FRONTPAGE AMD FX-8150 - Bulldozer - Processor Review

neo668 · Oct 12, 2011

Firstly, thank you Hokie for the excellent review. Been waiting months just for this.

Now, please go easy on a noob like me. Is it safe to say that the BD is worth getting because it is a completely UNLOCKED cpu? Or should I just consider the i7 2600? The costs for both systems appear to be about the same, give or take $50.

I.M.O.G. · Oct 12, 2011

Archer0915 said:
Torque SP error on my part. The Intel have the high end for speed but do they have the low end grunt when the work is piled on.

Reproducible testing. We try not to do anything in a review that we can't repeat identically, or that any reader couldn't reproduce nearly identically.

We could run a synthetic bench that is designed to throw a bunch of different crap at the CPU, but doing any sort of real world mixture of applications is too error prone and hurts professional credibility. Throwing a bunch of different apps in you introduce all sorts of variables like board, ram, and disk performance - then if you can't do the same exact thing for several iterations on each piece of hardware in the comparison... A considerable fudge factor develops that we aren't comfortable with in an official review capacity.

We probably could do some community type result stuff with that we'd post as a forum reply or discussion, but its not the sort of stuff we'd want to publish as part of an official review - we aim for as scientific of a standard as possible given limited resources and realistic time constraints.

Janus67 · Oct 12, 2011

I.M.O.G. said:
I think the challenge there is what sort of render? I don't think there is a standard photoshop render benchmark, at least not that I know of. PovRay, x264, 7zip... These are real world apps that include a benchmarking routine. We could develop our own standard render that is reproducible, but we'd need to spend some time figuring that out which hasn't happened yet - or we'd need a member to contribute a reliable and repeatable procedure.

Games aren't hard for us to get test keys for, they have handed those out to us like candy when asked, so we could actually include more of those I expect. We typically go for representative samples here I think, as its something we've talked about doing more of but they are some of the longer benchmarks typically I believe. I think more specific game title tests could make sense and its not impossible for us to work in.

Fair enough, I think we would have to create our own filter/render package for photoshop, I just know that a lot of the go-to sites (ars, anand, etc) have a suite with photoshop/3dsmax included in them, although I'm not an expert with those pieces of software so someone would have to be able to explain how to make render file for it.

Interesting part for the games, I didn't know that it worked that way for those

Want me to do some video card reviews

On a different note, from what I've read Windows 7 isn't going to give very good performance for Bulldozer (the task/thread schedular isn't designed to take advantage of BD), but apparently Windows 8 does a better job/will do a better job when it is released end of next year which by that time we should have a whole new chip (Piledriver?) to worry about.

Istariol · Oct 12, 2011

KYAAAAA....i just saw socket for FX is AM3+!!!! is this can be applied in AM3+ mobo too???? can i used this on my mobo????

I.M.O.G. · Oct 12, 2011

Janus67 said:
On a different note, from what I've read Windows 7 isn't going to give very good performance for Bulldozer (the task/thread schedular isn't designed to take advantage of BD), but apparently Windows 8 does a better job/will do a better job when it is released end of next year which by that time we should have a whole new chip (Piledriver?) to worry about.

I heard that rumor, but I don't know that there is any substance to it. The only scheduler issue is one that exists with the Linux kernel, and its scheduler options have little to nothing in common with windows. I'm not sure there is any source worth its weight behind any Win7 scheduler performance concerns with BD... I have only heard the rumors though, maybe there's an actual source I haven't seen yet.

On an unrelated note, really interesting results in the polling so far. Thanks to everyone who has already voted. :thup:

Janus67 · Oct 12, 2011

Istariol said:
KYAAAAA....i just saw socket for FX is AM3+!!!! is this can be applied in AM3+ mobo too???? can i used this on my mobo????

If this is your board (according to your sig)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130290

It doesn't look like it, as it needs to be the 990 [correct me if I'm wrong, AMD gurus] chipset.

IMOG said:
I heard that rumor, but I don't know that there is any substance to it. The only scheduler issue is one that exists with the Linux kernel, and its scheduler options have little to nothing in common with windows. I'm not sure there is any source worth its weight behind any Win7 scheduler performance concerns with BD... I have only heard the rumors though, maybe there's an actual source I haven't seen yet.

