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

Page 16 - 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.
Maybe the applications need to be recoded for the core chipset. Something like SSE4.
 

Guru 3D did a review of the FX lineup, including the FX-4100:

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150--8120-6100-and-4100-performance-review/1

Due to Bulldozer's generally erratic performance results, it's somewhat difficult to say whether the i3-2100 or FX-4100 performs better overall (the i3-2100 wasn't benchmarked). However, based on the results of other processors that perform similarly to the FX-4100, it seems as though the i3 and FX would both perform in the same area in thread optimized workloads. But in gaming or lightly threaded workloads, the i3-2100 would without a doubt pull significantly ahead. It's kinda the story of the Bulldozer architecture in general.

... of course, we would need a direct comparison to know for certain.

 
Ok, I am a AMD fan since K6 era. I have machines using K6-2,K6-III,Athlon (XP),Athlon 64 (X2), Phenom and even C-50. But this is this first time in my 15 years of computer life to look at Intel side of the price list after my Pentium I 100MHz retied.
Although I understand that using FX brand is a marketing method, but bulldozer really shamed the name.
Bullodzer did some job in the test, but did not address the customers' need
I hope the current bulldozer is just a basic platform for further improvements on it...
I will still be an AMD fan

Btw, this Bulldozer reminded me about the Cyrix MII and its 486 standard FPU, which was pretty good in some tests but really really horrible in others...anyone has an experience old enough to remember Cyrix, IDT and even Rise？ Hope the same thing won't happen to AMD...
 


Ah, glad I was right. Could you maybe test BD with this open source compiler that is supposed to magically fix BD on the top? 😀 I'm tired of reading about it. And what about 3DSMAX or AutoCAD, is Bulldozer good there? There MUST be an area where it excels! No? Yes? Maybe? :lol:
 
ill always buy AMD over intel. as a person i refuse to support intel. everyone is reacting like the BD is in fact a paperweight and cant process anything. gimme a break. there are all these setups in modern PC's and there are very few applications out that that really tax modern hardware which makes all this doom and gloom talk a bit ridiculous.
 


What the... haven't noticed this one. Okay, NOW this review is competel for me :) Thanks.

What benchmark? Open source compiler? I have no idea if it even exists, but last 3 pages in this thread are loaded with its mentions.

 
[citation][nom]rocso[/nom]ill always buy AMD over intel. as a person i refuse to support intel. everyone is reacting like the BD is in fact a paperweight and cant process anything. gimme a break. there are all these setups in modern PC's and there are very few applications out that that really tax modern hardware which makes all this doom and gloom talk a bit ridiculous.[/citation]

Lets stay strictly with AMD then, forget Intel exists and look at Bulldozer. We'll choose the FX-8150 as that's been well benchmarked here and lets compare that to AMD's previous fastest processor, the six core 1100T.

OK, FX-8150 needs an AM3+ motherboard. Right now to be sure everything will work, that means a 990FX motherboard. Check the prices on these, they are the most expensive AMD motherboards money can buy.

Now look at the 1100T. It is for AM3 motherboards but will work happily in AM2+ motherboards too. The prices of these are a fraction of the 990FX boards.

Now lets compare the processors themselves. The FX-8150 is a little bit faster than the 1100T but if you look across benchmarks on all the big tech sites, its hard to come away with any other impression than the Bulldozer CPU is really only a hair faster. It's more like a 1200T.

So what can we make of all this? It costs you twice as much for a 990FX motherboard that will gain you no noticeable and hardly noticeable even in benchmark improvement over the AM2/AM3 motherboards. The FX-8150 is quite a bit more expensive, certainly nothing like the jump from 1090T price to 1100T price, which is really the kind of leap it should be taking as really it is nothing more special in terms of speed than a 1200T.

So can you now really recommend a Bulldozer CPU to a new user or one that already has an AM2/AM3 but not 990FX motherboard? I certainly wouldn't, there is simply no reason other than to give some vague idea that in the future the 990FX motherboard could have a 10-15% faster CPU than the FX-8150 slotted in, but at quite a price.

Bring Intel back into the debate and I'm sorry but AMD gets crushed with only the 1100T on a cheap motherboard still holding up strong for a user that wants heavily multi-threaded computing at the cheapest price.

Be realistic here. There's no point in pretending AMD haven't screwed up big time. They have to hear this from the AMD fans en masse and as I suspect will happen, the sales have to be bad enough that the price comes down to a more realistic level but sadly, even then, the 990FX boards are still over priced and now look like terrible value for money given there is no longer the promise of a great 8 core beast to go in there.
 
I agree with rocso, i read the article and do most of my work in a PIV 2.8 Northwood (at work), and i don´t have many complaints (i live in south america and it´s expensive to buy new hardware), the average user doesn´t need too much horsepower in their machines, I consider myself an advanced user and I don´t need a big rig (i do crave one, though). I am a AMD fanboy, and i don´t need excuses to buy AMD, I know Intel is faster, but for gaming and doing my work is enough, so I don´t care, i go for what i like; it´s idiotic to fight or make false arguments to buy something, you do it for whatever reason you believe.
For my wife i´ll build a llano a8, everybody tells me to go i3-2100 + card, but i prefer going amd, knowing it is slower, because I support AMD and they fulfill my spectations, she´ll play cityville, download pics, update her nokia, watch movies and she´ll never realize the speed difference.
I´ll go the BD way when I build my rig unless my work changes and demand me more power, but if AMD gives what I need i´ll go to them.
Having said that, SB has a beautiful architecture, it´s a great cpu and BD needs an iteration now to iron some kirks (i´m not dreaming to level up to sb), in no way should be on par with PhenomII
 
[citation][nom]fernandogmd[/nom]I agree with rocso, i read the article and do most of my work in a PIV 2.8 Northwood (at work), and i don´t have many complaints (i live in south america and it´s expensive to buy new hardware), the average user doesn´t need too much horsepower in their machines, I consider myself an advanced user and I don´t need a big rig (i do crave one, though). I am a AMD fanboy, and i don´t need excuses to buy AMD, I know Intel is faster, but for gaming and doing my work is enough, so I don´t care, i go for what i like; it´s idiotic to fight or make false arguments to buy something, you do it for whatever reason you believe. For my wife i´ll build a llano a8, everybody tells me to go i3-2100 + card, but i prefer going amd, knowing it is slower, because I support AMD and they fulfill my spectations, she´ll play cityville, download pics, update her nokia, watch movies and she´ll never realize the speed difference.I´ll go the BD way when I build my rig unless my work changes and demand me more power, but if AMD gives what I need i´ll go to them.Having said that, SB has a beautiful architecture, it´s a great cpu and BD needs an iteration now to iron some kirks (i´m not dreaming to level up to sb), in no way should be on par with PhenomII[/citation]

it isn't a bad chip at all, the architecture are fine, they just need a better marketing plan, if they can give us a FX-4 + HD6530D APU that are cheaper and perform better than the current SB i3 that pack with crappy graphic, then they will going to win in the mainstream market, there will be more consumer on the mainstream market than the high end gaming market, or maybe they need to count 1 BD module as 1 core with 2 thread, so ppl will think AMD are now fighting head to head with the Intel SB 2 core 4 thread i3, if they release the FX-8 as a 4 core 8 thread chip, we won't see so many ppl complains it over the Phenom II X6, because ppl will think that is was only a quad core chip, then they will hv time to polish up the architecture and release a 6 core 12 thread chip later......
 

It's kind of like putting lipstick on a pig.

The chip is a heat producing power hog.
 
[citation][nom]Why_Me[/nom]It's kind of like putting lipstick on a pig. The chip is a heat producing power hog.[/citation]
if they cut the current 4 BD module die to a 2 BD module die, the power consumption will go down, and pack it with the HD6530D, name it as the 2 core 4 thread APU, compete it with the current 2 core 4 thread i3, the situation will be different...... the products isn't bad, they only have a bad marketing plan.
 
It's interesting for Win7/Win8 comparison, you chose to use i5-2500k instead of i7-2600k, which in my opinion would be a better choice for this comparison.
 
I saw it was competitive in some measurements. I think, like the author mentions, the problem is that AMD leads the way on how software developers should use the hardware, but nobody follows until Intel does it.

Also, I would expect AMD to be putting more engineering in Fusion. Not ideal for gamers, but that is where the money is. Also, Fusion has the potential to became a Juggernaut that Intel is not able to prepare for even though they see it coming (Larabee anybody ?).

I'll stick with the underdog.

Intel makes great products, but I have used AMD so long now it would be like changing my religion at this point.
 
[citation][nom]sonofliberty08[/nom]if they cut the current 4 BD module die to a 2 BD module die, the power consumption will go down, and pack it with the HD6530D, name it as the 2 core 4 thread APU, compete it with the current 2 core 4 thread i3, the situation will be different...... the products isn't bad, they only have a bad marketing plan.[/citation]
Did you ever check the benchmarks of the FX-4100 I linked on the previous page? You seem to be repeating the same thing as though you haven't.

As it stands now, there are quite a few instances where the A8-3850 and Athlon II x4 645 outperforms the FX-4100. For the 2 module versions of Bulldozer to compete with the i3-2100, and even for it to be a viable alternative to other AMD processors in the same price range, either clock speeds have to increase significantly, or the price needs to come down.

From the benchmarks I've seen, it looks like a far less compelling option then even the FX-8150.
 
[citation][nom]dragonsqrrl[/nom]Did you ever check the benchmarks of the FX-4100 I linked on the previous page? You seem to be repeating the same thing as though you haven't. As it stands now, there are quite a few instances where the A8-3850 and Athlon II x4 645 outperforms the FX-4100. For the 2 module versions of Bulldozer to compete with the i3-2100, and even for it to be a viable alternative to other AMD processors in the same price range, either clock speeds have to increase significantly, or the price needs to come down.From the benchmarks I've seen, it looks like a far less compelling option then even the FX-8150.[/citation]
of course the price need to go down to be competitive, model number and the level have to go down as well, u r now see it as a quad core and compare it with the quad core range, what i am talking about was make it as dual core 4 threads chip and compare it with the dual core CPU range, if they count each BD module as 1 core with 2 threads, cut the 4 BD to 2 BD, the TDP will go down, increase some clock speed, rename the FX-4 as FX-2, pack it with the HD6530D, make it as a dual cores 4 threads APU, we will see the different graph
 

You forgot to add the expensive water cooling set up BD is going to require just to get a decent o/c.

Another sad day for AMD fanboys. I just hope none of the AMD fanboys hung themselves after these benchmarks were released. :lol:
 
[citation][nom]Why_Me[/nom]You forgot to add the expensive water cooling set up BD is going to require just to get a decent o/c.Another sad day for AMD fanboys. I just hope none of the AMD fanboys hung themselves after these benchmarks were released.[/citation]
yeah... intel fanboys will cry hungry when seeing the price flying skyrocket high......
 
[citation][nom]Why_Me[/nom]Don't blame Intel for AMD hiring flunky junior college engineers.[/citation]
their engineers are ok, they always came up with an ideas that intel will copycat later, they just need to hire more great marketing man to do better marketing plan like intel and crapple to brainwash those fanboys
 

What's AMD suppose to do? Do a better marketing scheme for a shoddy second rate product? The benchmarks don't lie. BD has been benched all across the net in the past few days and all of them say the say thing. BD is a flop. Now if AMD wants to market a total flop, then let them have at it.
 


One word: Apple.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom