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

Page 12 - 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.
[citation][nom]kog91[/nom]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.[/citation]

Is it Tom's responsibility now to write their own software to test new architectures/instruction sets they've had in-hand for less than 2 weeks? lol
 
Maybe Tom's could do a per-benchmark analysis of how many cores were under what % of load while the benchmarks were running.

Gamers: Really, you can't stand to be "limited" by Bulldozer's meager 50-80fps in this very small selection of games you probably don't even play? I don't blame AMD for not putting much thought into it anyways, they sell far more laptops than desktops, and they make far more money off servers than they do off of the 0.01% of PC buyers that build high-end gaming PCs. I would say that their products are right about where they need to be. They have balanced APUs for mainstream users(which game admirably,BTW), and massively parallel CPUs for workstation and server loads.
 
Thanks for including enough information for people with non-standard application to evaluate the chip.

I have to say the review was deep enough for me to figure out this is likely a great option for me.

Though this isn't great for gaming. It seem the content creation side of the chip is strong enough to justify it's existence in my machine.

I do a lot of parallel based scientific computing and this may just hit the spot. I'm looking forward to seeing how you review the rest of the bulldozer line.

 
Really shortsighted comments here. I didn't expect monster performance from BD...because that wasn't the point. The point was to get a step up on the architecture of the future. Is that what AMD has here? Debatable, though I think it will be, eventually. The question is how will AMD hang tough in the meantime--and the answer is precisely what this chip is already good at: server applications. Paired with APU's that make for superb laptops at a competitive price point--very important given that the average consumer has been trending heavily towards mid-level laptops for a while now--AMD is in a good place for their bottom line, and this new architecture gives them a shot at getting a leg up on Intel in the future if their gamble is correct. Mostly, though, I think they are going to start eating Intel's lunch in the laptop market. Llano APU based laptops have two features that make them very marketable--one, they run very cool compared to units with separate GPUs and kill Intel's integrated solutions, and two, they don't suffer from the heat related failures of CPU's and especially GPU's that have plagued laptops from both chip manufacturers for a decade. Everyone I know asks me for a laptop to recommend that will do everything they want--net, productivity, multimedia and mild gaming--and not overheat on them like their last ten laptops. Every time, I point them to a Fusion product.
 
This is only for the 8-core cpu and ppl are saying they all suck... amazing.
 
Is it me or did they ppl at AMD miss the boat when it came to some possible things they could of done? Just an idea, couldn't they use chip level firmware or microcode that would tell the scheduler unit to treat the two separate integer cores as one large core for single threaded apps? Thus breaking up pieces of a single thread and running them through both cores simultaneously. To me that would add a lot of unused horsepower to single threaded apps. Almost wonder if it couldn't be implemented through a driver or microcode update.
 
I never expected that the single threaded benchmarks would be worse than the Phenom. If the single threaded benchmarks were as good as the Phenom or slightly better then AMD would have had a winner on their hands as it is the processor is not worth 245$ more like 160$
 
Guys/Gals, saw all these comments and had to join like others as I don't see how most of you can miss the obvious (at least it seems that way to me). First, I have to ask why the FX 4100 and 6100 series chips haven't been made available at the same time as the 8150? These are the same chip with either one or two modules disabled. These chips will most likely be better than their phenom II counter parts and be extremely cheap and be able to overclock much better to boot (can you say $115 dollars for an fx 4100). I believe the reason these chips weren't released is because they didn't want to cannibalize their newly released high end processor sales. They know many people will buy this because they are fan boys and want to try out the newest product. They will get their sales due to limited inventory due to production issues. The fact is though they will sell even more of the lower end bd chips due to the fact they will scale better then the current phenom lineup with overclocking and with that overclocking achieve better performance to boot at the same price as current phenom II 955 models. In addition this same $115 dollar chip will most likely perform on par with their more expensive 980 chip at it's base clock. Same goes for the 6100 part. Just my thoughts but I think these two chips and their successors are going to offer great value till the 8 core chips and above come into their own.
 
I've used Intel for over a decade, and although I like all the processors I've used from them, I really wanted to see some competition from AMD, especially in the high end. This is certainly not the one I had hoped for. AMD may be doing well in the low end with Fusion, but they should put some attempts into taking back some of the enthusiast section too.
 


And you know this how? I would bet you it will be slightly better than a 980 except in lightly threaded apps and will blow it away in most of the multi-threaded apps at stock... obviously not to the degree of the 8 core processors. In addition with the possible ability to overclock up to 5 ghz on water this system should be able to best the best overclocked phenom II solutions.
 
[citation][nom]hawkeye70[/nom]And you know this how? I would bet you it will be slightly better than a 980 except in lightly threaded apps and will blow it away in most of the multi-threaded apps at stock... obviously not to the degree of the 8 core processors. In addition with the possible ability to overclock up to 5 ghz on water this system should be able to best the best overclocked phenom II solutions.[/citation]
What brings you to that conclusion? Based on the performance of the FX-8150, it isn't too difficult to extrapolate the performance of the FX-4100. It uses the same die as the FX-8150, except it's binned as a 2 module part instead of a 4, and it's max turbo core is clocked lower at 3.8 GHz (although it's base clock is the same). In other words, don't expect any performance miracles.

The Bulldozer architecture relies on higher clock frequencies and wide highly-threaded execution to offset the decreased IPC and performance per clock in comparison to Sandy Bridge, and even its predecessor the Phenom II.

With the FX-4100 both core count and turbo core frequencies are cut down... turbo core being essential for this architecture to keep up in lightly threaded (1-4 thread) workloads. This is an area the FX-8150 already struggles to gain performance parity with lower clocked Phenom II parts. What makes you think the FX-4100's cut back turbo core will fare any better?

And again, the FX-4100 is also lacking Bulldozer's major strength, highly parallel execution, having only half the modules of the FX-8150. Really the only thing it seems to have going for it is a relatively low price, and potentially greater overclocking headroom, which I'm predicting it's probably going to desperately need in order to justify its value.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom