Power, Heat, And Efficiency
HPC mode prevents the FX-8150 from dropping down to 3.3 GHz in full-load situations. Naturally, we expected power consumption to go up as a result. Fortunately, we tested the system and found no noticeable difference between the two patched configurations.
Little to no difference in power consumption translates to minimal difference in power regulator heat, too.
It's not quite possible to compare the Intel and AMD configurations here. First, the Intel board employs a different voltage regulator. Also, by AMD's standards, we're comparing a quad-core processor to an octa-core model.
Efficiency is up slightly with the Windows 7 patches applied to our FX-8150-based machine.
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.
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.
That is just pathetic for an 8 core to fail at rendering.
My God, AMD... the 2500K just shhhh all over your face again... Why would you do such thing!
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.
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.