AMD FX-8150 "Bulldozer" CPU Review - PAGE 11

Great review Carl!

The FX-8150 falls just between what I was hoping for and what I expected. Still, it looks good though, and $245 is an amazing price !

Am i the only one that noticed that this is NOT an 8150.

the CPU-Z screen on page 4 "test setup, benchmarks & overclocking" shows it to be a 8130P.

so whats the deal?? is this even real? is this a bench comparison of an 8130 or and 8150??

quote Fuzznarf

Am i the only one that noticed that this is NOT an 8150.

the CPU-Z screen on page 4 "test setup, benchmarks & overclocking" shows it to be a 8130P.

so whats the deal?? is this even real? is this a bench comparison of an 8130 or and 8150??

If you look at the Specifications field, you will notice the FX-8150 tag. CPU-z version 1.58 has been launched a good while ago and is not ready for Bulldozer. The next version will recognize it properly. The IMC frequency is not shown, too, which I hope will get fixed as well.

Bleargh* I guess Ivy Bridge is definitely worth the wait than Bulldozer.

Not very useful to the average consumer or gamer, as it stands, unfortunately. Would be great for when I use handbrake to encode my animes but I don't do it enough to warrant such an upgrade.

Hitler already found out.

Bulldozer's flagship might not quite be there, I wonder how it competes in the lower end though. With good overclocking and pricing they could win alot of enthusiast buys.

quote Redemption

Bulldozer's flagship might not quite be there, I wonder how it competes in the lower end though. With good overclocking and pricing they could win alot of enthusiast buys.

Curious about that and the 8120 performance honestly, it has the overhead to reach 4.0 for $40 less. For something around the 200 mark if it successfully keeps up with a 2500 it would be worth looking into. I looked into some of the charts online for the turbo core behavior and it performs really well compared to the implementation in the 1100T.

Damn. Its performance is lower than expected; the marketing was awful, the "FX" brand shouldn't have been reused.

While it's price is competitive to 2500K the point remains that a cpu with double the "cores" 2500K has, delivers similar-to-+25% performance.

I hope to see some updates from AMD (a bios maybe can help things out -- one can always hope) and I believe that the architecture has headroom for improvement just like the first Phenoms had.

Carl, is it possible to add overclocked 2500K/2600K scores?

quote EdwardTheBard

I hope to see some updates from AMD (a bios maybe can help things out -- one can always hope) and I believe that the architecture has headroom for improvement just like the first Phenoms had.

They'll need to do something if Crysis wasn't even able to run, not sure what they'll be able to change though or if Crytek will even pursue it given their push for CryEngine 3 as a standard now.

quote EdwardTheBard

While it's price is competitive to 2500K the point remains that a cpu with double the "cores" 2500K has, delivers similar-to-+25% performance.

The sad thing is that Intel 2600k uses ~2/3 the die size of bulldozer (And that's including gpu), 1/2 the transistors, and lower clocks to beat it in most tests. AMD might have gotten the performance/watt right and multi-core efficiency in tests that can use it, but it might as well be their Pentium 4 in every other respect.

Just talked with chautemoc about how these benches are all turning out. Then I realized this and had to wonder how on earth do you get spanked by your value processor at like $125 less and about 1GHz difference in speed.

The A8 3850 is running at about 3.5GHz, the FX 8150 is OC'd at about 4.5GHz



Given the statements about overclocking the A8 though it might be safer to just look at a lower end first generation Bulldozer if I do go that route. Or even just to get a sale chip of the Phenom II :/

FX-8150 vs. i7 980X.
FX-8150 vs. i5 2500K.
FX-8150 vs. i7 2600K.

My 980X is still better! Not necessarily the best, but still.

quote Randome

FX-8150 vs. i7 980X.
FX-8150 vs. i5 2500K.
FX-8150 vs. i7 2600K.

My 980X is still better! Not necessarily the best, but still.

Well you only had to pay 3x-4x as much for it, I should hope it was still better.

quote Supernova1332

The sad thing is that Intel 2600k uses ~2/3 the die size of bulldozer (And that's including gpu), 1/2 the transistors, and lower clocks to beat it in most tests. AMD might have gotten the performance/watt right and multi-core efficiency in tests that can use it, but it might as well be their Pentium 4 in every other respect.

That's the problem. Even the multi-core efficiency is far from optimal. It was expected to have lower single-thread perfomance but it was supposed to kick-ass in multi-threaded benches.




BD can't even beat Thuban. Well, AMD should have played the compatibility card. Those who have a 7XX with a dual-core athlon would be able to upgrade to a Bulldozer. Now, if they are to upgrade they are temped by the 2500K.