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

[milephan]

I want to make a comment about these contests. You have two of them right now and I entered one of them but I am not sure which one

You couldnt just discard extra entries ? Now I need to enter both since I dont know which one I did and then I end up only being entered in one of them which means dont bother for the same result. Either way I am not a happy camper.

It seems pretty simple to just discard extra entries.

The other thing is I could not get an email to reset my password to save my life I ended up having to make a new account just to comment.

 

[Guest]

Thank you AMD for the waiting. 1 year. I was ready to buy FX-8150 and HD 6970 AND Now i can get an i7 2600 and HELO nvidia for grafics.Only the lies that the company told..Nice marketing AMD nice.

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

Thank you AMD for the waiting. 1 year. I was ready to buy FX-8150 and HD 6970 AND Now i can get an i7 2600 and HELO nvidia for grafics.Only the lies that the company told..Nice marketing AMD nice.

Hey, you can still get a 6970. AMD's GPUs still kick ass, it's only BD which is a fail...

 

[Guest]

Everyone complaining about this processor is complaining about the "now" and not looking to the future. You have little perspective on the wider CPU market.

AMD was clever to design a processor that will perform in servers very well. This is where the money resides in CPUs these days and it is highly competitive with both Intel and IBM focused on server segment CPUs.

Designing a processor that can make pretty explosions at higher fps may be nice for gamers but from a business decision it is not wise at all.

If AMD can make a big impact in the server market this will lend itself to making better typical (or gamer) end user processors as they could devote extra resources to these areas. A loss of a few gamers for a few years will not affect its bottom line too deeply.

Just please realize that your petty gaming is not everyone's priority and the fact that you are angered or disappointed shows that maybe you are too invested in something that should be a casual hobby.

AMD will bounce back.

The true challenge will be making Interlagos chips readily available to the market as GlobalFoundries has struggled recently with the 32nm process in Dresden.

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

Everyone complaining about this processor is complaining about the "now" and not looking to the future. You have little perspective on the wider CPU market.

AMD was clever to design a processor that will perform in servers very well. This is where the money resides in CPUs these days and it is highly competitive with both Intel and IBM focused on server segment CPUs.

Designing a processor that can make pretty explosions at higher fps may be nice for gamers but from a business decision it is not wise at all.

If AMD can make a big impact in the server market this will lend itself to making better typical (or gamer) end user processors as they could devote extra resources to these areas. A loss of a few gamers for a few years will not affect its bottom line too deeply.

Just please realize that your petty gaming is not everyone's priority and the fact that you are angered or disappointed shows that maybe you are too invested in something that should be a casual hobby.

AMD will bounce back.

The true challenge will be making Interlagos chips readily available to the market as GlobalFoundries has struggled recently with the 32nm process in Dresden.

Excuses, excuses. Bulldozer was marketed as gaming CPU. There's a separate server Bulldozer line which arrived first, if you haven't noticed. "Petty gaming" is a huge industry and if you want it to be a casual hobby, that's fine, get a console and be casual. We demanded a gaming CPU and AMD failed; therefore gamers WILL flame it. We are gamers. We don't care about server chips. If you don't like gaming, STFU & GTFO, troll.

Also, IBM doesn't make server chips anymore. Their servers have Xeons in them.

Tom's, can you please make a server benchmark - Xeon vs. Bulldozer? Let's see BD fail there, as well!

 

[overfloating1]

You live in a gaming bubble. IBM DOES still design and fabricate server chips. Ever heard of the Power7? Of course not, you live in the small world of gaming and hold no wider appreciation for the CPU business. Gaming may be a big business but it's small beans compared to the server market and its growth.

It's ok though. The world needs small thinkers like yourself to continue to exploit.

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

You live in a gaming bubble. IBM DOES still design and fabricate server chips. Ever heard of the Power7? Of course not, you live in the small world of gaming and hold no wider appreciation for the CPU business. Gaming may be a big business but it's small beans compared to the server market and its growth.

It's ok though. The world needs small thinkers like yourself to continue to exploit.

Xeon beats it simply because it's x86, and it's cheaper.

Small world of gaming? Keep trolling... I'm rather entertained

 

[saqeeb1998]

It funny how the FX-4100 is better than the FX- 8150 even though it has 8cores vs. 4 cores. Even with the max turbo cores is little better,and the TDP had improved, the overall view counting the price makes the FX-4100 better than the FX-8150 and the FX-8120.

 

[sika56]

This is all very interesting. Personally I'm happy that AMD has managed to produce a chip that's in the same ballpark as I5/I7, even if it's a little disappointing in the Windows benchmarks. But what I really want to know is how it'll go on Linux? Are Ubuntu's or Red Hat's kernels sufficiently intelligent to optimise all the cores performance? If so, I wonder how Intel would compare there.

 

[Guest]

I really need a new gaming puter since mine is getting old and losing capabilities even with updates. Sad but true my Vaio is nearing the end and this sounds like a great system to win.

 

[dante01010]

Windows 7 doesn't support bulldozer well yet, take at these benchmarks with Linux Ubuntu , Linux doesn't have full support yet or Bulldozer but stiil performs much better than Windows.

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_fx8150_bulldozer&num=1

 

[Draven35]

"much better" is relative, since in most of the tests on that site it is either slightly higher or lower than an i5-2500K.

 

[ERose]

I would like to see tests with this mob http://www.asrock.com/mb/overview.us.asp?Model=990FX%20Extreme3
"Windows 7 doesn't support bulldozer"
well "Bulldozer doesn't support Windows 7"

 

[Guest]

This really is a conclusive enough test. Until you test SLI, Tri-SLI and Quad SLI with each cpu and then Crossfire then Tri-CrossfireX then Quad CrossfireX you will have no real understanding of the benefits of AMD to AMD graphics cards and INTEL to Nvidia GFX cards.

 

[GustoGuy]

After reading the article on Phoronix.com
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?p [...] ozer&num=1
about AMD's FX-8150 It does appear that Windows 7 could be holding this processor back since It preformed much better on linux based system tests than in Windows 7 based tests. In a few test it even bested the Intel i7's which shows that software development could play a huge role in how well this processor preforms. Hopefully the upcoming Windows 8 will fix the scheduling system problems of Windows 7 and we could start to see this processor really shine.

 

[Draven35]

Wow, it managed to best a three year old Core i7, that was the low end model when it was available, in selected tests! amazing!

[/sarc]

 

[ohim]

By selected you mean about anything other than gaming ? What a shocker there for you .. there are other things than gaming out there . and didn`t knew intel had 2500`s and 2600`ses 3 years ago ! you go Draven35 open our eyes.

 

[Draven35]

In the rendering tests, the only i7 it was beating was the 920.

 

[ohim]

I`m not refering to that specific site , i saw even on tom`s and even other sited where BD was passing the above mentioned not the 920.

 

[Draven35]

well, the 2500, but not the 2600... at least in the applications i normally use

 

[mapesdhs]

[citation][nom]youssef 2010[/nom]... You'll need a new motherboard to support new Intel CPUs, while that's not the case with AMD[/citation]

So when the Phenom2 came out, I wasn't able to use it on my AM2 mbd
because?... (ASUS never bothered releasing a BIOS update; Asrock
released relevant BIOS updates for their boards in 10 minutes, and btw,
for those who keep saying, Asrock is not part of ASUS anymore, hasn't
been for a while)

AMD is just as guilty at releasing CPUs which mbds can't use. BIOS
support may be down to the mbd maker, but AMD is perfectly capable
of pressuring mbd makers to add support for all compatible CPUs,
especially supposedly professional series boards like the one I bought
which cost over 100 UKP. My gf's AM2 PC, with a cheap 30 quid Asrock
board, can use a Ph2 970 just fine (can't use X6, TDP too high).

Ian.

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]mapesdhs[/nom]So when the Phenom2 came out, I wasn't able to use it on my AM2 mbdbecause?... (ASUS never bothered releasing a BIOS update; Asrockreleased relevant BIOS updates for their boards in 10 minutes, and btw,for those who keep saying, Asrock is not part of ASUS anymore, hasn'tbeen for a while)AMD is just as guilty at releasing CPUs which mbds can't use. BIOSsupport may be down to the mbd maker, but AMD is perfectly capableof pressuring mbd makers to add support for all compatible CPUs,especially supposedly professional series boards like the one I boughtwhich cost over 100 UKP. My gf's AM2 PC, with a cheap 30 quid Asrockboard, can use a Ph2 970 just fine (can't use X6, TDP too high).Ian.[/citation]OH, it's worse than that! Way back in the Socket 754 days they had old boards that didn't support new processors, and NEW PROCESSORS BY THE SAME MODEL NAME AS THE OLD. I had to replace an XP 2800+ one time and ended up getting a Barton instead of Thoroughbred, then had to PHYSICALLY MODIFY THE MOTHERBOARD to make it work.

 

[jowunger]

Now you know why some people pay a few bucks more to get what they pay for.
Yes, it is good that we have AMD (otherwise INTEL Monopoly would kill our purse) but its to bad that they can't rival Intel. Flocking out numerous 'new processors' which in the end are only together glued old components just doesn't cut it. I hope AMD learned something. If not, it better not invests anything in 'New Processors' since its only a waste of money and review time.

 

[Draven35]

I really wonder why AMD didnt move up to triple or quad-channel memory...

 

[mapesdhs]

As others have said, I really wonder why AMD didn't simply shrink Ph2,
add 2 more cores, boost the clock by a decent whack, increase the cache,
tweak it a bit by whatever means made sense and release that as an 8-core.
It would plainly have been a lot better than BD & probably could have
been released much sooner. Meanwhile, they could separately have worked
on something genuinely new. Oh well...

Meanwhile, I'll just carry on having fun with Clarkdales...

http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2068033

Ian.