AMD Inadvertently Tips Price of FX-8150P Bulldozer Processor



+ Add a Comment


Sadly AMD hasn't kept it's promise of AM3 upgradability. But...whatever.  I wasn't gonna keep this mobo anyway. the GHz really dosen't say much. it's the efficeny of the pipeline. a higher GHz at that certain pipeline would make that cpu faster than other cpu's with the same cores and lower clock rate with the same pipeline. so it's not a direct comparison of hey look that intel is at 2Ghz while that AMD one is at 3GHz or something. 



The FX-8150 has a lot more cache than 8MB...

  • 128kB - 16 kB four-way L1 data cache (way-predicted) per core
  • 256kB - 64 kB two-way L1 instruction cache per module (one way for each of the two cores)
  • 8MB - 2MB L2 cache per module (shared beteween cores in module)
  • 8 MB - L3 cache shared among all modules (divided into four subcaches)

The poster should at leat least count the FX-8150 as having 16MB cache.



I don't think mentioning 16 MB cache is entirely fair as you won't be able to store anything more than 8MB of actual data in all the caches together. All the smaller caches will contain copies of lines that are already in the largest cache, with the largest cache ( the highest level; 3 ) loading new lines from RAM if it doesn't have the one the lower cache level requested.

It's not bad to mention all the cache levels though, but simply adding them up doesn't seem fair. The amount of cache in the lower levels affects performance way more than the higher levels.



That might have been correct if AMD used an entirely strictly inclusive caching method, but they are not.



And someday, we might even have benchmarks.



Amen to that. If they have processors to give away, do they have processor samples to give to -or even loan to- sites like MPC, PCgamer, Guru3D, etc. so we can see some ACTUAL benchmarks?



Good, just within my price range, though it would be nice if icould win that contest



Clearly this article was meant as MPC's shot at Intel as part of their [insert conspiracy theory here].

(Ok, I'm done, no more. I promise).


But in all seriousness, anyone able to direct me to Santa Clara? And/or know of any dual CPU AMD boards? (I need 16 physical cores, screw you).



you know, since those extremely fast sandy bridge cpus that have a huge performance per price (or however its worded), I've pretty much dismissed any "conspiracies" about Intel...

Although seeing as this is $300, I don't think I would be justified in paying for it if I can get a i7 2600k for a little more (I already have an i5 2500k.) until I see benchmarks.



if the 100W TDP A series processors are kicking the i3's butt at graphics then it stands to reason that the 125W TDP Bulldozer CPUs will downright thrash (or at least handily beat)  the i7 2600k at graphics. Even if the CPU is only comparable to the i7 CPU, the graphics will be far better and since it costs the same as the Sandy Bridge i7 it should be a far better value (not to mention, the AM3 socket will last far longer and so we won't have to worry about buying a new mobo for every new CPU that is put out like we do with Intel).



From what I understand is that the Bulldozer is a CPU, not an APU like the AMD Fusion is so Bulldozer is still going to need a graphics card to work. 


Whaterever though, I'm still excited about Bulldozer and I hope they could give sIntel a run for its money.



Dual Opteron, sure.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.