AMD FX-8150 Review: From Bulldozer To Zambezi To FX
Tags:
- Bulldozer
-
AMD
-
Processors
Last response: in Reviews comments
Perhaps the most hotly-anticipated launch in 2011, AMD’s FX processor line-up is finally ready for prime time. Does the company’s new Bulldozer architecture have what it takes to face Intel’s Sandy Bridge and usher in a new era of competition?
AMD FX-8150 Review: From Bulldozer To Zambezi To FX : Read more
AMD FX-8150 Review: From Bulldozer To Zambezi To FX : Read more
More about : amd 8150 review bulldozer zambezi
btto
October 12, 2011 4:13:43 AM
ghnader hsmithot
October 12, 2011 4:13:50 AM
Related resources
- Amd am3 bulldozer / zambezi fx-8150 black edition can support gigabyte 880gm-usb - Forum
- AMD FX-8150 Zambezi 8-Core 3.6GHz (3.9GHz/4.2GHz Turbo) Socket AM3+ 125W Desktop Processor with Liquid Cooling Kit Driver - Forum
- AMD FX-8150 Zambezi 3.6GHZ VS AMD FX-8350 Vishera 4.0GHz? - Forum
- Overclocking The AMD Bulldozer FX-8150 - Forum
- AMD Bulldozer\'s have arrived! FX-8150, FX-8120 & FX-6100 - Forum
jdwii
October 12, 2011 4:14:47 AM
compton
October 12, 2011 4:16:12 AM
ghnader hsmithot
October 12, 2011 4:16:24 AM
gamerk316
October 12, 2011 4:17:18 AM
Anonymous
October 12, 2011 4:18:17 AM
AbdullahG
October 12, 2011 4:18:54 AM
phump
October 12, 2011 4:22:05 AM
phatbuddha79
October 12, 2011 4:25:06 AM
gmcizzle
October 12, 2011 4:25:09 AM
jdwii
October 12, 2011 4:28:28 AM
ern88
October 12, 2011 4:28:37 AM
killerclick
October 12, 2011 4:31:47 AM
Ragnar-Kon
October 12, 2011 4:36:53 AM
Looks like solid chips, but I'll admit that the price point isn't low enough to compete in the gaming world with Intel.
I am rather curious how the FX-4100 will stack up against the current Phenom II X4 chips.
And even though the FX is a slight disappointment, I am rather impressed by the Windows 8 benchmarks. Having said that, by the time Windows 8 is ready for release I'm sure Intel will have an even better solution.
I am rather curious how the FX-4100 will stack up against the current Phenom II X4 chips.
And even though the FX is a slight disappointment, I am rather impressed by the Windows 8 benchmarks. Having said that, by the time Windows 8 is ready for release I'm sure Intel will have an even better solution.
Score
25
Tamz_msc
October 12, 2011 4:37:13 AM
Homeboy2
October 12, 2011 4:38:22 AM
killerclick
October 12, 2011 4:40:27 AM
homeboy2Everyone should cry, even the Intel fanboys, this is bad news for everyone, now Intel has absolutely no incentive to lower prices or accelerate Ivy Bridge.
Intel shouldn't lower prices, they should raise them. I'll gladly pay more to reward competent product development and nothing would please me more than AMD going down in flames for all their flops in the past 5 years. Intel doesn't need AMD to push them forward.
Score
-36
the associate
October 12, 2011 4:41:02 AM
killerclickAs I said before, it won't come close to beating Intel in performance or price. Now let's hear the fanboys whine.
Waaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!
Bah, well, been with AMD since my first pc like 8 years ago...Guess I'll be going intel for the first time ever especially since I can get an overkill cpu for just 300 bucks. Hell that's how much I payed for my phenom II 955...
Score
12
liquidchild
October 12, 2011 4:43:59 AM
joe nate
October 12, 2011 4:49:11 AM
Funny, how if you enter to win the test rig it says
"Please Enter The Text Exactly As Displayed"
and proceeds to give you a basic math problem. Yet, if you follow directions and enter it exactly as displayed it says it says it failed and you may not be human. But if you ignore the directions and solve the basic math problem and enter the answer, it lets you enter.
Fail.
"Please Enter The Text Exactly As Displayed"
and proceeds to give you a basic math problem. Yet, if you follow directions and enter it exactly as displayed it says it says it failed and you may not be human. But if you ignore the directions and solve the basic math problem and enter the answer, it lets you enter.
Fail.
Score
-4
Crashman
October 12, 2011 4:53:33 AM
fyasko
October 12, 2011 4:58:10 AM
brizzelsprout
October 12, 2011 4:58:38 AM
sylar365
October 12, 2011 5:02:12 AM
I am gathering from the benchmarks that the people who need blurry photos in a hurry should take a very close look at this new AMD offering at it's current price point. Also, why would AMD put their newest product up against a 2 and half year old Intel chip in it's own promotional publications? Seriously ... should I just file that under a "lack of confidence" or "self-defeatism"?
Score
11
Yuka
October 12, 2011 5:02:45 AM
Great review as usual, Mr. Chris!
Well, then the FX8150 looks more of a sidegrade to the PhII965 @4Ghz than an upgrade, huh...
AMD, I AM DISAPPOINT.
Oh well, let's wait for Piledriver to be a FXII-8150 or some name like that, lol.
What about some OC testing, Mr. Chris? I'm curious as to the FX making up for it's incompetence to beat steadily the 2500k with more Hertz under the hood.
Cheers!
Well, then the FX8150 looks more of a sidegrade to the PhII965 @4Ghz than an upgrade, huh...
AMD, I AM DISAPPOINT.
Oh well, let's wait for Piledriver to be a FXII-8150 or some name like that, lol.
What about some OC testing, Mr. Chris? I'm curious as to the FX making up for it's incompetence to beat steadily the 2500k with more Hertz under the hood.
Cheers!
Score
20
tacoslave
October 12, 2011 5:02:46 AM
soky602
October 12, 2011 5:03:12 AM
phatbuddha79Why bring back the FX brand for something like this?
Thats a very good question. The last FX whomped the Pentium 4 EE series. This just is not FX. Its barley even BE worthy.
Tamz_mscSo Bulldozer is AMD's version of NetBurst?
I thought that was Phenom I.
homeboy2Everyone should cry, even the Intel fanboys, this is bad news for everyone, now Intel has absolutely no incentive to lower prices or accelerate Ivy Bridge.
Thats what i have been saying. Intel needs the competition, BUT they have been doing well for 5 years without any true competition, releasing new CPUs every year with betetr performance and decent prices. I hope Intel keeps going even with this let down.
In order for BD to be a success, it had to meet or beat the 2600K. Thats the only way.
Score
18
leon2006
October 12, 2011 5:07:36 AM
This is a sad day for users... No real competition for Intel...
May be these models will do better....
http://www.cat.com/equipment
cheers
May be these models will do better....
http://www.cat.com/equipment
cheers
Score
20
thesnappyfingers
October 12, 2011 5:07:41 AM
Crashman
October 12, 2011 5:08:17 AM
jimmysmittyThats what i have been saying. Intel needs the competition, BUT they have been doing well for 5 years without any true competition, releasing new CPUs every year with betetr performance and decent prices.
Right now Intel has competition near the top, itself. They're pushing people to keep upgrading on a continuous three-year cycle just like the old days. When Intel slows down, people hold onto their old machine longer and Intel loses sales to its own older equipment. Score
16
Anonymous
October 12, 2011 5:09:06 AM
moonshell
October 12, 2011 5:12:56 AM
darkguset
October 12, 2011 5:17:00 AM
Disappointed, but not giving up... Intel was in a similar position a few years back. I hope things will change again some time sooner rather than later. Perhaps the engineers should focus on making the chip a good performer in one specific area, like they did with their K7 back in the days (great FPU). That would at least throw them back in the game and they would excel in some areas and make their product attractive to at least part of the market. I think they tried too much getting a chip that would do everything and... it does something... but nothing particularly well.
Score
9
aniklues
October 12, 2011 5:19:18 AM
jprahman
October 12, 2011 5:20:25 AM
Bulldozer is more like man with a shovel. I'm completely underwhelmed at the performance of Bulldozer. You know it's pretty bad when even a 4-core, ~3 year old Phenom is beating a 8-core Bulldozer processor in some of the tests. The performance of Bulldozer is so erratic. It'll beat most of the others in some tests, but end up at the back of the pack in others. I was seriously considering getting a Bulldozer processor at some point so I would have a machine with a high core count, well, I've decided that I probably won't go that route now. I had a lot of enthusiasm for Bulldozer, but I'm completely disappointed. Another poster commented that Bulldozer is AMD's Netburst, and I have to agree.
Score
22
hmp_goose
October 12, 2011 5:20:36 AM
valu3hunt3r
October 12, 2011 5:22:29 AM
Only winner from the BD release is Intel, especially if they release the rumored i7 2700K and lower the prices of the rest of the Sandy Bridge lineup of chips (and basically slam the door on a huge chunk of sales from AMD).
In saying that; I almost thought AMD were never going to release these chips =/
Marketing, and AMD are going to need a lot of it now for Bulldozer (their Llano and in future Trinity chips might help them weather the storm for the CPU division though, well until Piledriver comes along).
In saying that; I almost thought AMD were never going to release these chips =/
phatbuddha79Why bring back the FX brand for something like this?
Marketing, and AMD are going to need a lot of it now for Bulldozer (their Llano and in future Trinity chips might help them weather the storm for the CPU division though, well until Piledriver comes along).
Score
14
Zero_
October 12, 2011 5:25:50 AM
Soma42
October 12, 2011 5:26:59 AM
::facepalm::
I was all ready to get a new CPU and this, heart-breaking utterly disappointing piece of silicon, will not be it. Ivy Bridge I'm waiting for you.
I want a kick ass CPU deserving of the "FX" moniker , not some server oriented chip that performs worse than the last generation in half of the benchmarks.
AMD: you need to compete to keep the market alive!!!!! Please do better!!!!
EDIT: Good review, thanks!
I was all ready to get a new CPU and this, heart-breaking utterly disappointing piece of silicon, will not be it. Ivy Bridge I'm waiting for you.
