The total run time of our threaded benchmarks is not as devastating to AMD's FX-8150 as the single-threaded collection. AMD is beaten by Intel's six-core Gulftown design (Core i7-980X), and it cannot hold off the Core i7-2600K. It's close to several other processors, though.
Taking a look at average power consumption, the FX-8150 finishes in last place. Even its predecessors were more energy efficient.
It's a bummer that this represents a best-case scenario for AMD, where its architecture's resources are best-utilized.
This isn't as bad as the single-threaded application benchmarks, though. And while the average power draw is high, the benchmark does not run for that long and the resulting total power consumption in watt-hours is quite low. With that said, Intel's processors offer better efficiency, regardless of the CPU model.
the benchmarks with real world softwares(and not some specialized highly threaded synthetic benchmark that gives biased results) are the ones that matter to me. i use some of the softwares occassionally (blender), some more frequently (winrar, 7zip, lame encoder) and this article helped me a lot when i choose my next pc.
did you guys see the ridiculous tdp number on cpu-z screenshot of fx8150? 223 w what the !@#$. i wonder which one got it wrong, amd or cpu-z.
amd-fans-in-denial can argue as much as they want, but the reality didn't change. the efficiency numbers pretty much mirrored the bd review - bd isnt power efficient. even the ph ii 980 - the most power hungry of phenoms is more power efficient than fx 8150. and people who don't care about power consumption should care about the cooling and maintenance bd would need along with a power hungry high performance gfx card. imagine running an air-cooled fx 8150 @ 4.7 ghz with nvidia gtx 580 or radeon hd 6990.
i can use any kind of acronyms like 'lol' or 'lmao' on bd's laughable power efficiency(even lynnfield beat it!) and performance but i am really sad and disappointed.
if amd can't compete with intel, intel will keep selling their cpu at a high(and higher) price - avg users like me will be the loser.
Not really, for the most time everyone was aware that BD was not going to be a SB killer, AMD themselves had hinted at it, then their PR department (propaganda office I would say) started pumping up the hype.
2700K is BS... 100MHz extra is definitely not worth it. 2600K and 2500K remain best bang for buck right now.