Wednesday, October 12th 2011

Review Consensus: AMD FX Processor 8150 Underwhelming

It's been in the works for over three years now. That's right, the first we heard of "Bulldozer" as a processor architecture under development was shortly after the launch of "Barcelona" K10 architecture. Granted, it wasn't possible to load close to 2 billion transistors on the silicon fab technology AMD had at the time, but AMD had a clear window over the last year to at least paper-launch the AMD FX. Delays and bad marketing may have cost AMD dearly in shaping up the product for the market.

After drawing a consensus from about 25 reviews (links in Today's Reviews on the front page), it emerges that:
  • AMD FX-8150 is missing its performance expectations by a fair margin. Not to mention performance gains in its own presentation, these expectations were built up by how AMD was shaping the product to be a full-fledged enthusiast product with significant performance gains over the previous generation
  • AMD ill-marketed the FX-8150. Hype is a double-edged sword, and should not be used if you're not confident your offering will live up to at least most of the hype. AMD marketed at least the top-tier FX-8000 series eight-core processors as the second coming of Athlon64 FX.


  • FX-8150 launch isn't backed up by launch of other AMD FX processors. This could go on to become a blunder. The presence of other FX series processors such as the FX-8120, six-core and four-core FX processors could have at least made the price performance charts look better, given that all FX processors are unlocked, buyers could see the value in buying them to overclock. TweakTown took a closer look into this.
  • There are no significant clock-for-clock improvements over even AMD's own previous generation. The FX-8150 drags its feet behind the Phenom II X6 1100T in single-threaded math benchmarks such as Super/HyperPi, the picture isn't any better with Cinebench single-threaded, either.
  • Multi-threaded data streaming applications such as data compression (WINRAR, 7-ZIP) reveal the FX-8150 to catch up with competition from even the Core i7-2600K. This trend keeps up with popular video encoding benchmarks such as Handbrake and x264 HD.
  • Load power draw is bad, by today's standards. It's not like AMD is lagging behind in silicon fabrication technologies, or the engineering potential that turned around AMD Radeon power consumption figures over generations.
  • Price could be a major saving grace. In the end, AMD FX 8150 has an acceptable price-performance figure. At just $25 over the Core i5-2500K, the FX-8150 offers a good performance lead.
  • Impressive overclocking potential. We weren't exactly in awe when AMD announced its Guinness Record-breaking overclocking feat, but reviewers across the board have noticed fairly good overclocking potential and performance scaling.
In all, AMD FX-8150 has almost become another example to cite at a marketing class, of how to effectively handle hype. It is sure to underwhelm some. If it's any compensation, Duke Nukem Forever is still the most underwhelming development this year for the gamer-overclocker community.
Add your own comment

450 Comments on Review Consensus: AMD FX Processor 8150 Underwhelming

#1
random
Well at least the price is right, although I did expect more from Bulldozer.. turns out it was just a toy truck to intel after all. :/
Posted on Reply
#2
Kantastic
by: random
Well at least the price is right, although I did expect more from Bulldozer.. turns out it was just a toy truck to intel after all. :/
IMO the price is a little off. I'd be hard pressed to pay more than $200 for the 8150 model. If anything, the long-term overclocked power draw will bump the cost up a chunk.
Posted on Reply
#3
random
by: Kantastic
IMO the price is a little off. I'd be hard pressed to pay more than $200 for the 8150 model. If anything, the long-term overclocked power draw will bump the cost up a chunk.
Judging from the Guru3D reviews, at 4.6ghz the 8150FX barely beats the 2600k at stock in 3Dmark06 by 300ish points and at the same time consumes almost triple the power.


8150FX - 586w consumption at 4.8ghz

2600k - 313w at 5ghz

......imo these are very bloody poor results, I have no idea how the market works but I just hope Intel won't decide to hike up their prices with their upcoming Ivy.
Posted on Reply
#4
xenocide
by: random
......imo these are very bloody poor results, I have no idea how the market works but I just hope Intel won't decide to hike up their prices.
Why on Earth would they? They will sell 3x as many CPU's at the current price point as they would if they raised their price. If anything, they could stand to lower the cost a tad bit and out value BD while outperforming it. Let's not forget that SB has been out since February, so anyone who wanted this level of performance could have already had it for almost a year.
Posted on Reply
#5
afw
I was hoping that the performance might be equal to 2600k or better ... so that I can start my First AMD build ... now I'll just have to go ahead and buy the 2600k or wait and go for the 2700k ...

Better luck next time AMD ...
Posted on Reply
#7
(FIH) The Don
atleast it doesnt cost around 1000$ as the last gen FX, but meh, this is REALLY bad for business AMD, you just shot yourself in the foot.

yeah call me fanboi, i stick with my 2600K
Posted on Reply
#8
xenocide
by: (FIH) The Don
atleast it doesnt cost around 1000$ as the last gen FX, but meh, this is REALLY bad for business AMD, you just shot yourself in the foot.

yeah call me fanboi, i stick with my 2600K
At least when they had $1000 CPU's they were top notch by a long shot. These are middle of the pack and even priced questionably considering their current offerings...
Posted on Reply
#9
Hustler
Underwhelming....????

please, it's an utter turd.
Posted on Reply
#12
Bjorn_Of_Iceland
Probly would fix it right on its revision..but man.. it suck indeed.
Posted on Reply
#13
the54thvoid
by: bbmarley
lol how long have you been saving that for
It doesn't matter, it's funny.
Posted on Reply
#14
entropy13
by: bbmarley
lol how long have you been saving that for
I got it from another user who posted it in a thread in [H]ardocp's forum. What's your point? :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#15
mtosev

AMD did it again but I was expecting that it will be slower than Intel's top of the line CPUs.
Posted on Reply
#16
caleb
Such summaries should be done at the end of product review done here on TPU. I don't see any value added by that kind of product summary. Specially before even a review here is done.
Posted on Reply
#17
RejZoR
AMD's main segment right now are low and mid end APU's. Maybe they can't beat Intel at highest end but then again they don't have any competition in those lower segments where users expect low price and high performance even for gaming. Which AMD APU's can deliver.

And even if the higher end CPU's aren't as fast, if the price is good, it doesn't really matter.
Posted on Reply
#18
DigitalUK
those benchmarks are really strange. 1 minute the bulldozer goes head to head with intel on really heavy workloads then on lighter stuff seems to fall over. also the intel cpu's seem to always be given the advantage eg higher memory speeds for i7 etc. it also used 1333 and 1600 memory , i thought bulldozer was surposed to use 1866.
Posted on Reply
#19
the54thvoid
by: DigitalUK
those benchmarks are really strange. 1 minute the bulldozer goes head to head with intel on really heavy workloads
Good versus a 4 core in highly threaded tasks. Sort of it's design focus

by: DigitalUK
then on lighter stuff seems to fall over.
Has sub Phenom per core performance, so light tasks are worse.

Very Good performance charts here:

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/47155-amd-bulldozer-fx-8150-processor-review-20.html
Posted on Reply
#20
1c3d0g
by: caleb
Such summaries should be done at the end of product review done here on TPU. I don't see any value added by that kind of product summary. Specially before even a review here is done.
:shadedshu I disagree.

What?!? Are you mad that TPU has published the facts? This "bulldozer" sucks, period! Poor performance, extremely power-hungry, not competitive price-wise, I mean, who the hell in their right mind would purchase such a piss-poor product?!? LMAO... :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#22
NdMk2o1o
Bemusing how the Phenom II x6 can beat it in some tests, surely it should be better all round than PII as it's a new architecture so even if BD can't best SB it SHOULD be better than their last generation, no???
Posted on Reply
#23
PaNiC
the funny thing is amd would have got more proformace if they just did a 32nm die skrink on the thuban
Posted on Reply
#24
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
by: NdMk2o1o
Bemusing how the Phenom II x6 can beat it in some tests, surely it should be better all round than PII as it's a new architecture so even if BD can't best SB it SHOULD be better than their last generation, no???
That is dissapointing aye, but on the other hand it's on par with 2500k and even 2600k in heavily threaded stuff. Some users will be happy.
Posted on Reply
#25
ensabrenoir
second story curve stomp

The true horror story is all those who went out and spent hard earned money on new boards because of marketing slides. That's Worse than any intel overcharge on actual delivered performance:shadedshu.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment