AMD Bulldozer / FX-8150 Desktop Performance Review @ [H]ardOCP

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
54,450
AMD Bulldozer / FX-8150 Desktop Performance Review - Computer hardware enthusiasts have literally waited for years for AMD's Bulldozer architecture to come to market and we finally see this today in its desktop form, code named Zambezi, brand named AMD FX. In this article we share with you our analysis of Bulldozer's performance in synthetic benchmarks and desktop applications.
 
Last edited:
If I were Intel, I'd raise prices on SB. Now, I'm officially going to bed. LOL.
 
Where is AMD_Gamer and teletran8 to explain this one away?

This quote has got to be my favorite...

AMD_Gamer said:
I strongly believe that the benchmarks we have been seeing are with a gimped CPU, possible only using 1-2 cores or some other method of hiding the true performance of Bulldozer. The benchmarks we have seen put BD at slower performance than it's current offerings and that is just absurd. I think AMD has a real winner here or at least on par with Intels current offerings. You can go ahead and quote me on this.
Click to expand...
It's quite clear that many of the benchmarks clearly show Bulldozer behind the older Thuban. An 8 core Thuban would probably beat it in multi-threaded tests.
 
Great review Kyle!

Well I've been very optimistic about Bulldozer over the years. I commended them for going with a shared "module design" as I thought it was brave and they were on to something, even longer pipeline (less IPC), I thought it would be offset by clever power gating.

But now that we finally see the real benchmarks, I must say I am very disappointed. What was AMD thinking? The power consumption is just terrible. Have they learned nothing from their GPU division?

After 12 years of building AMD systems, it saddens me to say my next machine will most likely have an Intel CPU in it.
 
Well, there wont be much reason for intel to even consider being competitive on pricing for SB-E.
 
Disappointing results was hoping for better, oh well I own a 2600k. :p
 
Who else isn't surprised at all? I'm sure Intel is laughing all the way to the bank. This may have been impressive four years ago, but now it's just sad. Not even worth getting over a Thuban.
 
Darn. I was hoping to build a cheap AMD rig to upgrade from my core 2 duo, but the cost differences seem so minimal between AMD and Intel while the performance differences and power consumption seem fairly significant. Guess I'll be going the Intel route now.

Thanks for the great review.
 
Zero82z said:
Who else isn't surprised at all? I'm sure Intel is laughing all the way to the bank. This may have been impressive four years ago, but now it's just sad.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there are some glasses being raised in Santa Clara right now. Those single-threaded numbers look bad. I know they kinda sorta said they were focusing on cores not IPC, but still. And the power consumption is not pretty either. Really looks like Pentium 4 and Netburst all over again.
 
Damn, has AMD completely given up on outdoing Intel? It seems as though current corporate policy is that almost or ,as good as, is their current goal.
 
Disappointing.

Wasn't looking to upgrade soon, but I was hoping AMD could inject a little zazz into the cpu market and get some competition going again.

Guess not, and intels dominance continues...
 
Very good review. I may get the 8150 and the crosshair V for the kids just so i can mess around overclocking it.
 
It's not so much that it totally sucks or anything, but it's more that it's just disappointing and not really worth getting over SB.

Good review.
 
It's Kyle's birthday!! Let's all call him up and wish him a happy birthday!!

images
"WTF? How did you get my number??"

I still think we all need to get a collection up to repay Kyle the $60 RAGE took from him!! Anyway.. HAPPY BIRTHDAY KYLE!!

beer-birthday-cake-771907.jpg


Nice write up.. at least as far as my after midnight eyes can tell. Bulldozer is somewhat of a disappointment.. no doubt.. but just wondering if it is a case of something too new being judge by present day or old benchmarks. Not to excuse Bulldozer's poor showing but, while reading your review, it reminded me of MaximumPC's 2005 Dream Machine.. it had two Opterons dual core CPUs for a total of four cores but all the benchmarks and software they were using couldn't take advantage of how the dual Opterons worked. So that Dream Machine ended up testing a lot slower than the previous year's single core Pentium 4. Just wondering if Bulldozer is ahead of the curve in some way, that perhaps a year or so from now the design decisions that AMD made will start paying off. Or am I just dreaming since it is way past my bedtime.. 12:34AM! Thanks again Kyle for your hard work! Hope your birthday is great in every way possible!
 
sirmo said:
Great review Kyle!

Well I've been very optimistic about Bulldozer over the years. I commended them for going with a shared "module design" as I thought it was brave and they were on to something, even longer pipeline (less IPC), I thought it would be offset by clever power gating.

But now that we finally see the real benchmarks, I must say I am very disappointed. What was AMD thinking? The power consumption is just terrible. Have they learned nothing from their GPU division?

After 12 years of building AMD systems, it saddens me to say my next machine will most likely have an Intel CPU in it.
Click to expand...

I fully agree. I've been a AMD fan boy since the K5 but my next upgrade in Dec will be an Intel.
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
Where is AMD_Gamer and teletran8 to explain this one away?

This quote has got to be my favorite...


It's quite clear that many of the benchmarks clearly show Bulldozer behind the older Thuban. An 8 core Thuban would probably beat it in multi-threaded tests.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing we won't be seeing much of them for a day or so...
 
Forceman said:
I'm sure there are some glasses being raised in Santa Clara right now. Those single-threaded numbers look bad. I know they kinda sorta said they were focusing on cores not IPC, but still.
Click to expand...
They didn't do a great job of that either. Honestly, I don't see any reason whatsoever to buy one of these chips. They are simply not competitive at all. Intel's CPUs are better in every way.
cannondale06 said:
well Phenom 2 owners on the AM3+ platform can put their credit cards away.
Click to expand...
Or keep them out and buy Intel ;).
 
Insula Gilliganis said:
Nice write up.. at least as far as my after midnight eyes can tell. Bulldozer is somewhat of a disappointment.. no doubt.. but just wondering if it is a case of something too new being judge by present day or old benchmarks. Not to excuse Bulldozer's poor showing but, while reading your review, it reminded me of MaximumPC's 2005 Dream Machine.. it had two Opterons dual core CPUs for a total of four cores but all the benchmarks and software they were using couldn't take advantage of how the dual Opterons worked. So that Dream Machine ended up testing a lot slower than the previous year's single core Pentium 4. Just wondering if Bulldozer is ahead of the curve in some way, that perhaps a year or so from now the design decisions that AMD made will start paying off. Or am I just dreaming since it is way past my bedtime.. 12:34AM! Thanks again Kyle for your hard work! Hope your birthday is great in every way possible!
Click to expand...


If there's one application in that whole test that should tell the tale, it's handbrake. That app has about as ideal multicore scaling as you're going to see in the real world, and it's only about 5% faster, than a PII with 75% of the cores and a 400Mhz clockspeed disadvantage.
 
Zero82z said:
They didn't do a great job of that either. Honestly, I don't see any reason whatsoever to buy one of these chips. They are simply not competitive at all. Intel's CPUs are better in every way.

Or keep them out and buy Intel ;).
Click to expand...
Intel would like to thank AMD for finally releasing Bulldozer.
 
So dissapointing AMD. Well looks like most people will go Intel for their high end builds still.
 
In other news, SB-E and Ivy Bridge will be postponed to Q4 2012 - Q1 2013 lol
 
Yeah thanks Kyle and [H]ard for doing the review. That's pretty much all I have to say right now.
 
cannondale06 said:
Intel would like to thank AMD for finally releasing Bulldozer.
Click to expand...

It's sad but true. Intel will pick up a sales bump without having done anything other than waving at the dwindling crowd of people that had held out over the several bulldozer delays.
 
Great review, exactly what I knew was coming. Nothing to hate on but it's a HUGE disappointment.
 
The biggest issue is that it can't even outclass its own 45nm based phenom II X6 in many cases... that's just insane to me. Is it a chip design issue? I mean in a field like rocketry, if your engine is capable of producing a certain level of controlled explosions, you get an expected level of thrust... is chip design blind like throwing darts? Did they have no way of knowing the design would end up being not much better than a phenom II x6?

I just, I don't understand how so much time and research could lead to a virtual sidestep instead of a leap...
 
wow, completely disappointing. I truly thought this would have been much closer in the benchmarks to Intel than what was found. I hope AMD didn't bet the bank on it, cause they just went broke if they did.
 
This is why I'll never wait for hardware... hardware can wait on me....
 
lilxskull said:
So dissapointing AMD. Well looks like most people will go Intel for their high end builds still.
Click to expand...

With this release, it's honestly hard to pick out a market segment that I'd happily recommend amd cpus for anymore.
 
I knew BD would need a nuclear power plant to power that OC.

That $40 difference is looking sweeter and sweeter.

Your electricity bills will make it more expensive than the 2600k.

have fun gaming at 500+ watts.

DEA will be wondering if you're growing marijuana with all that draw.

ocpower.png
 
amd needs to break apart their processor division and their video card division and concentrate on r&d on their future processors - disappointed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top