1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Hardware AMD FX-8150 Review

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Lizard, 12 Oct 2011.

  1. dansus

    dansus New Member

    Joined:
    11 Nov 2008
    Posts:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow, so much for the promise of super fast video encoding.
     
  2. MrJay

    MrJay You are always where you want to be

    Joined:
    20 Sep 2008
    Posts:
    1,290
    Likes Received:
    36
    This makes me sad, ill be investing in an i5 to upgrade my aging AM3 ITX i guess : /
     
  3. Anfield

    Anfield Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    15 Jan 2010
    Posts:
    5,541
    Likes Received:
    498
    In short, Amds new cpu can't keep up with old and about to be replaced mid range Intel cpus like the 2500 and 2600 and the only thing Bulldozer manages to clearly win at is load power consumption where it tops even the most ridiculous power guzzlers in history like the i7 940, i7 990, Phenom II x6, not like we should be surprised about horrible load power consumption, after all the Radeon 4870x2 and 6990 came from the same company...

    At the same time on the dark side (we have cookies by the way) Cores are about to be doubled with SB-E and for the lowend and midrange power consumption will be slashed by a shrink to 22nm soonish with Ivy Bridge as well...
     
  4. .//TuNdRa

    .//TuNdRa Resident Bulldozer Guru

    Joined:
    12 Feb 2011
    Posts:
    4,042
    Likes Received:
    109
    I'll be entirely honest:

    Reading through this thread makes me sad. Everyone's tearing into AMD for failing (Rightly so), but the fact most are treating those who are saying "But... But..." as idiots is more annoying.

    I'm still going to buy bulldozer. I accept the flaws, but I'd much rather find out for myself.
     
  5. Redbeaver

    Redbeaver The Other Red Meat

    Joined:
    15 Feb 2006
    Posts:
    2,058
    Likes Received:
    34
    /sigh


    guess my Q6600 is still good enough for now.
     
  6. Lazy_Amp

    Lazy_Amp Entry AMD Engineer

    Joined:
    17 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    91
    Likes Received:
    1
    So basically, anyone (like me) who bought a 920 is taking their CPU to the bank.

    Even being on AMD's payroll (half a year after buying that 920) can't make me a believer in this chip. Though I will bite back at Bit-Tech for not including any comments on Global Foundries, considering that all the delays are much more related to issues in the Fab rather than AMD design. Can't say as much about performance though.

    We'll see about the server chip. I forget if that's supposed to have quad channel memory or not.
     
  7. von_stylon

    von_stylon uber micro

    Joined:
    23 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    28
    Likes Received:
    3
  8. chrismarkham1982

    chrismarkham1982 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    1 Apr 2010
    Posts:
    1,835
    Likes Received:
    259
    Hahahahahaha :lol: have rep good sir :thumb:
     
  9. azazel1024

    azazel1024 New Member

    Joined:
    3 Jun 2010
    Posts:
    487
    Likes Received:
    10
    The very first test had me hoping as it beat out the 2500k slightly. From there it just went down hill, and fast. The fact that it isn't beating the Thuban in per core to me is a horrible shame. Its like one step forward five steps back for AMD. The idle power use also had me hoping until I saw the load draw. That overclock draw looks like something a dual GPU graphics card would pull, not a CPU!

    I hope this does better in the server market, because honestly its poor performance, pretty much worse than Thuban makes me think that AMD really should have scrapped the design and gone back to scratch once they had engineering samples to test and saw that it was so bad.

    Honestly I don't even think the bulldozer can compete on the low end consumer market unless they are slashing prices to the bone (or in to the bone). Llano has the advantage at least of having a not too shaby GPU built in to make it more competitive than Intel parts on the entry level, however Bulldozer doesn't even have that to compete, and per core it doesn't look like it is much better than Llano per core/module and so, so, so much worse than current core 2 designs from Intel.

    I mean, seriously, for shame that a Core 2 E6700 can beat you out in single threaded performance for the same clock rate by 17%! A design that is, what now? 5 years old? It might be somewhat better suited to servers, but frankly per core count isn't going to be dramatically higher than Intels per core count (well, module versus core), and Intels cores are way, way, way faster per clock and there doesn't look to be much clock speed difference, or and efficiency is way, way, way better in the Intel parts too.

    I'd say maybe Trinity will be better, but the basic module design in Trinity is going to have to be much better, shoehorning in a GPU with no CPU design changes to make Trinity I don't think is going to improve AMDs situation one bit. They need a decent CPU, their GPU is already just fine.

