TRWOVIt goes through benchmarks with highs and lows, results are inconsistent at times but apparently the FX-8150 is a worthy processor that will give Intel a run for its money. The only thing I don't like is the power consumption. :(

eidairaman1Now I cant wait for the second stepping or the Piledriver models, n then SKT FM2

xenocideIt's honestly better than I expected in terms of performance, but not enough to really crush SB. They're still competative, but nothing too exciting, and definitely no reason to upgrade for most people. :/

xenocideComing to an e-Tailer near you in 2026!

wolfFX 8150 review anyone?

guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150-processor-review/

Surprisingly enough even the Phenom II X6 1100T (170 EUR) stands ground and is mostly on par with the FX 8150 a lot of the time...

alexsubriSome people have failed to understand, the FX-8170 has yet to come out..yes, the FX-8150 didn't performed that well, but it still has time to improve itself

alexsubriSome people have failed to understand, the FX-8170 has yet to come out..yes, the FX-8150 didn't performed that well, but it still has time to improve itself

MelvisDoesn't SB CPU's have DRM?

MelvisI have to agree here. Im actually disappointed in the performance :ohwell: As long as the software supports many cores it seems to be up there, but if it doesn't then its no better then the old Phenom II.

I was going to upgrade but now im not to sure, i might just get a faster Phenom II and call it a day.

It doesn't deserve the FX branding IMO

So what has AMD delivered to the desktop in the form of Bulldozer?

AMD has delivered what will be a disappointment to many. The Intel fanboys have won this round. There just isn't any way around it. AMD fans, get ready to eat crow. If you expected something to outshine Sandy Bridge in terms of performance overall, it is just not there.

The Bottom Line

What we wanted out of Bulldozer and AMD and what we are getting are two different things. AMD has built a very good processor in Bulldozer that can be had at a very good price. Bulldozer however is just some "Me too!" when comparing to Intel's $200 2500K Sandy Bridge part that has already been out for a good while.

Single threaded Bulldozer performance leaves a lot to be desired. Bulldozer is truly in its element when it can flex all its cores on the workload at hand. And this of course is the where software is moving to.

While there is not much of a compelling reason to buy an FX-8120 and overclock the snot out of it, there is also no real compelling reason to not buy an FX-8120 either. Yeah, the power consumption is a bit ugly, but 200 watts is not the end of the world. An enthusiast with a decent 990FX chipset motherboard and $100 worth of cooling should be able to take the FX-8120 to the mid-4GHz mark without much trouble. And from what I can tell, you are likely going to be happy with it.

Would I put a AMD FX in a system I might be building? I can say, "Yes I would." But if you asked me if I will be putting an AMD FX in my next personal system I would probably have to tell you, "No." If I had to build a system for myself tonight, it would have a Intel Core i7-2600K in it. I can't point to the AMD FX-8150 or FX-8120 being a bad choice, but I just do not think either of those is the best choice.

The allure of having the "world's first destop 8-core processor" is more than slightly muted by the performance results we saw in our review today. Obviously the Bulldozer design team had to make some decisions years ago that couldn't be easily rolled back but it appears obvious to me at this point that the "2 cores per module" design didn't bring with it the benefits AMD expected. And with the inability for the processors to scale to higher frequencies, the FX series from AMD is left holding promises that it couldn't keep for consumers.

The AMD FX processor release really comes down to the one thought: are you willing to give up performance on lightly-threaded everyday applications in hopes of better performance per dollar on highly threaded programs like Handbrake? Even if the answer to that question is yes, Intel's Core i7/i5 line of processors based on Sandy Bridge have competitive solutions that don't require you to give up performance in either direction. Will a system based on the new FX-8150 be competant and competitive while also making for a great gaming machine? It definitely will but is that enough to pull consumers away from the Intel platforms that offer better performance in many areas for similar prices? It is hard to see how it could be.

Concluding then. The reality remains that for me personally I would have preferred a faster per core performing AMD quad-core processor rather then an eight-core processor with just 'nice' per core performance. Who knows, for you, that just might not be the case. It's going to be interesting to see what you as an end-user will prefer. Overall though, the AMD FX 8150 is a processor we can recommend for the upper segment of mid-range computers at best.

It is nice and fast in your desktop environment with the many threads you can fire off at it, and if you love to compress, transcode or use your PC as a workstation, well it will offer heaps of performance and features for a fair price. The AMD FX 8150 can be purchased for 244 USD or cheaper for all that 8-core lovin'.

At the end of the day the AMD FX-8150 looks to be an interesting processor. It isn't a home run that puts AMD back on top, but the bones of processor look to be pretty solid. AMD is headed in the right direction, but they haven't managed to 'Bulldoze' Intel by any means.

Legit Bottom Line: The AMD FX-8150 offers solid performance and is competitive with the Intel 'Sandy Bridge' series of processors.

For the die-hard AMD fans that have been waiting for this day since the company first started hinting at Bulldozer, the performance exhibited by this first batch of FX series processors is probably somewhat puzzling. This was supposed to be the architecture that propelled AMD back into a strong, competitive position versus Intel’s desktop processors. Alas, that is obviously not the case. The FX-8150 is very competitive with Intel’s upper-mainstream Core i5 processors, but the Core i7 remains the ultimate performance champion. No if, ands, or buts about it.

With that said, AMD still has a good product on its hands with the FX series. Performance is good; in some workloads the processor significantly outpaces the previous-gen Phenom II. And while it’s true that in some areas the Phenom II can still be faster, the Phenom II’s margin of victory is generally small. Although we didn’t have time to test it for ourselves just yet, performance improvements should be coming with future versions of Windows as tweaks are made to the scheduler to better utilize the resources afforded by the Bulldozer microarchitecture. As more software is optimized for the FX series, it’s architectural and feature enhancements (like XOR, AVX, etc.) should afford it a big edge over previous-generation processors as well.

Ultimately, although AMD wasn’t able to overtake Intel with the FX series, this launch is important for the company. It has been over a decade since AMD has completely redesigned its desktop processors. The company needed a more forward-looking microarchitecture to lay the foundation for the future. Bulldozer may not have been able to put AMD back into the leadership position it was in when the original Athlon and Athlon 64 hit the scene, but may be the launching pad AMD needs to better tweak and optimize its desktop processors moving forward in preparation for the Piledriver, Steamroller, and Excavator microarchitectures AMD has slated for release over the next few years.

But the devil is in the details. The FX is a balancing act, giving up genuine per-core processing, present on Phenom II, and, due to architecture decisions, FX, in many cases, reduces just how much work can be accomplished by each core. Take into account non-independent cores and a lower IPC and there exist situations where the eight-core FX-8150 is taken to task by the six-core 1100T: something you wouldn't expect.

And while AMD, across a range of old and new applications, can claim solid performance with the FX, Intel's incumbent Sandy Bridge processors remain a more elegant solution. They're strong in every area, offer 'free' integrated graphics and have considerably better power-draw credentials to boot, thus making a persuasive argument as the mainstream chips of choice.

AMD's gone down a path with Bulldozer from which there is no turning back, so while there's nothing intrinsically wrong with the FX line of chips, given the price, we feel as if the balancing act of die size, modules, cores, speeds, IPC and power-draw isn't as impressive as we'd hoped for.

Bulldozer will improve as updated benchmarks and compilers begin extracting more performance from the architecture, but we'd recommend enthusiasts adopt a wait-and-see attitude before laying down cold, hard cash.

We won't deny it, we really were hoping for a lot more from Bulldozer and AMD's eight-core processors. It's disappointing to find these newly launched processors do little to improve AMD’s situation. The FX processors come short of competing hand to hand with the now 9-months old Sandy Bridge processors, and in certain instances surpass their own Phenom II range. Still, this is just the start for Bulldozer, and there's much more to be seen from the FX range, or so AMD says.

v12dockIt's competitive, AMD needs to boost the clocks asap and price it right.

MelvisNot clock speed, core performance i think.