AMD Bulldozer Review: FX-8150 Gets Tested

Platform Support For FX: Make Sure It’s AM3+

When AMD launched its 990FX chipset (The 990FX Chipset Arrives: AMD And SLI Rise Again), there wasn’t much new to report aside from Socket AM3+ and Nvidia SLI support. But pushing out a platform update ahead of FX’s launch wasn’t a bad idea. After all, existing Socket AM3-compatible CPUs could easily drop into the 990FX-based motherboards, establishing a foundation for Socket AM3+ FX processors.

From my 990FX platform review: "You need the 942-pin Socket AM3+ (AM3b) interface, though, in order to support Zambezi’s power and frequency management features."

If you already own a Socket AM3+-equipped board, you need to flash its firmware with a Socket AM3-based processor installed before upgrading to an FX CPU. The firmware updates AMD’s AGESA (AMD Generic Encapsulated Software Architecture) to support the Bulldozer architecture.

Enthusiasts still running previous-generation Thuban- or Deneb-based Phenom IIs may not want to adopt these FX-enabling BIOS updates. We hear from the motherboard vendors that the performance of an older processor could be negatively affected by extensive changes made to the AGESA.

FX processors will not work in an AM3-based board. AMD deliberately blocked that combination out in its BIOS. Now, what if you’re rocking an 890FX-based motherboard with a Socket AM3+ interface? AMD isn’t explicitly supporting such a configuration, though Socket AM3+/890FX boards do exist. Compatibility could be a roll of the dice, but there isn't any specific reason a vendor claiming interoperability can't achieve it.

In addition to the 990FX chipset, AMD also supports Zambezi-based FX processors with its 990X and 970 chipsets. Of course, 990FX supports as many as four graphics cards through a 4 x 8-lane PCI Express 2.0 configuration (or you can do two true x16 slots). AMD’s 990X does up to two discrete cards through a pair of x8 slots (or one card in a x16 slot). Going the 970 route caps you at a single x16 slot for graphics; CrossFire simply is not supported on that platform.

Because AMD designs its own CPUs, chipsets, and graphics cards, it’s able to build complete platforms. Two years ago, the company’s Dragon platform included Socket AM2/AM2+ Phenom II processors, the 790 chipset, and Radeon HD 4000-series GPUs. Last year, Leo added the Socket AM3-based Phenom IIs, its 890-series chipsets, and Radeon HD 5000-series cards. In 2011, Scorpius centers on an AM3+-based FX, any of those three 900-series chipsets, and a Radeon HD 6000 add-in board.

On Unlocking Cores

All seven of the Zambezi-based FX processors employ the same silicon. Some of the processors have one Bulldozer module disabled, and some have two turned off. Seemingly, that’d set us up for the same sort of situation we saw when I got my hands on AMD’s quad-core Zosma processor, where a quad-core chip based on a hexa-core die could be unlocked to enable all six cores. Apparently, AMD says that won’t happen this time around. The company claims to have disabled the way in which this might have been possible. It's instead cranking up the clocks on SKUs with fewer cores, Turning on that disabled logic could cause stability issues.

With all of that said, we heard that core unlocking wasn’t possible a couple of years ago. And yet, we still managed to get several Phenom II X3s unlocked. We won’t close the door on the FX until motherboard vendors start confirming they can’t take a, say, FX-4100 up to something similar to an -8150.

Create a new thread in the US Reviews comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
530 comments
    Your comment
    Top Comments
  • Homeboy2
    killerclickAs I said before, it won't come close to beating Intel in performance or price. Now let's hear the fanboys whine.


    Everyone 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.
    55
  • jdwii
    Been so long and i'm kinda sad.
    52
  • gmcizzle
    What I learned: the 2.5 year old i7-920 is still a beast.
    48
  • Other Comments
  • btto
    yeah finaly, now i'll read it
    -25
  • ghnader hsmithot
    nOT Bad AMd!
    -35
  • jdwii
    Been so long and i'm kinda sad.
    52
  • compton
    Not many surprises but I've been waiting for a long, long time for this. I hope this is just the first step to a more competitive AMD.
    43
  • ghnader hsmithot
    At least its almost as good as Nehalem.
    29
  • gamerk316
    Dissapointing. Predicted it ages ago though. PII X6 is a better value.
    40
  • Anonymous
    As I expected - failure.
    26
  • AbdullahG
    I see the guys from the BD Rumors are here. As many others are, I'm disappointed.
    25
  • iam2thecrowe
    for the gaming community this is a FLOP.
    33
  • phump
    FX-4100 looks like a good alternative to the 955BE. Same price, higher clock, and lower power profile.
    25
  • phatbuddha79
    Why bring back the FX brand for something like this?
    40
  • gmcizzle
    What I learned: the 2.5 year old i7-920 is still a beast.
    48
  • jdwii
    This is sad, I'm still getting it as its my only option i'm getting a 8120 Toms why did you only review a 8150 when they have all of them on other sites?
    -25
  • ern88
    What I've learned is...AMD=FAIL!!!!!
    -31
  • killerclick
    As I said before, it won't come close to beating Intel in performance or price. Now let's hear the fanboys whine.

    Buh-bye AMD, buh-bye!
    -35
  • Ragnar-Kon
    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.
    25
  • Tamz_msc
    So Bulldozer is AMD's version of NetBurst?
    24
  • Homeboy2
    killerclickAs I said before, it won't come close to beating Intel in performance or price. Now let's hear the fanboys whine.


    Everyone 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.
    55
  • killerclick
    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.
    -35
  • the associate
    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...
    11