• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

Review Consensus: AMD FX Processor 8150 Underwhelming

btarunr

btarunr

Editor & Senior Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
47,770 (7.42/day)
Location
Dublin, Ireland
System Specs
System Name RBMK-1000
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5700G
Motherboard Gigabyte B550 AORUS Elite V2
Cooling DeepCool Gammax L240 V2
Memory 2x 16GB DDR4-3200
Video Card(s) Galax RTX 4070 Ti EX
Storage Samsung 990 1TB
Display(s) BenQ 1440p 60 Hz 27-inch
Case Corsair Carbide 100R
Audio Device(s) ASUS SupremeFX S1220A
Power Supply Cooler Master MWE Gold 650W
Mouse ASUS ROG Strix Impact
Keyboard Gamdias Hermes E2
Software Windows 11 Pro
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:
  • 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.
In all, AMD FX-8150 has almost become another example to cite at a marketing class, of how to effectively handle hype. It is sure to underwhelm some. If it's any compensation, Duke Nukem Forever is still the most underwhelming development this year for the gamer-overclocker community.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site
 
Last edited:
Well at least the price is right, although I did expect more from Bulldozer.. turns out it was just a toy truck to intel after all. :/
 
random said:
Well at least the price is right, although I did expect more from Bulldozer.. turns out it was just a toy truck to intel after all. :/
Click to expand...

IMO the price is a little off. I'd be hard pressed to pay more than $200 for the 8150 model. If anything, the long-term overclocked power draw will bump the cost up a chunk.
 
Kantastic said:
IMO the price is a little off. I'd be hard pressed to pay more than $200 for the 8150 model. If anything, the long-term overclocked power draw will bump the cost up a chunk.
Click to expand...

Judging from the Guru3D reviews, at 4.6ghz the 8150FX barely beats the 2600k at stock in 3Dmark06 by 300ish points and at the same time consumes almost triple the power.


8150FX - 586w consumption at 4.8ghz

2600k - 313w at 5ghz

......imo these are very bloody poor results, I have no idea how the market works but I just hope Intel won't decide to hike up their prices with their upcoming Ivy.
 
random said:
......imo these are very bloody poor results, I have no idea how the market works but I just hope Intel won't decide to hike up their prices.
Click to expand...

Why on Earth would they? They will sell 3x as many CPU's at the current price point as they would if they raised their price. If anything, they could stand to lower the cost a tad bit and out value BD while outperforming it. Let's not forget that SB has been out since February, so anyone who wanted this level of performance could have already had it for almost a year.
 
I was hoping that the performance might be equal to 2600k or better ... so that I can start my First AMD build ... now I'll just have to go ahead and buy the 2600k or wait and go for the 2700k ...

Better luck next time AMD ...
 
2vnhzra.gif
 
atleast it doesnt cost around 1000$ as the last gen FX, but meh, this is REALLY bad for business AMD, you just shot yourself in the foot.

yeah call me fanboi, i stick with my 2600K
 
(FIH) The Don said:
atleast it doesnt cost around 1000$ as the last gen FX, but meh, this is REALLY bad for business AMD, you just shot yourself in the foot.

yeah call me fanboi, i stick with my 2600K
Click to expand...

At least when they had $1000 CPU's they were top notch by a long shot. These are middle of the pack and even priced questionably considering their current offerings...
 
They might as well have called it Phenom III...
 
Probly would fix it right on its revision..but man.. it suck indeed.
 
bbmarley said:
lol how long have you been saving that for
Click to expand...

I got it from another user who posted it in a thread in [H]ardocp's forum. What's your point? :rolleyes:
 
3678434438135cfe44d5w.jpg

AMD did it again but I was expecting that it will be slower than Intel's top of the line CPUs.
 
Such summaries should be done at the end of product review done here on TPU. I don't see any value added by that kind of product summary. Specially before even a review here is done.
 
AMD's main segment right now are low and mid end APU's. Maybe they can't beat Intel at highest end but then again they don't have any competition in those lower segments where users expect low price and high performance even for gaming. Which AMD APU's can deliver.

And even if the higher end CPU's aren't as fast, if the price is good, it doesn't really matter.
 
those benchmarks are really strange. 1 minute the bulldozer goes head to head with intel on really heavy workloads then on lighter stuff seems to fall over. also the intel cpu's seem to always be given the advantage eg higher memory speeds for i7 etc. it also used 1333 and 1600 memory , i thought bulldozer was surposed to use 1866.
 
caleb said:
Such summaries should be done at the end of product review done here on TPU. I don't see any value added by that kind of product summary. Specially before even a review here is done.
Click to expand...

:shadedshu I disagree.

What?!? Are you mad that TPU has published the facts? This "bulldozer" sucks, period! Poor performance, extremely power-hungry, not competitive price-wise, I mean, who the hell in their right mind would purchase such a piss-poor product?!? LMAO... :laugh:
 
Bemusing how the Phenom II x6 can beat it in some tests, surely it should be better all round than PII as it's a new architecture so even if BD can't best SB it SHOULD be better than their last generation, no???
 
the funny thing is amd would have got more proformace if they just did a 32nm die skrink on the thuban
 
NdMk2o1o said:
Bemusing how the Phenom II x6 can beat it in some tests, surely it should be better all round than PII as it's a new architecture so even if BD can't best SB it SHOULD be better than their last generation, no???
Click to expand...

That is dissapointing aye, but on the other hand it's on par with 2500k and even 2600k in heavily threaded stuff. Some users will be happy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top