I want a kick ass CPU deserving of the "FX" moniker , not some server oriented chip that performs worse than the last generation in half of the benchmarks.
AMD: you need to compete to keep the market alive!!!!! Please do better!!!!
EDIT: Good review, thanks!
Score
23
intersteller
October 12, 2011 5:28:38 AM
Man, what a disappointing turn of events. Why bother with the FX branding AMD? I have ♥ AMD for a long time, but I feel that they are simply not a large enough company to compete with Intel, Intel has about 5x the number of employees.
THIS IS BAD FOR EVERYONE. Intel has no competition and is 5x larger, sad days. Intel can charge $1,000 for a processor and people will buy it simply b/c there is no competition for processors at that level.
I would like to say, that the 4xxx processor looks promising to me, may be worth an upgrade from my 955BE.
Another thing to note, WHY does AMD stress the importance of extra cores? We are not at a point where anything is optimized to use these cores, so whats the point. If I were to get an Intel K process, I could disable HT.
Man I have been searching the web for BD news and rumors for the last 3 months, and this is what I get? Yes, its an improvement, but not much.
THIS IS BAD FOR EVERYONE. Intel has no competition and is 5x larger, sad days. Intel can charge $1,000 for a processor and people will buy it simply b/c there is no competition for processors at that level.
I would like to say, that the 4xxx processor looks promising to me, may be worth an upgrade from my 955BE.
Another thing to note, WHY does AMD stress the importance of extra cores? We are not at a point where anything is optimized to use these cores, so whats the point. If I were to get an Intel K process, I could disable HT.
Man I have been searching the web for BD news and rumors for the last 3 months, and this is what I get? Yes, its an improvement, but not much.
Score
8
psyxix
October 12, 2011 5:28:39 AM
compton
October 12, 2011 5:31:53 AM
I know Mr. Angelini's review is a rollercoaster ride, but AMD faithful shouldn't be losing their lunches. Overall, it's not as bad as it seems, but I know that those who've been waiting month after agonizing month were hoping for more. Still, there's some good stuff here and who knows how it will perform in another metric: fun. Last year I bought 3 AMD processors. I truly hoped that Bulldozer would drop in the spring, and it didn't, but I whiled away the time by tweaking Phenoms, unlocking cores, undervolting them and overvolting them. It's a lot of fun, an important measure. Only two Sandy Bridge processors are any fun at all. Given the fact that the other 8 "core" Bulldozer will be more like $200 and could probably be as fast as the flagship with a multiplier bump, you get more value there. So they'll still be fun when paired with a great motherboard, and still pretty reasonable in price. Better power management helps efficiency, and while the best case performance scenario is good, the worst case isn't that bad either. It's not as fast as SB much of the time, but don't take that to mean BD is bunk; rather SB is just really, really good. Throughout all of the leaked slides and rumors and delays, I and many others said if it could come close to SB it would be a win, and I still think that's a case. AMD is still more flexible in some ways and still believes catering to the enthusiast is important. I still think I'll buy into BD even though I upgraded to a SB system this spring when BD was nowhere in sight. I don't think I'll be disappointed either. There are many other metrics that aren't covered in Mr. Angelini's thorough article anyway. Those will come out, and then we can see the whole platform as a package. It's still a net win.
Score
-9
falchard
October 12, 2011 5:34:18 AM
Anonymous
October 12, 2011 5:37:05 AM
AMD should really take what they have now and work on making a standard clock of 5GHz. The architecture is great, AMD has always had great ideas, but they haven't been able to follow through with the performance this time.
I think if Bulldozer had a clock of 5GHz, within the 125W, then it would be good enough.
What a shame though ... looks like I will be getting an i5 at the end of the month.
I think if Bulldozer had a clock of 5GHz, within the 125W, then it would be good enough.
What a shame though ... looks like I will be getting an i5 at the end of the month.
Score
-6
Related resources
- AMD Bulldozer's have arrived! FX-8150, FX-8120 & FX-6100 Forum
- AMD Bulldozer's have arrived! FX-8150, FX-8120 & FX-6100 Forum
- AMD Bulldozer's have arrived! FX-8150, FX-8120 & FX-6100 Forum
- SolvedAMD FX-4130 Zambezi temperature Forum
- AMD zambezi (bulldozer) architecture Forum
- AMD Zambezi vs Bulldozer Forum
- SolvedAMD Zambezi (Vishera) FX-8350 vs Intel Core i7 - 3.5GHz - 4770k Forum
- SolvedAMD FX-4170 Zambezi 4.2GHz Heatsink Help Forum
- SolvedAMD Zambezi FX 6200 Forum
- SolvedAMD FX 4100 Zambezi 3.6ghz Comparability Help Forum
- Bulldozer FX-8150 Thread Affinity performance improvement ? Forum
- SolvedI need help picking a processor intel core i5-4590 or AMD FX-8150 Forum
- SolvedAMD FX8150 throttling issues when new CPU fan installed Forum
- SolvedAMD FX-8150 High temperatures Forum
- is AMD FX-6100 Zambezi 3.3GHz good? Forum
- More resources
!