I'm guessing that will be for future chips. Different stepping revisions and other chips.
Anyway the problem with the current BD is not a fab issue if it was it would have been addressed already. Its the architecture thats the prob it wont matter who makes them. Better fabrication process will just make it possible for them to be clocked higher.
Yes. I think fab process and yield are one thing, stepping is another. Yield / manufacturing issues would have manifested themselves, I imagine, with lower base clocks and poor availability etc. that does not appear to be the case.
It's
possible that changes to the microcode in the form of a new revision might bring some gains, but that doesn't help with the launch unfortunately.
After all if we think about things, the FX8150 has the following:
. A decent clock speed
. Generous levels of Cache
. Four modules with two "cores" each - sounds like a recipe for Hyper-threading on steroids.
We also know that the prior gen of chips were damned good, so I cannot understand why performance would be so...mediocre on their new architecture. I mean, the peeps at AMD are BRIGHT bunnies, they're not going to
design a chip that performs worse than the prior generation are they? Ok, something could well have gone wrong, a bug in the microcode, some obsure driver or BIOS related issue that's strangling the chips potential. We only need to look back at cougar point to know that things CAN go wrong. Saying that, these chips would have been extensively tested, though I've no experience of how that works for CPUs.
The more I think about it the more confused I get really, something just isn't right with the FX8150 both performing WORSE than a 2600k (and 2500k in many instances) being more power-hungry, not overclocking as well yet AMD
still asking what I would consider a premium price for a less than perfect part.
IF the FX8150 had come to market far cheaper, I mean under-cutting the 2500k here, then we'd all be saying AMD had gone for the price/performance sweet-spot once again, while building an architecture that will come into its own with the heavily threaded applications of the future. Additionally, I can't remember who mentioned it without checking, if Windows 8 is even better at threading and load balancing than 7 then the architecture might begin to prove its self. However I don't think it will in gaming applications so much.
I think it was DugDiamond who said that this was a chip more aimed at the server market, that would make a lot of sense. Lots of threads, none of them particularly demanding, should LIKE more "cores", though games tend to have one or two (or more sometimes) rather heavy threads in my experience. However, maybe I'm wrong, but I took these chips to be marketed at the home/enthusiast PC builder.
Time will tell I guess but I can't help but feel that the FX8150, and the range in general,
should be perfoming better than we're seeing. If BIOS updates, new windows drivers, new chipsets or even stepping revision sees this chip trading blows (that HURT!) with the 2600k then that's great news for AMD and anyone who wants to see a competitive market. I just hope AMD can do something quickly.
I'm looking forward to re-visiting Bulldozer in a few months, after the dust has settled and we have the
proper motherboard chipsets available to test, a few BIOS updates have been made available for the older boards and whatever drivers needed have been sorted etc. A bit more performance and a cheaper price might see BD based systems back on peoples wish lists.
I rambled again didn't I? lol
Scoob.
