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

With the latest statements from AMD's CEO im not too happy. They need to keep contending with Intel.
 
s2ta said:
With the latest statements from AMD's CEO im not too happy. They need to keep contending with Intel.
Click to expand...

Over the last two decades they've only been really competitive with Intel for about 5 years out of that time. It's a losing proposition for them and it's rarely made them a profitable company. I can see them wanting to back out of that fight. How long can anyone go without success before they've lost the will to fight?
 
Dan_D said:
Over the last two decades they've only been really competitive with Intel for about 5 years out of that time. It's a losing proposition for them and it's rarely made them a profitable company. I can see them wanting to back out of that fight. How long can anyone go without success before they've lost the will to fight?
Click to expand...

They didn't say they're backing out of the fight. Rory Reed was talking about laptops and mobile products and said that we've got more than enough processing power in laptops already. Its energy efficiency and GPU that will be the biggest selling points. I totally agree.
 
I think AMD should develop a game console.

but fighting against Intel for cpu dominance with Amd's resources doesn't make sense.
If they do win its only because they were able to pull a rabbit out of a top hat, at least in overall computing. (the fx processors do well in some benchmarks, just intel beats them in like the other 98%)

Amd is just trying to use their resources to develop products which will be profitable for them. Honestly they need to take more of a APPLE approach. Which is make stuff for the masses.

With Xbox and Playstation pretty much phasing out computer gaming, the gaming crowd on the PC is shrinking. Pc gaming has lost its touch with great unique titles which made Pc gaming what it is, that and games developed for the PC were better graphically and interface vs consoles. Consoles bridged the gap in graphics with the release of the xbox 360, and the playstation 3, and made it affordable to have a gaming class system in your home for 300$. (try building a gaming pc for that price)

Anyway Amd will still make improvements to their Cpus, but unless they find other means of bringing in profit they will bite the dust a few years down the road. There graphics card division is doing ok, but Nividia has strong competition there as well. I don't blame them for trying to change directions.
 
ebduncan said:
With Xbox and Playstation pretty much phasing out computer gaming, the gaming crowd on the PC is shrinking. Pc gaming has lost its touch with great unique titles which made Pc gaming what it is, that and games developed for the PC were better graphically and interface vs consoles. Consoles bridged the gap in graphics with the release of the xbox 360, and the playstation 3, and made it affordable to have a gaming class system in your home for 300$. (try building a gaming pc for that price)
Click to expand...
basically this entire paragraph is false.
 
ebduncan said:
I think AMD should develop a game console.

With Xbox and Playstation pretty much phasing out computer gaming, the gaming crowd on the PC is shrinking. Pc gaming has lost its touch with great unique titles which made Pc gaming what it is, that and games developed for the PC were better graphically and interface vs consoles. Consoles bridged the gap in graphics with the release of the xbox 360, and the playstation 3, and made it affordable to have a gaming class system in your home for 300$. (try building a gaming pc for that price)

.
Click to expand...


Care to show any evidence or research to back up that claim? Or is that argument something you put together when you are high?

But hey you know what, if you got some free time you should read up on the status of PC gaming market.

http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/03/01/pc-gaming-alliance-report-shows-pc-gaming-market-booming/

http://www.ingame.msnbc.msn.com/technology/ingame/diablo-3-sales-set-record-despite-launch-issues-790219

but fighting against Intel for cpu dominance with Amd's resources doesn't make sense.
If they do win its only because they were able to pull a rabbit out of a top hat, at least in overall computing. (the fx processors do well in some benchmarks, just intel beats them in like the other 98%)

Amd is just trying to use their resources to develop products which will be profitable for them. Honestly they need to take more of a APPLE approach. Which is make stuff for the masses.
Click to expand...

Apple's approach isnt "Make stuff for the masses". It's make a product that is "high end" and show people that it is worth their money to buy it and use it. If you look at their products and the price point, its always expensive yet the quality is always there.
 
Apple's approach is "if you want to stick it to Microsoft, buy us". That's really all they're built on. Sure now they have decent, though overpriced, products, but it took them years to get to this stage.

I still just have to laugh at how pathetic iPhones and their puny tiny screens are, but people still buy them in droves no matter how bad they are as products. And eventually they'll catch up and get some bigger screens, and people will buy them even more.
 
biggston said:
Its a good thing that you have purchased an AMD processor.
Cause it might be their last ones in high end cpus. :D
Maybe in 2013 they won't be doing high end cpus.
Click to expand...

You hope, but I'm afraid you'll be disappointed.

Edit: wow looked at your posting history and looks like you're another one of those who spends your whole life hating AMD and posting it on message boards...incredible. From what I could see every post of yours was bashing AMD.
 
Shark974 said:
You hope, but I'm afraid you'll be disappointed.

Edit: wow looked at your posting history and looks like you're another one of those who spends your whole life hating AMD and posting it on message boards...incredible. From what I could see every post of yours was bashing AMD.
Click to expand...

Its nice to see that you noticed that. :)
Criticism is e good thing. ;)
 
Just bought this processor for my backup computer (Using a SB 25k in my main PC). I ended up switching all the hardware out of both computers because I enjoyed using the Bulldozer a lot more!
 
ebduncan said:
I think AMD should develop a game console.

but fighting against Intel for cpu dominance with Amd's resources doesn't make sense.
If they do win its only because they were able to pull a rabbit out of a top hat, at least in overall computing. (the fx processors do well in some benchmarks, just intel beats them in like the other 98%)

Amd is just trying to use their resources to develop products which will be profitable for them. Honestly they need to take more of a APPLE approach. Which is make stuff for the masses.

With Xbox and Playstation pretty much phasing out computer gaming, the gaming crowd on the PC is shrinking. Pc gaming has lost its touch with great unique titles which made Pc gaming what it is, that and games developed for the PC were better graphically and interface vs consoles. Consoles bridged the gap in graphics with the release of the xbox 360, and the playstation 3, and made it affordable to have a gaming class system in your home for 300$. (try building a gaming pc for that price)

Anyway Amd will still make improvements to their Cpus, but unless they find other means of bringing in profit they will bite the dust a few years down the road. There graphics card division is doing ok, but Nividia has strong competition there as well. I don't blame them for trying to change directions.
Click to expand...

Bwahahahahaha I would rather chop my balls off than touch an XBox! Just saying. :D
 
I built a Sempron 145 pc last year for someone who ran a Celeron "Willamette-128" 1.5. To them the Sempron was a hugely fast powerhouse of a processor, they could actually watch streaming video properly and get things done quickly.

AMD do deserve criticism for delays, and spin/pr hype etc with FX. And for high launch prices. The reality is when people stop talking about AMD is when it's time to get really worried. What happens on these forums is far removed from the reality if most users needs.

I'll roll over and die before I give my money to a company like Intel. Whilst I think criticism is justified in this case, it's getting a bit old and tired of late. With falling prices and we hope a new PD batch due in a few months things might actually look up a bit.

This isn't an utter disaster, unless you geek yourself into benchmarks or must have the best there is. With cashbacks and price cuts FX is starting to look quite good actually becase what really matters to most AMD fans is the "bang per buck"
 
Mr Spocko said:
I built a Sempron 145 pc last year for someone who ran a Celeron "Willamette-128" 1.5. To them the Sempron was a hugely fast powerhouse of a processor, they could actually watch streaming video properly and get things done quickly.

AMD do deserve criticism for delays, and spin/pr hype etc with FX. And for high launch prices. The reality is when people stop talking about AMD is when it's time to get really worried. What happens on these forums is far removed from the reality if most users needs.

I'll roll over and die before I give my money to a company like Intel. Whilst I think criticism is justified in this case, it's getting a bit old and tired of late. With falling prices and we hope a new PD batch due in a few months things might actually look up a bit.

This isn't an utter disaster, unless you geek yourself into benchmarks or must have the best there is. With cashbacks and price cuts FX is starting to look quite good actually becase what really matters to most AMD fans is the "bang per buck"
Click to expand...

When the last generation AMD is faster then Bulldozer is a total disaster.

Also when the 8150FX is the same price as the 2500k, which the 2500k is so much faster then Phenom II, let alone Bulldozer. It's a total disaster.

Even for my media pc. I replaced it with a Phenom II 965 over a 4100FX....Bulldozer is just that much fail.
 
I agree launch prices were silly no doubts about it. Current pricing is a lot better and AMD have a cashback offer too.
I can replace my Ph II 840 with an FX6100 for around the same price, that's a good deal IMO. Check out the current prices on the FX models and the cashback they're really where they should have been a while ago.

8 module FX also quite a lot cheaper than they were, the only one that should be a bit less in the FX4 range.
The situation has changed, only because current prices are good for FX processors. The FX6100 is now even cheaper than an Intel i-3 processor and that's a great bargain. But if I think the FX6100 sucks I'll say so when it arrives!
Few have been as critical of AMD as myself, but when you pay a lot less you can start to hit that bang per buck we like so much.
 
Trinity pushed back till October?
Men these new fx chips must really suck. :D
They are launching trinity together and hope they get more sales on the fx cpus. lol
 
hese chips are awesome. They may not beat the i7 stock for stock or even the i5-2500 in some cases but they do what AMD intended. Overclock for overclock, these chips destroy the i5-2500 and beat the i7-2600k in many cases.
 
hese chips are awesome. They may not beat the i7 stock for stock or even the i5-2500 in some cases but they do what AMD intended. Overclock for overclock, these chips destroy the i5-2500 and beat the i7-2600k in many cases.
Click to expand...

no not really. This is coming from a FX user.

Only benchmarks a Fx competes with Sandy bridge of ivy bridge chip, is something that uses all cores, and encryption, file transfers, video encoding, very few select things.

Another advantage is cheap support or immou, IE Virtual machines. Only advantage my FX has over my buddies 2500k, is in this areas. However i did notice that i can video encode and run games smoothly while he cannot. He is rather jealous i can set core affinity and encode and play battlefield 3 with acceptable frame rates. Something he cannot do, very well.
 
sassygirl said:
hese chips are awesome. They may not beat the i7 stock for stock or even the i5-2500 in some cases but they do what AMD intended. Overclock for overclock, these chips destroy the i5-2500 and beat the i7-2600k in many cases.
Click to expand...
do we really need to link to every review showing that "overclock for overclock" that it is the 2500k that beats Bulldozer not the other way around like you claim? :rolleyes:
 
sassygirl said:
hese chips are awesome. They may not beat the i7 stock for stock or even the i5-2500 in some cases but they do what AMD intended. Overclock for overclock, these chips destroy the i5-2500 and beat the i7-2600k in many cases.
Click to expand...

These chips overclocked, wont even beat the old 1366 socket Intel I7's. Let alone Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge.

Clock for Clock they are slower then a phenom II.
 
LoL Its funny how some want so badly to make the fx cpus look good.
They are not even close of my 1090T.
 
popcorn.gif
watching three posters getting trolled hard by a 1 day poster with 1 post ... who even used post #666 ... evil genius for sure
 
These chips overclocked, wont even beat the old 1366 socket Intel I7's. Let alone Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge.

Clock for Clock they are slower then a phenom II.
Click to expand...

this chips beat up the old i7's....... esp when overclocked.
 
ebduncan said:
this chips beat up the old i7's....... esp when overclocked.
Click to expand...

Single-threaded run time and efficiency http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-power-consumption-efficiency,3060-12.html
Multi-threaded run time and efficiency http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-power-consumption-efficiency,3060-13.html
Overall run time and efficiency http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-power-consumption-efficiency,3060-14.html

Even in the purely multi-threaded section the FX-8150 barely beats the i7-870, a CPU that was 24 months old at Bulldozer's launch. When it comes to overall efficiency Sandy Bridge not only finishes the workload about 20% faster, it uses HALF the power to boot.

Finally look at this gaming CPU comparison with an HD 7970 at 1080p resolution. An Intel Pentium G860 with two cores performs about as fast as the 1090T and the FX-8150.

This, my friends, is an epic ass-whupping. And I'm not an Intel fan, I'm a fan of statistics. :D
 
13182343781D3JFR9LiH_2_3.gif


1318034683VZqVQLiVuL_7_2.png


1318034683VZqVQLiVuL_7_3.png


1318034683VZqVQLiVuL_7_5.png


not going to argue with people.

So i will just quote myself.
Only benchmarks a Fx competes with Sandy bridge of ivy bridge chip, is something that uses all cores, and encryption, file transfers, video encoding, very few select things.

Another advantage is cheap support or immou, IE Virtual machines. Only advantage my FX has over my buddies 2500k, is in this areas. However i did notice that i can video encode and run games smoothly while he cannot. He is rather jealous i can set core affinity and encode and play battlefield 3 with acceptable frame rates. Something he cannot do, very well.
Click to expand...


enjoy arguing
 
ebduncan said:
oh my gosh you fail at reading.
Click to expand...

Don't have too. Anyone saying that Bulldozer is as good as Sandy bridge is bullshiting.

I usually stop reading when people try to come up with things.....Try is the word LOL
 
i5 2500k - $219
FX 8120 - $159

i7 2600k - $289
FX 8150 - $199

Scenario....you have only $200 to spend on a CPU.
$200 gets you a 8120 and aftermarket heatsink, or a 8150.

Another scenario..... you have $300 to spend on a CPU.
Buy a FX 8150 and a NH-D14.

In other words, if you have a tight budget, AMD is the better choice. This has always been AMD's strong point, all the way back to K6 days. Loved my K6II 400. :)
 
This has always been AMD's strong point,
Click to expand...

It was certainly not a strong point for 4 or 5 months after Bulldozer was released but now that the 8150 is priced a little less than the closest processor performance wise the i5 2500K AMD's value has returned.
 
johnnyfiive said:
i5 2500k - $219
FX 8120 - $159

i7 2600k - $289
FX 8150 - $199

Scenario....you have only $200 to spend on a CPU.
$200 gets you a 8120 and aftermarket heatsink, or a 8150.

Another scenario..... you have $300 to spend on a CPU.
Buy a FX 8150 and a NH-D14.

In other words, if you have a tight budget, AMD is the better choice. This has always been AMD's strong point, all the way back to K6 days. Loved my K6II 400. :)
Click to expand...
still a stupid choice because Bulldozer and an aftermarket cooler will cost hardly any cheaper and give you a slower cpu that uses more power. oc that Bulldozer to catch i5/i7 and the money you saved is wiped out by the extra power usage within a small amount of time.
 
still a stupid choice because Bulldozer and an aftermarket cooler will cost hardly any cheaper and give you a slower cpu that uses more power. oc that Bulldozer to catch i5/i7 and the money you saved is wiped out by the extra power usage within a small amount of time.
Click to expand...

no not really, unless you run your computer full tilt 24/7 100% cpu usage.

idle power is decent. I guess in your world electric costs 5-6$ dollars a kw.

I dunno about you but the national average in the U.S. is 15 cents per kw hour. If you live where i do then you see these kinda rates.
BILLING MONTHS JUNE - SEPTEMBER BILLING MONTHS OCTOBER - MAY
7.7823¢ per kWh for the first 1000 kWh, 7.7823¢ per kWh for the first 750 kWh,
plus plus
8.0352¢ per kWh for all over 1000 kWh. 6.5823¢ per kWh for all over 750 kWh.

In other words a FX even overclocked is sub 500watts. 3 cents an hour..... running full tilt. If you like most people you prolly only game 2-3 hours a day if that. so 9 cents a day. At this usage it would take umm 600+ days to make up the cost difference or two years. Running full tilt 24/7 would take you 83 some days to net the cost difference. You must remember even if you went with a intel system it would also consume power. Increasing the time.... Numbers are based on the 2500k vs Fx 8120, ie a 60$ delta
 
Last edited:
power here costs much more than that. and if you game a few hours a day then yes an oced Bulldozer will end up costing more after just a couple months. so you save nothing in the long run getting a Bulldozer with aftermarket cooler over running just a 2500k. heck an oced Bulldozer could pull more than my entire system under load. plus that extra power usage turns into a little more heat too which some people want no more of in the summer. you cant just bring up costs without looking at total costs. so in the end with a Bulldozer and aftermarket cooler you have a slower cpu that uses more power and costs you more in the long run all for about the same price as the better Intel cpu.
 
I just want to point something out to you.

1318034683VZqVQLiVuL_9_1.png

The FX even overclocked draws less power at idle than sandy bridge overclocked.

1318034683VZqVQLiVuL_9_2.png


While these numbers are quite high even for a FX processor. It is likely due to the fact that Kyle and crew jacked the voltage up so high to get their overclocking results. For example My FX at 4.7ghz with only 1.4 vcore. (Hardocp needed 1.5 vcore) Only draws about 383 watts at the wall on my P3 International Kill A Watt EZ Meter. Granted still much higher than the sandy bridge. I think with the Hardocp review they had it pushed to max they could. My 8120 scales all the way to 5.2ghz at 1.5 volts max overclock, And i see the kinds of numbers they reported.
 
on that graph you have a 2500k and a 2600k running at 4.8 ghz and a 8150 running at 4.6 ghz only and it pulls all that power. WTH??????
The 8150 and the fx in general is a fail.
I don't understand why you even bothered posting that graph.
Damn even the older phenom II is doing better than the fx series.
 
Last edited:
Have to agree about the higher than average power useage on those charts. I haven't seen close to those numbers with an oc'ed 8150 running 4.6 ghz even during stress tests.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top