AMD FX-8150 Tested with Latest Windows Hotfixes, Still No Improvement

we had AMD fan boys posting 20% improvements

I gave up on AMD already. I find it sad that they are trying to scapegoat the horrible IPC of their new chips which was something they knew was a problem but didn't focus on it.

What makes you different fanboy? You should be praying AMD doesn't leave the cpu market, instead your bashing the only competition. That makes you a not so smart fanboy.

Question: Since Win8 is based on the Win7 kernal, why should we expect any farther improvement?

AMD is a dead horse at this point and we all know that Intel is the big blue in this segment of the overall industry much like IBM was back in the day which isn't going to change any time soon. Intel can get away with it if they jacked prices now if they wanted while playing the harp by putting the blame on a superficial issue. The problem with AMD is that it is poorly organized and has no real leadership while corporate culture is like a boat with a hole in the bottom. I wouldn't want to work there either knowing how people think after BD ruined almost all it's chances of surviving for another few years. They could have gotten another year out of Stars but left it to rot and whoever suggested that it was a good idea to share a FPU between two cores and other limited resources per module is crazy. Their almost total reliance on automated design software for their cpus is what has doomed them in the end and will catch up to Intel someday.

@OP
I don't see how you can look yourself in the eye and say you aren't a fanboy but I digress.

4% for a hotfix doesn't seem bad. The people taunting 20% boosts looks just as bad as those who disregarded the possibility of software optimization of the scheduler.

window 8 will most likely be able to do it better, I don't see why it wouldn't as they will get more time with the hardware as well as most cooperation with AMD to fix it.

@nforce4max
bulldozer's failure isn't do to the design from AMD. everything they put up should work on paper, its the premature 32nm node and the forced launch on unoptimized software that really broke bulldozer. Neither of which is 100% under AMD's control but they should have tested better. The module design saved a lot of die area and would see no detrimental effects in general computing if done correctly.

I dont understand how AMD is getting based for having performance = and better than 2500K in some instances.

easy i posted the truth. I linked an article from a review and I stated "AMD fan boys where stating 20% on this site". If would be no different if I linked benchmarks from tests of Intel, Nvidia, Cooler Master, Antec, etc., If you don't like the review I linked so be it and stick your head in the sand and pretend it does not exist. I'm sure that strategy has served you well in..."life"

BD is not a bad chip at all nor is it a failure in the sense that it doesn't perform well, just doesn't perform as well as AMD's aggressive marketing campaign would have had you believe. I realize that Intel is a slightly better performer, but in real world everyday use the differences are very minute.

Does it surprise you that there was pretty much no increase in performance. As people have said on here a million times Bulldozer is a failure and a Windows 7 patch or Windows 8 isn't really going to do jack. The only hope they have is with Pile Driver.

No it's not. The Windows patch didn't do anything and it's not going to. Windows 8 isn't going to be any better. You have all the AMD fanboys on here boasting a 20% increase with Windows 8 and guess what it's not going to be anywhere near that. Again they their only hope is Pile Driver.

where? it managed to beat a 2500k in 1 test out of 30 and in the other tests it lost by 6-30 percent... seriously climb out of that bubble coz your not doing your cred any god with that fanboy crap...

it passmark put it ahead of the 2500k but only just and it has 4 more cores..

seriously do you want to be embarrassed with benchmarks...?

http://static.techspot.com/article [...] ory_01.png oops! thats 1
http://static.techspot.com/article [...] ory_02.png thats 2
http://static.techspot.com/article [...] tic_02.png it cant even match the 4170 so it looses out to its own lesser brother.
http://static.techspot.com/article [...] _03.png... seriously do you want me to go on....

these are results from just 1 site... if i could be botherd to drive this home i would post more...
but i guess you wouldnt listed so i wont bother. just know if you spend your money on the 8140fx your wasting your money when you can have more performance for less cash...

Funny how nobody uses those software's.

I think BD is badly overpriced CPU that shows little improvement over the phenom II to warrant an upgrade. As a new CPU it's capable enough but there are better options for the price and intel currently shows a better upgrade path. Stating the 8150 is equal to the i5-2500k is a flat out lie though. If you need to state that in order to convince yourself it's as good (to defend your purchase) so be it but it makes you sound a like a fool.


Any objective person will tell you that starting from scratch on new build, the i5-2500k is the way to go and most of the PCs I build include AMD processors including several built just for me.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=434

1. "I could give a **** about some upgrade path"

preceded

2. "and to think that AMD will not have something else to upgrade to by then is just stupidity"

so pick one, either you care or you don't. seems to me you are just defending your purchase against, clearly, a superior product.

I actually like the phenom II CPUs and have one in one of my builds.

the only 1 trolling is you gordon... you dont deserve to wear them tags...
i think a little troll best back off with his ignorance and stupidity remarks... or he may find the only ignorant and stupid person he can point his fingers at is himself...

i said you wouldn't listen. and you didnt. i use 3dsmax which cinibench models.
you obviously didnt get the first 2 which are just measures of memory band width and cache latency 2 of the more important aspects of a cpu... because the memory bandwidth is so low it means it will bottleneck gfx crads quicker, and the cache is slow it means it cant repeatedly read small instruction code as efficiently... grow up little boy or better still go play at the kiddies table and let the adults talk in piece.

Now if you oc the 2500k....

BD is as fast over all as 2500K so ya they are both beasts.

when you read/hear actual facts (not fan boy make believe) about BD, do you look like this in the mirror?

This is to effect me how and I will get BD when the price comes down a bit and it will be good for playing games and surfing the net end of story troll.

It shows you don't have a clue of what you're talking about, you lie with unsupported claims and how many times you can be wrong in a single thread. I'm still waiting for the so called proof that the Bulldozer is just as fast as the I5 as you claim. Since it doesn't exist I doubt you'll come up with any real proof so once again fanboy rage with no actual facts. Good get a Bulldozer if you like buying sub standard hardware that runs slow and hot that's your problem.

I guess this shows BD 8150 showing a solid performance. http://www.overclockers.com/amd-fx [...] sor-review

At some stage people are going to realise that nothing will be achieved by trying to convince either side that Bulldozer is superior or inferior to Sandy Bridge.

After all it's your money.

For all I care you could say that an air guitar plays better than a real guitar. I'm going to buy the real guitar tho.

Ok buddy whatever you say, BTW its pudding not putting, genius. I know I've seen that review before and I'm almost 100% sure your're the one who posted it. A good competitor for the I5? lay off the crack. Price to performance is a joke. The 8150 is perfect for this. It cost more than the I5 and doesn't come close to performance.