Anyone using a AMD FX 8120 (or 8150) Bulldozer processor ?

This is a discussion on Anyone using a AMD FX 8120 (or 8150) Bulldozer processor ? within the Tech Board forums, part of the Community Boards category; I'm considering buying one, because of the great price ! Getting an 8 core 3.1 GHz processor for that price ...

  1. #1
    Registered User manasij7479's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Kolkata@India
    Posts
    2,498

    Anyone using a AMD FX 8120 (or 8150) Bulldozer processor ?

    I'm considering buying one, because of the great price !
    Getting an 8 core 3.1 GHz processor for that price (170 USD / ~ Rs. 9000 ) seems quite surreal.
    The system, will generally be for programming, some whacky tasks like experimenting with video encoding..etc....and a file server for my other devices.
    But most reviews seem to be mixed.(Some are not, which makes me think some sort of (anti)/propaganda is involved).

    I'd like to hear if any of you have negative (or positive) experiences with it.
    Last edited by manasij7479; 05-31-2012 at 03:08 AM.
    Manasij Mukherjee | gcc-4.8.2 @Arch Linux
    Slow and Steady wins the race... if and only if :
    1.None of the other participants are fast and steady.
    2.The fast and unsteady suddenly falls asleep while running !



  2. #2
    Master Apprentice phantomotap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,147
    Things will hopefully change soon, but for now the box builders I trust would recommend the chip (Phenom II 955) in my server box over the Bulldozer series. The difference shouldn't run you more than $20-$25 USD.

    With good breathing you can push those (Phenom II 955) to an easy stable 3.8-3.9 range making it faster for everything that isn't embarrassingly parallel, most of what you've listed, than what the Bulldozer does with the same pushing.

    With great breathing and good components you can push them to an easy stable 4.1-4.2 range. That's a little hot for me, but maybe you would have better luck.

    The only thing you'll probably see better performance with (not embarrassingly parallel) is video encoding. Depending on the movies you are talking about and the CODEC, the difference in FPS for balancing over compression/quality (deciding on encoder settings without considering encoding time as an important factor) only one or two FPS difference is realistic. If this is a major concern, and encoding time is an important factor, go ahead and a Bulldozer.

    [Edit]
    Of course, if this is an entirely new system I would still recommend a compatible motherboard. I do hope the situation changes.
    [/Edit]

    Soma
    Last edited by phantomotap; 05-31-2012 at 03:28 AM.

  3. #3
    Registered User manasij7479's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Kolkata@India
    Posts
    2,498
    Quote Originally Posted by phantomotap View Post
    Things will hopefully change soon, but for now the box builders I trust would recommend the chip (Phenom II 955) in my server box over the Bulldozer series.
    What exactly do you mean by 'change' soon ?
    New 'generations' or models of the architecture ? price drop ? or something else ?
    And does soon mean a few years or a few months ?
    If this is a major concern, and encoding time is an important factor, go ahead and a Bulldozer.
    No, it isn't.
    Manasij Mukherjee | gcc-4.8.2 @Arch Linux
    Slow and Steady wins the race... if and only if :
    1.None of the other participants are fast and steady.
    2.The fast and unsteady suddenly falls asleep while running !



  4. #4
    Master Apprentice phantomotap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,147
    [Edit]
    Note: I'm saying "easy stable" and I mean it. If you have to spend hours or days tweaking and adding fans that isn't easy.
    [/Edit]

    No, it isn't.
    Well, I'll be honest with you; I think desktop chips are entering "overkill" territory. This is a software/user/other components problem. I don't know if you'll use that much juice.

    It is only about $20 USD difference. Many (All?) of the scheduling related performance problems of the Bulldozer line were fixed. With a little pushing the Phenom II line is a little better. With a little extra pushing the Bulldozer line is better.

    You might rather spend that $20 USD on a better video card or save it up for a SSD. (I personally would go for the Phenom II line, but many would rather have a flashy new SSD.) The point is, you shouldn't be afraid of the Bulldozer line. You would probably be a little happier with the Phenom II line for now, but if you feel you just can't pass up on the 8 core Bulldozer you should just get that.

    New 'generations' or models of the architecture ?
    A little from column 'A' and a little from column 'B'.

    With the right breathing apparatus on the right boards the FX 8120 can be overclocked to a stable 4.8 range. (Which is actually much better than the Phenom II line if you can hit it.) Unlike the older Phenom II which can be overclocked well almost anywhere the FX 8120 is a little more problematic. As we get further into the life of the line I expect that "overclock anywhere" will be more of a thing and more stable across more boards. Some of these related bits can be fixed in firmware so I expect more stable possibilities soon. Many are expecting an easy stable 4.6-5.0 range in the next four to six months.

    AMD has all but promised a much higher megahertz per watt base. (This isn't coming until "gen 4".)

    AMD hasn't admitted to anything yet, but most are expecting the 12 core server chips will soon be modeled for desktops to help them play the number game for a bit. (Most are expecting it, but it may not happen in the Bulldozer line.)

    *shrug*

    You put all this together and many are expecting very reasonable 12 core desktop chips with an easy stable at 5.4-5.8 range in 16 months or about that.

    Soma

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,266
    four of us at my office have that exact processor, and they perform really well. they are really only held back by the rest of the hardware in the system, if there's any bottleneck.

  6. #6
    Master Apprentice phantomotap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,147
    four of us at my office have that exact processor, and they perform really well.
    As a matter of interest, can you post the "OS" and patch level? If you've applied any "scheduling" fixes?

    Soma

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,266
    they're windows dev machines, so they're 64-bit windows 7 pro. they are all current on their windows updates as far as I know.

Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Processor
    By c_freak in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 09-03-2006, 10:15 PM
  2. Is this processor 64-bit?
    By ChadJohnson in forum Tech Board
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-11-2006, 08:18 AM
  3. RAM, Processor
    By MathFan in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-25-2002, 07:28 AM
  4. pre-processor
    By laasunde in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-29-2002, 11:34 AM
  5. The Best Processor
    By dayknight in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 05-14-2002, 12:35 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21