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

It's disapointing but i think people go a little bit too far when sugesting that AMD will go bankrupt because of that.

It's sad people already forgot the days AMD decided to name their CPU 2000+ and such (poor marketing i'll agree on that) because those CPUs was capable of doing as good as an Intel CPU while clocked 15-20% lower (and back then clock speed was the only thing people cared about) ?

Pentium D was lagging behind Athlon X2 in gaming. Pentium 4 had hard time beating Athlon XP CPU with 15-20% lower clock speed.

Since Conroe AMD is definately lagging behind and Intel clearly without any doubt took back the performance lead. It's disapointing to see AMD 1 or 2 gen behind Intel. Amd needs to go back to drawing board and do what Intel did with Conroe arch in 2006.

Of course AMD will never please haters who buy Intel and nVidia all the time even when there's better deal elsewhere (and there's lot of them) but i think they can definately rise back from this epic fail.
 
I think disappointment really depends on your expectations. I personally expected it to be right along the 2500k, in which it is and then some.

However, looking at reviews from other sites and this one, gaming performance is the same or less than the Phenom IIs, so that's definitely disappointing.

It's a shame really, if this processor came out at the same time as the Phenom IIs instead it would be considered a winner.

I think at this point it's safe to say the general consensus around the web is disappointment and hordes and hordes of i7-2600K orders just went up.

Looks like I'll be sticking with my 965BE until it burns out and upgrade in 2-3 years to something with intel.
 
Does anyone have any ideas how well would FX-8150 be, if we're talking about game-server hosting? In gaming i7 is a better choice, but I don't really know what to think, which one to take.
Servers: TF2 32slots, 2xCSS [both 24slots], 1.6 24slots, minecraft, killing floor + web. And all that wihout any lags..
 
We need to put things in context. I mean both Intel and AMD, whenever they roll out a new product lineup, there's bound to be issues especially when compared to the previous generation. But give AMD time, they will tweak and improve this new lineup as they always do, performance/technology optimizations and whatnot.

On a different note, I think it doesn't really matter 'who' makes the fastest chip. Just be glad there is another company besides Intel to keep prices realistic. You maybe young, but I remembered paying more than $700 for a Pentium II back in the day. When AMD started to really compete, Intel lowered their prices and kept innovating to stay ahead. You want AMD to do well because otherwise Intel could just go back to slower and more expensive product rollouts.

If you want the fastest cpu, then get the fastest cpu. True gamers don't care what brand it is. If I'm a fanboy, I'm only a fanboy on "pricepoint & bang for buck". If I'm gonna buy a new rig, I'll see what CPU gives me the best value at a pricepoint say of $150, research and get whatever that is. With the money saved, I could get me a speedier video card or more ram. Remember CPU is only part of the rig equation.

I mean, do people still really buy on brand name alone? or do people not shop around for the best bang per buck of a given pricepoint?

bang per buck at certain pricepoint > blind fanboyism
 
How about a i3 versus a 4170. Think they are real close in price. Most of the people in the third world dont buy the fastest. They cant afford them, would take too big a chunk out of their budget. All these fanboys should take a look at globalrichlist.com to find out what the rest of the world lives on..$500 is what most middle class third world people earn in a month. To spend it all on a PC is really not worth it, we got to eat folks.
 
AMD kicked it's own arsh with this one. Just like everyone else, I'm disappointed. On the other hand, I see no reason to upgrade my Phenom II, guess we can all save up for Ivy Bridge.
 
On CPU side , I am surprised as AMD performance is closer to INTEL. :)
On GPU side, I am more surprised, AMD performance is lesser than INTEL.. :)

what constrained AMD not to have powerful graphics? power?
Hope they do better in coming quarters with improved performance..
Good Luck AMD...
 
After the long waiting time filled with hype about bulldozing Intel, it finally turns out to be a damp squib..

A-Another
M-Massive
D-Dissapointment
 
Being that my wife and I already have a 2500k and a 2600k... I'd call this a 'feel good' article.
 
Leeky said:
Going back to AMD, I really don't know how they can recover from this ...
Click to expand...

Agree, don't see anything in the pipeline that gives AMD much of a chance on the desktop. Even worse is the bogus marketing propaganda that led many (myself included) to believe that the FX series was going to help level the playing field. This is a very disappointing outcome.
 
@Mizzou,

I agree, and it was siding with the side of caution that made me spend half as much on a AM3+ compatible board about 2-3 months ago when I spent £70 on the Asus board. Seeing these results today validates my worst fears - but in fairness it could have gone either way for me.

