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:
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.
450 Comments on Review Consensus: AMD FX Processor 8150 Underwhelming
Dissapointing it I was expecting it to +20% performance per core vs phenom at-least.
Knew it wasn't going to be a single threaded monster due to the architechture but this is just odd.
Either way, more interested in APU tech advancement. That is likely where AMD CPUs will start turning things around.
I would like to know how the 8150 compares with the 990X in heavily threaded tasks. Oh well, I'm at work now and I have no time for "studying".
RIP AMD
We so badly need that leapfrogging competition from both companies. Now, Intel can sit back and enjoy keeping its prices high, while the shiny new AMD offering goes straight to the bargain bin and the overall performance bar for PCs doesn't rise much. What a fiasco, indeed.
No wonder those executives were recently pushed out of AMD. :rolleyes:
However, for the heavy duty stuff, I'll stick to Intel.
Looks like AMD pulled another Phenom I. Too bad, I was looking for some stiff competition to lower prices.
I thought AMD would at least hit last gen i7, and i-5 (1156) IPC. The fact that they get outperformed by their own last gen is terrible.
Seems like they are banking too hard on multithreaded performance, and single threaded took a big hit.
That was a mistake, considering how few multithreaded apps there are.
Most software is still fully last gen, being barely multithreaded, and 32-bit.
@heky
I wouldn't be so quick to laugh at AMD, or blindly support Intel.
Some of us have been using computers for a long time, and we remember how bad Intel was when they had no competition.
They gouged the shit out of you for the smallest upgrades possible.
If AMD doesn't get their shit together, then we'll be back to the dark ages of no innovation and wallet rape.
But AMD needs to get their shit together, they say new designs, and then deliver underperforming results across the board every time. Intel may have the higher prices, but you sure has hell get your moneys worth in performance.
So right now it's: