AMD FX-8150, FX Series Review - Bulldozer makes debut

AMD themselves were way too quiet. And then when the talk of Bulldozers successor came out recently, I EFFING KNEW AMD HAD NADDA!

*Pets his 2500K @ 4.5GHz, RipjawsX 1600MHz @ 1866MHz 1.6v, and his pair of 6950 2GB's!

Oh the fun we'll have with the AMD fanboys now!

It is over AMD. Intel would score a massive victory now if it dropped its prices to 5% below that of the FX lineup.

All hail the new king............ of WinRAR

Pretty much expected, but still disappointing. Not too sure how many Phenom II X4/X6 owners will be taking this "upgrade" path, especially as the re-sell market could take a big hit if retail pricing drops substantially.

Trading blows with the 2500K, It's not AMD Crushing Chipzilla in every aspect, but it is still a good buy. And that 4170 is looking good for people tight on cash.

The only thing that I find a failure here is absolutely no improvement to gaming performance. The other areas are around what I'd expect from AMD. I hear this clocks very well though, I'll be paying a lot of attention to this in the next few months.

I need to decide if I should stick with my 1055 for another year or two, I could squeeze a few mhz out of this one..maybe to 4.1

AMD FX4170 looks like it'll be a beast of a budget CPU.

It needs to be OC'd to match the 2500 and 2600K and use 440w?
AMD users are better off with their Phenoms.

Well amd did improve in some areas but how can you not beat an architecture that's been out for over 2 years just disappointing. If i owned an amd phenom x6 i wouldn't even bother with this unless u like winrar idk was just expecting more now intel has nothing to worry about oh well ill just hold on to my i5 2500k its doing just fine

I would just like to point out for gaming on a 8150: you get those fps... and then you have 4 or more cores on the side doing -nothing- that you can use to encode, run vms, etc, without a major impact on your game.

Just food for thought since we already know games DON'T use 8 cores.

technically they are not true cores per say more like a quad with 4 hyper threaded cores done the right way like 80% compared to like 25% for intel hyper threaded cores.

wah wahhh

Damn really wanted it something more.. but its still a good "Value".
would like too see benches in BFBC2 or BF3 ... that would use all 8 cores.

@dividebyzero

Paying $200-$245 just to compete with an i5-2500k? I doubt anyone with a Phenom II X4 965 to a X6 1100T who sees numbers like these will see it as worthy upgrade. Most likely if they really love AMD they will just wait for the performance numbers of whatever comes after this.

I have to agree with Chazz of it being disappointing there not being an improvement to game performance.

Also agree with the person who said if Intel droped prices it would be a massive blow to AMD, but they don't need to go as far as 5% under the FX line.

You know when your just disappointed not really upset, well this is one of those times. I already have an i7 and am glad I have no reason to change it. I'm just disappointed in the fact that AMD still can't compete properly against Intel, oh well still a slight improvement over their previous gen chips.

Well, I kinda figured the results would turn out this way... Intel's quad core processors still stomp the dookie out of AMD's 8 core processors with "8x more L2 Cache". It's a sad day, but the fat lady has sung.

I'm glad AMD is failing. Keeps the prices low. ;p

This is really pathetic. I expected so much more from AMD to give Intel a run for its money.

I seriously expected an 8 core chip to crush 2500/2600k cpus in encoding benchmarks. Boy I'm dissapointed and that power consumption is huge. Bad for an encoding rig. I guess I'll wait some more before upgrading my E6600

Very disappointing AMD, my q9650@4ghz is still better.

I must say that as many other people here I'm quite disappointed, just think ahead: we heard so many "great" things before Bulldozer's launch that make you expect at least it would easily surpass Sandy Bridge by now after so many time, and yet it just gets close but Ivy Bridge is just around the corner (AMD come on, what are you thinking!!!).

I expected so much of Bulldozer because of the "clear" theorical improvements like the higher DDR3 speed native support, a bigger L2 caché and more cores; really, is not much to ask. I don't consider myself an AMD fanboy [I deal with them a lot at college] but neither an Intel's fanboy. It is more like a "SB fanboy" [I haven't got the chance to ever use a SB on desktop yet but I've tryed i3, i5 and own an i7 on laptops and let me tell you i3 overcomed my expectations]. I won't write details on my experience 'cause it would be like publicity.

But really, it will be the same usual stupid debate with my colleagues about what AMD says and what they actually can do [they won't ever read or listen to reviews 'cause to them they're all bought by Intel -"the monopoly conspiracy"] so why argue, let's just let AMD fans have fun for a while, I won't change my mind anyway.

The Derp is strong in this one...

Which is precisely what I said.

If they think Intel can't be trusted then ask them where the rest of Bulldozers performance went to that AMD has been lauding - a 50% increase in performance over the 1100T to be exact: