. Going by my calculations and according to [H]ARDOCP, an Intel Core i7 2600K is about 29.88% or 30% faster than an Intel Core i5 2500K . Perhaps I have gotten my calculations wrong?

Anyway, even if it's not 42% faster the benchmarks do indeed seem rather suspicious with those mistakes .

(10.37 / 7.27) x 100% = 42.6%. It is 142.6%.
But the value is based on i7 2600K already.
Since you said xx is faster than i5 2500K, the value should be based on i5 2500K, right?

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=e...amd%2F519649%2F
Damn, now even CanardPC says Bulldozer isn't that good. Apparently it's only competitive against Sandy Bridge in multithreaded benchmarks, and poor in games. It did recommend the FX-8120 for overclockers, though.

For those looking for some advice before the time about Bulldozer FX, here's one of our colleagues CanardPC over two weeks yet before the end of the NDA. How is this possible? Now comes the newsstands the new magazine CanardPC Hardware, with inside the test Bulldozer FX ... or almost!

In fact the test is not yet available, NDA forces, and readers can actually login from October 12 on a web page to discover the full review. The scores are not directly present in the magazine, but the buying guide of CPU if and CanardPC it evokes the FX-8150 and 8120, both versions expected octocores respectively 245 and $ 205.

Here are some selected pieces from the magazine of our colleagues to read it all for yourself and have access to complete test CanardPC from October 12, it will cost you € 5.90 at your newsagent.



"In the more upscale, FX processors based on the Bulldozer architecture we also disappointed: while they are still generally more efficient than their predecessors and allow AMD to approach much of the last Core i5 and i7 but their performance remains below expectations. Besides, as we announced already in our previous issue, if they can sometimes compete with Sandy Bridge in the applications of rough calculations, the results are in video games very far behind. Only overclockers (and fanboys) will find them a great interest given their predisposition in this area. "

"The AMD FX-8120 is probably the model of the new series" Bulldozer "that offers the best price / performance ratio. It is able to compete with the i5-2500K in most computing applications even if gross lags behind in video games. are nonetheless substantial overclocking capabilities and available at no additional cost. Faced with the old Phenom X4 980, this is a very good alternative. "

"Offered at a price slightly lower than the Core i7-2600K Intel, the FX-8150 is currently the most powerful model from the new architecture" Bulldozer "for AMD. Unfortunately, he fails, at best, that to match its direct competitor in some media processing applications and is always behind in games."

On another note, Intel shill OBR is claiming these:
"AMD FX has many clocks/voltage plans. 1400/1700/2100/2500/3200/3600/3900/4200+ MHz with various voltages. Default clock is 3.6 GHz at +/- 1.3V. Turbo Core 2.0 needs voltage 1.41V for 3.9 and 4.2 GHz."
And apparently, power consumption for FX-8150 is comparable with i7 2600K.

As long as the price remains acceptable, and able to cover the R&D cost, no  suicide will be done.

http://www.chiphell.com/thread-272826-1-1.html
Microcenter said, Bulldozer already reached the retail store.
The first launch will include FX-6100, FX-8120 and FX-8150.
AMD will provide the official BIOS for current motherboards in market.

Microcenter also mentioned, the will be the first revenge from AMD, for last 5 years.

AMD has not been too well received in the upper end of CPUs for quite some time now. Once Intel started pushing for performance with their Conroe core, AMD was forced to stay competitive in the mainstream market to survive and that is pretty much where we have been for the last 5 years. Also returning after a nearly 5-year hiatus is the FX moniker for AMD’s flagship products. According to leak(s) from Microcenter that floated past our desks we should see a resurgence of at least one of those two on October 12th, 2011:

"AMD is launching their new AM3+ FX series processors on 10/12/11. We currently have a number of AM3+ compatible motherboards in stock. These motherboards will support the new AM3+ FX processors as well as legacy AM3 processors."


Personally, I would shy away from the words "Bull" and "Dozer" in my product line.

Also from the memo we learned that the new AM3+ FX SKUs that will launch includes: FX-6100, FX-8120, and the FX-8150. The 6000-series parts constitute 6-core processors where the 8000-series parts constitute 8-core parts. To support those processors we shall see three Gigabyte motherboards, four ASUS motherboards, and four ASRock motherboards. Update Oct 1 @ 2pm: There may be more motherboards at launch but since this is a Microcenter leak it only considers their stock.

