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
This is why I didn't buy into the hype.
Poor performance isnt fail. High prices for poor performance is fail. Cheap bargain bin prices is win. And the third world needs cheap processors ;)
ROFL
Where is TPU's review? Why editorialize when there are many other reviews to link to (which I sent our sites to BT via PM actually)...? The Linux Kernel item we have been hearing about will not improve things over on the windows side. There are too many inherient differences with how the scheduler works between the two to translate it in to any better performance.
Maybe if AMD actually called it a quad w/HT instead of a (neutered) Octo core, people's expectations would have been tempered?
Kinda reminds me of the phenom release event where AMD rep said "its PHENOMINAL!"
Ive read the bit-tech reviews and a FX-8150 clocked at 4.8Ghz hasnt got shit on a 2500k clocked at 5Ghz - its like 300mhz difference but the 2500k just pulls ahead.
Its like if BD was some cheap family car and its racing against a Intel v8 or v10 turbo charged 1000bhp musclecar... Neck and neck off the start line but once the muscle looses the turbo lag and the turbo kicks in. you couldnt spell 'gone in 60 seconds' fast enough. It would just be a small spec in the distance by the time you look up.
Utterly dissapointing. but I was kinda expecting this when they showed early cherry picked benches Vs an old Intel Gulftown. Everyone knows that SB is better then gulftown in everyway untill it comes to extremely heavy multi-tasking where the Gulftown's extra cores come into play.
They knew it was going to hurt. why else would they try so hard to keep such a tight lid on any information?
Over hype the CPU. and keep up with the story with a fake smile that they are 'winning'.
Benchmarks dont lie unfortunately.....(unless they are photoshopped)
Phenom I was bad, Phenom II was big improvement over phenom I but no where near Intels performance.
Now theyve had time to take everything back to the drawing board, start from square one and they come out with something that performs worse then Phenom II in single threaded tasks. and is generally less power efficient then Intel SBs and doesnt perform as well clock for clock.
there are no excuses out there that AMD can use to cover for what went utterly wrong other then the fact that their whole design team must of been smoking something all day, everyday while they were making this CPU because everyone aprently fails to see whats so great about it.
------
I think its time for AMD to get rid of the old design team and hire some fresh blood that will take the fight to intels doorstep and not cower behind cherry picked benchmarks vs OLDER PROCESSORS like a bitch.
I feel sorry for the people who built AM3 rigs and were waiting for BD to come.
Once again an amazingly good idea with an amazingly terrible implementation ... :( AMD deserves a Goro facepalm.
What I am SHOCKED about is the power consumption. That to me is not acceptable. Its like the Fermi but a CPU. Complete BS.
The current bulldozer cores are huge and perfrom like sh!t. Taken from here
I sure hope this is fixed for Pile driver.