Wednesday, October 12th 2011
![AMD](https://tpucdn.com/images/news/amd-v1719085767169.png)
Review Consensus: AMD FX Processor 8150 Underwhelming
It's been in the works for over three years now. That's right, the first we heard of "Bulldozer" as a processor architecture under development was shortly after the launch of "Barcelona" K10 architecture. Granted, it wasn't possible to load close to 2 billion transistors on the silicon fab technology AMD had at the time, but AMD had a clear window over the last year to at least paper-launch the AMD FX. Delays and bad marketing may have cost AMD dearly in shaping up the product for the market.
After drawing a consensus from about 25 reviews (links in Today's Reviews on the front page), it emerges that:
After drawing a consensus from about 25 reviews (links in Today's Reviews on the front page), it emerges that:
- AMD FX-8150 is missing its performance expectations by a fair margin. Not to mention performance gains in its own presentation, these expectations were built up by how AMD was shaping the product to be a full-fledged enthusiast product with significant performance gains over the previous generation
- AMD ill-marketed the FX-8150. Hype is a double-edged sword, and should not be used if you're not confident your offering will live up to at least most of the hype. AMD marketed at least the top-tier FX-8000 series eight-core processors as the second coming of Athlon64 FX.
- FX-8150 launch isn't backed up by launch of other AMD FX processors. This could go on to become a blunder. The presence of other FX series processors such as the FX-8120, six-core and four-core FX processors could have at least made the price performance charts look better, given that all FX processors are unlocked, buyers could see the value in buying them to overclock. TweakTown took a closer look into this.
- There are no significant clock-for-clock improvements over even AMD's own previous generation. The FX-8150 drags its feet behind the Phenom II X6 1100T in single-threaded math benchmarks such as Super/HyperPi, the picture isn't any better with Cinebench single-threaded, either.
- Multi-threaded data streaming applications such as data compression (WINRAR, 7-ZIP) reveal the FX-8150 to catch up with competition from even the Core i7-2600K. This trend keeps up with popular video encoding benchmarks such as Handbrake and x264 HD.
- Load power draw is bad, by today's standards. It's not like AMD is lagging behind in silicon fabrication technologies, or the engineering potential that turned around AMD Radeon power consumption figures over generations.
- Price could be a major saving grace. In the end, AMD FX 8150 has an acceptable price-performance figure. At just $25 over the Core i5-2500K, the FX-8150 offers a good performance lead.
- Impressive overclocking potential. We weren't exactly in awe when AMD announced its Guinness Record-breaking overclocking feat, but reviewers across the board have noticed fairly good overclocking potential and performance scaling.
450 Comments on Review Consensus: AMD FX Processor 8150 Underwhelming
Stop buying into the hype that says it's bad...it's not...they just had unrealistic expectations, and really ,that reflects more on them and their know-how, rather than anything AMD did.
With 9-series boards already out I don't think that many of them will release a bios update for 8-series boards. You could rely on bios hacking thought, since the 890FX and 990FX are pretty much the same chipset.
You're listening to other sites again, who are, in a large way, reporting inaccurate info. I'm sorry for the confusion, but I have asked reviewers that I know that have chips, and not one is able to get Bulldozer working in anything but 9-series boards, and even then, there is a BIOS update specfic to Bulldozer, in such a way that there is even a warning in the CPU box that you should update the BIOS. And that BIOS update applies to 9-series boards...
I do NOT expect any user with AM3 to actually get Bulldozer working properly. An AM3+ socket and 9-series chipset are required.
All retail listings of the CPUs should contain this disclaimer: See here:
www.ncix.ca/products/?sku=64404
And you know what, for me personally, deep down I wanted the FX to turn out like this. I just put a lot of money for me into a new Intel build in March which is doing exactly what I was expecting from it and little bit more. It would have been pretty sad that after only six months something better at lower price should have hit the market. I'm going to sleep. Thanks.
Crap Daddy posted:
Can you please tell me who will buy this chip?
Dent1 replied:
1.) people whom have AM2+ board and dont want to change boards
2.) people whom have a AM3 board and dont want to change boards
[...]
I replied:
1 and 2 don't apply. You need an AM3+ board.
Then you replied to me:
Actually, they do, becuase most people will buy a complete system, not do "upgrades". Upgrading is nearly 100% an enthusiast thing, and mostly for enthusiasts with little cash. Most users will buy a complete system because they do not have time to do an upgrade, nor the required know-how. Those users won't be changing boards...they'll buy the whole thing new.
To which I said:
The statement was that people with AM2+ and AM3 boards that wanted to upgrade and not change boards could buy a Bulldozer processor.
Then: Which is entirely the point I was making.
I just skipped over the part where that wasn't possible...because those users, in many instances, will still buy AMD. AMD "fanboys" are some of the most loyal of all, that I have seen. And the users that bought into AM2/AM3 are very much, in most instances, fanboys, because back then, Intel was the performance leader too, and it didn't stop them from buying into the platforms they currently have, although there were faster options.
Like, I get what you're saying, but people beleive that this upgrade path is possible, because it was reported as possible, albeit wrongly reported, at this point.
Again, I will say this was intentional, and exposes the bias. These reviewers that leaked that wanted you to see those slides, so that their conclusion that BD sucked seemed to have merit. No slides or anything that claimed such were supposed to be released to the public.
it's not my fault you listened to the hype and rumour. Every time info like this came out, you can find my posts in the threads questioning it.
AMD hyped NOTHING...except that 8150 was the "World's Fastest CPU", and again, I have repeatedly complained about such things. Please go and check the sources.
When the slides came the community made noise about the performance not AMD. It was close to the 980X in mutithreaded benchmarks. Didn't you read the reviews or did you skip straight to gaming?
www.techpowerup.com/143395/GIGABYTE-First-to-Market-with-AM3+-Black-Socket-Motherboards.html
I haven't seen that board hit retail though, it's rev 3.1.
But there is this board which is based on the 890FX chipset and have an AM3+ socket: ASRock 890FX DELUXE5 AM3+ AMD 890FX SATA 6Gb/s USB...
Doesn't that indicate that it's possible for the older 800/700 chips to support BD if they'd just switch sockets?
If it doesn't work then that board shouldn't even exist with that socket.
As I understand it, it's more about a P-State that the 8-series and earlier boards do not support, due to VRM design, so the actual silicon on the board is not important. This is also why a BIOS update is required for Bulldozer, and these BIOSes will not work well with Thuban, because of the different P-States.
I think I echo a lot of AMD fans' sentiment with what I have been saying over the past few months: "If bulldozer provides competitive performance (relative to the i7 2600) or at least price-competitive performance compared to the 2500, I'll stay with AMD. Otherwise, I will be seriously tempted to switch over to Intel".
Anyone else?
And if the rumored thread dispatcher patch increases the performance as much as AMD says, the 8120 looks even sweeter. I don't know if the cache trashing could be corrected with a patch too.
I was planning to upgrade in March so I can wait and see how things unfold.
Side question: Has anyone here actually ordered a retail 8150/8120 for their rig?
I'm finding it hard not to order a mobo/8150 to play with it myself, despite all of the mixed reviews. It looks like it would still be a fun chip to play with...
Check it: www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=153443&page=3
:toast:
Your screenies are really tempting me, and I only need a motherboard and the chip. I don't expect it to replace my 970, but I want a new toy that is different than what I've got you know?