AMD FX Review

[monte84]

Not sure if it has been posted, but here it is.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/10/11/amd_bulldozer_fx8150_desktop_performance_review/1

 

[reverze]

http://www.kitguru.net/components/c...8-core-review-with-gigabyte-990fxa-ud7/all/1/

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1741/1/

another 2 reviews, bulldozer consistently beats core i5 and i7 in gaming benchmarks.

We got a winner

 

[entropy13]

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.

http://hardocp.com/article/2011/10/11/amd_bulldozer_fx8150_desktop_performance_review/10

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.

http://pcper.com/reviews/Processors...ulldozer-Unearth-AMD-Victory/Closing-Thoughts

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'.

http://guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150-processor-review/21

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.

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1741/20/

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.

http://hothardware.com/Reviews/AMD-FX8150-8Core-Processor-Review-Bulldozer-Has-Landed/?page=11

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.

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/32110-amd-bulldozer-fx-8150/?page=8

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.

http://www.techspot.com/review/452-amd-bulldozer-fx-cpus/page13.html

I'm also not entirely thrilled with the way the FX-8150 managed to edge so close to the Core i5-2500K in our overall performance index, with strong performances in certain types of widely parallel tests and some really rather weak showings in more typical desktop applications that use one to four threads. Bulldozer's performance characteristics could make a fair amount of sense for server-class workloads, but desktop users will probably always have to contend with some applications dominated by a nasty, branchy single main thread. In such cases, the FX chips aren't horribly weak, but they're sometimes no faster than a relatively cheap CPU like the Athlon II X3 455.

Faced with such results, AMD likes to talk about how Bulldozer is a "forward-looking" architecture aimed at "tomorrow's workloads" that will benefit greatly from future complier and OS optimizations. That is, I am sure, to some degree true. Yet when I hear those words, I can't help but get flashbacks to the days of the Pentium 4, when Intel said almost the exact same things—right up until it gave up on the architecture and went back the P6. I'm not suggesting AMD will need to make such a massive course correction, but I am not easily sold on CPUs that don't run today's existing code well, especially the nicely multithreaded and optimized code in a test suite like ours. The reality on most user desktops is likely to be much harsher.

Speaking of harsh realities, the fact that such a large chip, at 315 mm², can't manage to keep up with Intel's much smaller Sandy Bridge silicon is really quite unfortunate. The hope for the Bulldozer architecture's success in desktop PCs now rests on a series of future possibilities, starting with the maturation of GlobalFoundries' 32-nm manufacturing process. We know AMD is having trouble shipping enough Llano chips to meet demand, and thanks to our overclocking exploits, we have a sense that FX-series processors may be up against process-related challenges, too. If those get fixed and AMD is able to squeeze several hundred megahertz or more into the same power window, maybe the FX series can improve its value proposition.

Beyond that, we know AMD already has working examples of the Trinity APU, whose "Piledriver" core includes improvements for both instruction throughput and power savings. The plan of record is for Trinity to be on the market before Intel's Ivy Bridge arrives next spring. An updated server and desktop chip based on Piledriver—a true replacement for Orochi/Zambezi—is slated for some time next year, as well. If AMD can deliver those chips in timely fashion and stick to its projected yearly release cadence, with the mysterious "Steamroller" and "Exacavator" scheduled for 2013 and 2014, perhaps this architecture will progress toward its true potential.

http://techreport.com/articles.x/21813/19

I was hoping for Bulldozer to address AMD's weakness, rather than continue to just focus on its strengths. I suspect this architecture will do quite well in the server space, but for client computing we may have to wait a bit longer for a more competitive part from AMD. The true culprit for Bulldozer's lackluster single-threaded performance is difficult to track down. The easy answer would seem to be clock speed. We've heard of issues at Global Foundries and perhaps Bulldozer is the latest victim. If AMD's clock targets were 30% higher than Phenom II, it simply didn't make them with the FX-8150. I've heard future derivatives will focus more on increasing IPC indepedent of process technology and clock speed, but if you asked me what was the one limit to success I would say clock speed. As a secondary factor, AMD appeared to make some tradeoffs to maintain a reasonable die size at 32nm. Even then Bulldozer can hardly be considered svelte. I suspect as AMD is able to transition to smaller transistor geometries, it will be able to address some of Bulldozer's physical shortcomings.

The good news is AMD has a very aggressive roadmap ahead of itself, here's hoping it will be able to execute against it.We all need AMD to succeed. We've seen what happens without a strong AMD as a competitor. We get processors that are artificially limited and severe restrictions on overclocking, particularly at the value end of the segment. We're denied choice simply because there's no other alternative. I don't believe Bulldozer is a strong enough alternative to force Intel back into an ultra competitive mode, but we absolutely need it to be that. I have faith that AMD can pull it off, but there's still a lot of progress that needs to be made. AMD can't simply rely on its GPU architecture superiority to sell APUs, it needs to ramp on the x86 side as well - more specifically, AMD needs better single threaded performance. Bulldozer didn't deliver that, and I'm worried that Piledriver alone won't be enough. But if AMD can stick to a yearly cadence and execute well with each iteration, there's hope. It's no longer a question of whether AMD will return to the days of the Athlon 64, it simply must. Otherwise you can kiss choice goodbye.

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

So, let’s say someone puts Core i5-2500K and FX-8150 in front of you. The Core i5 costs $220 bucks, and the FX runs $245. Which one do you buy?

If it’s me, I’m going with the Core i5. I gave the -2500K a Tom’s Hardware Recommended Buy award back in January, and I stick by that recommendation almost a year later.

In the very best-case scenario, when you can throw a ton of work at the FX and fully utilize its eight integer cores, it generally falls in between Core i5-2500K and Core i7-2600K—which is where it should appear all of the time given a price tag between those two most relevant competitors. Sometimes FX manages to outperform the higher-end -2600K, but other times it’s embarrassingly bested by its predecessor in threaded workloads.

Toss a single-threaded app at the processor, though, and it underperforms Intel's three-year-old Core i7-920 running at its stock 2.66 GHz. AMD’s architects say they shot to maintain IPC and ramp up clock rate, but something clearly went wrong along the way.

Ironically, consistent, scalable performance is one of the attributes that AMD claims it gets from its Bulldozer module. The issue we see over and over, though, is that it relies on software able to exploit scalability in order to compete. When it doesn’t get what it wants, performance steps back relative to the previous generation. As a result, even though AMD implements a more advanced version of Turbo Core to help improve single-threaded performance, the difference between what you get in lightly- and heavily-threaded applications is anything but consistent.

AMD validly points out that Bulldozer is an architecture in its infancy accompanied by an aggressive roadmap. It incorporates future-looking ISA enhancements and a layout clearly conceptualized with threaded software in mind. Performance in the applications able to take advantage of those considerations is fair in light of AMD's asking price. But the compromises made elsewhere don't justify $245, in my opinion.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-24.html

Unfortunately the new Bulldozer based FX series did not turn out to be as powerful as we were anticipating, nor were they as efficient. Still it’s not all bad news, as Bulldozer did display a great deal of potential, and in typical AMD fashion they are cheap.

There are a few reasons for our disappointment with Bulldozers performance. Firstly the FX-8150 really struggled to handle the Core i5-2500K in a manner that we thought it should. If you look at our application benchmarks, such as Excel 2010 and Photoshop CS5, the FX-8150 was only just able to match the Core i5-2500K, while it was still much slower when testing with WinRAR.

Although it could be considered a great success, matching the performance of a high performance processor such as the Core i5-2500K, keep in mind the FX-8150 is more expensive and does consume considerably more power. Another factor to consider is that the Core i5-2500K features just four cores with four threads, whereas the FX-8150 has eight cores at its disposal.

Even so, when we ran our encoding benchmarks, which focus on tests capable of using all eight cores, the FX-8150 didn’t exactly shine. The Core i5-2500K was slightly faster when using HandBrake, while it was worlds faster in TMPGEnc XPress, not to mention it blasted the FX-8150 in the x264 HD Benchmark. To think that the FX-8150 had twice as many cores to play with and it still came up short, really speaks volumes about the core efficiency of the Sandy Bridge processors.

When it comes to real-world gaming using realistic quality settings at resolutions gamers are going to play at, either processor will suffice. Still, the Core i5-2500K was again the faster option of the two, leaving the FX-8150 unable to claim a victory.

The FX-8150 is certainly cheap at $245 for an eight-core processor, but if you break down the performance the Core i5-2500K still seems like the better deal. The FX-8120 on the other hand, which is essentially the same processor as the FX-8150 as both are fully unlocked, costs just $205 and at this price is cheaper than the Core i5-2500K.

Picking between the Core i5-2500K and the FX-8120 is a much harder decision, and depending on your needs you could really go either way. For gaming we would probably stick with the Core i5-2500K for now, but those looking at using heavily threaded programs the FX-8120 could be the way to go.

Then there is the cheaper $165 six-core FX-6100 to consider, and frankly we were most disappointed with this processor. While it did show strong gains over the Phenom II X6 1100T in programs such as Excel, WinRAR and Photoshop, it was considerably weaker when testing with Fritz Chess 12. Moreover it was slower in the HandBrake and x264 HD Benchmark, while it was also slower in virtually every game we threw at it.

The FX-6100 is so much slower than the Core i5-2500K that there is really no point in making that comparison. At $165 it is priced to compete with the Core i5-2300 ($180) or the Core i3-2130 ($150), so we will have to look into making that comparison shortly.

Disabling half the cores of the FX-8150 and overclocking it to 4.2GHz with a turbo clock of 4.3GHz to mimic the FX-4170 provided us with unbelievably poor performance. Although this configuration should represent the performance of the FX-4170 very accurately, it is hard to believe that the quad-core version of Bulldozer will be so much slower than existing Phenom II X4 processors in most tests.

Overclocking performance is not all that fantastic either, as we were able to push the FX-8150 to just 4.4GHz on air. When compared to the 4.1GHz of our Phenom II X6 1100T that’s not bad, but when compared to the 5.2GHz possible when using the Core i5-2500K or Core i7-2600K it’s not great. Granted this extreme overclock has only been possible on the Asus Maximus IV Extreme-Z, although all other P67 and Z68 motherboards reach at least 4.7–4.8GHz.

Overall we have been disappointed with the Bulldozer launch as we really were hoping for a lot more from the eight-core processors. After all this time it is disappointing to find that these new processors do little to improve AMD’s situation, as they struggled to compete with the now 9 month old Sandy Bridge processors. Moreover, in many cases the Phenom II, which is now well over 18 months old, was able to deliver better performance.

Still, this is just the start for Bulldozer, and there is much more to be seen from the FX range. Things can certainly improve and we are interested to see how the FX processors handle the upcoming Battlefield 3 video game.

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8150fx_8120fx_6100_and_fx_4170,9.html

 

[seronx]

http://www.kitguru.net/components/c...8-core-review-with-gigabyte-990fxa-ud7/all/1/

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1741/1/

another 2 reviews, bulldozer consistently beats core i5 and i7 in gaming benchmarks.

We got a winner

Not with that power consumption

Sandy Bridge 2600K has 1 Billion Transistors
Orochi FX-8150 has 2 Billion Transistors

I fail to see the point when FX can't even beat something that it has twice of

 

[reverze]

price and performance matter to most, not worried about anything else

 

[seronx]

price and performance matter to most, not worried about anything else

No. Price, Performance and Power matter to most

FX 8XXX

Price: 2500K
Performance: 2500K
Power: AC Unit

 

[Inceptor]

Notice the wattage value in the cpu-z screenshots in the kitguru review... there's no change between stock and overclock... it's not reporting properly.

 

[xenocide]

http://www.kitguru.net/components/c...8-core-review-with-gigabyte-990fxa-ud7/all/1/

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1741/1/

another 2 reviews, bulldozer consistently beats core i5 and i7 in gaming benchmarks.

We got a winner

If by "consistently" you mean "only in Resident Evil 5" then you are correct. The Kitguru one should be invalidated on the grounds that they used 4 very different machines. The 2 SB setups had different Mobo's, SSD's, and I think even RAM. Any one of those can affect performance.

 

[bucketface]

here's anand's review
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested

Edit*
was really hoping that they had some way to push a thread through a module as if it were a single core. having a module dynamically switch between functioning as 1 or 2 cores would have made this a definite winner, well i guess it's doing about as well as i was expecting.

 

[kiddagoat]

Everything I have been reading pretty much gives it mixed reviews. For the most part it appears that Bulldozer is more of a server workload orientated chip. Under heavily threaded applications, this chip screams.

On more singularly threaded applications, it cannot even outpace the 1100T before it. Definitely more future-proof than current gen. Now on certain games this is not the case but overall, everyday type computing this chip drags.

Depending on usage, I would have to say that the i5 is still a better price/performance ratio.

This is no fanboy here because I was rocking an AMD before June of this year.

Give me pseudo workstation for VMs, multimedia creation, or other workstation task TWO BIG THUMBS UP!

Gaming system, i5 all the way. Again talking about price/performance.

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

http://www.kitguru.net/components/c...8-core-review-with-gigabyte-990fxa-ud7/all/1/

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1741/1/

another 2 reviews, bulldozer consistently beats core i5 and i7 in gaming benchmarks.

We got a winner

By most you mean sometimes, and by winner you mean irrationally positive skew.

These chips suck. I was prepared to think they may serve some use when they drop $40 bucks but that power consumption is just asinine. Now that board prices are the same this is a total loss for AMD. Sure there's the perpetual underdog fans that will buy it and force themselves to believe it performs best out right or for the price but honestly how much do those people really drive sales? I'd wager not enough to make a dent in the R&D bill. Maybe the server chips will do better? Seems that's what they were really designed for.

 

[entropy13]

EDIT: I'll just combine all reviews I encounter on the first post I made.

 

[Rowsol]

Sigh... was hoping this would be good.

 

[seronx]

Sigh... was hoping this would be good.

I was really hyped but I should have noticed the signs

Orochi 16c having the same amount of Flops per Cycle as Sandy Bridge 4c

should have been a dead giveaway for me

If you don't know what I am talking about here:

Sandy Bridge 6c here I come

 

[xenocide]

Has anyone located a review of the 4100? That oughta be cringe-worthy...

 

[Goodman]

Has anyone located a review of the 4100? That oughta be cringe-worthy...

There you go...

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8150fx_8120fx_6100_and_fx_4170,1.html

Like i thought better get an PIIx6 than a FX6100

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

It's interesting really just how many things were predicted spot on so far back. Once again AMD price leaks perfectly describe performance.

Man looking at that anandtech review the gaming performance is horrible.

 

[Damn_Smooth]

Just glad to know that Battlefield 3 runs better on Bulldozer. That was the only thing I wanted to upgrade for. Old games don't mean shit to me.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/10/11/amd_bulldozer_fx8150_gameplay_performance_review/2

If anyone has anything to prove me wrong since this was the only review I have read, show it to me.

 

[seronx]

Just glad to know that Battlefield 3 runs better on Bulldozer. That was the only thing I wanted to upgrade for. Old games don't mean shit to me.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/10/11/amd_bulldozer_fx8150_gameplay_performance_review/2

If anyone has anything to prove me wrong since this was the only review I have read, show it to me.

Good luck finding a 1000+ Watt PSU with super high efficiency

Unless you can

 

[xenocide]

Just glad to know that Battlefield 3 runs better on Bulldozer. That was the only thing I wanted to upgrade for. Old games don't mean shit to me.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/10/11/amd_bulldozer_fx8150_gameplay_performance_review/2

If anyone has anything to prove me wrong since this was the only review I have read, show it to me.

Except that the Average FPS is actually lower.

 

[Damn_Smooth]

Good luck finding a 1000+ Watt PSU with super high efficiency

Unless you can

http://knowyourmeme.com/i/000/052/812/original/Deal_with_it_dog_gif.gif?1275684729

Yup, you need 1000 watts at stock. :shadedshu Damn, you're clever.

Except that the Average FPS is actually lower.

Not at my res.

 

[Inceptor]

Well, it's an improvement over Phenom II in many respects.
If you're a gamer, and only use AMD, best to hold onto your Phenom II or buy a 1100T now, and wait for Windows 8 + BD or Windows 8 + PD.
If you're someone who can use the multithreading go for BD.

The reason that BD is roughly equal (either slightly under or slightly over) to the Phenom II x6, in some benchmarks, is that the x6 has better FPU performance. BD sacrifices FPU for integer performance, where it approaches the 990x in some benchmarks.

It's a 'fail' only if you're a gamer, and only a gamer, with no other meaningful use for your system, other than benchmarking and overclocking.

It's acceptable if you're interested in everything else.
That said, I'm not sure if I'll buy a BD, or wait for PD. I'll wait to see what, if any, incremental tweaks are done in later production runs.
And for news of a Windows 7 patch.

 

[WarraWarra]

LMAO so a laptop i7-2760qm is better than a FX8150, man this FX-8150 is sad.
Amd would have to drop the price fast to get sales.

As for design / layout and everything else except performance this looks like a very good base for future cpu's.

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

Except that the Average FPS is actually lower.

Except when overclocked. That's where it pulls ahead by a whopping 3 fps in this particular beta. Totally worth sucking in every other game and costing you perpetually more money for said suckage. Bad logic is bad.

 

[xenocide]

Except when overclocked. That's where it pulls ahead by a whopping 3 fps in this particular beta. Totally worth sucking in every other game and costing you perpetually more money for said suckage. Bad logic is bad.

Not to mention when they OC'd the Intel CPU's their FPS magically went down?