Gigabyte  GA-990FXA-UD3
Gigabyte  GA-990FXA-UD5
Gigabyte  GA-990FXA-UD7
ASUS  Sabertooth 990FX
ASUS  M5A88-V EVO
ASUS  M5A99X EVO
ASUS  M5A97 EVO
ASRock  990FX Extreme4
ASRock  890FX Deluxe 5
ASRock  880G PRO 3*
ASRock  890GX PRO 3*

Each of these motherboards will require a BIOS update to be serviceable though the leak suggests that the update would be performed by Microcenter themselves. If for some reason you have the board on your own you will need an older AM3 processor to perform the update. Also, the last two ASRock motherboards (asterixed) do not yet have a BIOS update for AM3+. AMD is expected to post an official blog about the topic on October 3rd at AMD.com.

The new bios from AMD will improve the Bulldozer by a lot?
It is supposed to let manufacturer to write the bios for their motherboard, but now, by AMD? 

It took a while, but here it is: the brand new FX series from AMD. No botched Athlon core, but a new architecture code-named Bulldozer. We test the top-eight CPU cores at 3.6 GHz tap. Turbocharged 4.2 GHz or even 3.9. Delicious!

AMD called the Bulldozer different approach than the Phenoms. Bulldozer CPUs are built in modules, each containing two cores. AMD has therefore not only about cores, but also the number of modules that a processor exists.

Modular
Let us briefly explain which a module exists. As mentioned earlier, each commanded Bulldozer module two nuclei. These two 16KB L1 lodge each data cache and 64KB instruction cache. They share the data fetcher, decoder and L2 cache (2MB per module). Each module has an embedded scheduler to the instructions on the two cores distributed. Each module receives a 16-bit HyperTransport link. In case of octacore FX processor, there are four HT links.

The linked modules share L3 cache. With a quad core is 4MB, 6MB and one gets a hexacore octacore get 8MB. As much as the L2 memory is. Naturally, the modules share the memory controller. This is however still dual channel, but can now officially 1866 MHz DDR memory along.

The advantage of modular building, is that you can easily create a large line of processors can launch. AMD can now dual cores, quad cores, hexacores, octacores, etc release. Simply by one, two, three, four, or eight modules such linking. This is especially for the server market is particularly interesting. Moreover, a segment where AMD wants to hit back hard with Bulldozer.

Type HyperThreading?
You could say that the FX line uses a kind of hyper threading. However, hyper-threading does not work with two discrete nuclei. For example, there are four cores i7 2600K which can process eight instructions simultaneously. AMD actually uses eight cores, but they share certain parts of the CPU. Therefore you will not see perfect scaling. However, better than hyperthreading.

AMD also indicates that these modules in relation to work more efficiently and more powerful than hyperthreading. For programmers, it is also easier because they do not specifically take into account HyperThreading: there are simply eight cores available. Any application that multi-core programming, it can cope with these CPUs. When hyperthreading is not the case. Just look at the CPU load while playing games. In an i7 will see that only four threads in use.

Line-up
AMD currently has quite a few CPUs. We see three quad cores: the FX 4100, FX and FX-4170 B4150. Then another hexacore: the FX-6100. And three octacores: the FX 8100, FX 8120 and FX-8150. There are of course models at. Example, a higher clocked FX-8170.
The new FX line works on all motherboards with socket AM3 + and a 900-series chipset. That's all pretty happy that, thanks to the postponement of AMD.

What about prices? We only have only seen U.S. dollars, but guess at launch at around 220 euros for the FX-8150, EUR 200 for the FX 8120, 190 euros for the FX-8100 and 180 euros for the FX-6120. These are competitive prices for octa-and hexacores!

High speeds
A case where AMD has been doing well, its clock speeds. Bulldozers are all over 3GHz. Partly thanks to a turbo mode. For example our test candidate to act out, the FX-8150: Standard on 3.6 GHz, touch it. With trubo on all eight cores, the speed to 3.9 GHz. The turbo four cores active, the clock speed to 4.2 GHz. These are not bad scores. Last year you had to pretty hard to overclock to those speeds with a quad core processor to get!

Overclocking Potential
Speaking of overclocking might wish you the news meegepikt: the FX-8150 has broken the world record for overclocking. The professional overclockers got more than 8.4 GHz processor. Now we have no liquid helium in the lab, but we have made an attempt with a fairly average cooling tower. The motherboard is an Asus Crosshair V with many delightful settings.

We have found that 5 GHz is feasible with excellent all four modules are enabled (eight cores so). We have 1.47 volts on the cpu needed it. This is a very respectable overclocking! Especially considering the fact that the first samples and the motherboard BIOSes often with premature work. The Asus is quite stable though.

Energy
Processor manufacturers are trying not only the CPU's faster, but especially energy efficient. A8 AMD is a very good example. The fastest in the series, the 3850 A8 is about as fast as one Phenom 940, but uses a fraction of the energy (38 watts in idle and just over 100 watts full load) and therefore offers a swift integrated GPU.

Bulldozer is an efficient processor. At rest, with a consuming HD5970, uses the platform 118 watts. We draw about 50 watts from the card, then we arrive at 68 watts for the CPU, motherboard, memory and hard disk. It's a bit more than that Sandy Bridge with a high-end motherboard comes out at about 40 watts using the GPU geïntegrerde. We stress the CPU then Aida64 consumption up to 238 watts: an increase of 120 watts, which is right, given the TDP of 125 watts.

Real life performance
But how the processor performs standard speed now? We set the FX-8150 in the socket of an Asus Crosshair V and put a 4GB DDR3-1600 Memory (7-7-7-20). If we use an HD5970 GPU (dual gpu). The operating system, Windows Ultimate 64-bit, standing on a WD Velociraptor.

We run both benchmarks for CPU, GPU, and as for the entire system. Of course we are curious about how the bulldozer is performing compared to the i5 i7 2500 and 2600: the alternatives from Intel. AMD puts the FX-8150 to the i5 line. Both in terms of price and performance.

We start with Cinebench-10. And here we get a core 4074 issues. Approximately 1.5 times less than an Intel core so (both the 2600 and the i5 i7 2500 get about 5800 points. An 'old' i7 965 is around 4900 points)

But the bulldozer hits back hard in the multi-CPU test. Here we see 20615 points. A multiplication of 5.06. We had expected a bit more honest, more close to six times. Perhaps the faster memory to work out better. Yet five times faster is not bad: a hyperthreaded i7 gets just four times. In addition, a very nice score 20,615 points: it is 2000 points more than an i5 2500K and 2000 points less than the more expensive i7 2600K. 11.5-in Cinebench scores Bulldozer with 6.01 points and between the i5 and i7 2500K 2600K in: get the i5 and i7 5.37 6.73 gets points on our test platform. I7 965 sits on a 5.73 points.

Going to 3DMark Vantage, we see a CPU score of 19,119. A perfect score in the top segment. Again between the i5 and i7 in. I7 gets around 22,500 points on the CPU. The total score is an nice 21949 points. Less than an i7 with this card comes out around 25,500. However: every game is without problems on super high detail and resolution to play with this system.

In 3DMark 2011 scores 6616 points in total AMD. Again, neat and a good sign that the processor can feed data to the HD5970. For comparison also take an i7 965 with the HD5970: 7385 points, roughly equivalent to a 2600K i7 with that GPU. Tag is a still faster. With an i5 you're at about the same level as the FX-8150.

Gaming
AMD focuses FX platform especially for gamers. Gamers with separate graphics cards will work, sometimes in CrossFire. We turn therefore take the Dirt3 benchmark at 1920 by 1080 and every detail. The HD5970 has to work hard and certainly not limited by the CPU.

The FX-8150 gets 105 fps on average in this test with a minimum of 75 fps. An incredibly good score, considering the load this game can give both the cpu and gpu. If we look at our platform with the 965-i7 Nehalem CPU, then we - of course with the same settings - at 93 fps and a minimum of 71 fps. Definitely good to play, but lower than the FX-8150.

We turn then still Mafia II. A very CPU-intensive game. There we see that the new platform averaged 68.3 fps able to render. Nehalem setup squeezed out, 76 fps. Just over the Bulldozer. Perhaps some help here 6GB memory.

Finally, even the cpu-intensive game Far Cry 2. We run a loop on a full-HD with all settings at maximum and direct X 10 on. The AMD FX-8150 renders an average of 111 fps and a minimum of 23 fps. I7 126 fps compared to 965 puts it, and a minimum of 75.2 fps. Here you see a bit more powerful Intel cores than AMD.

Advantages 
    Eight cores
    High clock speeds
    Fri economical
    Price

Cons 
    Performance per watt

Conclusion
    Conclusion The FX-8150 is an excellent processor from AMD in particular on price / quality convincing. He comes easy with the i5 in 2500 - he is actually slightly faster - and sometimes comes close to the i7 2600K during multi-threaded instruction. Not bad for 220 Euros. Also on the gaming field newcomer know without a doubt convince. The CPU is powerful enough to be a very swift GPU data needs. That leaves the benchmark Dirt3 see. For Intel CPU-intensive games is still ahead. If we look at overclocking potential, we can only conclude one thing: Bulldozer overclocks well. Combine that with not too expensive motherboards and you have a very nice price for a very rapid system.

The FX8150P uses that little power?! If you naively equalised the power consumption so that it is equal to the i7, using a factor of 71.785%, its performance really isn't so bad at all, surpassing the i7 in a few benchmarks and quite close in others.

Consumption



I measured to determine current consumption used by the CPU via the 8-pin EPS connector for CPU power. For this I used a meter Prova CM-07 has been started from the beginning until the end of our test suite. He recorded the peak value was multiplied by the voltage (12V) and last in the chart.

We can see pretty good accuracy of results, which are very close to the TDP said the manufacturer (for FX-8150 124W and 95W for the Core i7 2600K).

I'd like to see benchmarkers to use x264 directly instead of Handbrake. Handbrake is pretty slow to update its copy of x264 and Handbrake 0.9.5 is from January.

I was talking about if you had overclocked BD to match the i7's power consumption, if we went by the original power consumption report. In such a case, BD's 213.9fps may naively increase to 297.97fps, which would have been much better than the i7's 217.7fps. Too bad the power consumption report was a mistake.

I shall now boycott lab501 for providing false hope, false information and insufficient data.

Thx buddy!!!

In order to break an NDA you have to sign one first...

Correct, we just fixed that, thank you for noticing, and also thank M.Beier for that!

Actually no, there is no chance, because you need reviewers to have time to test this stuff before publishing a review. Nobody makes reviews in one day...

I know!!! Trust me, we retested many times, because we found this hard to believe even if the results unveiled under our eyes. We checked everything countless of times, and still get the same results. Unfortunately, this really is how Bulldozer is performing, and that makes me as sad as any other enthusiast in this industry!

Now the saddest thing is not only the performance, but also the way in which AMD tries to manage this. I heard from a little birdie that some folks at AMD will start calling press tomorrow morning to ask them how reviews are going and try to do some damage control (this reminds me of Nvidia calling press before GTX480 launch). Actually many of the press guys I talked to are a little bit puzzled and don't really know how to approach this situation. From my point of view it is pretty clear, the truth (no matter how much it hurts) is the only way.

AMD FX-8150 Bulldozer finnaly tested
These days everybody is going back and forth regarding the new AMD architecture, and we have seen many architecture analysis, but now so many results. Well, here you go fellows, we put AMD FX-8150 head to head with 2600K in 8 benchmarks and 3 games. Enjoy!

AMD FX-8150 Bulldozer Preview - LAB501
   

AMD's next-generation architecture based on the Bulldozer processor 8-core FX-8150 with all details in this video. Studies of Turkey, which is one of the first in the world, in this video, the FX-8150 and the Core i7 processor and the Phenom II X6 1100T-2600 compares with the turbo at the same time we look at the performance and overclocking capabilities.

So hopefully it won't take the guy long to put this system together and we can see some benches!:











Thought I would just separate this out from the other threads that seem to getting deleted\closed every so often.

This should also end the speculation on whether or not these things are out there in the real world, they obviously are.

I will post the benchmarks as soon as I have them, assuming it doesn't take too long to setup and he doesn't run into problems.

Let's try and keep this thread from getting deleted\closed!

Motherboard appears to be a ASUS M5A99X EVO AM3+ AMD 990X (thanks Matty).

EDIT: WATCH BENCHES LIVE!: http://www.justin.tv/bassbench#/w/1883595104

EDIT2: Watch the actual SCREENS LIVE!: https://join.me/743-658-418

EDIT3: Benchmarks!

Dayuum, where do you find all these info. :drools:

AMD Bulldozer FX-8120 Retail CPU Bought and Benchmarked
It appears that someone in the Ukraine has been able to buy a retail boxed AMD FX-8120 'Bulldozer' Processor! This is the chip that is coming out later this week that is based on the Zambezi architecture. The buyer of the processor ran a bunch of benchmarks on the ASUS M5A99X EVO AM3+ motherboard that features the AMD 990FX Chipset. The benchmarks don't look that impressive, but it goes along with other numbers that have leaked out on the internet in recent weeks. This retail boxed FX-8120 looks to be legit too as it features the metal tin along with the proper HSF, sticker and even the warranty booklet. Expect our full review on the AMD FX-8150 later this week.



AMD FX-8120 'Bulldozer' Processor Benchmark Results:

Cinebench R11.5 (Multithread): 4.89 Points
Fritz Chess Benchmark: 9417 Kilonodes/s
WPrime (32M): 12.542 sec
WPrime (1024M): 375.121 sec
SuperPI (1M): 25.836 sec
AID64: 10682 Read/ 9705 Write/ 9945 Copy/ 53.8ns

overclockers.com

Depending on what you want to use your PC for. If your main purpose is gaming then definitely a SB would be a better choice as games aren't that multithreaded yet. BF3 'might' be BD's strong point if BF3 performance does skew towards AMD processors.

Also some other sos kicap:

http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php...295d9#p22143484

VR-Zone Review
Stock clock comparison.
4.7GHz comparison.