AMD Bulldozer Review: FX-8150 Gets Tested

Sneak Peek: AMD’s Bulldozer Architecture On Windows 8

It’s far, far too early to pass judgment on Bulldozer’s performance in Windows 8. However, we already know that Windows 7 isn’t explicitly optimized for the idea of a Bulldozer module. I’ve already talked to the guy from Microsoft who owns process management and threading subsystem in Windows (Arun Kishan), who says Windows schedules to them equally (even if that’s not optimal). And we have a good idea that the next iteration of Windows might be handling them differently.

According to AMD, Windows 8 will more intelligently align threads so that, when they can benefit from sharing a module, they will. The implication is that when two threads can be consolidated onto one module (despite the fact that they’re forced to share resources), putting an entire module to sleep and potentially enabling a higher p-state (a faster Turbo Core setting) outweighs any performance penalty tied to sharing.

I wanted to get a more comprehensive suite of tests run on Windows 8, but the developer build was having none of it. Many of our tests are scripted, and none of those would work. Some of the benchmarks that aren’t (like 3ds Max 2012) wouldn’t install at all.

SolidWorks 2010, Premiere Pro CS 5.5, and World of Warcraft all cooperated, though.

Both SolidWorks and Premiere Pro fully utilize available processing resources. The latter demonstrates no change whatsoever, scoring the same on Windows 7 and Windows 8. The former, on the other hand, ends up favoring Intel’s Core i5-2500K, shaving off eight seconds in the move to Windows 8, as the FX-8150 slows down a little.

The thing is, I wouldn’t expect to see a predictable gain in an application already exploiting available processing resources. All cores are already active; shuffling threads around won't make it any easier to jump to P0. It’s much more plausible to anticipate a speed-up in less-intensive apps, where threads are combined, modules are put to sleep, and Turbo Core is ramped up.

To that point, WoW performance increases measurably on the FX at 1680x1050, while the already-strong Core i5 takes a hit (not something we’d expect from a final build, so perhaps that's overhead-related).

The results at 2560x1600 show Intel’s i5-2500K matching its Windows 7 numbers. Meanwhile, the FX-8150 makes up some of the ground lost to Intel in Windows 7.

Core Parking: Works!

Better still, core parking, the scheduling feature that loads tasks onto as few cores as possible, shutting down the rest to save power, does recognize and optimize for Bulldozer modules. In Windows 7, you’d never see a parked core on the FX-8150. Windows 8 rectifies this, and parks cores in pairs, which we interpret to be Bulldozer modules going to sleep.

FX and Windows 7: No parkingFX and Windows 7: No parkingFX and Windows 8: Two modules parkedFX and Windows 8: Two modules parkedFX and Windows 8: Three modules parkedFX and Windows 8: Three modules parked

Here’s one of example of what you see in Windows 7 (first shot), one example of Windows 8 parking two Bulldozer modules (second), and another example of three modules shut down (third).

The result is a measurable power savings. Idle system consumption under Windows 7 was 107 W. In Windows 8, with three modules parked, that number drops down to 99 W. That's a scant 9 W above Sandy Bridge, a 95 W part. Not too shabby for a 125 W challenger.

Windows 8 Hold Promise

Look, don’t expect Windows 8 to drastically change the Bulldozer architecture’s performance profile. Software is an important part of any hardware review, though, and the upcoming operating system will likely improve the results of some tests once it's finalized. It’ll almost assuredly influence power use more tangibly, as its scheduler learns how to address AMD’s design decisions.

Create a new thread in the US Reviews comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
530 comments
Comment from the forums
    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