I mean AMD will always be around, but it just seems so much like they've just "settled" for second best, and hope to sell units in volume based on lower pricing, not higher performance.

AMD catching up would literally mean being 2-3 generations ahead of Intel in order to compete. Right now they're essentially bringing something to the table that just about competes (in some cases) with the SB i5 2500K, something Intel have had several months advantage with and Ivybridge around the corner to boot.

I think some would call it a miracle - instead I see AMD trying it on in the server market more, and being the budget or lower cost CPU of choice for those not able to splash out in top end SB CPUs.

Its certainly not the death of AMD - they'll always be around - just not at the top of performance benchmark rankings. Now if they slash the pricing and make them an absolute steal for the performance I could see sales hitting off. But that said, I doubt they'd even be able to keep up with demand anyway.
 
WTF? u all are stupid ****** !!! what r u guys talking about , why r u comparing old applications and game to the FX8150 ? how about comparing BF3 ????


http://hardocp.com/article/2011/10/11/amd_bulldozer_fx8150_gameplay_performance_review/2

Bulldozer wins !!!!!! everyones going crazy and jizzes all over their I7s and I5s hahahahhaah "AMD is Dead" "pets my I5" lmfao .. once again

http://hardocp.com/article/2011/10/11/amd_bulldozer_fx8150_gameplay_performance_review/2
 
@Leeky & Mizzou

We all now have more time to save up for Ivy which I'm sure will be needed with these BD results =P .

DM7 said:
@Relic : so what do you think, should i wait for ivy bridge or just go with 2600k ?
Click to expand...

Whatever you decide on will be an upgrade for sure. I say you should see what kind of budget you have to work with and if your current system can hold on for another half a year till Ivy. If you have the budget now and don't want to hold on any longer, Sandy is probably the best route.


Guest said:
WTF? u all are stupid ****** !!! what r u guys talking about , why r u comparing old applications and game to the FX8150 ? how about comparing BF3 ????
Click to expand...

Huh?

Quoting myself here since you likely didn't read any comments: "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."
 
"WTF? u all are stupid ****** !!! what r u guys talking about , why r u comparing old applications and game to the FX8150 ? how about comparing BF3 ????"

That isn't going to sway many people in thinking the FX8150 is all that. And asking if everyone is stupid? What are you %&#$ing 4 years old?

Their only setup was a single 6970 with with all three cpu. They didn't try using an nvidia card, 570 or 580. It was just a quick look and even they show only a 5% difference. BF3 is still in it's beta so numbers can possibly change upon final release and driver updates and their are other factors to consider.

If they, or anyone is going to bother they should at least do it right.

FX 8150 - 6950, 6970, 570, 580
i5 2500k - 6950, 6970, 570, 580
i7 2600k - 6950, 6970, 570, 580

Different resolutions, SLI, and Crossfire.

Further more, even their own main review shows it competing with the i5 with the i7 still on top. They even go as far as to say,

"Would I put an AMD FX in a system I might be building? I can say, "Yes I would, as long as it is not for a geek." But if you asked me if I will be putting an AMD FX in my next personal system I would probably have to tell you, "No." If I had to build a system for myself tonight, it would have a Intel Core i7-2600K in it. I can't point to the AMD FX-8150 or FX-8120 being a bad choice, but I just do not think either of those is the best choice."

http://hardocp.com/article/2011/10/11/amd_bulldozer_fx8150_desktop_performance_review/10
 
2500K's are great, mine arrives tomorrow. but if you arent 12 years old, you have a real problem.
 
dividebyzero said:
The weird part of all this...

Obrovsky (OBR) has more credibility than anyone at AMD.
Click to expand...

remember what I said about this getting past the entire Corporation of AMD?....Damn!
if they really think that they are on to something here 'forward thinking' why after 5 years , just wait another 6 months...or year?
Think heads will roll on this Chef? or was everyone too complicit for Rory to extract a pound of flesh? or!...was this the reason they forwent the likes of Bergman?

Oddly enough, after digesting the numbers, the 8150/8120 looks like it would work very well for me, but as far as desktops go, I am about as a niche market as you get.
 
AMD are already in cover-up mode. If you look at their site you'd be hard pressed to judge that a brand new CPU architecture launched yesterday.
Meanwhile the AMD PR machine is hard at work on the message boards and forums. The bulletpoints:
> It's Globalfoundries fault
> It's Dirk Meyer's fault
> It's Windows 7 fault (Hans de Vries seems quite insistant)
> It's software developers fault (for not tailoring software for BD)
> Just wait for Piledriver (Just what 10-15% improvement over BD is supposed to achieve against Ivy Bridge isn't actually very clear)

AMD (Another Marketing Debacle) have laid almost all their portion of blame at Dirk's door - probably fair in some respects as he oversaw the development- what doesn't make sense is that Dirk didn't sign off on releasing BD (Hello Thomas Seifert and Rory Read), and Dirk certainly wasn't a part of the ongoing FUD/PR campaign to keep expectation high with bogus performance estimates (Hello JF-AMD) and to facilitate sales of 990 series chipset motherboards and to deter people from going Sandy Bridge.
So, it's easier to blame the guys who aren't there...in fact if Piledriver/Steamroller/Excavator/Plastic Bucket&Spade end up uncompetitive they will still be blamed because the core architecture was designed on their watch. Rory and Co get a free pass with just the occasional executive dismissal as sacrificial offering.
Repeat as required

I'm guessing FX stands for Fully eXaggerated
 
Maybe some 3D Rendering times would have been advantagous to the 8 core Bulldozer VS a quadcore I7 2600k.
 
Most certainly. Any heavily threaded render engine (POV Ray, Blender etc.) should benefit Bulldozer...and if 3D rendering is your primary focus then BD could be high on your list for upgrade/purchase. How cost effective it would be is another matter entirely- most render farms need to take power consumption (and to a lesser degree, heat dissipation) into account, so I doubt a cheap initial expenditure on BD would offset productivity/watt over Sandy Bridge/Xeon.

red1776 said:
Oddly enough, after digesting the numbers, the 8150/8120 looks like it would work very well for me, but as far as desktops go
Click to expand...
I would expect no less from you.
If you're benching/gaming w/multiple GPU's then the CPU is larely immaterial- you could be rocking a 1100T, 2500K or 2400 for that matter.
crysis%202560.png

The differences aren't all that significant at multi-monitor res either.
If you're good with final numbers hobbled by a more restrictive I/O performance then it's good to see that some people willing to stick with AMD while it completes it's enthusiast desktop CPU death spiral:p
 
Relic said:
@Leeky & Mizzou

We all now have more time to save up for Ivy which I'm sure will be needed with these BD results =P .
Click to expand...

For now will just sit tight with the 1100T since I can't see the FX-8170 delivering significantly more performance than the FX-8150. Ivy Bridge should be coming out in approximately the same time frame and I'll definitely be taking a look.

The good news is that Bulldozer was finally released today, the bad news is that Bulldozer was finally released today :(
 
dividebyzero said:
Most certainly. Any heavily threaded render engine (POV Ray, Blender etc.) should benefit Bulldozer...and if 3D rendering is your primary focus then BD could be high on your list for upgrade/purchase. How cost effective it would be is another matter entirely- most render farms need to take power consumption (and to a lesser degree, heat dissipation) into account, so I doubt a cheap initial expenditure on BD would offset productivity/watt over Sandy Bridge/Xeon.


I would expect no less from you.
If you're benching/gaming w/multiple GPU's then the CPU is larely immaterial- you could be rocking a 1100T, 2500K or 2400 for that matter.
crysis%202560.png

The differences aren't all that significant at multi-monitor res either.
If you're good with final numbers hobbled by a more restrictive I/O performance then it's good to see that some people willing to stick with AMD while it completes it's enthusiast desktop CPU death spiral:p
Click to expand...

If you're benching/gaming w/multiple GPU's then the CPU is larely immaterial-
Click to expand...

...really?...I didn't know that:rolleyes:

1) And I want to be clear, i said nothing about gaming post review. ..or in my previous post.:p And for the reason you listed above.
2) I am "rocking " a 1100T
3) I use an inordinate amount of heavily threaded applications,:p
4) I built a system (knowing the risk) around a 990/AM3+ chipset, and am partly pot committed.
5) it's an improvement over the X6
*****you don't strike as the kind of guy to use "rockin" "****:haha:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TechSpot
New Affordable AMD B650 Motherboard Roundup
2
Replies
33
Views
281
Steve
Steve
TechSpot
AMD Radeon RX 7900 GRE Re-Review: You Can Buy the Golden Rabbit Now
Replies
16
Views
541
Endymio
Endymio
TechSpot
  • Locked
AMD Ryzen 7800X3D vs. 7900X3D vs. 7950X3D: Gaming Benchmark
2
Replies
28
Views
531
Squid Surprise
Squid Surprise

Latest posts

Back