Hardware AMD FX-8150 Review

if they had just die shrunk the existing Phenom II models and raised their operating frequencies, kept the price the same...

 

That's basically what AMD Llano is, Just with a Radeon series GPU compacted into the Die as well.

 

Hardly Intel Bias. Back in the day they slated Precott P4's and loved Athlon 64's. Simply AMD CPU's were better than Intel's then, just as Intel's are mainly better now. You'll note that they slate Intel Atom CPU's most of teh time they're mentioned.
You've think this review ignores the potential of Bulldozer? They can only review it on what it does now, with the apps and games that are available now. They can't guess what it'll be like with Windows 8 or how good it'll be for servers and then factor that guess into their review score. It just isn't practical. If you look at other sites like Anandtech the results are similar and the lack of single thread performance is also prominent.

 

I built an AM3+ rig and waited for Bulldozer to arrive..Seeing the results, i see no reason to upgrade my 1100T, to say I'm disappointed is a slight understatement. I'll read some more reviews elsewhere, but I can't see it being any different. Looks like the next build will be an Intel one. I knew I should have kept my i7 940

 

Dear AMD,

 

This is a shame, what is interesting is seeing the minor effect changing from 4c 4t to 4c 8t. Maybe the fx 4 might be able to overclock like pants and help out. I'm suprised that CPC performance was decreased. Glad i got my 1100t

 

gutted

as others have said, was hoping this would at least make AMD competitive with intel.

seems to me like its intels P4 (high clocks, low workload, lots of heat, not much cop)

 

Things that make me laugh out loud on here have to be honoured with a post.

 

Wow, AMD, I am disappoint.

I read through this, and then Anand's reviews, and I have to question why they didn't simply make a 32nm Phenom II X6 with some improvements (e.g: higher clock speeds and addition of instruction sets). Would have been better than this (given that the 1100T matches or beats the 8150 in almost every test).

 

Not impressed.

Although it's multi-threaded performance in specific scenarios is very good, Bulldozer is utterly pointless as a consumer chip in its current incarnation; even as a pure-encode rig CPU the better option is just getting an X58 i7 970 or 980 and cranking the BCLK up.

And that power consumption at load!

While that example does seem to present a potential ray of light for Bulldozer, I wouldn't expect it to be all that amazing in terms of consumer impact.

Where optimisations for Bulldozer will show the most benefit will be custom HPC setups where code can be customised, compiled favourably and so on. Linux might see some increases in the consumer space, but Windows? Nah, everyone will continue to use Intel's Compiler.

Dare I say it, power consumption may improve when apparent issues with AMDs 32nm process are ironed out. They should have done a direct die-shrink of the hexacore Phenom II's to see how they'd do at 32nm... or maybe they did, and never released it, who knows? Llano and Bulldozer are both 'new' architectures and new arch + new process usually means headaches.

It's fortunate that the graphics arm of AMD doesn't seem as disaster prone as the CPU arm at the minute.

I wasn't expecting Bulldozer to be what most people seemed to want/hope it to be. AMD and Intel seem to be diverging in their CPU design parameters.

 

It cost me 50 euro to get bulldozer ready (sold old board)... What a load of cock, ot is disgraceful that amd released such an unusable product and plugged it to market. To me this is worse than any of the spin that other manufacturers got up to in the past. Ffs it can't even really compete with a 1090T.

Dead in the water... Hello intel!

 

2500k sales will increase massively now. Very disappointing from AMD considering the very high expectations. Price/performance wise the 2500k is a much better choice

 

I saw Ubuntu 10.10 running on this board yesterday. Its maximum power draw is 4W (for the entire board) and that is whilst playing 1080p video, has wifi on and doing other tasks such as browsing or office work. The video was very smooth, too.

ARM based laptops and desktops might be just around the corner...

As for AMD... flop, massive flop

 

Sabertooth P67 and 2600K anyone??? ​

At this rate Intel won't need to release Ivy Bridge

 

If they can do a stepping tweak to improve IPC by10% that'd be quite an improvement. Also the improvement from 4c to 8T ain't that great, but might reduce heat so the fx 4 series could be a huge overclocker?

 

Damnit, i really wanted this to be good (at least i didn't upgrade my mobo to 9xx yet, I wanted to get the mobo "now" and cpu later).

What seems especially sad though, is that if they had taken a phenom x6, shrunk it to 32nm and added two more cores, it would slap the bulldozer silly (except for avx).

what were they thinking?
Perhaps actually it was meant to release early 2010 / q4 2009, 'cause then it would've been extremely good. How times change...

 

Question for Bit-Tech.
Have you tested a FX-4100 yet? It runs at the same frequency (lower cache etc) as the FX-8150), yet is just under half the price. Surely that would offer similar performance in single threaded applications, giving a much better "bang per buck"?

 

I don't think bit-tech have, but you can just use the fx 8 and disable a few of the modules, seen it on other forums. Fx 8 only better by being binned higher?

 

Well I'll put my opinion in simple terms.

The FX-8150 scored 887 in the image editing and my 7750+ Black Edition, which cost £45 brand new 4 years ago, just scored 764.

Not exactly a tremendous leap forward.........I know there's much more relevant things but come on, It should be blowing this thing out of the water.


When money allows me, bye bye AMD.

 

Apologies for double post, but interesting 10fps gain using Win8 aparantly due to using module's properly but who knows.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,review-32295-23.html