Hard to say for sure, they already have the roadmap for the IB anyway so I doubt Intel will delay... besides AMD's BD actually beat the i7 on the gaming front so it won't be long for them to catch up if Intel stays stagnant

Actually the only thing preventing us from praising AMD now is the pricepoint of the new CPU... if the tech is priced similarly or lower than the i5 2500K then I'd imagine a lot of ppl interested with the 8150

Since when did that happen? 

wonder why in guru3d comparing all the new FX's, FX8150,8120,6100,4100 all score almost the same in crysis 2 at 1920x1080 res.

means for those who wanna go for bulldozer can go for cheaper solution FX6100 & FX4100???

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150-...mance-review/10

Sorry for replying my own post. Just found more technical  information that might give more clues on the state of Bulldozer today. Probably this will be my last post about the matter.

Quoted from ArsTechnica user comment

- HardWare.fr > ACTUALITES> AMD FX-8150 et FX-6100, Bulldozer débarque sur AM3+

Effectiveness of CMT

Bulldozer messes somewhat the definition of heart, as implemented on x86 AMD calls since the current two hearts share in a module resources previously dedicated.

You should know that lorsqu'AMD filed its patents related to Bulldozer, engineers had chosen to call what is now a module a heart, a heart which is a cluster. The final name chosen by AMD it is never entirely unreasonable?

To see more clearly we have made a processor clocked at 3.2 Bulldozer architecture the following tests:

- Test mode 4 and 8 core modules
- Test mode modules 2 and 4 cores
- Test mode 4 modules and 4 hearts

For the first case is relatively simple because it is the basic configuration. For the second, our motherboard to disable certain modules. For the third is more complicated because we need to define the affinity of the right heart (CPU 0, 2, 4 and 6 in Windows), possibly by limiting the number of threads executed by the application 4 . The latter test is not possible with tests under MinGW or Visual Studio, many processes are used throughout the compilation.

Why this test? This allows you to see if the assertion of AMD CMT indicating that 2 cores are worth 80% of two cores of the same architectural standards is valid, and so bound if the performance increase between 4 and 8 cores justifies the name processors "8 cores" provided by AMD.

In this first table, the four core modules version 4 gets the index 100.



According to the tests and if we excluded tests that do not load completely 4 cores (WinRAR, the first pass x264 and games), we obtain from 71 to 95% performance of the configuration modules 4 / 4 core modules with 2 / 4 cores . The assertion about the effectiveness of AMD's CMT seems accurate. By cons if software does not load completely 4 cores, 4 is the mode modules / core is the fastest, although the gap is often reduced.

But the bulldozer can be considered as long as an 8 heart? Or should there be more talk of a four processor cores 8 threads as in the case of Intel for its processors with Hyperthreading. Here are the gains caused by Hyperthreading on Sandy Bridge, the passage of 4 to 6 cores on K10 and on CMT Bulldozer in most applications multi-threaded:



On average, Hyperthreading gives a gain of 23.4% against 42.2% for the passage of 4 to 6 cores on K10 and 53.1% for the CMT integrated into the Bulldozer. It is far beyond what Hyperthreading and brings about a 8-core processor seems the most realistic practice.

Of course, the naysayers will say that using this term, AMD has an advantage rather limited in terms of marketing from Intel 8-core is necessarily better than 4 for many. But one can also see the glass half full: it can also indicate the need heavy 8 threads to exploit the full potential of the computing power offered to us, which is not the case with 4 threads. While this is certainly not the original message that wanted to get the marketing team, nor that the seller will relay the information department of your supermarket ...

its about equal on high res but some site tested min fps and some games min fps was lower than 2600k.

basically any game that is gpu intense its on par games on older engine like source its very slow.

Unfortunately we did not score to providing for the AMD FX for the game because of this processor the game crashes on startup bug that we have risen to AMD. AMD was able to reproduce and is working on a fix. This is the only software we have a problem during the test, and if we integrate for information it will obviously not taken into account for the mean. The other processors rely heavily on the language test extreme, always with a distinct lead for Intel CPUs.

Serious problems: Deus Ex, and Shogun 2

Box of cereal during the tests showed that, for example Deus Ex: Human Revolution, and Shogun 2 games fell to the Windows BSOD error directly-FX-8150 processor, when they tried to launch via Steam. The problem is AMD's known and falls has been confirmed, but so far we have not heard an official explanation or a solution of games to inaction. Also the Swedish Sweclockers site hit its tests identical to the problem FX processor.

During testing revealed at times very disturbing behavior on systems with AMD FX series. Some game titles will not start, but instead freezes the entire computer with the classic Bluescreen as a result. The problems occur with motherboards from various manufacturers regardless of the settings in UEFI, and only with generation "Bulldozer" in the CPU socket.

The behavior is confirmed by other sources, and the time of writing, current theory is that the error occurs when a combination of some games and service Steam. For Sweclockers it's about the titles "Total War: Shogun 2" and "Deus Ex: Human Revolution".



Both Sweclockers and other reviewers have contacted AMD, the company's PR agency and partner manufacturers in the matter, but so far without getting further information. Hopefully, an explanation and solution in some form shortly.

Performance that Advanced Micro Devices' eight-core processor demonstrated in real-world applications is far from impressive as the chip barely outperforms competing quad-core central processing units from Intel. The reason why performance of the long-awaited Bulldozer was below expectations is not only because it was late, but because AMD had adopted design techniques that did not allow it tweak performance, according to an ex-AMD engineer.

Ah! taking my post out of context much?

I was replying to TristanX about incoming intel new processor arch and not comparing to the current midlle or top performing Intel processor.

Definitely AMD Bulldozer is not doing well at the moment. You can read my earlier post with 5 point underlining the current issue.

IMHO, we should look at this situation objectively without much frothing in the mouth. A non competitive AMD also means that Intel will monopolize the x86 processor market once again. Perhaps we will see another US$1000 processor soon. Perhaps than the people with mouth frothing now will sober up a little bit or probably have mouth frothing issue with Intel CPU pricing?

no use comparing with i7,

they should be comparing with Intel Sandy bridge, if they cant beat Sandy bridge, it is a FAIL product.

Ex-AMD Engineer Explains Bulldozer Fiasco: Lack of Fine Tuning.
Engineer: AMD Should Have Hand-Crafted Bulldozer to Ensure High Speed

Copypasta from vrz http://forums.vr-zone.com/showthread.php?p...47#post10589747
originl sauce http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/2...zer_Fiasco.html

I think the main reason behind is, AMD uses server architecture for desktop processors.
If you observe close enough, Bulldozer based server processors are very strong in server field.
This made Bulldozer only fast in multithreaded purpose.

The problem is even in multithreaded area, it is not much faster than the SB. It is only as good as SB. if they really want to win in this area, they probably should not use that large 16MB cache. They should have come out a 10-12 core base BD.

Looks like I'll be keeping my Phenom II for quite awhile
AMD should have release the Bulldozer months earlier. At least they won't look so pathetic comparing to Intel's current line of processors.

I think the main reason behind is, AMD uses server architecture for desktop processors.
If you observe close enough, Bulldozer based server processors are very strong in server field.
This made Bulldozer only fast in multithreaded purpose.