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

The architecture looked like it had some serious potential, but this is disappointing. Glad I decided to go for a 2500k a while ago, great processor.

I want AMD to succeed, competition is good, but this is disappointing.

Well at least they made some headway...but ya definitely disappointed overall, I didn't really expect something mind blowing here, but this seems more like a sidegrade especially in regards to gaming. Looks like I'll be holding on to my 955 for a while longer, which is fine since I still love it.

HardOCP did some runs on the BF3 beta this past week and the 8150 came out slightly ahead. However the average results pretty much lined up with the 2500/2600 and I doubt anyone could tell the difference game play wise. Guess we'll see at the end of the month what's best for retail, but I'd say any would work and gamers should focus more on their video cards if they have a decent quadcore.

aw man, i was waiting for AMD to make intel worried, but it seems, now intel will increase their prices, the 2600k in my country is already rising to more than 330$, i should have bought 2600k when they were at 300$, but i was waiting for Bulldozer to came throught, but i guess this waiting has been for nothing, since the FX performance sucks.

but why does techspot didn't test it performance on games that uses more CPU cores, rather than using dirt 3. since i can even run Dirt 3 on max settings on my current rig (average 30 FPS), i was waiting to upgrade to bulldozer from my athlon x2 3800+.

but what makes me had to go to 2600k is the power consumption, because my electric bill is one of my main concern.

really are disapointed with AMD right now, i've been more of an AMD user than intel,

my 1st rig is AMD 486
2nd rig is Intel Pentium 2
3rd rig is AMD Athlon x2 3800+
i was hoping that FX would be my 4rd rig, but it is really disappointing almost on all ground.

AMD should have compensate us for waiting too long and to only be disapointed a lot.

AMD for your next batch, remember to drop the power consumption, it's crazy that when overclocked a bit, it uses more than 400w, it's really crazy.

i think i'll wait for ivy bridge, and then make my decision, hope that intel wont raise it's price a lot, since intel has a habit of raising the price a lot, or making the product suddenly disappear.

well AMD is also very expensive when they launched their x2 before intel launched core duo (because my 3800+ at that time is priced at 380$, and AMD top of the line at that time costs more than 1000$).

since it's been 10 min, and my comment still not appearing, i decided to join techspot to make it easy to comment, but the main point on the content of my previous comment is only that i'm disappointed that AMD launched FX the way they are, and since power consumption is my main concern, since electricity in my country is very expensive, i guess my wait has gone to waste, and should i go with 2600k or wait for ivy bridge ?

i'm currently on the old Athlon 64 x2 3800+, so it's kinda obvious that i wanted to upgrade.

and also, why is Dirt 3 used on CPU benchmark ?

Dirt 3 is a GPU heavy game, and not CPU heavy game.

Techspot should have used more games, and focus on games that uses more CPU rather than GPU heavy games.

i want to see benchmark for games like Civilization V and the likes of it that relies more on the CPU.

Welcome to TechSpot

HardOCP & Anandtech tackled Civ V if you're interested in the results, but ya I would've liked to see some other games too.

WARNING

Many reviews contain common error to make a conclusion about the speed of video encoding.

it's two-pass video encoding. That's why the total speed should be:
(1/fps1)+(1/fps2) = (1/fps_total).

The correct results for x264 4.0 Benchmark for this review (Summary two passes):

i7 2600K - 29.4 fps
FX 8150 - 28.4 fps
i5 2500 - 27.1 fps
T1100 x6 - 25.7 fps

seems like the difference is not enough to justify FX power consumption.

@Relic : so what do you think, should i wait for ivy bridge or just go with 2600k ?

what i meant is after i saw those benchmark on other site, and seems like on Arma, it only had 1fps lead over 1100T, very disappointing.

maybe AMD should have scrapped BD, and try to make a new architecture, cos it seems like AMD is pulling a case similar to Intel with Pentium 4, and look at what Intel achieved when they scrapped the Pentium architecture.

i guess piledriver will be disappointing also, if AMD used BD as a base for it.

seems like the issues with FX is piling up.

I have to admit I have always like how AMD have designed integrated core solutions (compare Intel's quad core = 2x dual core when AMD was real quad core or AMD innovating with first on-die memory controllers), but even as smart and cool as this new AMD architecture is it just wound up being such a let down after reading the test reviews. I don't care for "the road ahead". When Intel popped out Sandy Bridge it was a performer from day one. Bulldozer, with all the hype for so long, should have come in guns blazing ... but it feels like they're using a .22.

I've been an underdog supporter for many years now, but my future computing will need be Intel in order to get performance.

What's it going to take to bring back AMD's glory days?

When did AMD become a year or more behind Intel? This is shocking to me.

i wonder if these cores/modules can be unlocked like with phenoms and athlons..

The writing has been on the wall for some time. With all the people leaving AMD I was not expecting a great chip. But I was hoping for more. I just upgraded my motherboard to am3+ for this? To use a sports metaphor...This is like Greg Norman on the back 9 of the Masters.

The FX 4170 not being able to beat the X4 980 is very shocking. A lot of people here are calling it a beast of a budget processor, but why?

Such a great looking board this one too Looks like something red would buy.

AMD went from performance leader to second place (even if you count AMD's performance FX chips) when Intel introduced Conroe in 2006. AMD were officially more than a generation behind when Intel launched Yorkfield (QX9650) in November 2007.

AMD (or Globalfoundries) are a lot more than a year behind Intel. AMD are just introducing 32nm - Intel are six months away from retiring it and have had working silicon on the next process (22nm) for some time.

I'm so bummed out right now,was hoping for BD to pressure Intel into lowering the price of the i7 970.

Sorry for double posting,but I have to get this of my chest:
I'm so glad that bastard Dirk Meyer got booted out of AMD!

The real loser here is the consumer (gamer's perspective). Intel can ride this gap for another 1-2 years and by then AMD will be bankrupt or stuck in the GPU market, unless they can pull off a Bulldozer type APU by year's end, which I doubt. Intel will have the APU gap closed by early 2012 most likely.

I really hope that the ARM64 architecture will bring some form of competition to the market when Windows 8 comes along; or potentially a shift in game developers' approach to support Android on the PC as well, whenever that comes along.

R.I.P. AMD (CPU Division)

May your best engineers be drafted by Nvidia and ARM and your project managers shot.