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.
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.