FRONTPAGE AMD FX-8150 - Bulldozer - Processor Review

[EarthDog]

Maybe more like...

8150 ~ $200/$225
8130 ~ $175/$200

I'm kind of expecting Intel to slot in their announced i7-2700K sku at the current 2600K price and then bump down the price of the 2600K/2500K to keep pressure on AMD.

Prior to BD release, Intel stated it would be more expensive than the 2600k. Seeing this though, that seems more logical.

 

[zitnik]

I just looked at some more reviews, apparently OC'ing the 8150 to 4.7Ghz puts it toe to toe against the 2500K. Trading blows and beating it barely in some things and the 2500K beating BD barely in others. AMD did say 5Ghz on air is easily achievable. So do you count that as a win? It can beat the CPU it's up against when it is OC'd to 5Ghz.

 

[Archer0915]

I just looked at some more reviews, apparently OC'ing the 8150 to 4.7Ghz puts it toe to toe against the 2500K. Trading blows and beating it barely in some things and the 2500K beating BD barely in others. AMD did say 5Ghz on air is easily achievable. So do you count that as a win? It can beat the CPU it's up against when it is OC'd to 5Ghz.

what speed was the 2500K at?

 

[zitnik]

what speed was the 2500K at?

Stock

 

[Archer0915]

Stock

but it will get better. It must get better

 

[MattNo5ss]

If it takes a 5GHz BD to beat a stock 2500K, then that's almost as far away from a "win" as possible...

Think about the power consumption of a 5GHz BD -vs- a stock 2500K...

 

[hokiealumnus]

I just looked at some more reviews, apparently OC'ing the 8150 to 4.7Ghz puts it toe to toe against the 2500K. Trading blows and beating it barely in some things and the 2500K beating BD barely in others. AMD did say 5Ghz on air is easily achievable. So do you count that as a win? It can beat the CPU it's up against when it is OC'd to 5Ghz.

Do you have any links? We also ran a 2500K (in 2D) and the FX-8150 was toe-to-toe when both were at stock through everything except SuperPi. If you're talking about gaming that may well be correct from what I've seen, but for 2D our 4.75GHz FX-8150 beat a stock 2500K handily.

 

[EarthDog]

I just looked at some more reviews, apparently OC'ing the 8150 to 4.7Ghz puts it toe to toe against the 2500K. Trading blows and beating it barely in some things and the 2500K beating BD barely in others. AMD did say 5Ghz on air is easily achievable. So do you count that as a win? It can beat the CPU it's up against when it is OC'd to 5Ghz.

LOL, no. Like fractions, do to one side, what you do to the other... Overclock that 2500k and that chip is right back where it started.

Not to mention, that info that you mention is a bit off from our testing...

 

[PolRoger]

Why? At this point PPL will pay more for the Intel processors.

For many people price is important. An average Joe at BestBuy is getting advice from a sales person on new comps and asks about the pricing and finds the Intel systems higher... many may/will go with AMD since stock clocks are similar and they figure it surely must be good enough and AMD now has 8 cores. AMD is striving to increase market share with the FX line and Intel could counter this by making their offerings even more cost competitive.

On the other hand maybe Intel will decide to maintain thier current margins because they don't really view AMD and the new FX line as a competitive threat.

 

[GoD_tattoo]

I just looked at some more reviews, apparently OC'ing the 8150 to 4.7Ghz puts it toe to toe against the 2500K. Trading blows and beating it barely in some things and the 2500K beating BD barely in others. AMD did say 5Ghz on air is easily achievable. So do you count that as a win? It can beat the CPU it's up against when it is OC'd to 5Ghz.

From the reviews I've read, this thing gets boiling hot at those speeds, and not to mention the power usage. So no not even in my opinion. I'd rather have a cool running cpu that #1) I paid less for #2) Costs less to run than a hot running, more expensive to buy, and more expensive to run cpu...

 

[I.M.O.G.]

Do you have any links? We also ran a 2500K (in 2D) and the FX-8150 was toe-to-toe when both were at stock through everything except SuperPi. If you're talking about gaming that may well be correct from what I've seen, but for 2D our 4.75GHz FX-8150 beat a stock 2500K handily.

Just requoting this... Some references in this thread are making the performance out to be worse than it is. I haven't seen where an OC'd FX-8150 does not beat a stock 2500K, and our testing.

Zitnik, got links for what you are reading? I'm not challenging you, just I'd like to read what you read that.

EDIT: By the way, wow this poll took a turn after the first few hours. The first few hours after reviews the vote was almost even for positive and negative... Since then, the disappointment seems pretty overwhelming!

 

[SSDconvert]

haha, lol, good one man!! .... actually, GREAT, lol

had to log in to congradulate on this one. funny

So where I live, even if you only run the chip 5 hours a day, it's going to cost you an extra $36 a year over a better performing SB chip. Fold on it, and it's costing you (about 90 watts more, so 24 hours at 90 watts = 2.16kwh more per day, or about $.40 per day, $12 per month) $146 more per year to run in electricity costs alone. Run it in Denmark and that's more like $300 a year.

This is without a doubt the "AMD GTX 480." What a shame.

edit: Almost forgot, in those OC'd results, the 8150 at 4.6 uses 177 watts more than the 2600k at 4.8. 177 watts means in about 5.65 hours, you just sucked down a whole extra kilowatt hour compared to the SB machine. Math says if you fold on that machine, 1550.52 killowatt hours per year. Where I live, that's about $310.10 extra per year on the ole' power bill, figure about double that in Denmark.

You'd have to be some kind of idjit, or get free electricity, to even consider folding on BD.

 

[zitnik]

Do you have any links? We also ran a 2500K (in 2D) and the FX-8150 was toe-to-toe when both were at stock through everything except SuperPi. If you're talking about gaming that may well be correct from what I've seen, but for 2D our 4.75GHz FX-8150 beat a stock 2500K handily.

Yeah it was in gaming. I will find one of the reviews and post it...

 

[zitnik]

Alright, here's one.

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/32155-amd-fx-8150-47ghz-does-stand-tall/

This one I was a bit off, it comes close to the 2500K/2600K but doesn't beat either of them except for 3DMark Vantage it beats the 2500K.

I should have clarified so that's my mistake it gets close to a stock 2500K at 4.7ghz but may be able to barely beat it in some at others. There was another review I looked at, though that may have been why I misinterpreted the performance, where it has the 8150 beating the 2500K in most games, pretty handily, too.

In this review they have the stock 8150 beating the stock 2500K in almost all of the games...? http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/arti...-i5-2500K-and-Core-i7-2600K-CPU-Review/1402/1

 

[EarthDog]

Hexus link is borked for me...

Outside of Dirt3 and Dues Ex its within 1-2 FPS... a margin of error in most of those tests. Nobody 'plays 3d11 which is core dependent (scores higher with more cores) anyway.

EDIT: and that was at stock speeds... Im lost.

 

[Brolloks]

Works for me....how is it that a 8 core CPU at 4.7 Ghz gets beaten by a quad at stock in the Hexus gaming benchmarks, that does not look right?

 

[zitnik]

I want to see comparison of it running Crysis 2, BF:BC2, RAGE and Metro 2033

 

[Archer0915]

I saw some of the things I wanted to see (zip testing) but I want more.

 

[zizux]

Isn't BD Supposed to run mem at 1866? or is it just that it supports it.

I've seen quite a few reviews where they were running slower ram.

 

[hokiealumnus]

Ours ran 1866. It takes no tweaking other than setting the proper divider, RAM voltage & timings.