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

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
spydercanopus said:
When did AMD become a year or more behind Intel? This is shocking to me.
Click to expand...
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.

supersmashbrada said:
Such a great looking board this one too:( Looks like something red would buy.
Click to expand...
funny-gifs-classic-ko.gif
 
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.
 
Its a shame looking at these results (excellent review btw!) but I also think most of us come to expect this was going to happen due to the continual delays in its release, and the rumours circulating.

Seeing these results just re-enforces to me that I made the right decision in deciding to go the Sandybridge route for my next gaming build. At least my AM3+ board won't go to waste now, as can couple it with the 1055T when it comes back from RMA at AMD and use it for my everyday computer build. Given the results of even the fastest FX 8 core, its just absolutely pointless upgrading in my opinion.

Going back to AMD, I really don't know how they can recover from this. They're too far behind and Intel are showing no signs of slowing down with advancements enough for AMD to catch up. It almost feels like AMD has thrown in the towel and made the conscience decision to offer products second to Intel's in the hope the lower price will win over customers.
 
Guest said:
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.
Click to expand...
Dude (don't care if your are a woman/girl), Intel will never let AMD go bankrupt!
They will have to prop them up some how to avoid antitrust lawsuits.
 
a quad core FX @ 4.2ghz has less gaming performance then a phenom II x4 @ 3.7ghz...AMD knows you makes the chip smaller not the benchmark result, right?

anyone want to buy my 970 mobo??
 
I was really hoping that the Bulldozer series would at least be competitive with the i7, let alone the i5. However, it seems that at that price point I would be better off investing in one of the Intel chips. I completely prefer AMD to Intel, but I also want solid performance for my games. Intel it is.
 
Bulldozer performance is good overall but gaming performance is it's weak point. And most of the enthusiasts are gamers so thats a big problem for AMD. I am sure programmers ,designers & people who encode videos alot will be pleased with the bulldozer performance.
 
Disapointing...... very disappointing. Core i5 2500K- Core i7 2600K still better, actually lets say only i5 2500K which is MUCH CHEAPER than FX 8150, and still performs better. Let's say that FX 8150 wins i5 2500K (benchmarks say other things but let's just say). intel will release its Ivy Bridge. 22nm! They will replace i5 2500k-2600k with better products. SO now AMD released their High end cpus, and cannot beat the high end cpus of intel previous generation cpus (when Ivy bridge comes), so ivy bridge will DOMINATE AMD in my opinion. There is just no need to buy a lower-end AMD CPU. Buy the BEST and that's still inadequate. So Intel is just better for me
 
I would say I'm disappointed but that would be a lie. I've always used intel processors.. and this is precistly why.

AMD still haven't "got it".
 
You hoping for AMD to fail don't understand how a successful marketplace works. If AMD fails & we are left with a monoply things will only get worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TechSpot
New Affordable AMD B650 Motherboard Roundup
2
Replies
33
Views
423
Steve
Steve
TechSpot
AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT Revisit: How Does It Compare Against the 7700 XT?
Replies
17
Views
171
BadThad
BadThad
TechSpot
Ryzen 7 5800X3D vs. Ryzen 7 7800X3D, Ryzen 9 7900X3D and 7950X3D
2
Replies
36
Views
371
Lew Zealand
Lew Zealand

Latest posts

Back