To: fastpathguru who wrote (268516 ) 10/12/2011 12:25:44 AM From: eracer Read Replies (1) | Respond to No need to ask Elmer anymore. The reviews confirm it. Bulldozer is a flop.hexus.net The FX is a balancing act, giving up genuine per-core processing, present on Phenom II, and, due to architecture decisions, FX, in many cases, reduces just how much work can be accomplished by each core. Take into account non-independent cores and a lower IPC and there exist situations where the eight-core FX-8150 is taken to task by the six-core 1100T: something you wouldn't expect. And while AMD, across a range of old and new applications, can claim solid performance with the FX, Intel's incumbent Sandy Bridge processors remain a more elegant solution. They're strong in every area, offer 'free' integrated graphics and have considerably better power-draw credentials to boot, thus making a persuasive argument as the mainstream chips of choice. hothardware.com For the die-hard AMD fans that have been waiting for this day since the company first started hinting at Bulldozer, the performance exhibited by this first batch of FX series processors is probably somewhat puzzling. This was supposed to be the architecture that propelled AMD back into a strong, competitive position versus Intel’s desktop processors. Alas, that is obviously not the case. The FX-8150 is very competitive with Intel’s upper-mainstream Core i5 processors, but the Core i7 remains the ultimate performance champion. No if, ands, or buts about it. hardocp.com Bulldozer has surely been built with the future of computing in mind. And seemingly a lack of backward vision whatsoever. In single threaded applications Bulldozer gets its ass handed to it by Intel's Sandy Bridge Core i5 and i7 K series processors. Conversely, the moments where we see Bulldozer shine it is deeply computing through multithreaded applications, but even then it is not shining that brightly.
