD chip to be very awful, but it hasn't been as bad as expected. It's function will be to help compile firmware for routers in the not too distant future, at the moment, I'm probably going to drop a 6850 video card in and see how it does at WoW compared to my I7 930 with an identical video card and hard drive.

The cost has been very low for this system, and maybe it demonstrates how little CPU power i actually need or that the benchmarks overall may be a bit divergent from my own personal use. I'm undecided how to evaluate my personal perception vs the objective benchmarks.

reply to matt5
Matt,
This may help, here is an aggregate benchmark showing how the 6 core Bulldozer compares to the top 10 CPU's. - »www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu···Six-Core

I know you can find many benchmarks that show how poor the FX 6100 is, believe me this benchmark won't disappoint. The FX 6100 is at the bottom of the list.

Now scroll down, to CPU value, and see the FX 6100 is at the top of CPU benchmark results to cost of the cpu.

This makes my earlier point, the market has adjusted prices to reflect the actual worth of the FX 6100. It is possible bad press has devalued this CPU. The price shown is $155 as of today (it's updated daily). Which is more than I paid for this CPU and motherboard.

This isn't the fastest CPU, in fact it isn't fact at all. However, it may be a good value, and it may be good enough for many.

If the $100 or so price advantage this system has vs an I5 is used to purchase an SSD drive. Which would be a better value for most users?

Please note that link includes overclocking, underclocking, badly set up systems.... etc. It is good for a general idea nothing more.

The fx cpus will beat a i3 in multi threaded things... however I have said many times GAMING... (my link is ALL about fps)

That site is nice to see a general idea of where stuff falls... however you need to remember amd butchered up the CPU's this time around, so while a 4 "core" amd cpu may beat an i3, because of being better in alot of multi threaded things, single threaded apps will suffer, badly, due to the low IPC... (read games) if you are happy, fine. I am just trying to explain that many places will not recommend a FX cpu due to the low IPC, and high power usage (get an AC if you start to overclock those things).

Over all and intel is a better buy for your money, as you get both threaded performance and IPC.

tldr, intel is not the winner on everything, but overall I would choose an intel based CPU over an AMD as many things still only run one 1 core, and amds FX cpus have lower IPC than intels, apps that can make use of all cores will generally perform better on a 4 "core" amd fx vs a 2core not HT intel i3. If your happy, that is good, maybe once you start to use the CPU, you can take these things into consideration and see if you notice anything (example 1 core being pegged, etc) while using the PC.

What amd markets as "cores" are not true cores, 2 "cores" are on one module and share parts... so it is really kinda like a amd version of hyperthreading, but it gimps both "cores"

Again if ya happy, great, I did not total up the price, I am just giving you an "FYI" more or less.

reply to matt5
Matt,
Your post inspired me to try a large video card in my budget PC. My family has a 6950 that wasn't being used much. It's a bit large, but managed to fit in my case. Somehow the 500 watt power supply is able to feed it.

With the integrated graphics, I was getting 9 FPS in Stormwind on my WoW toon at 1920 x 1080, with mid level settings. After the 6950 was installed on the same PC with mostly ultra settings at the same 1920 x 1080 resolution FPS ranges from 52 to 60.

On our I7 920 and 930's, with 6850 graphics cards at slightly lower settings we typically see 50-60 FPS as well. The settings were higher on the 6950, almost everything is maxed out. It's also a 2GB card, the others are 1 GB.

So far the PSU handles it. It's trivial to overclock AMD CPU's, but I am not into overclocking. Overall, just getting a great graphics card covered most any CPU deficit. Maybe things would be different with another game.

This card belongs to another PC, and will be returned. It was just an experiment. For my personal testing, the slightly beefier card overcame most CPU issues for the only game use I'd have. As this PC will mostly compile firmware, there is no point to having such an expensive card in it.

reply to matt5
Hey matt5, just want to stop by and ask you this.

FPS-wise, can you actually tell any difference between what you use and an FX-based CPU in real-world gaming? Keep in mind, when I ask this, I'm not talking about looking at a damn FPS counter. I'm talking about actually looking at the graphics. What you visually see on screen. Turn off FRAPS, or whatever program you use and actually look at the game for once. Most people can't tell a difference past 60 FPS, and I'm mostly triple digit now with my build.

I have an i7 system (pretty top notch but not actually mine, on loan to me for a while) and an FX system (see sig). In the games I run, using the same settings (everything maxed out), I can NOT visually tell any difference. Perhaps you run games that utilize the CPU more than a GPU. Most recent game I've purchased is Skyrim. BTW, my FX system has higher FPS in that game than the i7 one, but I use better vid cards.

IMHO, it's foolish to get into an FPS argument considering the inability of the human sight to really see any difference past a certain point, unless you're running something completely independent of the GPU...which is rare, if not non-existent, when it comes to gaming.
--
Windows 7 64 Professional|AMD FX 8150|Asus Crosshair Formula V Motherboard|8GB G.Skill Sniper Series 1866 DDR3 RAM|EVGA GTX560 Ti (Fermi) DS SuperClocked x2|Corsair CMPSU 850HX 850w Modular|Lian Li Lancool PC-K62 Case

Please run World of Tanks.

I get sick at anything under 60fps (I can not deal with looking at sub 55fps, it is too choppy and I get aheadache). I have a hard time running 60fps and near max (low AA) water set to low, trees set to high/med forget) settings with my i7. I would hate to see an FX cpu try running it.

I run vsync 60, I drop still to 40's at some points, but only for a short time.

So yes, I can see the FPS difference. You need to *make* 60 fps.

I linked you a review from a reputable site that states they would not recommend a FX cpu at any price point, what more do you need?

»www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/di···ml#sect0

»www.techspot.com/review/467-skyr···ge7.html

Just saying, the benchmarks say you are wrong, intel beats amd in fps and they are UNDER 60fps

In fact intel vs amd is the difference of under or over 60fps in the skyrm test.

I be happy to see amd put something out so intel won't **** us on price but... hey... everyone says FX fail, you say no. Imma need to go with everyone on this one.