Discussion in 'Reviews' started by Omega, Feb 4, 2012.
To read this review go to: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FX8150/
This re-confirming that my 1090T @4ghz is still 100000000x better. Kthxbye
i could only wish people are going to stop bashing it...this makes me sad, it's kinda like trying to eat your own head...
All this confirms is that I'll be sticking with my 875K and "1605T" for quite some time to come.
Good to see the FX 8150 outperforming the fastest Phenom II in 99% of the benchmarks. The gaming benchmarks once again prove to mean nothing. It's all upto the GPU and these tests prove it.
Because it's slower in most things or because it uses more power?
More proof that Intel is a better choice
Faster yes! , better nope!
2600K costs less than the 8150 so how's it not a better choice?
Kinda depends on what you do, money avaliable and if you find something on sale or not. If you want a bit of power and is about to do a total upgrade it's almost stupid not to go SB imo. More power overall, not a whole lot more expensive, dreamy overclocking etc. If you bought an AM3+ motherboard it could be worth it though, depending on what you do and what you had.
And for avarage users I just buy whatever is cheapest atm which tends to be AMD.
Here the 8150 is like €50 cheaper than the 2600k.
What a sad reminder of how much of a disaster Bulldozer is.
Just get the $199 8120 and then the majority of everyone's argument here is invalid.
Did the price of the 8150 went down or did the 2600K get more expensive? they were tied a few weeks back. difference maybe 10-20EUR or maybe I was looking at the 2600.
Don't know if anything has changed, but now the 2600k is about €260 and the 8150 about €210. If I was upgrade from say LGA775 or AM2 i would so go Intel.
What you wrote before was vague/general about Intel vs AMD , so i answer accordingly (as quality product/innovations)
I don't buy entry level hardware so I don't care who offers more at that price range. I know that AMD mostly dominates the entry and low midrange, when you get higher and higher AMD starts to fade away quickly
Thanks for the Review.
The first full test with the patch installed, which I read. I see no performance degradation, except Metro2033.
I'm going to install the patches.
Actually Bulldozer is a very competitive server CPU. AMD should strip all those server circuits and ramp up the clock speeds for the consumer market. They will do just that with the new Trinity. I wish that transition was done a way faster.
Yea that strategy worked real well for Netburst.
I see no reason to buy the FX-8150 over an i7-2600k. For just about anything heavily threaded, the 2600k is just good or substantially better than the FX-8150, while using less power, and when you factor in the motherboards from the test setups, they cost about the same. The 2600k is a superior product on just about all fronts. AMD has a chance with Pildedriver to catch up to Intel's offerings, but they need to bring Power Consumption down handily (that was originally a selling point with BD), Thread Performance up substantially, and keep the price reasonable. The FX-8120 is a pretty solid purchase for people who use the threads, but I would say an i5-2500k or i7-2600k are still better purchases.
ABstract from conclusion i disagree with
""AMD should have given us a competitive new architecture some time ago, and now that they finally did, they are playing the "architecture of the future" card and wants us to wait for full benefits of Bulldozer's architecture. That's not fair to AMD fans and users. A launched product should offer its end user everything it can, here and now, not in a year from now, when the whole world could end even before that. A future proof architecture should be of concern only to the company and it's management, and while they can be somewhat pleased with Bulldozer, desktop users cannot.""
Right so, anyone(intel powervr) with any ideas of bringing us ray traced graphics should stick it up their rear because we wont have any games or use for it and 4k resolutions that are being banded about as future (proof) tech should not be brought in, after all whos got a 4K screen ,yeh stick your inovations up your arse dev co's, we dont want them not unless they make quake quicker NOW Ridiculouse on TPU fututre tech/proof counts for nought, really
and the fx8150 appears to sit on average between a 2500k and 2600k in games, where 98% of the world will actually use it ,that seems like a good cpu to me(i bought 960T awaiting PD) i mayhap shoulda bought it
IMHO new evaluation for ya intel2500-2700k are for peeps who only know how to multiplier oc(noobs) amd do decent chips for tinkerers
both usefull posters in this thread ,mayhap you want the intel bummers thread though eh
stop chatin poya people
Bulldozer was, is, and will continue to be a disappointment.
You're missing the point, or I didn't make myself clear enough on my opinion.
I hope Americans won't bust my ass for copyright infringement but here goes...
Lets say I supply the US army with F-16 fighter jets for a year now, and they've proven themselves to to be cheap, easy to maintain and most importantly an all round performer.
Now, after a year you show up with a F-22 Raptor, and you're all like "I got stealth, a future proof technology", and the US Airforce goes like "Wooooow".
But when they put our two fighter jets to the test, head to head, yours F-22 Rapptor is outmaneuvered, outgunned and outperformed as a platform in every way. Would you say that your future proof technology justifies your product failure?
If you delivered your plane to be used, it needs to make use of that future proof technology integrated in a whole balanced and complete package - product for end user. AMD has a new architecture, that holds a certain potential for long term growth and performance improvements. But that means little to us end users in the short term because they delivered a product on a level that Intel had a year ago, and by the time AMD reaches Bulldozer full potential, Intel will have Sandy Bridge - X which will be X times faster. It's hard to see "future proof tech" there
The F16 vs F22 comparison was used just to make a point. Please don't troll about it
Still think it is funny everyone thought BD would be the best thing since sliced bread. I knew from the moment they released the preview of BD and Piledriver that initial BD tech would be so-so. Piledriver and beyond was shaping up to be much more interesting. Then again, first gens are like this.
Course this is what AMD needed. They needed a big change to set the course of their dev for the future, not necessarily be super right off the bat. BD does that. Intel has done the same thing in their tech too. Hyper Threading initially was pretty piss poor. But now look how far it's come.
No it don't....its missunderstood
No its sucks
How dare Intel use Multipliers for OCing, thank god AMD hasn't done that with BE chips for the better part of the last 5 years. Intel went with a stricter design that didn't allow for crazy overclocks to every element of the CPU, but offered amazing performance, efficiency, and at a great price. I'd rather OC my i5-2500k to ~4.8GHz and have it consume 240w under load than get an FX-8120/50 at ~5GHz using over 400w.
If you could OC a chip to 20GHz but it performed as well as a Toaster would you still love it? Because that's basically the logic you're implying.
wtf does that even mean???
Separate names with a comma.