I'm looking to build a budget gaming rig and event hought I only heard bad things about the FX 8150, I'm still tempted to go that way since the latest price cut made them pretty cheap. I5 are 229$ right now, while Fx are 189. Will I miss anything if I go for the FX or should I spend the extra 30 for the I5. Windows 8 is on the corner too and they promised better integration of the extra cores so mb the 8 cores might make a difference.
AMD FX 8150 vs I5-2500K
- Thread starter marcotf10
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Ebay Product Video Games
IMTIAZ_BABA
Honorable
- Oct 1, 2012
- 55
- 0
- 10,630
After so much postponing, AMD is finally releasing its new processor series based on the “Bulldozer” architecture, the FX, featuring models with four, six, or eight processing cores. Let’s test the top-of-the-line, the eight-core AMD FX-8150 (3.6 GHz), which is placed between the Core i5-2500K (3.3 GHz) and the Core i7-2600K (3.4 GHz) in terms of price. We are also including the six-core Phenom II X6 1100T (3.3 GHz), which was previously the fastest processor from AMD. Let’s see who the winner is.
We recommend that you read our “Inside the AMD Bulldozer Architecture” tutorial if you need more in-depth information about this new architecture. For a complete list of all AMD FX processors released, please read our “All AMD FX Models” tutorial.
In a nutshell, the “Bulldozer” architecture adds the SSE4 and AVX instructions that AMD CPUs didn’t have, allows the CPU to use the higher HyperTransport 3.0 bus speeds (2.4 GHz/9.6 GB/s and 2.6 GHz/10.4 GB/s) not supported by socket AM3 processors, increases the support for DDR3 memories up to 1,866 MHz, and introduces two “Turbo” clocks. Also, all AMD FX processors have an unlocked clock multiplier, allowing you to overclock the CPU by changing this parameter. AMD FX processors require the new socket AM3+ platform.
The first (and lower) “Turbo” clock is called “Turbo Core,” which is used when the CPU “feels” the application needs more processing power, and there is still enough headroom in the CPU’s maximum dissipation power for it to increase its clock rate. For instance, if the processor TDP is 125 W and the CPU is currently dissipating 95 W, it “knows” that it still has 30 W “unused” and, thus, can increase its clock rate. In this mode, all CPU cores may be active.
The second (and higher) “Turbo” clock is called “Max Turbo,” which is used when there are unused processing cores available. In this case, the CPU puts these unused cores to “sleep,” allowing it to increase its clock rate even further.
AMD FX-8150 processor
click to enlarge
Figure 1: AMD FX-8150 processor
AMD FX-8150 processor
We recommend that you read our “Inside the AMD Bulldozer Architecture” tutorial if you need more in-depth information about this new architecture. For a complete list of all AMD FX processors released, please read our “All AMD FX Models” tutorial.
In a nutshell, the “Bulldozer” architecture adds the SSE4 and AVX instructions that AMD CPUs didn’t have, allows the CPU to use the higher HyperTransport 3.0 bus speeds (2.4 GHz/9.6 GB/s and 2.6 GHz/10.4 GB/s) not supported by socket AM3 processors, increases the support for DDR3 memories up to 1,866 MHz, and introduces two “Turbo” clocks. Also, all AMD FX processors have an unlocked clock multiplier, allowing you to overclock the CPU by changing this parameter. AMD FX processors require the new socket AM3+ platform.
The first (and lower) “Turbo” clock is called “Turbo Core,” which is used when the CPU “feels” the application needs more processing power, and there is still enough headroom in the CPU’s maximum dissipation power for it to increase its clock rate. For instance, if the processor TDP is 125 W and the CPU is currently dissipating 95 W, it “knows” that it still has 30 W “unused” and, thus, can increase its clock rate. In this mode, all CPU cores may be active.
The second (and higher) “Turbo” clock is called “Max Turbo,” which is used when there are unused processing cores available. In this case, the CPU puts these unused cores to “sleep,” allowing it to increase its clock rate even further.
AMD FX-8150 processor
click to enlarge
Figure 1: AMD FX-8150 processor
AMD FX-8150 processor
IMTIAZ_BABA
Honorable
- Oct 1, 2012
- 55
- 0
- 10,630
IMTIAZ_BABA
Honorable
- Oct 1, 2012
- 55
- 0
- 10,630
The new PCMark 7 performs a series of tests and gives scores in the following categories: An overall score called PCMark; a Productivity score, which is the system performance when using applications such as web browsing and home office applications; a Creativity score, which is the system performance when viewing, editing, converting, and storing photos and videos; an Entertainment score, which is the system performance when recording, viewing, streaming, and converting TV shows and movies, importing, organizing, and browsing music, and gaming; and a Computation score, which indicates the processing performance of the system. Let’s analyze the results.
AMD FX-8150 processor
On the PCMark 7 overall score, the Core i7-2600K (3.4 GHz) and the Core i5-2500K (3.3 GHz) beat the AMD FX-8150 (3.6 GHz) by 12% and 6%, respectively. The FX-8150 achieved a score 4% higher than the Phenom II X6 1100T (3.3 GHz).
AMD FX-8150 processor
On the Productivity set, the AMD FX-8150 achieved a performance level similar to the Core i5-2500K’s, with a score 7% higher than the Phenom II X6 1100T’s. The Core i7-2600K, however, beat the FX-8150 by 8 percent.
AMD FX-8150 processor
On the Creativity test suite, the AMD FX-8150 achieved a score 5% higher than the Core i5-2500K’s and 6% higher than the Phenom II X6 1100T’s. The Core i7-2600K achieved a score 5% higher on this test.
AMD FX-8150 processor
On the Entertainment test suite, the FX-8150 achieved the same performance level as the Phenom II X6 1100T, with the Core i5-2500K achieving a score 10% higher and the Core i7-2600K achieving a score 17% higher.
AMD FX-8150 processor
On the Computation test, the FX-8150 achieved a performance 10% higher than the Phenom II X6 1100T. However, the Core i5-2500K achieved a score 5% higher and the Core i7-2600K achieved a score 35% higher.
DivX Encoding
We converted a full-length DVD movie to DivX format using VirtualDub and saw how long it took to complete this conversion. DivX codec is capable of recognizing and using not only more than one CPU (i.e., more than one core) but also the SSE4 instruction set.
The movie we chose to convert was “Star Trek – The Motion Picture: Director’s Cut.” We copied the movie to our hard disk drive with no compression, so the final original file on our HDD was 6.79 GB. After compressing it with DivX, the final file was only 767.40 MB, which is quite remarkable.
The results below are given in seconds, so the lower the better.
AMD FX-8150 processor
On DivX encoding, the AMD FX-8150 (3.6 GHz) achieved the same performance level as the Core i7-2600K (3.4 GHz) and the Core i5-2500K (3.3 GHz), operating 4% faster than the Phenom II X6 1100T (3.3 GHz).
Photoshop CS4
The best way to measure performance is by using real programs. The problem, though, is creating a methodology using real software that provides accurate results. For Photoshop CS4, there is a methodology created by the folks at GamingHeaven that is very accurate. Their script applies a series of 15 filters to a sample image. Then we wrote down the time taken for each filter to run. At the end, we had the results for each individual filter, which we added up to get the total time taken to run the 15 filters. The results below are given in seconds, so the lower the number the better.
AMD FX-8150 processor
On Photoshop CS4, Intel CPUs were way faster: the Core i7-2600K (3.4 GHz) beat the AMD FX-8150 (3.6 GHz) by 34%, while the Core i5-2500K (3.3 GHz) beat it by 30 percent. The AMD FX-8150 was 4% faster than the Phenom II X6 1100T (3.3 GHz) on this program.
After Effects CS4
After Effects is a very well-known program for video post-production, used to add animations and visual effects in videos. To evaluate the performance of each CPU running this program, we ran a workload consisting of a number of compositions that applied several filters and effects to a variety of input file types such as PSD (Photoshop), AI (Illustrator), EPS and TIF. After each filter was applied, the composition was rendered to an uncompressed AVI file of the same resolution as the input files. The results below are the time each CPU took to finish the whole batch, given in seconds, so the lower the number the better.
AMD FX-8150 processor
On After Effects CS4, the Core i7-2600K was 49% faster and the Core i5-2500K was 27% faster than the AMD FX-8150, which achieved the same performance level as the Phenom II X6 1100T.
Media Espresso 6.5
Media Espresso is a video conversion program that uses the graphics processing unit of the video card to speed up the conversion process. It is also capable of using Intel’s QuickSync technology available in the CPUs from this company. We converted a 449 MB, 1920x1080i, 18,884 kbps, MPG2 video file to a smaller 640x360, H.264, .MP4 file for viewing on a portable device such as an iPhone or iPod Touch.
AMD FX-8150 processor
Here we forced Media Espresso to use the CPU for the conversion process, not the GPU. The Core i7-2600K was 19% faster and the Core i5-2500K was 9% faster than the AMD FX-8150. The new AMD processor was 13% faster than the Phenom II X6 1100T.
WinZip
We used WinZip not only to measure compression time, but also decryption time. We measured the time each CPU took to decompress and decrypt 200 JPEG images, 125 of them at 10 megapixels and 75 of them at six megapixels. The total size of all photos was around 830 MB. The results below are given in seconds, so the lower the number the better.
AMD FX-8150 processor
Decompressing and decrypting files, the Core i7-2600K was 33% faster and the Core i5-2500K was 17% faster than the AMD FX-8150, which was 4% faster than the Phenom II X6 1100T.
iTunes
We used iTunes to convert an uncompressed .wav file into a high-quality (160 Kbps) MP3 file, and checked how many seconds each CPU took to perform this operation. Therefore, the results below are given in seconds, so the lower the number the better.
AMD FX-8150 processor
Here all CPUs achieved the same performance level.
Cinebench 11.5
Cinebench 11.5 is based on the 3D software Cinema 4D. It is very useful to measure the performance gain given by having more than one CPU installed on the system when rendering heavy 3D images. Rendering is one area where having more than one CPU helps greatly, because usually rendering software recognizes several CPUs – Cinebench, for instance, can use up to 16 CPUs.
Since we were interested in measuring the rendering performance, we ran the test called “Rendering x CPUs,” which renders a “heavy” sample image using all available CPU cores – either real or virtual, as on CPUs with Hyper-Threading technology, each CPU core is recognized as two cores by the operating system.
AMD FX-8150 processor
On Cinebench, the Core i7-2600K was 14% faster than the AMD FX-8150. This is an unexpected result, since the FX-8150 is an eight-core CPU, while the Core i7-2600K is a quad-core CPU with Hyper-Threading technology. The FX-8150 achieved the same performance level as the Phenom II X6 1100T, and was 10% faster than the Core i5-2500K.
StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty
StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty is a very popular DirectX 9 game that was released in 2010. Though this game uses an old version of DirectX, the number of textures that can be represented on one screen can push most of the top-end graphics cards to their limits (especially when the graphics settings are set at “Ultra”). StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty uses its own physics engine that is bound to the CPU and thus does not benefit from PhysX.
We tested this game at 1920x1200. The quality of the game was set to the “low” preset, disabling both anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering. We then used FRAPS to collect the frame rate of a replay on the “Unit Testing” custom map. We used a battle between very large armies to stress the video cards.
AMD FX-8150 processor
On StarCraft II, the Core i7-2600K, the Core i5-2500K, and the AMD FX-8150 achieved the same performance level, with the new AMD processor being 12% faster than the Phenom II X6 1100T.
Lost Planet 2
Lost Planet 2 is a game that uses many DirectX 11 features, like tessellation (to round out the edges of polygonal models), displacement maps (added to the tessellated mesh to add fine grain details), DirectCompute soft body simulation (to introduce more realism in the “boss” monsters), and DirectCompute wave simulation (to introduce more realism in the physics calculations in water surfaces; when you move or when gunshots and explosions hit the water, it moves accordingly). We reviewed the video cards using Lost Planet 2 internal benchmarking features, choosing the “Benchmark A.” (We know that “Benchmark B” is the one recommended for reviewing video cards, however, at least with us, results were inconsistent.) We ran this game at 1920x1200 with graphics set at “low,” with no anti-aliasing and no anisotropic filtering. The results below are the number of frames per second generated by each system.
AMD FX-8150 processor
On Lost Planet, the Core i7-2600K and the AMD FX-8150 achieved the same performance level, with the new AMD processor being 4% faster than the Core i5-2500K and 9% faster than the Phenom II X6 1100T.
Deus Ex: Human Revolution
Deus Ex: Human Revolution is a DirectX 11 game, and we used in-game introduction to measure the number of frames per second using FRAPS. We configured the video resolution at 1920x1200 with low settings and anti-aliasing disabled.
AMD FX-8150 processor
On Deus Ex, the AMD FX-8150 was the fastest processor, being 3% faster than the Phenom II X6 1100T, 4% faster than the Core i7-2600K, and 5% faster than the Core i5-2500K.
DiRT3
DiRT3 is another DirectX 11 game. We measured performance using this game by running a race and then playing it back using FRAPS. We configured the video resolution at 1920x1200 with low settings and both anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering disabled. The results below are in frames per second.
AMD FX-8150 processor
On DiRT3, the AMD FX-8150 was the fastest processor, being 6% faster than the Phenom II X6 1100T, 6% faster than the Core i7-2600K, and 9% faster than the Core i5-2500K.
3DMark 11 Professional
The 3DMark 11 measures Shader 5.0 (i.e., DirectX 11) performance. We ran this program at 1920x1200 using the “Performance” profile.
This program provides three different scores: graphics, physics and combined.
AMD FX-8150 processor
The graphics score achieved by the three CPUs was the same. This was expected, since this score measures the performance of the video card, not the processor.
AMD FX-8150 processor
The physics score measures exclusively the physics performance of the system, a process that is typically done on the CPU. Here the Core i7-2600K achieved a score 31% higher than the AMD FX-8150’s, which in turn achieved the same score as the Core i5-2500K and was 15% faster than the Phenom II X6 1100T.
AMD FX-8150 processor
The combined score shows a balance between the graphics and the physics performance achieved by each system being tested. Here all CPUs achieved the same performance level.
Overclocking
Since the AMD FX-8150 comes with an unlocked clock multiplier, you have two options to overclock this CPU: by increasing its base clock and/or by increasing its clock multiplier.
Also, AMD is offering a liquid cooling solution manufactured by Asetek for this CPU. (See Figure 3.) While we ran our tests using the default air cooler that comes with the CPU, we decided to use the optional liquid cooling solution for our overclocking tests.
Liquid cooling solution for the FX-8150 offered by AMD
click to enlarge
Figure 3: Liquid cooling solution for the FX-8150 offered by AMD
Liquid cooling solution for the FX-8150 offered by AMD
click to enlarge
Figure 4: Liquid cooling solution for the FX-8150 offered by AMD
With this CPU, we were able to increase its clock multiplier from 18x to 21x, and the base clock from 200 MHz to 235 MHz. This made the CPU internal clock increase from 3.6 GHz to 4.935 GHz, an impressive 37% clock increase. In order to do that, we increased the CPU voltage to 1.368756 V, the memory controller voltage to 1.368750 V, and the CPU VDDA voltage to 2.76875 V. Due to the short time we had between receiving the system and publishing its review, we spent only one hour overclocking this CPU. With more time and more patience, you are sure to get even higher results.
Conclusions
We can summarize the AMD FX-8150 in one word: “disappointment.” We expected much more from this eight-core CPU based on the highly anticipated “Bulldozer” architecture.
The FX-8150 was faster than the Core i5-2500K in only a few situations, and the performance difference was not so high as to justify the higher price you will have to pay to bring this new AMD processor home. So, unless you are a die-hard AMD fanboy, we think it is hard to recommend this CPU. The Core i5-2500K is cheaper and provides a higher overall performance, and is the CPU we recommend for the user looking for the best price/performance ratio is the USD 200 - USD 220 price range. And if you really want performance, you can pay a little more and get the Core i7-2600K.
One of the only areas in which the AMD FX-8150 excelled was overclocking. We could easily set it to run at almost 5 GHz, and if you are into overclocking, with time and patience you will likely be able to break the 5 GHz barrier.
AMD FX-8150 processor
On the PCMark 7 overall score, the Core i7-2600K (3.4 GHz) and the Core i5-2500K (3.3 GHz) beat the AMD FX-8150 (3.6 GHz) by 12% and 6%, respectively. The FX-8150 achieved a score 4% higher than the Phenom II X6 1100T (3.3 GHz).
AMD FX-8150 processor
On the Productivity set, the AMD FX-8150 achieved a performance level similar to the Core i5-2500K’s, with a score 7% higher than the Phenom II X6 1100T’s. The Core i7-2600K, however, beat the FX-8150 by 8 percent.
AMD FX-8150 processor
On the Creativity test suite, the AMD FX-8150 achieved a score 5% higher than the Core i5-2500K’s and 6% higher than the Phenom II X6 1100T’s. The Core i7-2600K achieved a score 5% higher on this test.
AMD FX-8150 processor
On the Entertainment test suite, the FX-8150 achieved the same performance level as the Phenom II X6 1100T, with the Core i5-2500K achieving a score 10% higher and the Core i7-2600K achieving a score 17% higher.
AMD FX-8150 processor
On the Computation test, the FX-8150 achieved a performance 10% higher than the Phenom II X6 1100T. However, the Core i5-2500K achieved a score 5% higher and the Core i7-2600K achieved a score 35% higher.
DivX Encoding
We converted a full-length DVD movie to DivX format using VirtualDub and saw how long it took to complete this conversion. DivX codec is capable of recognizing and using not only more than one CPU (i.e., more than one core) but also the SSE4 instruction set.
The movie we chose to convert was “Star Trek – The Motion Picture: Director’s Cut.” We copied the movie to our hard disk drive with no compression, so the final original file on our HDD was 6.79 GB. After compressing it with DivX, the final file was only 767.40 MB, which is quite remarkable.
The results below are given in seconds, so the lower the better.
AMD FX-8150 processor
On DivX encoding, the AMD FX-8150 (3.6 GHz) achieved the same performance level as the Core i7-2600K (3.4 GHz) and the Core i5-2500K (3.3 GHz), operating 4% faster than the Phenom II X6 1100T (3.3 GHz).
Photoshop CS4
The best way to measure performance is by using real programs. The problem, though, is creating a methodology using real software that provides accurate results. For Photoshop CS4, there is a methodology created by the folks at GamingHeaven that is very accurate. Their script applies a series of 15 filters to a sample image. Then we wrote down the time taken for each filter to run. At the end, we had the results for each individual filter, which we added up to get the total time taken to run the 15 filters. The results below are given in seconds, so the lower the number the better.
AMD FX-8150 processor
On Photoshop CS4, Intel CPUs were way faster: the Core i7-2600K (3.4 GHz) beat the AMD FX-8150 (3.6 GHz) by 34%, while the Core i5-2500K (3.3 GHz) beat it by 30 percent. The AMD FX-8150 was 4% faster than the Phenom II X6 1100T (3.3 GHz) on this program.
After Effects CS4
After Effects is a very well-known program for video post-production, used to add animations and visual effects in videos. To evaluate the performance of each CPU running this program, we ran a workload consisting of a number of compositions that applied several filters and effects to a variety of input file types such as PSD (Photoshop), AI (Illustrator), EPS and TIF. After each filter was applied, the composition was rendered to an uncompressed AVI file of the same resolution as the input files. The results below are the time each CPU took to finish the whole batch, given in seconds, so the lower the number the better.
AMD FX-8150 processor
On After Effects CS4, the Core i7-2600K was 49% faster and the Core i5-2500K was 27% faster than the AMD FX-8150, which achieved the same performance level as the Phenom II X6 1100T.
Media Espresso 6.5
Media Espresso is a video conversion program that uses the graphics processing unit of the video card to speed up the conversion process. It is also capable of using Intel’s QuickSync technology available in the CPUs from this company. We converted a 449 MB, 1920x1080i, 18,884 kbps, MPG2 video file to a smaller 640x360, H.264, .MP4 file for viewing on a portable device such as an iPhone or iPod Touch.
AMD FX-8150 processor
Here we forced Media Espresso to use the CPU for the conversion process, not the GPU. The Core i7-2600K was 19% faster and the Core i5-2500K was 9% faster than the AMD FX-8150. The new AMD processor was 13% faster than the Phenom II X6 1100T.
WinZip
We used WinZip not only to measure compression time, but also decryption time. We measured the time each CPU took to decompress and decrypt 200 JPEG images, 125 of them at 10 megapixels and 75 of them at six megapixels. The total size of all photos was around 830 MB. The results below are given in seconds, so the lower the number the better.
AMD FX-8150 processor
Decompressing and decrypting files, the Core i7-2600K was 33% faster and the Core i5-2500K was 17% faster than the AMD FX-8150, which was 4% faster than the Phenom II X6 1100T.
iTunes
We used iTunes to convert an uncompressed .wav file into a high-quality (160 Kbps) MP3 file, and checked how many seconds each CPU took to perform this operation. Therefore, the results below are given in seconds, so the lower the number the better.
AMD FX-8150 processor
Here all CPUs achieved the same performance level.
Cinebench 11.5
Cinebench 11.5 is based on the 3D software Cinema 4D. It is very useful to measure the performance gain given by having more than one CPU installed on the system when rendering heavy 3D images. Rendering is one area where having more than one CPU helps greatly, because usually rendering software recognizes several CPUs – Cinebench, for instance, can use up to 16 CPUs.
Since we were interested in measuring the rendering performance, we ran the test called “Rendering x CPUs,” which renders a “heavy” sample image using all available CPU cores – either real or virtual, as on CPUs with Hyper-Threading technology, each CPU core is recognized as two cores by the operating system.
AMD FX-8150 processor
On Cinebench, the Core i7-2600K was 14% faster than the AMD FX-8150. This is an unexpected result, since the FX-8150 is an eight-core CPU, while the Core i7-2600K is a quad-core CPU with Hyper-Threading technology. The FX-8150 achieved the same performance level as the Phenom II X6 1100T, and was 10% faster than the Core i5-2500K.
StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty
StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty is a very popular DirectX 9 game that was released in 2010. Though this game uses an old version of DirectX, the number of textures that can be represented on one screen can push most of the top-end graphics cards to their limits (especially when the graphics settings are set at “Ultra”). StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty uses its own physics engine that is bound to the CPU and thus does not benefit from PhysX.
We tested this game at 1920x1200. The quality of the game was set to the “low” preset, disabling both anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering. We then used FRAPS to collect the frame rate of a replay on the “Unit Testing” custom map. We used a battle between very large armies to stress the video cards.
AMD FX-8150 processor
On StarCraft II, the Core i7-2600K, the Core i5-2500K, and the AMD FX-8150 achieved the same performance level, with the new AMD processor being 12% faster than the Phenom II X6 1100T.
Lost Planet 2
Lost Planet 2 is a game that uses many DirectX 11 features, like tessellation (to round out the edges of polygonal models), displacement maps (added to the tessellated mesh to add fine grain details), DirectCompute soft body simulation (to introduce more realism in the “boss” monsters), and DirectCompute wave simulation (to introduce more realism in the physics calculations in water surfaces; when you move or when gunshots and explosions hit the water, it moves accordingly). We reviewed the video cards using Lost Planet 2 internal benchmarking features, choosing the “Benchmark A.” (We know that “Benchmark B” is the one recommended for reviewing video cards, however, at least with us, results were inconsistent.) We ran this game at 1920x1200 with graphics set at “low,” with no anti-aliasing and no anisotropic filtering. The results below are the number of frames per second generated by each system.
AMD FX-8150 processor
On Lost Planet, the Core i7-2600K and the AMD FX-8150 achieved the same performance level, with the new AMD processor being 4% faster than the Core i5-2500K and 9% faster than the Phenom II X6 1100T.
Deus Ex: Human Revolution
Deus Ex: Human Revolution is a DirectX 11 game, and we used in-game introduction to measure the number of frames per second using FRAPS. We configured the video resolution at 1920x1200 with low settings and anti-aliasing disabled.
AMD FX-8150 processor
On Deus Ex, the AMD FX-8150 was the fastest processor, being 3% faster than the Phenom II X6 1100T, 4% faster than the Core i7-2600K, and 5% faster than the Core i5-2500K.
DiRT3
DiRT3 is another DirectX 11 game. We measured performance using this game by running a race and then playing it back using FRAPS. We configured the video resolution at 1920x1200 with low settings and both anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering disabled. The results below are in frames per second.
AMD FX-8150 processor
On DiRT3, the AMD FX-8150 was the fastest processor, being 6% faster than the Phenom II X6 1100T, 6% faster than the Core i7-2600K, and 9% faster than the Core i5-2500K.
3DMark 11 Professional
The 3DMark 11 measures Shader 5.0 (i.e., DirectX 11) performance. We ran this program at 1920x1200 using the “Performance” profile.
This program provides three different scores: graphics, physics and combined.
AMD FX-8150 processor
The graphics score achieved by the three CPUs was the same. This was expected, since this score measures the performance of the video card, not the processor.
AMD FX-8150 processor
The physics score measures exclusively the physics performance of the system, a process that is typically done on the CPU. Here the Core i7-2600K achieved a score 31% higher than the AMD FX-8150’s, which in turn achieved the same score as the Core i5-2500K and was 15% faster than the Phenom II X6 1100T.
AMD FX-8150 processor
The combined score shows a balance between the graphics and the physics performance achieved by each system being tested. Here all CPUs achieved the same performance level.
Overclocking
Since the AMD FX-8150 comes with an unlocked clock multiplier, you have two options to overclock this CPU: by increasing its base clock and/or by increasing its clock multiplier.
Also, AMD is offering a liquid cooling solution manufactured by Asetek for this CPU. (See Figure 3.) While we ran our tests using the default air cooler that comes with the CPU, we decided to use the optional liquid cooling solution for our overclocking tests.
Liquid cooling solution for the FX-8150 offered by AMD
click to enlarge
Figure 3: Liquid cooling solution for the FX-8150 offered by AMD
Liquid cooling solution for the FX-8150 offered by AMD
click to enlarge
Figure 4: Liquid cooling solution for the FX-8150 offered by AMD
With this CPU, we were able to increase its clock multiplier from 18x to 21x, and the base clock from 200 MHz to 235 MHz. This made the CPU internal clock increase from 3.6 GHz to 4.935 GHz, an impressive 37% clock increase. In order to do that, we increased the CPU voltage to 1.368756 V, the memory controller voltage to 1.368750 V, and the CPU VDDA voltage to 2.76875 V. Due to the short time we had between receiving the system and publishing its review, we spent only one hour overclocking this CPU. With more time and more patience, you are sure to get even higher results.
Conclusions
We can summarize the AMD FX-8150 in one word: “disappointment.” We expected much more from this eight-core CPU based on the highly anticipated “Bulldozer” architecture.
The FX-8150 was faster than the Core i5-2500K in only a few situations, and the performance difference was not so high as to justify the higher price you will have to pay to bring this new AMD processor home. So, unless you are a die-hard AMD fanboy, we think it is hard to recommend this CPU. The Core i5-2500K is cheaper and provides a higher overall performance, and is the CPU we recommend for the user looking for the best price/performance ratio is the USD 200 - USD 220 price range. And if you really want performance, you can pay a little more and get the Core i7-2600K.
One of the only areas in which the AMD FX-8150 excelled was overclocking. We could easily set it to run at almost 5 GHz, and if you are into overclocking, with time and patience you will likely be able to break the 5 GHz barrier.
- May 18, 2007
- 23,878
- 5,317
- 108,890
Not much point worrying about LGA1155 being a 'dead socket' since LGA1150 for Haswell will likely be a single generation affair like LGA1156 and LGA1366.
ohyouknow
Distinguished
- Nov 18, 2011
- 956
- 0
- 19,160
I'd go with i5 series since you are building it for gaming and the i5's are better in gaming than the 8150 and worth the money. If you are patient you can wait for the Piledriver release but I think that they will still target their price higher or equal to the current Ivy Bridge processors which would not be a good move.
JAYDEEJOHN
Champion
- Aug 23, 2006
- 19,840
- 0
- 50,860
songorocosongo
Distinguished
- Nov 6, 2011
- 552
- 0
- 19,060
lol at imtiaz_baba. If your main focus is gaming then there is no reasong to get the FX. Get the i5 or wait for Piledriver.1] Wait for Piledriver
2] FX 8150 is like $20 more than the 8120 with no real benefits so consider that.
3] Granted intels single x86 performance is better but in most cases AMD delievers well above mainstream FPS, in many common titles today the difference is mere 1-2 FPS while in CPU orientated titles like MMO's or RTS the Intel chips pull ahead, but again the FX chips deliver very high FPS regardless......so its a matter of how much you really need.
4] Define budget, preferably in terms of how much you are looking to spend, it is true throwing money at a CPU is one thing as it can last longest but if it means skimping on other things then its not worth it, advise us on this so as to better help you rather than resorting to the Intel is awesome, AMD has more cores rhetoric.
mafisometal
Honorable
- Jul 2, 2012
- 175
- 0
- 10,710
Both good in their own ways. Overall i would say Intel i5, but Pilderiver will be out soon, and with Windows 8 around the corner i would personally just wait a few weeks and buy the 8350. I'm pretty sure that it will hands down beat the i5, also counting that AMD is loyal to their customers in the sense of sockets. They don't force you to get a new motherboard, if you get the AMD chip, most likely you will be able to stick with the same socket for the next few generations of the FX series. LGA1155 will be dead soon, and TBH i don't understand why Intel doesn't stick with a more consistent socket architecture.
Also some defining factors, Gaming, workstation, etc. If your doing straight gaming, then just go straight to intel; but if you use Graphic Design, Game Development, Server running, or any high calculative program, then AMD might be for you. I personally have never had a single problem with gaming on my AMD, i load faster than anyone in just about any match with my 8150. I've never had any lag issues from running multiple programs. Overall, i feel more satisfied with my purchase of AMD products. Despite the differences, AMD still gets the job done. I mean i got Skyrim running max settings around 60 fps with my 2 Radeon 6950's.
re-play-
Distinguished
- Mar 17, 2007
- 140
- 0
- 18,680
This are recent benchmarks on DX11 games where the FX8150 shines
every time we get more game on DX11 it seem that FX cpus they tend to do better on those
http://atenra.blog.com/2012/06/08/amd-fx8150-vs-intel-2500k-1080p-dx-11-gaming-evaluation/
for example this is BF3
BattleField 3 Caspian Border (64 player)
A 64 player server was used with 50 to 64 players at any given time with the following IQ settings.
this is from other site http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/battlefield-3-armored-kill-test-gpu.html
every time we get more game on DX11 it seem that FX cpus they tend to do better on those
http://atenra.blog.com/2012/06/08/amd-fx8150-vs-intel-2500k-1080p-dx-11-gaming-evaluation/
for example this is BF3
BattleField 3 Caspian Border (64 player)
A 64 player server was used with 50 to 64 players at any given time with the following IQ settings.
this is from other site http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/battlefield-3-armored-kill-test-gpu.html
Thats odd results because I produced;
min 34
max 111
avg 82.3
64 Player Metro server ultra presets, 4x MSAA, AF, HBAO, Blur and effects maxed with a HD7950, I doubled checked and cross referenced these results and they are correct, the FX in DX11 titles is roughly 5 FPS slower than the 3960X under the same config.
min 34
max 111
avg 82.3
64 Player Metro server ultra presets, 4x MSAA, AF, HBAO, Blur and effects maxed with a HD7950, I doubled checked and cross referenced these results and they are correct, the FX in DX11 titles is roughly 5 FPS slower than the 3960X under the same config.
Those are not valid benches in the slightest it's some idiot at home making up data.
1 - Who the hell is that guy? What is his credibility?
2 - No effort to make as many variables between machines the same
3 - AvP where all CPU's draw (within margin of error) clearly shows the GPU is the bottleneck
4 - Testing Caspian Border on BF3 is somewhat hard to do with any accuracy, this person clearly failed as anyone with a2500k @ stock can tell you with a top shelf GPU they get better figures than that.
5 - The guy is not credible so I don't really believe his testing methods or that they were done properly. I could list all the other holes in his tests but its not hard to see his tests either appear innacurate (when compared to similar tests from credible sources) or rely on showing us something thats GPU bound so is irrelevent to the arguement.
re-play-
Distinguished
- Mar 17, 2007
- 140
- 0
- 18,680
Ok what about this other test genius...
this is a reputable site http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/battlefield-3-armored-kill-test-gpu.html
re-play-
Distinguished
- Mar 17, 2007
- 140
- 0
- 18,680
and just in case u need a video test...BF3 - GTX670+FX 8150 FPS Test http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhSg6McS9Z0
Well done you proved my point by discrediting your own first set of data with the second. Your 1st set shows stock 8150 beating stock 2500k, 2nd set show the opposite
Calling me a genius for questioning the provenance of unreliable data or the method used to collect it is incorrect, better would be to ask yourself why you failed to do so.
You cant reliably bench on multiplayer this is why most sites have avoided it. Recreating the exact same set of variables each time is near impossible. Also its vastly open to manipulation, where do you start counting? at spawn as you look at the sky? that would skew results by giving very high max FPS therefore bumping the average (and its clear that majority of self done tests from users on this site have used the start looking at the sky method or at the least purposefully avoided any mass action or destruction that may effect the FPS).
Really?
Ok 1 the guy doesnt prove the hardware to us
Why does he also use FRAPS or the like to show us setting the settings but then for the gameplay he uses a camera to take still photos of his screen!
You have issues understanding credibility try this http://www.open.ac.uk/infoskills-researchers/evaluation-introduction.htm
re-play-
Distinguished
- Mar 17, 2007
- 140
- 0
- 18,680
OK LITTLE GINIUS OTHER VIDEO FOR YOU
FX 8150 | EVGA GTX 670 FTW | BF3 | CASPIAN BORDER | 64 PLAYERS | TEST VIDEO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W54fMi46pL4
this guy does show everything u have ask for... man i know intel is better, but FX CPU arent as bad as most intel lovers think
i am not here to prove FX is better than intel, im here to show off FX CPU are decent to play for less money
mindless728
Splendid
- Jul 15, 2008
- 4,074
- 0
- 22,960
I'm going to just leave this here, shows there really isn't a difference when OC'ed to about the same clock rate
http://www.overclock.net/t/1210060/fx8120-vs-2500k-benchmark-results
http://www.overclock.net/t/1210060/fx8120-vs-2500k-benchmark-results
re-play-
Distinguished
- Mar 17, 2007
- 140
- 0
- 18,680
look at this GUY Fps test Gtx 670 i7 3770k Bf3 Ultra settings
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IZtcIpTDuQ&feature=related
he has the all mighty 3770k and he is getting same FPS as the FX8150 in the previous video what that about? lol a CPU that cost 300dollars
and in case u dont get it this is with the 2500k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjYK6AtA-2Q&feature=related
DO YOU GET MY POINT LITTLE GENIUS?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IZtcIpTDuQ&feature=related
he has the all mighty 3770k and he is getting same FPS as the FX8150 in the previous video what that about? lol a CPU that cost 300dollars
and in case u dont get it this is with the 2500k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjYK6AtA-2Q&feature=related
DO YOU GET MY POINT LITTLE GENIUS?
Still no provenance as it is a Youtube video but it's somewhat more reliable than the 1st. I'm not trying to trash AMD here I have been a longtime AMD user but your 1st link was misleading, infact any BF3 multiplayer comparison between 2 CPU's shouldn't be taken as a perfect indication of performance (ask yourself why have the major sites not tested bf3 mp), neither should questionable results from some persons blog or unbacked up claims from people here as to max/min and average results.
Fact and opinion are 2 different things and people should state whether their assertion is their opinion or if it's an accepted fact.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram