Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

3 Pages123>
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline News  
#1 Posted : Wednesday, October 12, 2011 12:06:40 AM(UTC)
News


Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Administrators, Registered
Joined: 9/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 25,073

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)

AMD FX-8150 8-Core CPU Review: Bulldozer Is HereToday AMD is officially taking the wraps off its latest FX-Series of desktop processors, targeted at performance-minded PC enthusiasts and overclockers. The FX-Series is based on the processor core formerly codenamed Zambezi, which leverages AMD’s much anticipated Bulldozer microarchitecture. The flagship processor in the new FX-Series line-up is the FX-8150, an unlocked, 8-Core processor, with gobs of cache and peak Turbo frequencies that exceed the 4GHz mark. But there’s a lot more to the FX-Series than speeds and feeds. The Bulldozer microarchitecture is a completely new design, which was built from the ground up in an attempt to shed some weight and produce a modular, highly-efficient CPU...

AMD FX-8150 8-Core Processor Review: Bulldozer Has Landed

Offline Realneil  
#2 Posted : Wednesday, October 12, 2011 12:17:50 AM(UTC)
realneil


Rank: Advanced Member

Reputation:

Groups: Administrators, Moderator, Registered
Joined: 4/8/2009(UTC)
Posts: 8,695
Man
Location: Shenandoah Valley, Virginia

Thanks: 2 times

Good to see this thing finally land. Even though it didn't cream the 2600K like people thought it would, it's still a strong performer in it's own right.

I guess now it's up to AMD to make this CPU ~a very compelling buy~ to ensure it's success. If the price to performance ratio is good enough compared to Intel's offerings, it will sell.

The only thing about this beast that gives me pause is the amount of power that it consumes, and the heat that it will certainly generate. (I have a 2600K now that is fast, efficient, and runs cool)

I'm going to wait for a while before I buy into anything. I'm sure that some sort of response is imminent from the boys in blue, and I want to see what that is. Plus, the prices of these Bulldozers will probably come down before too long. Now may not be the best time to buy one.

I thought that this review was a good read, and I stayed up late just to read it all before I went to sleep. I waited until now to comment though. (I couldn't stay awake last night) Good job on the review Marco, as always.

Offline pwrntspd  
#3 Posted : Wednesday, October 12, 2011 1:16:55 AM(UTC)
pwrntspd


Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/19/2011(UTC)
Posts: 207

I wont lie, im happy and a bit sad all at once. Good to see AMD finally releasing this thing, its about time! However, the performance is a bit disappointing, hopefully it will indeed get better in the future with windows 8 and maybe an update to windows 7? Either way, my next comp is a laptop and it will be trinity so im curious to see how piledriver cores will improve upon what ive seen here today. Either way, Congrats AMD! And thanks to Hothardware and Marco for the article!

Offline Drake_McNasty  
#4 Posted : Wednesday, October 12, 2011 1:18:41 AM(UTC)
Drake_McNasty


Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/1/2011(UTC)
Posts: 829
Location: San Diego

Thanks for the review Marco! I'm a little bummed about the performance and power consumption but it still looks like a good chip at an affordable price; which we all expected. Looking forward to seeing some more builds with this! 8 cores......crazy!

Offline Mike Coyne  
#5 Posted : Wednesday, October 12, 2011 1:23:35 AM(UTC)
Mike Coyne


Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 9/15/2009(UTC)
Posts: 290
United States
Location: Port Orchard, WA

I did read the AMD FX 8 cores CPU. I was somewhat impressed with its performance. Let's wait for Intel release new powerful processor soon.

Offline KreepyK  
#6 Posted : Wednesday, October 12, 2011 2:05:00 AM(UTC)
KreepyK


Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 54

I have been eagerly waiting for this CPU to come out and now I'm deeply disappointed... That thing could bearly compete with the core i5. I'm sure if AMD made and 8 core phenom processor it would perform just as good...

I do understand the challenges that AMD has been facing all these years being the competitor of a dominant monopolistic and resourceful giant like Intel but this is really dispiriting...

I really hope they get their rear in gear and come up with more efficient and competitive chip designs.

Offline AKwyn  
#7 Posted : Wednesday, October 12, 2011 2:12:26 AM(UTC)
AKwyn


Rank: Advanced Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/18/2010(UTC)
Posts: 3,215
Man
Location: California

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)

Nice review Marco. I liked how you hit all of the points that people want to hear about, such as how the processor performs in certain citations.

I'm guessing I was right in the fact that Bulldozer would match Intel's processors. I mean even if it didn't beat Intel, it still performed relatively close to them (i7 not included) and if they manage to get their stuff together for next year then maybe it could possibly beat the newer SB-E processors, maybe...

The fact that the CPU didn't perform as they expected however is going to disappoint a few fans who were anticipating Bulldozer though, me included. I mean I've seen a video of some form of Bulldozer powering a game while allowing multi-tasking to happen and while the same may apply here, it just doesn't seem to be the Intel crushing monster that it was hoped to be...

I was surprised that the thing used a combine method of Hyper Threading and true cores. (Kinda makes me wonder how a 12 core Bulldozer processor would perform) I mean I knew that they had some form a method that allowed them to have 8 cores with 4 modules but I didn't expect it to be this. In any case, historically AMD's methods of producing processors have always lead to questionable performance as time goes on. I mean we have Intel focusing heavily on x86 performance and with the lead they have in silicon dies... There's just no question who dominates here.

Anyways, the methods they've used has always resulted in less then expected performance for those users who used their processors, even though some don't mind the performance drop. While they may have found a way that could at least best Intel at some parts, the applications for which it was put through placed less then expected performance results. Like the computer was giving it instructions and the processor just knew exactly what to do but didn't know the most efficient way to do it; this has historically been AMD's weakness; they do seem to be putting improvement with Bulldozer but it's still a weakness.

Despite that, No one can deny that the confidence that AMD had in this processor was justified and again, bringing back the FX brand is a vote of confidence that AMD was working hard to put out a competitive processor that can compete with Intel's 5-series CPU's. And did you see the slides leaked from AMD presentations that detailed how the processor could be powerful under certain situations due to the Bulldozer module that they made for the CPU; and you can't forget about that AMD belt that was seen just a few days. Even though the performance of the processor was disappointing to some, you can't deny that AMD didn't convince customers that their processor would at least not be a Phenom II X4.

So aside from that; yeah... This is Bulldozer in all it's glory. I wasn't following much on Bulldozer due to my lack of interest in upgrading the system but from what I've read, it's competitive, it's cheap (okay, it's $50 more expensive but the fact that it matches Intel at certain parts makes it more viable to those looking for an Intel alternative without the really crappy performance.) and even though they couldn't take advantage of the 32nm process (power consumption for example.) they have managed to make a competitive processor and a jumping pad for future AMD processors should they feel the heat from the SB-E processors that'll be released earlier that'll be certain to blow most of the Bulldozers out of the water but at a high-cost.

Good job AMD! Good job!

Offline digitaldd  
#8 Posted : Wednesday, October 12, 2011 9:19:12 AM(UTC)
digitaldd


Rank: Advanced Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 7/3/2001(UTC)
Posts: 3,027
Man
Location: United States, New York

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 7 time(s) in 7 post(s)

It will be interesting to see the power numbers for the 95W 8 core part the 8120(?). The one things that I look at negatively is the huge differential in the idle and under full load power draws.. At this state of the AMD CPU front I'm thinking the Daneb's still give the best bang for your buck.

Offline acarzt  
#9 Posted : Wednesday, October 12, 2011 10:15:49 AM(UTC)
acarzt


Rank: Advanced Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/4/2003(UTC)
Posts: 3,567
Man
United States
Location: Texas

Thanks: 2 times
Was thanked: 19 time(s) in 19 post(s)

Disappointing performance considering all the hype!

Offline MMcCutcheon  
#10 Posted : Wednesday, October 12, 2011 1:31:08 PM(UTC)
MMcCutcheon


Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 12/3/2010(UTC)
Posts: 72
Location: Mulvane, KS

super disappointed...the i5 2500k is $220..the 8150 $280...and it still stomps the 8150 lol, guess i shall wait a BIT longer on a new pc, the 2011 sockets from intel will be extreme :)

Offline Jamie_1318  
#11 Posted : Wednesday, October 12, 2011 1:31:57 PM(UTC)
Jamie_1318


Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/30/2011(UTC)
Posts: 21

I'm looking forward to what they are going to do with the future of this design. Main thing holding bulldozer back is still the dreaded IPC. Their plans are preportedly to improve IPC signifigantly in the next iteration, and stick Graphics on it for Trinity.

Offline rrplay  
#12 Posted : Wednesday, October 12, 2011 2:46:03 PM(UTC)
rrplay


Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/15/2010(UTC)
Posts: 2,358
Location: Crystal Lake,IL

Thanks for the excellent review Marco ! Somehow I was not actually expecting Bulldozer to crush a SB 2600k & out AMD back on top..But more interested into what AMD willin the future.Seems like the more answers that are revealed, the more questions come up ..Can't really say that AMD missed the mark>> just fell a bit short .The two -step Turbo Core sounds interesting and looking forward to 'Piledriver'  Overall happy to see BD finally out in the wild,and a glimpse  at the direction AMD is likely to take and hopefully for all of us they will take care of the tweaking that's needed and get into out hands early in 2012.

Offline ThunderBird  
#13 Posted : Wednesday, October 12, 2011 3:07:17 PM(UTC)
ThunderBird


Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/3/2011(UTC)
Posts: 460

Thanks for the review Marco I have been waiting for this one for awhile now. Very disappointing for sure as I was hoping that Bulldozer would have more oomph.

We need AMD to find it's mojo... and quickly. The GPU touting is all well and dandy but I would like to see x86 improve.

Offline OptimusPrimeTime  
#14 Posted : Wednesday, October 12, 2011 4:50:50 PM(UTC)
OptimusPrimeTime


Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/4/2011(UTC)
Posts: 1,050
Location: East Coast

"Oh boy. Well , it did not turned out As I predicted, but it still a good chip. I did some analysis and I came to the conclusion that  AMD needs to price the 8150 equally to SB 2500k, had it been so from the beginning, then the reviews all across the board would have been more favorable. I see a little of Intel's *Speed/Price* ratio pricing of the X58 chips, specifically from the 920 all the way up to the 960. Its the same exact chip but clocked at different *stock* speeds and price. So what do I mean by all of this, well, the 8120 is the same as the 8150, only one is clocked higher then the other so, I would rather save me $60 and go for the 8120 and just have it overclocked to the same overclock speeds that the 8150 can reach."

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103960

"Can't deny that the hype has turned negative for AMD. The average consumer is saying why can't an  8 core beat a 4 core? Why the FX brand, why so much delay for such little gain over the Phenoms. Its safe to say AMD did not deliver but, ultimately, it's not bad, just need better pricing."

"Anyone catch the name scheme in the roadmap?, Bulldozer - PileDriver - SteamRoller - Excavator. ROFL, someone over at AMD sure loves construction equipment, its like with Nvidia and Comic books characters, Ka-lel  - Wayne - Logan - Starks, lol. "

"Anyhow, Marco , is there a separate Bulldozer vs Sandy Bridge Gaming analysis and review coming? Maybe Joel H is working on it?"

 

Offline AKwyn  
#15 Posted : Wednesday, October 12, 2011 5:22:36 PM(UTC)
AKwyn


Rank: Advanced Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/18/2010(UTC)
Posts: 3,215
Man
Location: California

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)

Wheatley wrote:
I did some analysis and I came to the conclusion that  AMD needs to price the 8150 equally to SB 2500k, had it been so from the beginning, then the reviews all across the board would have been more favorable.

*slaps head profuriously hard*

Intel Core i5 2500k: $218

AMD FX-8150: $245

I know it's only the suggested retail price but there is only a marginal difference between the price points, so I doubt that it would favor in better reviews. If you really did the research, you would of discovered this: http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8150fx_8120fx_6100_and_fx_4170,1.html

Also I'd wait a while before making a judgement about the prices, I mean alot of retailers are inflating the prices beyond their suggested prices and I don't know why they're doing it but it just ain't right...

Wheatley wrote:
So what do I mean by all of this, well, the 8120 is the same as the 8150, only one is clocked higher then the other so, I would rather save me $60 and go for the 8120 and just have it overclocked to the same overclock speeds that the 8150 can reach."

So why are you making a big point of an obvious thing that everybody knows? You even said this before in one of your posts; as much as I share your opinion, stating it as a point just doesn't help you in any way.

Wheatley wrote:
"Can't deny that the hype has turned negative for AMD. The average consumer is saying why can't an  8 core beat a 4 core? Why the FX brand, why so much delay for such little gain over the Phenoms."

Didn't you read the article? I read it page to page, detail to detail. The bulldozer-module is a combination of multi-threading and hyper threading. Which means that there are really only 4 cores (modules) and the rest is emulated with hyper-threading... Hence the comment about the 12 core CPU (12 equaling 6 Bulldozer Modules.)

Also: [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vQaVIoEjOM]

So yeah... Bulldozer managed to near the i5-2500k at some things but to not match the i7-2600k is disappointing. The price thing is overblown though.

Users browsing this topic
3 Pages123>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.