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.
Current page: Efficiency Round-UpPrev Page Multi-Threaded Efficiency Next Page Bulldozer: Improvements Are Urgently Needed
Stay on the Cutting Edge
Join the experts who read Tom's Hardware for the inside track on enthusiast PC tech news — and have for over 25 years. We'll send breaking news and in-depth reviews of CPUs, GPUs, AI, maker hardware and more straight to your inbox.
The low idle and load power consumption numbers of the SB K series are why I love them so much. Less power = less heat and noise, and SB is certainly worth it for me. BD, on the other hand, is just a strange bird. Someone out there could probably find a way to leverage it successfully, and that one person is going to be very happy. Maybe Bulldozer makes a lot more sense in its server configurations -- but I really wish AMD had just given the Phenom II a slight dust-off and die shrink. Everyone was pulling for AMD to do something great with BD, and the efficiency results are just abysmal. If you got great performance, but dis-proportionally high power consumption, that would be okay as well. With BD, you get the worst of both world, and not much of a saving grace. Perhaps Trinity will do something with this albatross that is BD and make it respectable, because the efficiency comparison is embarrasing.Reply
thank you tom's. this kind of article (performance-efficiency analysis) is one of my favorites. i've been waiting eagerly for an article like this from reviewer sites, tom's beat everyone else. :DReply
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.
everytime i read a BD article i die a little inside. Plus what we all knew would happen already started Intel already raised the K series prices a couple bucks.Reply
Geez, the 2700K is creeping up on $400. Thanks a lot AMD. You're off my Christmas list.Reply
comptonGeez, the 2700K is creeping up on $400. Thanks a lot AMD. You're off my Christmas list.Ya, the MSRP is $332, but the price on newegg is $370. Even for a brand new processor that's a huge premium over MSRP. It'll stabilize to the $330 price range eventually, but this initial price hike is no doubt related to the Bulldozer launch.Reply
@compton: phenom might get a die shrink with the llano upgrade. according to the latest trinity leak, llano's new 'husky' core will feature a phenom ii class cpu with amd 6xxx class gpu. this is just a rumor though.Reply
Thank you very much for including Matlab in the benchmarks. Its a really informative benchmark for those in engineering.Reply
"Everyone was pulling for AMD to do something great with BD, and the efficiency results are just abysmal."Reply
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.
And this is exactly why AMD fanboys should STFU about Bulldozer being an "excellent server CPU". You don't want high power consumption on a server.Reply
dragonsqrrlYa, the MSRP is $332, but the price on newegg is $370. Even for a brand new processor that's a huge premium over MSRP. It'll stabilize to the $330 price range eventually, but this initial price hike is no doubt related to the Bulldozer launch.Reply
2700K is BS... 100MHz extra is definitely not worth it. 2600K and 2500K remain best bang for buck right now.