AMD FX-8150 Review: From Bulldozer To Zambezi To FX

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
After studying these benchmarks extensively I have come to the conclusion that there must be a bug in this release stepping when a module shifts from integer to floating point. Looking at the Sandra test suite it's clear that both integer and floating point performance is at least on par with the i7. Yet it drops to dismal figures whenever it's tested in standard workloads that shifts between these as most programs do.

Most noticeable is it that the FX8150 actually beats the i7 flat down in FPU performance and yet gets beaten in gaming tests which is FPU performance heavy. Clearly there has to be a bug. Probably the prefetch gets flushed every time a module has to shift workload type.

Now the good parts is that memory performance is on par with i7 even though FX uses 2 channels and i7 uses 3 channels, that's a 50% advantage. And it's also obvious that Global Foundries 32nm SOI process is far more advanced than Intels 32nm bulk process. 2B transistors in 315mm2 in the FX vs. 1B transistors in 216mm2 in the i7, that's a 37% advantage in transistor packing density.

So the FX shows great promise for future steppings where the bugs have been fixed but right now it's a terrible let down.
 
were seeing this processor with the set of motherboards to run both am3 and this, I still bet when they make the new line of Motherboards that is designed just for the FX chip, you'll see much higher marks, BUT, the only ones who looks at benchmarks are crazy, i don't look at benchmarks but real world applications, also, programs are not designed for these new chips yet, so we realy are not getting the real performance of this cpu
 
Wow...so much buildup and it can barely hang with a 2600k. I'm pretty underwhelmed. I was hoping this would be a product truly worthy of the FX brand, and would drive Intel forward in competition. Guess not.

Still, a great article. A lot of work went into this. Too bad the product isn't more impressive than it is.
 
For content creation and media encoding look at the Phenom X6 vs the FK-8150, I mean a difference in seconds is negligible considering the value, even compared to Sandy Bridge. Putting the X6 in these benchmarks embarrasses the hell out of the FX-8150 especially it's new architecture. I bet they would have done better using the old architecture and just adding 2 more cores to the Phenom X6. I wonder if a Phenom X8 might have done a better job.
 
Wanted to add, imho, whether Intel feels any competition from AMD may not matter. They have other competition in other areas, and advancements in these areas, benefits all...

I was hasty before in asking for Core2 benches. I meant create the same environment for testing BD, so you can confidently add in previous results from other architectures and be relevant. Just makes it easier to see it all on one chart. I know you can extrapolate to a certain extent, but if you have the time, go for it.

When benchmarking CPUs, I'd rather see games like GTA IV in the mix. With the really long draw distances, extensive AI, etc, it really helps to see a particular CPU shine. Crysis 2 runs great on a Q6600 at 2.4ghz and the same can't be said for GTA IV.

Just my 2 cents, ok so i'm up to 4 cents now.
 
[citation][nom]Daxxon[/nom]For content creation and media encoding look at the Phenom X6 vs the FK-8150, I mean a difference in seconds is negligible considering the value, even compared to Sandy Bridge. Putting the X6 in these benchmarks embarrasses the hell out of the FX-8150 especially it's new architecture. I bet they would have done better using the old architecture and just adding 2 more cores to the Phenom X6. I wonder if a Phenom X8 might have done a better job.[/citation]

It's not the seconds you want to focus on. You want to extrapolate. A very small job is a few seconds difference. Once you get into huge projects, those seconds could turn into a day. Time is money.
 


You're up to 6 cents now. But you're right. However, Sandy Bridge-E will rock in the huge projects industry.
 
[citation][nom]elbert[/nom]Looks like gamers will use the FX4170 as it pretty much beats the 8150 where games are concerned. Current games will react to the higher clock rate of the quad than twice the cores. The OS and games will have to support new design before the 6 and 8 cores will make a lot of difference.http://static.techspot.com/article [...] ing_02.pnghttp://static.techspot.com/article [...] ing_04.png[/citation]

As long as those games are not cpu intesive it should be alright, but I also wonder how it will fair in a multigpu setup where more cpu muscle is required to feed multiple gpus?
 
[citation][nom]killerclick[/nom]Intel shouldn't lower prices, they should raise them. I'll gladly pay more to reward competent product development and nothing would please me more than AMD going down in flames for all their flops in the past 5 years. Intel doesn't need AMD to push them forward.[/citation]
So, nothing would please you more than to see Intel and nVidia both fight Anti-Trust suits and pass the cost on to consumers? Go for it. You pay the cost of their defense teams.

Fact is, Intel and nVidia both NEED AMD To exist. Without AMD, Intel and nVidia legally hold a monopoly on their respective markets, which is strictly forbidden by US Trade laws.

[citation][nom]leeashton[/nom]wait for tpu benchmark, toms has always been an Intel fan site[/citation]
Exactly how do you come to the conclusion that Tom's is an Intel fan site? Chris did everything he possibly could to be 100% fair.

[citation][nom]Soma42[/nom]Bulldozer is the overall architecture. Zambezi is the code-name for the desktop variants and Interlagos and Valencia are the server chips.Frankly, I'm not sure AMD cares about competing with Intel's high end anymore. IIRC AMD has much more of a reputation and market share of the server end, so I can understand why they would want to maintain that income, but this is a bit of an embarrassment that Bulldozer can barely keep up with the 2.5 year old Nehalem.[/citation]
AMD has come out and said that they weren't interested in competing with Intel in the high-end market. So, why is everyone so surprised about the performance that a mainstream chip offers?
 