    Maybe AMD can just make a deal with Intel to provide Intel's next generation CPU with its on die GPU design and call it a day.
     
  10. azazel1024

    azazel1024 New Member

    Joined:
    3 Jun 2010
    Posts:
    487
    Likes Received:
    10
    One other thought on this, Intel is probably feeling pretty smug about their CPUs, and are probably now going to dovote even more resources to the GPU on chip in releases post Ivy Bridge as it is pretty obvious that Intel has to lead for at least another 1-2 years as Trinity isn't touching the CPU side of things in Bulldozer much, so it'll take at least another release or two before AMD even has a prayer of significantly improving CPU performance.

    Frankly, as much as I like improved CPU performance, I think Intel is right to be focusing on lower power consumption and improved GPU in their packages for the next tic toc cycle and just incremental upgrades to the CPU side of things.
     
  11. .//TuNdRa

    .//TuNdRa Resident Bulldozer Guru

    Joined:
    12 Feb 2011
    Posts:
    4,042
    Likes Received:
    109
    I don't think AMD had a choice. It was "Release bodged processor now or face Investors Wrath" I suspect that, maybe, just maybe, six months down the line, they might release a "Bulldozer V2" which addresses these issues, but it'll still be too late by then, Ivy Bridge will be out and grinding it into the floor by that point.

    It's going to take a massive Architecture overhaul, Again, to be able to try and keep up.

    God dammit, AMD. I'm trying to like you here, but you've just gone and shot yourself, not in the foot, but square in the face.
     
  12. Dwarfer

    Dwarfer New Member

    Joined:
    30 Mar 2011
    Posts:
    1,039
    Likes Received:
    29
    WOW... what a biased outlook!

    Throw highly-threaded workstation tasks at this chip, and it wins... sometimes, by a lot. Other times, it loses. This chip was designed with a purpose, and that purpose is not being realized today.
     
  13. .//TuNdRa

    .//TuNdRa Resident Bulldozer Guru

    Joined:
    12 Feb 2011
    Posts:
    4,042
    Likes Received:
    109
    Apart from the fact that AMD spent ages hyping Bulldozer as a 990x killing Gaming CPU. Now it's apparently a Database-task CPU?
     
  14. Dwarfer

    Dwarfer New Member

    Joined:
    30 Mar 2011
    Posts:
    1,039
    Likes Received:
    29
  15. Dwarfer

    Dwarfer New Member

    Joined:
    30 Mar 2011
    Posts:
    1,039
    Likes Received:
    29
    AMD have always said they've NOT being competing with Intel on whose chip is faster clock for clock and said their BD release was orientated for the server crowd!
     
  16. stoff3r

    stoff3r New Member

    Joined:
    20 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    185
    Likes Received:
    0
  17. .//TuNdRa

    .//TuNdRa Resident Bulldozer Guru

    Joined:
    12 Feb 2011
    Posts:
    4,042
    Likes Received:
    109
    They still claimed it would compete against the 2500K, and work out as "Better value than the 990x for gaming performance", (Although that's not technically difficult, £1000 just for a processor leads to an expensive rig, but still... )

    They might say it was for the server crowd, but they still did attempt to build up some hype in the gaming sector.


    I still feel cheated when, in most areas, it will only just outpace my £70 Tri-Core processor. (admittedly, Core-Unlocked, but still only £70.)
     
  18. damien c

    damien c Mad FPS Gamer

    Joined:
    31 Aug 2010
    Posts:
    2,829
    Likes Received:
    138
    Unless you have a AM3+ board already then it's simply not worth buying a Bulldozer chip, you would be best saving some money and buying a I5 2500K.

    While I do use Intel and have done since I got my Q6600 when they were 1st released, I am disappointed in AMD simply because of what they use to be like but now they are just laughable to me in both cpu's and graphic's card's.

    I will stick to Intel and Nvidia for now but I do hope AMD come back with something good but it might take them 2 years or more to do.
     
  19. Anfield

    Anfield Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    15 Jan 2010
    Posts:
    5,541
    Likes Received:
    498
    You are always welcome to buy a E7-8870 and a FX-8150 and see which one wins...
     
  20. GeorgeStorm

    GeorgeStorm Aggressive PC Builder

    Joined:
    16 Dec 2008
    Posts:
    6,313
    Likes Received:
    297
    So sad with the performance of it, was really hoping for it to atleast give some competition back into the market, (and ideally smash intel into the ground :p)

    Atleast clocking it looks like it will be fun :D
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page