1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

AMD FX-8150 3.60 GHz

Discussion in 'Reviews' started by Omega, Feb 4, 2012.

  1. Omega

    Omega New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    145 (0.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    145
    Location:
    Sibenik - Croatia
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2012
    v12dock, nt300, Inceptor and 15 others say thanks.
  2. Volkszorn88

    Volkszorn88

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,190 (0.73/day)
    Thanks Received:
    312
    This re-confirming that my 1090T @4ghz is still 100000000x better. Kthxbye
     
  3. nonkX3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2012
    Messages:
    17 (0.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Location:
    Somewhere in Central Java
    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...:banghead:
     
    WarEagleAU says thanks.
  4. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    20,244 (6.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,277
    All this confirms is that I'll be sticking with my 875K and "1605T" for quite some time to come.
     
    Crunching for Team TPU 50 Million points folded for TPU
  5. Super XP

    Super XP

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,784 (0.78/day)
    Thanks Received:
    539
    Location:
    Ancient Greece, Acropolis
    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.
     
    Lionheart, nt300 and WarEagleAU say thanks.
  6. Frick

    Frick Fishfaced Nincompoop

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    Messages:
    10,915 (3.39/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,436
    Because it's slower in most things or because it uses more power?
     
    WarEagleAU says thanks.
  7. mtosev

    mtosev New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,463 (0.41/day)
    Thanks Received:
    145
    Location:
    Maribor, Slovenia
    More proof that Intel is a better choice
     
  8. Goodman

    Goodman

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,519 (0.75/day)
    Thanks Received:
    324
    Location:
    Canada/Québec/Montreal
    Faster yes! , better nope!
     
  9. mtosev

    mtosev New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,463 (0.41/day)
    Thanks Received:
    145
    Location:
    Maribor, Slovenia
    2600K costs less than the 8150 so how's it not a better choice?
     
  10. Frick

    Frick Fishfaced Nincompoop

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    Messages:
    10,915 (3.39/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,436
    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.

    EDIT:

    Here the 8150 is like €50 cheaper than the 2600k.
     
    WarEagleAU says thanks.
  11. claylomax

    claylomax

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2010
    Messages:
    1,624 (0.94/day)
    Thanks Received:
    269
    Location:
    London
    What a sad reminder of how much of a disaster Bulldozer is.
     
  12. johnnyfiive

    johnnyfiive

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,892 (1.59/day)
    Thanks Received:
    876
    Location:
    Tucson, AZ
    Just get the $199 8120 and then the majority of everyone's argument here is invalid. ;)
     
    baggpipes, nt300, Super XP and 3 others say thanks.
  13. mtosev

    mtosev New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,463 (0.41/day)
    Thanks Received:
    145
    Location:
    Maribor, Slovenia
    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.
     
  14. Frick

    Frick Fishfaced Nincompoop

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    Messages:
    10,915 (3.39/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,436
    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.
     
  15. Goodman

    Goodman

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,519 (0.75/day)
    Thanks Received:
    324
    Location:
    Canada/Québec/Montreal
    What you wrote before was vague/general about Intel vs AMD , so i answer accordingly (as quality product/innovations)
     
  16. mtosev

    mtosev New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,463 (0.41/day)
    Thanks Received:
    145
    Location:
    Maribor, Slovenia
    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
     
  17. Daimus

    Daimus

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2011
    Messages:
    527 (0.44/day)
    Thanks Received:
    474
    Location:
    somewhere in Eastern Europe
    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.
     
    nt300 and WarEagleAU say thanks.
  18. R_1

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2006
    Messages:
    449 (0.15/day)
    Thanks Received:
    39
    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. :)
     
    nt300 and WarEagleAU say thanks.
  19. xenocide

    xenocide

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    Messages:
    2,154 (1.57/day)
    Thanks Received:
    466
    Location:
    Burlington, VT
    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.
     
    heky says thanks.
  20. theoneandonlymrk

    theoneandonlymrk

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    3,414 (1.95/day)
    Thanks Received:
    573
    Location:
    Manchester uk
    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:eek:

    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:p



    both usefull posters in this thread ,mayhap you want the intel bummers thread though eh

    stop chatin poya people
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2012
    Super XP and WarEagleAU say thanks.
  21. PopcornMachine

    PopcornMachine

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    1,563 (0.80/day)
    Thanks Received:
    459
    Location:
    Los Angeles/Orange County CA
    Bulldozer was, is, and will continue to be a disappointment.
     
    Yo_Wattup says thanks.
  22. Omega

    Omega New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    145 (0.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    145
    Location:
    Sibenik - Croatia
    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

    Edit:
    The F16 vs F22 comparison was used just to make a point. Please don't troll about it :)
     
  23. NC37

    NC37

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,207 (0.54/day)
    Thanks Received:
    270
    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.
     
    WarEagleAU says thanks.
  24. ensabrenoir

    ensabrenoir

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2010
    Messages:
    1,274 (0.74/day)
    Thanks Received:
    231
    deja vu

    Bulldozer sucks
    No it don't....its missunderstood
    No its sucks
    Un ha
    Ah ha
    Un ha
    Ah ha......:rolleyes:
     
    de.das.dude says thanks.
  25. xenocide

    xenocide

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    Messages:
    2,154 (1.57/day)
    Thanks Received:
    466
    Location:
    Burlington, VT
    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??? :confused:
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page