Skip to main content

AMD's FX-8150 After Two Windows 7 Hotfixes And UEFI Updates

Benchmark Results: Skyrim And StarCraft II

We expected big improvements in Skyrim, since this is a game that seems to emphasize processor performance, and AMD previously faltered in our benchmark. Instead, it seems that Skyrim is still completely CPU-limited at our least-demanding settings, at least on the FX-based platform.

While the results from our patched operating system are slightly higher, the difference is small to the point that we can't draw any concrete conclusions.

The Core i5-2500K’s performance advantage drops off at our most graphically-demanding setting, which tells us that this is where GPU bottlenecks limit any performance gain we'd see from the platform itself. We were really hoping the patches would put AMD’s FX-8150 in the same league at 1920x1080.

StarCraft II is GPU-bottlecked at 2560x1600 and CPU-constrained at lower resolutions. Yet, even the slowest configuration was able to achieve playable frame rates throughout the test. As a result, any advantage offered by Intel's Core i5 is superfluous.

  • azathoth
    Sigh* I was expecting to see small gains of maybe ~8% optimistically, but instead I see microscopic improvements.

    It is simply embarrassing for an eight core processor to be beaten by a quad core, even considering some apps don't support more then two or four cores.
    Reply
  • JonnyDough
    In our own exploration of performance in the developer build, FX did, in fact, yield better numbers.

    There it is. That's all you need to know. AMD made a processor that was too ahead of software to be viable. Forward thinking is good, but the software just wasn't ready for it. I have a feeling they'll be ahead though when it comes to the next architectural design. They are after all, pioneering the way.
    Reply
  • clownbaby
    Like putting lipstick on a pig. I don't understand the method behind AMD's madness with these chips. They're basically relying on software to take advantage of optimization instead of developing a truly fast and efficient architecture. More cores may be the way of the future, but AMD can't compete with intel if it's using twice as much silicon (or more) to achieve similar results. They're reputation as a value alternative can only hang around so long before consumers wake up. I sure hope their next chip takes a large step forward, if for no other reason than to keep intel CPUs affordable.
    Reply
  • I still cant get past that the 8 core 8150 is slower then a quad core no hyper threading 2500k doing a 3DS Max Render. 248 frames, 8 at once on the 8150, 4 at once on the 2500k, but the 2500k actually finishes rendering each frames in under half the time it takes the 8150 to render a frame.

    That is just pathetic for an 8 core to fail at rendering.
    Reply
  • KelvinTy
    Sigh... The change is so insignificant that they don't even need to exist...
    My God, AMD... the 2500K just shhhh all over your face again... Why would you do such thing!
    Reply
  • soccerdocks
    stm1185I still cant get past that the 8 core 8150 is slower then a quad core no hyper threading 2500k doing a 3DS Max Render. 248 frames, 8 at once on the 8150, 4 at once on the 2500k, but the 2500k actually finishes rendering each frames in under half the time it takes the 8150 to render a frame. That is just pathetic for an 8 core to fail at rendering.
    Is rendering a floating point operation or integer operation? The 8150 is not truly an 8 core processor. Although it may perform like one in some aspects, it does not have 8 full cores.
    Reply
  • aznshinobi
    Lets hope the new stepping brings about larger improvements...
    Reply
  • de5_Roy
    great read. too bad the patches didn't improve performance. hopefully win 8 will change it. by then, piledriver and trinity might become available.
    it was funny to see stock 2500k's superior capability (especially at 1080p) as a gaming cpu. i recently read in some thread - one guy claiming that 8150's 8 cores (2500k has only 4 cores) improve performance in cpu bound scenarios.
    power consumption is still bad. if amd gets at least 10% better with win 8, that will mean 23 watts less! there's still hope there....i hope...
    i wonder what will happen in multiplayer games e.g. bf3 where cpu is important. from starcraft figures, looks like stock 8150 won't be able to keep up with stock 2500k.
    Reply
  • _Pez_
    hmm well if there are "8" cores divided in 4 modules . Then why not do multitasking on both AMD "Octa" and Intel quadcore "Hyper treaded CPU's" with multiple programs and see what numbers/time are droped out. Is think my idea could probably show something different.. let's keep giving a try to AMD's new architecture....
    Reply
  • thartist
    ZOOMMGGG SOO MUCH UNLEASSHEED POTENTIAL!!!!!!!!1!1
    Reply