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

[Phyrexiancure]

Maybe bulldozer was meant to provide a greater impact in the server market? It does well in heavily threaded tasks and since AMD has more to gain in the market maybe this is a correct sacrafice. No action is perfect there is always a cost but I guess it doesn't feel good when your the group that is screwed by the sacrifice. What I don't understand is why couldn't they have just released an 8 core phenom ii with higher frequencies. This could have given them more time to improve their bulldozer architecture.

 

[Lunarion]

Just to point out something, isn't the ram speed supposed to at least match the CPU's? They are using 1333 in this test. Shouldn't it be 1866?

 

[cangelini]

[citation][nom]Lunarion[/nom]Just to point out something, isn't the ram speed supposed to at least match the CPU's? They are using 1333 in this test. Shouldn't it be 1866?[/citation]

It's at -1600 for the FX-8150 platform, -1333 for the 1100T/980 platforms, and -1333 for Sandy Bridge. I pulled the high-density modules out for memory scaling testing on page 21 so you could see what difference the higher-clocked modules would make (-1866 using a completely different kit).

All the best,
Chris

 

[Thor]

It's clear that AMD can't compete against Intel.
So my next CPU will be Intel (again).

 

[jeraldjunkmail]

Now we know why Dirk Meyer was fired.

 

[Thor]

It's clear they have no genius side of AMD.
Hope for them they will find a soon day.

 

[whysobluepandabear]

A year later, and Intel is STILL pulling down the pants on AMD and not using any lube.

Seriously....what went wrong when you had A YEAR?!


Either Intel & Nvidia are praying to the Devil for secret manufacturing powers, or God hates AMD - either way, sorry AMD, I have to bounce.

 

[Guest]

lmfao @ all the dumbasses making judgements out of 1 little review on 1 given chip.

I'm pretty sure OC'ed 8 cores will RAPE i5 and i7 2000's. Now and in the couple years to come. Besides, Y'all forgetting that you can unlock a FX 4 core into an FX 6 or 8 core. @ 150$ I'll take the FX chip over an intel ANY day.

Tom's really seem to be intel fanboys with this one. Not even comparing or talking about the 1866 ddr3 capacity of the FX. Not talking about the x4x6x8 achitecture being the same, not mentioning that upcoming applications and games WILL need 6 to 8 cores. Not mentioning that Intel changes sockets every trimester. Not mentioning that AMD has extreme value including compatible sockets. Not mentioning that the CHIP is not even OUT IN RETAIL yet therefor no tweaking of drivers or benchmarks.

Really this review only shows me that YES AMD FX competes with higher priced platforms of INTELs and yes this site is intel fan boy site getting their shit for free.

 

[jsc]

Not bad, but not an Intel killer either.

 

[rex86]

I'm quite happy with these new processors. It's a fact, AMD does not have the same resources as Intel, and that's why they can't create something that can destroy Intel processors. But, do they have to? They've again shown that they're capable of creating excellent processors with reasonable price-tags. Although, there's still room for improvement.

 

[fulle]

[citation][nom]JohnnyTheMacky[/nom]lmfao @ all the dumbasses making judgements out of 1 little review on 1 given chip.I'm pretty sure OC'ed 8 cores will RAPE i5 and i7 2000's. Now and in the couple years to come. Besides, Y'all forgetting that you can unlock a FX 4 core into an FX 6 or 8 core. @ 150$ I'll take the FX chip over an intel ANY day.Tom's really seem to be intel fanboys with this one. Not even comparing or talking about the 1866 ddr3 capacity of the FX. Not talking about the x4x6x8 achitecture being the same, not mentioning that upcoming applications and games WILL need 6 to 8 cores. Not mentioning that Intel changes sockets every trimester. Not mentioning that AMD has extreme value including compatible sockets. Not mentioning that the CHIP is not even OUT IN RETAIL yet therefor no tweaking of drivers or benchmarks.Really this review only shows me that YES AMD FX competes with higher priced platforms of INTELs and yes this site is intel fan boy site getting their shit for free.[/citation]

You're delusional. AMD released a 2B transistor chip, that has INFERIOR performance to a 1B transistor Intel chip.

Let that sink in for a moment.

There's no silver lining.

 

[AMD X6850]

I looked forward to the day I can proudly stick an AMD Logo on the front of my newly built PC. Unfortunately, Bulldozer won't be that processor.

But at least they have something good for the server market.
And the possibility of unlocking a cheaper model to a full 8 cores is interesting but not set in stone =/

As an AMD fan(boy), I will let Bulldozer slide but I await the day AMD will once again unleash the processor hounds XD

 

[scallywanker]

This article caused me to register with Tom's after years of following it, in order to post.

I built my first computer in '95 with an AMD AM486-DX4-100, and my current build can trace a line back to the original components in the same way that Thin Lizzy can, back to it's original band-members. I've owned two Intel chips, a misguided Pentium III (that decided there was too much AMD taint and smoke-checked itself about a year into it), and an i740-QM in my laptop. AMD fanboy? Yup, I'll accept that one.

I expected Bulldozer to be better. A lower price or more performance, better. If it is an overclocking beast, I'll be elated, and upgrade. I get the feeling though that AMD is focusing less on the enthusiast-builder and more on the mom-and-pop who want to browse the web fast, for cheap in a prepackaged form. I was hoping for an Athlon 64, or at least an Athlon X2; but it seems, from first blush, we've gotten my old AM486-DX4-100 (which incidentally lost handily to pops' Pentium-90, one year older, at the time).

 

[Guest]

BUMMMM.. Bum-bum- bum-BUM.

 

[_Pez_]

Well.. my plans to build a new gaming system with bulldozer "crappy gaming chip" are gone. I will better keep on upgrading my X58 intel chipset asus rampage 2 ex. mobo, I'll get a higher clocked CPU the core i7 960 for $264 usd, to replace my i7 920, and better DDR3 corsair CMT12GX3M3A2000C9 memory for higher frequency bus , instead of my adata 1333mhz that are right now at 1420Mhz cl7 T1. And Yeah I'm dissapointed too as everyone else. 🙁, I am too dissapointed that I'm buying the INTEL processor right now! . LOL

 

[maddy143ded]

TOM's please give us bench for the FX4100 and FX6100 series too.......
8150 is way too disappointing . I am thankfull that I waited to upgrade my AM2+ mobo. now I will use until IVY Bridge is here.....
may have to look into the FX4100 for a HTPC though.
I predict better performance then Core i3 SB. series.

If AMD is going to give such disappointing stuff after having us wait for nearly 3 years, then Its begging us to go over to INTEL

 

[volks1470]

Wow, this was a HUGE let down. It's pretty sad when your new processor can't even beat their old 1100T in a single threaded benchmark. Granted that's not what they were aiming for but still. I don't think ill be buying an AMD desktop chip any time soon. AMD APU in the laptop, good choice against intel HD graphics.

 

[Soma42]

Really this review only shows me that YES AMD FX competes with higher priced platforms of INTELs and yes this site is intel fan boy site getting their *** for free.

Seriously?

Did you even read the article?

The overclocked Bulldozer was barely tied with the stock 2600k on just some benchmarks. Once you OC the 2600k, Bulldozer gets left in the dust. I'm glad you're giving your money to AMD because they need all they can get, but stop trolling please...

And I guess these sites are Intel fanboys too:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested
http://www.guru3d.com/news/amd-fx-8150-processor-review/

 

[silverblue]

[citation][nom]JohnnyTheMacky[/nom]Y'all forgetting that you can unlock a FX 4 core into an FX 6 or 8 core.[/citation]

Apparently, this was just an unfounded rumour. Anandtech reported that you won't be able to.

 

[pull]

lmfao @ all the dumbasses making judgements out of 1 little review on 1 given chip.

I'm pretty sure OC'ed 8 cores will RAPE i5 and i7 2000's. Now and in the couple years to come. Besides, Y'all forgetting that you can unlock a FX 4 core into an FX 6 or 8 core. @ 150$ I'll take the FX chip over an intel ANY day.

Tom's really seem to be intel fanboys with this one. Not even comparing or talking about the 1866 ddr3 capacity of the FX. Not talking about the x4x6x8 achitecture being the same, not mentioning that upcoming applications and games WILL need 6 to 8 cores. Not mentioning that Intel changes sockets every trimester. Not mentioning that AMD has extreme value including compatible sockets. Not mentioning that the CHIP is not even OUT IN RETAIL yet therefor no tweaking of drivers or benchmarks.

Really this review only shows me that YES AMD FX competes with higher priced platforms of INTELs and yes this site is intel fan boy site getting their *** for free.

That will happen maybe after 6 years.... stop trolling

 

[cangelini]

[citation][nom]scallywanker[/nom]This article caused me to register with Tom's after years of following it, in order to post. I built my first computer in '95 with an AMD AM486-DX4-100, and my current build can trace a line back to the original components in the same way that Thin Lizzy can, back to it's original band-members. I've owned two Intel chips, a misguided Pentium III (that decided there was too much AMD taint and smoke-checked itself about a year into it), and an i740-QM in my laptop. AMD fanboy? Yup, I'll accept that one.I expected Bulldozer to be better. A lower price or more performance, better. If it is an overclocking beast, I'll be elated, and upgrade. I get the feeling though that AMD is focusing less on the enthusiast-builder and more on the mom-and-pop who want to browse the web fast, for cheap in a prepackaged form. I was hoping for an Athlon 64, or at least an Athlon X2; but it seems, from first blush, we've gotten my old AM486-DX4-100 (which incidentally lost handily to pops' Pentium-90, one year older, at the time).[/citation]

Welcome to the site! Glad to have you,
Chris

 

[cangelini]

[citation][nom]maddy143ded[/nom]TOM's please give us bench for the FX4100 and FX6100 series too.......8150 is way too disappointing . I am thankfull that I waited to upgrade my AM2+ mobo. now I will use until IVY Bridge is here.....may have to look into the FX4100 for a HTPC though.I predict better performance then Core i3 SB. series.If AMD is going to give such disappointing stuff after having us wait for nearly 3 years, then Its begging us to go over to INTEL[/citation]

Soon as we have access to the processors, you can count on it!

 

[AbheekG]

It surely did not perform as good as we expected it to, but I'd say give credit where credit is due. We have to admit that this surely is an innovative new design and the world has seen nothing like it before. Yes, it surely is ahead of it's time and does tend to rely on software optimization.

I'd say that's the only place where AMD went wrong. They should have worked closely with software devs in order to bring out the best of FX, but I guess their entire work force was dedicated towards bringing out FX, and it's definately not 'Game Over' yet for FX. Now that it's out, I guess AMD must work closely with the devs of benchmarking suites and Microsoft OS devs much the way Intel does.

It's obvious that a brand new sophisticated modular design CPU can't really shine with current software. And Piledriver won't do magic. Yes it might improve IPC performance, but remember that it's going to be based on the same Bulldozer architecture at it's heart.

As far as higher clock sppeds are concerned, I'm certain that good cooling kits could make FX achieve 5GHz, and we all know that really.

I'd say FX is well ahead of it's time, and AMD definately proved to be the more innovative of the two here. Also, I'm mighty impressed that an 8C/8T CPU still maintains a TDP of 125W, even though the die shrink to 32nm does surely help.

I think the future might bring out the star in FX. AMD definitely has to focus on software now, work on FX is far from done. If they want it to be successful, they have to push software development too, as that in my opinion is as necessary as the release of FX itself.

You know, we as users must also not say things like "SHAME ON AMD" and "AMD=FAILS" and all such nonsense. All these tech companies consist of a highly skilled workforce, whether AMD or Intel or any company. Yes they do falter sometimes, but i don't really believe it is that time for AMD. As some other poster rightly pointed out, AMD has 1/5th the workforce as that of Intel. That workforce must do one thing at a time. Now that the product is out, it's time to concentrate on software. And that workforce does do a remarkable job with AMD/ATI, none-the-less!

I know that FX has been a dissapointment for us who have waited for it for so long. I myself have been eagerly waiting since over 2-3yrs, when early discussions started. I remember it being expected in Jan 2011 and I actually got up at 4:30A.M. to check AMD's web page! When the FX promo web page came up months ago, I'd thought it's time now, we all know how long it's been delayed and how many times! I have checked that promo page almost every day! I even got all my accounts settled to pounce on it. So you could imagine how disappointed I am.

But I guess I should have thought of this software earlier, these images have been out for months, & I've seen them countless times before. But, it sure has a long way to go!

I'm sure it will do great if AMD pushes it, which they must now. Here's looking forward to better times for FX!

 

[nerrawg]

Disappointed! Clock for clock performance on single or dual threaded loads is sometimes worse than Phenom II architecture. Clearly this is no use for gaming - who needs 8 cores when they're individually not any better. I thought AMD would improve core architecture, especially after the X6 showed that adding more cores does nothing for gaming. AMD might now be a victim of its own success with the Phenom II X6 if they didn't understand that most of those sales were because of price - not performance.

Sure, the SERVER (OPTERON) version of Bulldozer will be great, but in the home PC market this is a FAIL
Bottom line: Gaming trumps Video encoding sales in the home PC market anyday.

 

[flong]

Bottom line: the 2500K kicks its ass and it is cheaper. Why do people buy AMD??????