Now we add up the data from all of our benchmark applications: single- and multi-threaded alike. The overall performance of AMD's eight-core flagship remains uninspiring.
A look at average power consumption doesn't give AMD anything to brag about.
The grand total of FX-8150's consumed energy is quite close to the Phenom II X6 that preceded it. We compute an efficiency score and wind up with this:
Surprise, surprise: at the same frequency, AMD's FX is slightly more efficient than the old Phenom. However, because it runs at a higher clock rate, it consequently gives up most of its efficiency advantage. Moreover, the performance per amount of energy used doesn’t show much improvement, either. In other words, the efficiency (performance per watt) of AMD's Bulldozer architecture is basically the same.
The efficiency chart shows a summary of the whole efficiency test run, the power consumption at each time marker, and the total time for each CPU. The Intel Sandy Bridge-based Core i5/i7 models can’t be beat, regardless of whether you're using discrete graphics or not. The brand new FX processor (and AMD's older models) end up finishing alongside CPUs that were launched months and years ago.
- Testing The Efficiency Of AMD's Bulldozer
- AMD CPUs: Phenom II X4 980 BE And X6 1100T
- Intel CPUs: Core i5-750 And Core i5-2500K
- Intel CPUs: Core i7-870, Core i7-975 Extreme, Core i7-980X Extreme, And Core i7-2600K
- AMD’s Challenger: FX-8150
- Test Setup And Benchmarks
- Benchmark Results: Audio/Video
- Benchmark Results: Office And Data Archiving
- Benchmark Results: Professional Applications
- Benchmark Results: Matlab
- Power Consumption: Idle/Load
- Single-Threaded Efficiency
- Multi-Threaded Efficiency
- Efficiency Round-Up
- Bulldozer: Improvements Are Urgently Needed