I was really excited to switch to bulldozer from my Phenom II 965 BE. This sucks balls! No point in me upgrading to get slightly better performance in my games. Time to go to intel 🙁 and sell my stocks
 
The only way this processor could've been of any use was if it was retro-actively compatible with some AM2+ and all AM3 sockets... Because it cannot compete in the "new computer" segment, why would anyone pay for this when they can spend a few dollars more and get the top of the line Intel.

Sorry but this thing would have to be priced a lot cheaper than it is for me to not consider switching to the big blue side. Not that I'm poor, it's just that money vs performance, this time Intel's got it.

Sad day for everyone...

 
We all know it won't be $245. You always get what you pay for.

Fact is, today's apps just aren't made for seeing what this cpu design can do. It'll be a hit in the server market no doubt where multithread environments rule.
 
I feel it did improve in a lot of places and stayed the same in others, for people running threaded applications this looks like it has promise over the 2600/2600K by saving a few bucks or up to 80, Im not buying one though. Looks like my Q6600 @ 3.6/8 is going to keep waiting and will get a new GPU
 
When the i3-2100 came out at $125, AMD dropped the P2 955 to $105-115.

So you may see this 8150 at $245 for short time. It'll be $199 in no time. Then when Intel drops 2500K to $199, they will drop 8150 to $179.

You always get what you pay for, that's what's good about competition, and nobody want's to see AMD fail. Trust me, NOBODY.
 
Hi Chris, just wanted to comment to say that this is a very well done review, and one that I enjoyed reading. I can see that you put a lot of work into it, including speaking to developers from various companies. I look forward to more in depth reviews such as this.

Thank you also for including the .NET benchmarks. Photography is a hobby of mine and software from Nikon (notoriously slow btw) is written in .NET, so .NET performance does matter to me. That you included this also shows that you are thinking very broadly (e.g. developer and enterprise user perspectives) and long-term. Most reviewers simply stick to standard set of benchmarks and fail to look beyond that. Well done!
 
disappointed in this review. none of the software used takes advantage of the new instructions sets implemented by this processor. without that support performance takes a severe hit.
 
Well, now I've had the chance to also read the Anandtech and HardOCP articles on Bulldozer, and the better part of a day to let all three stew in their juices. My original sentiment (after reading the THG article first) remains pretty much unchanged. I will try to be optimistic though, for the sake of competition that there are indeed major tweaks and fixes that can be applied, if not in another stepping then perhaps in Piledriver.
One thing people need to remember though, is that the AMD Athlon II X3 and Intel E8400 that can still play any game didn't suddenly grind to a halt. No compelling reason to upgrade just means people can refrain from spending money unnecessarily.
 
[citation][nom]tofu2go[/nom]Hi Chris, just wanted to comment to say that this is a very well done review, and one that I enjoyed reading. I can see that you put a lot of work into it, including speaking to developers from various companies. I look forward to more in depth reviews such as this. Thank you also for including the .NET benchmarks. Photography is a hobby of mine and software from Nikon (notoriously slow btw) is written in .NET, so .NET performance does matter to me. That you included this also shows that you are thinking very broadly (e.g. developer and enterprise user perspectives) and long-term. Most reviewers simply stick to standard set of benchmarks and fail to look beyond that. Well done![/citation]

Very welcome, tofu. Thanks for reading, and I'm glad you found the information useful!

Regards,
Chris
 
Even though I have always preferred Intel this is a bummer, I was hoping for something better for competition reasons. On the bright side at least I don't have to wonder if I did the right thing by going 2600k a few months ago.

2500k/2600k are the best bang for the buck in CPU I think I have ever seen. They are awesome right out of the box and with an easy medium (4.3Ghz or so) OC they are MONSTERS and still have plenty of headroom to go even higher on most coolers.
 
[citation][nom]sykozis[/nom]AMD has come out and said that they weren't interested in competing with Intel in the high-end market. So, why is everyone so surprised about the performance that a mainstream chip offers?[/citation]
What's surprising is the inconsistency of the performance. What's surprising is a $160 Phenom II x4 outperforming a $240 FX in lightly threaded applications. The massive decrease in IPC is what's surprising, something I certainly wasn't expecting given the launch MSRP.

What I expected was the performance results in highly threaded content creation, productivity, and video encoding software, where we see 4 module Bulldozer basically achieve performance parity with quad-core Sandy Bridge. But even in this area we still see instances where the x6 1100T outperforms the FX-8150.

The erratic nature of the performance results is what's surprising.
 
Awesome review, Chris. I appreciate how you made the technical details accessible... The technical details of processors and chipsets normally sound like gibberish to me!
 
[citation][nom]cangelini[/nom]Would have loved to included all processors. However, AMD gave me about a week and a half with this chip. Picked the five most interesting competitors (in my mind), ran all six through completely fresh Win7 installs using updated versions of the apps, and then wrote 12,000 words. Time simply didn't allow for the $1,000 parts that aren't in the same price league anyway.Best,Chris[/citation]

My interest would have been seeing how well 6 full cores performed compared to 8 pseudo cores.

Grin... Looks like there is no compelling reason to replace my 980x.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom