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. repman244

    repman244

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,101 (0.89/day)
    Thanks Received:
    450
    I think this should be corrected since it is now known that the 800 series does indeed support BD even with the old AM3 socket (CHIV (E) with BIOS update for example). The only problem is that no one has tested the downsides of using it (apart from the huge strain on the PWM section when overclocking).

    Anyhow, I think this is a nice performance increase for those who have a BD CPU (a free increase!), I hope they improve everything with Piledriver so that we have more products to choose from.
    WarEagleAU, Daimus and Omega say thanks.
  2. Omega

    Omega New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    145 (0.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    145
    Location:
    Sibenik - Croatia
    @repman244
    Thanks for the info, I'll update the article.

    @ZenZimZaliben
    English is not my native, did the best I can.
  3. dasa New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2012
    Messages:
    2 (0.00/day)
    Thanks Received:
    0
    So if overclocking shows its not the cpu\memory making 8150 the fastest cpu in this test why the difference between the fx8150 and 2500k\phenom II
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Obviously its been tested in a gpu limited scenario unlike this test
    [​IMG]


    So what i want to know is why when gpu limited dose the fx8150 get a lead in some tests by what in many reviews seems to be a greater amount than typical margin of error and as shown by the overclocking test can even be consistent
    Its just so dam inconsistent amongst reviews yet it keeps happening here and there
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2012
  4. Yo_Wattup New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    790 (0.83/day)
    Thanks Received:
    200
    Location:
    Brisbane, Australia
    Not sure on the point your trying to get across... :confused:
  5. xtremesv

    xtremesv

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2010
    Messages:
    115 (0.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    11
    I don't get why people keep saying Bulldozer is a disaster. OK, I understand it's not the "divine all-mighty" CPU many expected but it's not a bad chip either, the hype was too much for this new architecture. I could picture a former PII X6 1100T owner resenting having bought an FX-81X0 but I don't see it with someone upgrading from a PII X4 or first-gen i5.

    I'm not trying to defend my choice but I'm very pleased with my FX-8120 compared to my old PII X4 965 @3.8. In my case, FX was cheaper than i5 2500K and I oced it just fine (@3.9/4.4) staying at stock voltage and Turbo Core enabled.
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2012
    nt300, Super XP and WarEagleAU say thanks.
  6. alexsubri

    alexsubri New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,391 (0.83/day)
    Thanks Received:
    199
    Glad to see that my AMD 965 Black Edition @ 3.7GHZ still holding its ground!
  7. Omega

    Omega New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    145 (0.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    145
    Location:
    Sibenik - Croatia
    There's a big difference in Metro2033 settings between that chart and mine, I don't use Physx.
    From the chart results you provided I think they enable Physx and let the CPU do the work, not the GPU. The difference between Physx on/of is enormous and in my experience it can result in some unstable test results, so I turned it off.

    Also, in the TPU charts you pasted, there seems to be a bug.
    FX-8150 no patch score should be 68 not 78
    Same thing in the overclocking table, FX-8150 should be 68, not 78
    I'll fix it asap.
    Zubasa, WarEagleAU and dasa say thanks.
  8. repman244

    repman244

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,101 (0.89/day)
    Thanks Received:
    450
    Well that is the problem, since I and many others don't have an upgrade from the 1090T/1100T. The 4 module BD is somewhat faster in multithread scenarios which matters for only a few (it matters for me too but I would need to spend money on a new board + CPU for a minor increase in speed).
    And you can't stop thinking, why did they even put more than 4 years of development and a ton of money into it and end up in worse position (looking at core per core scenario) and with higher power consumption. This is probably the main reason to think of it as a fail.
    I do agree with your point that for someone with an X4 Phenom it is an upgrade and it also offers an improved IMC which is holding back the Phenom II quite often.
    WarEagleAU, Daimus and n0tiert say thanks.
  9. theonek New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2011
    Messages:
    7 (0.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Well, it's not bad at all, especially at it's price, this is excellent choice for cheap and fast. Glad to have it!
  10. theoneandonlymrk

    theoneandonlymrk

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    3,376 (2.06/day)
    Thanks Received:
    562
    Location:
    Manchester uk
    :eek::shadedshu:D:confused:
  11. dasa New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2012
    Messages:
    2 (0.00/day)
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Thanks for the reply
    i wasnt trying to directly compare your results with xbit labs as you say different test and different hardware
    just commenting that your test is showing how fast 5870 is and the other is showing cpu speed rather than 6970
    but as you say running physx without a nvidia gpu wont be producing realistic results

    looks like you have missed a bit when fixing the overclocked results
    the non overclcoked results is now down to 68 but the overclocked results are still 78-79
  12. WarEagleAU

    WarEagleAU Bird of Prey

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2006
    Messages:
    10,796 (3.63/day)
    Thanks Received:
    545
    Location:
    Gurley, AL
    Well I for one am Happy with my AMD 6100 (6120) processor and love it. Overclocks very well, runs everything smooth and stable, even Skyrim a lot better than my 955 BE which I loved. I love my new ASUS board 990x and the UEFI BIOS. everything seems to run definitely smoother and faster and I did install the patches. I was pleasantly surprised to see the 8150 leading or staying really close in a lot of the benchmarks compared to what I was expecting to see or what I read around on the net. While it definitely isn't what AMD hoped, it could have been a lot worse.

    One thing I wanted to ask....IF AMD would take unused cores for those processes and programs that are not multi-core used and took those unused cores and somehow combined them into one huge core or, I guess, took the unused cores and used them to work on the single core program....would that help at all or could it be done? (sorry for the run on). It seems like that is something that could theoretically be done.

    Excellent review Omega and BTA even if I don't full on agree with your assessment I respect your opinion and views.
  13. W1zzard

    W1zzard Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    14,788 (3.93/day)
    Thanks Received:
    11,490
    = holy grail of parallelism

    even with the source code available this is nearly impossible so far. for binaries it's even more complicated

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_parallelization
  14. GC_PaNzerFIN

    GC_PaNzerFIN

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    505 (0.28/day)
    Thanks Received:
    469
    Location:
    Finland
    If this and if that. Lets face the reality, not everything can be multi-threaded and the design is poor for general use due to most programs either being single threaded, or load only one thread hard.

    Which one is to blame, the CPU that is fast only in paper with software not in popular use or everything else? AMD should have thought what the CPU is going to be used for before forgetting about single thread performance. Major error in design goals from day one.

    Intel doesn't sacrifice single threaded performance in the altar of multithreading. Very well rounded performance. No wonder it is success.
  15. Super XP

    Super XP

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,754 (0.80/day)
    Thanks Received:
    538
    Location:
    Ancient Greece, Acropolis
    You make an interesting point. Any company claiming Future Proof tech. on today's released products is full of shit. It's a marketing gimick to make you buy into it NOW. Then 5 Years from now when this so called future tech becomes usefull, you would end up buying something NEWER.

    Intel is just as guilty as AMD and others like Nvidia and ATI in the past. Release a product now that should perform better tomorrow is useless because "YOU WILL" end up buying something newer by the time that so called technology gets released/invented.
    nt300 says thanks.
  16. Thefumigator

    Thefumigator

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    412 (0.18/day)
    Thanks Received:
    58
    It makes sense but I think AMD was the first to want bulldozer to be better than Phenom II, they just couldn't make it perform (much) better despite the extra time they took (also known as delay). Some may think, "if they couldn't make bulldozer perform (much) better then why didn't they just shrink Phenom II and put two extra cores to it?" well, they have to do more than just shrinking, they have to add AVX and the rest of the stuff. Did AMD had time? Did they expected this would happen?

    Whatever is the case, FX was released anyway, thinking it will sell anyway as the "newer processor" and will make people switch to AM3+ and doing so they will be buying "the newer socket" and even pairing it with the "newer radeon card".

    Yet despite being all "new" stuff, you can still think a Radeon HD5000 series or HD6000 is still good stuff and so is Phenom II X6, which is for some a much better purchase over an FX.

    But I still think that Bulldozer is far from being a F22 when comparing it with a F16. To me both processors are decent performing, in some cases one is better than the other, and viceversa. The difference in percentage isn't anything to worry about, so its not like an F22 to me.
    nt300 and Super XP say thanks.
  17. Winston_008

    Winston_008

    Joined:
    May 20, 2010
    Messages:
    61 (0.04/day)
    Thanks Received:
    8
    So. i get from this article that bulldozer is great value if the only programs you use are winrar, truecrypt or pov ray.
  18. xenocide

    xenocide

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    Messages:
    2,133 (1.70/day)
    Thanks Received:
    458
    The FX-8120/8150 are great if you only use heavily threaded applications. Otherwise either Phenom II or Sandy Bridge are much better.
  19. Super XP

    Super XP

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,754 (0.80/day)
    Thanks Received:
    538
    Location:
    Ancient Greece, Acropolis
    My FX 8120 @ 3.0 GHz (8- cores) blows away my last Phenom II x4 940 @3.0 GHz by far. Was Bulldozer a great upgrade for me ? Dam right it was and my cost for the mobo and ram to accompany my 8120 was dirt cheap. :D You can put that in the bank...
  20. Inceptor

    Inceptor

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    Messages:
    497 (0.46/day)
    Thanks Received:
    119
    Maybe it blows it away in multithreaded operation, but there's no way for it to pull ahead clock-for-clock in 1-to-4 thread operation, unless you're willing to allow it to draw large amounts of power. The deep instruction pipeline and server based design guarantees that a CPU of the Bulldozer family requires higher clock speeds to equal the performance of a Phenom II CPU with their shorter instruction pipelines, and more 'wrapped-up and complete' designs. The BD architecture is like a puzzle piece in a two piece puzzle, where the other piece is the as yet to be fully realized GPGPU that will be fully integrated with it.

    To parry the possibly inevitable errors in reasoning concerning "clock-for-clock":
    On the one hand, from some imaginary uber-objective/absolute viewpoint, you can compare clock-for-clock, but it's ultimately a synthetic comparison. You're comparing a short pipeline with a deep pipeline, and the different performance characteristics that derive from each of them; apples and oranges, so to speak.
    On the other hand, by making the clock-for-clock comparison, what is wanted is to compare the technological sophistication or advancement. The question is whether the advancement which is not necessarily favourable for current software usage, but which will be favourable later on, is a good advancement. Obviously, there is a long term plan, and the plan is focused on APU development with its GPGPU and memory integrations.
    What's the point of the 'nothing' conversation?

    Stop staring at the 'trees' and 'rocks' and notice the whole 'forest' around you with its winding paths into the distance.
  21. theoneandonlymrk

    theoneandonlymrk

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    3,376 (2.06/day)
    Thanks Received:
    562
    Location:
    Manchester uk
    both your pc's look pretty entry level to me

    this kinda post, tut ,shouldnt be necessary but you made it:p
  22. NanoTechSoldier New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2012
    Messages:
    27 (0.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7
    There Is Nothing Physically Wrong, With AMD FX-8150 Or AMD Processors, For That Matter.. Their Held Back, By Poor Coding In Windows..

    There ARE Problems With Windows 7 x64 & BD... Windows, IS Scripted For Intel Hyperthreading & Intel Instruction Sets... Over AMD Instruction Sets etc..

    Basically, AMD CPUs, Have To Run Intel Instruction Sets In Programs, Before Their Own...

    Which, I Call A Slight Handicap...

    A Decently Programmed OS, WILL Make The FX-8150 Scream... An AMD Tuned Linux OS, WILL Show AMDs True Potential, In High-End Multi-Core Coding & Stable Speeds, @ +5GHz...

    AMD Is Way Ahead Of Intel, In Many Areas Too... AMD Processor Development, Is Already @ 28nm In Size [GPU 7970]..

    AMD Is Waiting To Pounce On Intel & Rip Their Throat Out.. Metaphorically..

    Guiness World Record, Is Held By An AMD FX 8150 & ASUS CHVF MB... @ 8.429GHz...

    Proving... That AMD Processors, Can Handle Extreme Temperatures Below 0 & Still Code @ Frequencies Over 8GHz..

    How Long Will It Take Microsoft.. To Work Out All Their Bugs With AMD..?? It's Been Over 30 Years Already..

    Microsoft Established on April 4, 1975 & AMD started Back In May 1, 1969.

    Intel Went Public In October 13, 1971... AMDs Got A Couple Of Years On Intel...

    There Are A Few BIOS Tweaks On ASUS CHVF MB.. That CAN Dramatically Increase Performance In AMD FX 8150 CPU...
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2012
  23. ensabrenoir

    ensabrenoir

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2010
    Messages:
    1,185 (0.74/day)
    Thanks Received:
    187
    Sniff ..sniff.......u smell that I smell ..........employee....no amd never even tried to defend it so its got to be the smell of delusion .........so thought we were past all of this.....it is simply what it is
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2012
    Horrux says thanks.
  24. repman244

    repman244

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,101 (0.89/day)
    Thanks Received:
    450
    You can always use Linux...but the performance is the same.

    So I guess it was Microsoft who made the Pentium 4 slow, hot and power hungry?
    Goodman says thanks.
  25. NanoTechSoldier New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2012
    Messages:
    27 (0.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7
    MIcrosoft & Operating Systems, In General.. Have A BIG Part, In CPU Performance.. If "Microsoft" Hasn't Coded It Properly, For A CPU.. The CPU Won't Perform... The Motherboard BIOS, Is A BIG Part Too & If It's Not Coded For Windows Properly.. It WILL Be Unstable..

    If A CPU, Is Released, After An OS Is On The Market.. The OS, WILL Have To Be Patched &/or Rewritten..

    Seeing How, The AMD FX-8150, Is A Multi-Core CPU & Has 8 Cores etc...
    The Multi-Processor Kernel, Has To Be Rewritten In Windows, To Utilize All 8 Cores...

    Linux, On The Other Hand.. Is A OS That Uses Pure UNIX Coding & Is Easily Modified For Any Purpose Or CPU...

    If You Don't Know What Your Doing In Linux & Can't Code It... You Won't See Any Differentiating Benefit From Windows..

    Linux, Will Always Be Better, Than Windows & Always Has...

    Windows 7, Still Has Issues From Win98.. Their Coding Old Problems, Into The New Operating Systems etc...

    Another Thing.. AMD CPUs, Aren't Doing To Bad... When You Take Into Account, They're Only Using Dual Channel Memory, At The Moment & Intel, Are Using Triple Or Quad Channels, To Gain Performance...

    Wait Until An AMD MB Uses Quad Channel Memory & Then See How The i7 Competes... Intel Will Fail BIG Time..

    AMD CPUs, Have Half The Memory Throughput & They Still Compete With An Intel i7... The AMD FX, Is Waiting To Be Unleashed...
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2012

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

Share This Page