Edit: for IMOG:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/11

with a grain of salt:

So there may be some hope, yet, if you can get Jeremy to install the developer preview of windows8

Archer0915 · Oct 12, 2011

I.M.O.G. said:
Reproducible testing. We try not to do anything in a review that we can't repeat exactly, or that any reader couldn't reproduce exactly.

We could run a synthetic bench that is designed to throw a bunch of different crap at the CPU, but doing any sort of real world mixture of applications is too error prone and hurts professional credibility. Throwing a bunch of different apps in you introduce all sorts of variables like board, ram, and disk performance - then if you can't do the same exact thing for several iterations on each piece of hardware in the comparison... A considerable fudge factor develops that we aren't comfortable with in an official review capacity.

We probably could do some community type result stuff with that we'd post as a forum reply or discussion, but its not the sort of stuff we'd want to publish as part of an official review - we aim for as scientific of a standard as possible given limited resources and realistic time constraints.

But it is really the only way to tell how they can perform under load. Is it as precise as one benchmark at a time? Absolutely not and it should not be taken as such. What it does show is where the CPU falls in comparison to to the competition.

Take a one on one comparison of the 2600K and the 8150. Start both rigs out with a fully loaded disk of the same software. then start both crunching the same data. While that is happening begin a virus scan in the background and when all that is going start a 40-100 gig zip. Now throw in an encoding job on a serperate drive and time everything. If the times to final completion are within a few seconds (30) then thay are equilavent but if there is a clear difference there will be no doubts.

Istariol · Oct 12, 2011

AMD FX 6100 Black Edition (3.3/3.9GHz, 95W, 6MB, total dedicated L2 cache, 8MB L3 cache, 5200MHz HyperTransport™ bus, socket AM3+)......this is my next processor!! heheh....would my mobo supported this processor???? the watts also only 95w rather than phenom i use which is 125w.....if i can use this without changing mobo again!! that's gonna be wowwwwsome and cheaper upgrades for me

Istariol · Oct 12, 2011

only 990????...............hiks!! damm...if this processor arrive in Indonesia any soon....i will start saving money then for buying mobo FX supported

I.M.O.G. · Oct 12, 2011

Istariol said:
AMD FX 6100 Black Edition (3.3/3.9GHz, 95W, 6MB, total dedicated L2 cache, 8MB L3 cache, 5200MHz HyperTransport™ bus, socket AM3+)......this is my next processor!! heheh....would my mobo supported this processor???? the watts also only 95w rather than phenom i use which is 125w.....if i can use this without changing mobo again!! that's gonna be wowwwwsome and cheaper upgrades for me

If you don't have an AM3+ mobo, then Bulldozer CPUs will only be compatible with your board if the board maker provides a BIOS update.

ssjwizard · Oct 12, 2011

ssjwizard said:
Considering the aim of the APU designs they are going to be pushing next year and the idea of homogenous computing the lower FPU count should be quite adequately supplemented by the GPU moving forward.

What were getting is marginal right now improvements with a potential for big later improvements. IMO adopters of BD should experience a pretty solid longevity for there systems.

mjw21a said:
Hmmmm, kind of where I expected it to be. It's the one of the building blocks on the way to the next gen Trinity APU....

Hopefully the x86 component will improve IPC, and the poor FPU performance will be offloaded onto the GPU anyway so I think I can wait a fair while longer before upgrading. My good old 955BE is still going strong.

EDIT: It will be interesting to see if Trinity can be done right. If so then it has the capacity to be an Intel killer in certain tasks. I expect it to remain a poor performer on integer performance though, and as stated before, the x86 FPU performance won't mater. I wouldn't be surprised if the FPU unit is completely removed in Trinity in favor of offloading everything to the GPU component.

Id imagine that even current BD chips could benefit from this, and mind you that there are supposed to be FM2 FX cpus without GPU BUT I can see these GPU assisted designs could lead to a combo marketing schema to push both sides of there business. AMD FX faster when paired with Radeon HD xxxx.

I will probably be picking one of these up unless I decide to sell my 990 since its just sitting in a box until I buy a cpu(sempron 140 I got to bench does not count). The fact that it comes with that water cooler I consider this a ~190 cpu and for that it performs. No doubt we will be seeing lots of them for sale in forums/ebay as the new super budget WC setup.

Istariol · Oct 12, 2011

.......mine only AM3

......well!! looks like i have to wait little longer to upgrade both mobo and processor into next level, also wait for the dollar currency in my country loosen grip to our currency...as for now if i do both upgrade! took my saving to zero and bleeds again...well!! i'v to be happy what i have now.... :popcorn:

SteveLord · Oct 12, 2011

I was hoping this would be in line with Sandy Bridge performance and AMD would get rid of the trend of releasing CPUs as fast as Intel's previous models. I can't help but be disappointed when myself and others remember their last FX line which was kickass.

Anyway, have fun to whoever buys and plays with em!

Bijiont · Oct 12, 2011

Now the wait for someone to actually stock the chips.

I am going to still pick one up myself.

1) Already sold my 1090T to a buddy of mine
2) New toys to play with is always fun, even if they aren't the "zomg" best out there.

All in all I knew it was to good to be true that AMD would be on top again with BD, but I really hoped.

SamSaveMax · Oct 12, 2011

For benchmaking it's a bit time comsuming but I was thinking in the line of using applications like Handbrake, ConvertXtoDVD, Photodex or some video editing...etc.
As anyone would hope for more cores more threads to do the heavy work loads in a short time period. And my upgrade is most likely due to that as I do quite a few of rendering/encoding slideshows in HD.

Ironsmack · Oct 12, 2011

neo668 said:
Firstly, thank you Hokie for the excellent review. Been waiting months just for this.

Now, please go easy on a noob like me. Is it safe to say that the BD is worth getting because it is a completely UNLOCKED cpu? Or should I just consider the i7 2600? The costs for both systems appear to be about the same, give or take $50.

If you're going to buy now or in a couple of weeks - get the 2500/2600. You've got more bang for your $$$. Even if you didnt get the K series, it isnt as power hungry as BD.

Badbonji · Oct 12, 2011

I was hoping for more. Whilst it has half the FPU units of that of a true 8 core, Sandy Bridge also only has 4 FPU units surely? And it still cannot beat the i7 2600k except in a only a couple of the tests of the reviews I have read.

I may not have an AMD system, but I like to see competition against intel as it drives down their prices. I cannot really see that happening, because whilst it is cheaper in the short run, it is far less efficient per watt and will end up costing more in the long term from electricity.

From http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/10/12/amd-fx-8150-review/8 The overall score at 4.818GHz is lower than that of a core i7 920 at 4.04GHz, loses to the 2500k with it at stock 3.3GHz and barely beats the 1100T at 4.2GHz.

mjw21a · Oct 12, 2011

Hmmmmm, I think 2013 will be upgrade time for me.... I'm keen on seeing how their x86 + vector based graphics solution goes..... Should even things out somewhat, though we need ot see AMD improve their integer performance for this to pan out.

Cigarsmoker · Oct 12, 2011

Disappointing considering all they hype. Barely manages to keep up with Intel's year old CPU. It's an improvement over current AMD's CPU, yes, but just barely in some test. Was hoping for more. I'm sure by 2012-2014 it'll be much better but where will Intel be? Doesn't really entice me to upgrade from by 955 BE systems just yet.

BTW - great review. Thanks.

Bijiont · Oct 12, 2011

Just curious does anyone have a good benchmark of a 8150 overclocked for 24/7 vs a 1100T overclocked for 24/7 use?

I see several of the benches show it vs a stock 1100T but just wonder how much of a performance gap there really is when they are both overclocked to moderate values for their design. Such as having the 1100T at 4.1Ghz and the 8150 at 4.8Ghz.

If the gains on the 1100T are much higher than the 8150 I may go back on my earlier statement. . . I keep seeing more and more reviews say just how bad the 8150 is.

FRONTPAGE AMD FX-8150 - Bulldozer - Processor Review

How happy are you with AMD FX-8150 price/performance?

1 (What a disappointment)

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 (Everything I hoped for)

Member

Glorious Leader

Benching Team Leader

Member

Glorious Leader

Benching Team Leader

"The Expert"

Member

Member

Glorious Leader

Has slightly less legible writing than Thideras

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads