AMD FX8150 CPU Review
- Thread starter tinytomlogan
- Start date
silenthill
New member
Now I get it why AMD named their new CPU Bulldozer because it Bulldozed all the dreams of a epic return for AMD in the minds of the AMD fans.
FragTek
New member
I still say there is something wrong with this picture.... I can't understand how they would release an FX series processor that doesn't out perform it's X6 and even some of it's X4 variants. Makes no sense at all. I am waiting for some BIOS updates and OS patches before I pass final judgement. Things just don't add up at all.
I would be happy if they are holding back everything with just bios updates and a new series of mobos coming. I would strait LOL if it just doubles the performance over night. I will deff be out buying one the DAY that happens. But i just dont see that happening i really dont. And i have stoped watching reviews. Some are strait lying and making it seem like its an amazing processor and people are just using the intel fanboy is bashing us excuse... im done fighting with tards over youtube comments... Its redick, get crushed by a 4 core 2600k AMD <3
dugdiamond
New member
*coughs*
the 990FX chipset is comparable to the old 780a chipset, in terms: that it is a cross-over product and here is why:
this is what happened to me in the past....
i used to have a MSI K9NSLI AM2 mobo with a 6800+ cpu, with two 8800gt on it, and 4GB DDR2... this (i thought) was a top notch rig in its' day
then AM3 was launched, and i did not want to spend to much making a completely new rig, so, i bought JUST a new mobo (the ASUS M4N82 deluxe (AM2+))... it took all my old components, apart from the memory which was now DDR3. (cool savings)
i was quietly happy, knowing that the following month i could afford to make a huge leap to hexacore (1055T) with a simple BIOS update.
all was well... apart fromt the performance, as the AM2+ mobo was strangling the 1055T. i was getting about 3.1GHz (very stable), and it was a massive leap from my 2.1GHz dual-core.
unhappy with this, i went and bought 870A fuzion power edition and faster DDR3 - omfg - the difference was extreme... 4.2GHz (winter stable)... in 3months i had SIX times the speed (triple the cores and doubles their speeds)
i could easily upgrade my hexa to a 1100T, but why? i can get similar OC-ing speeds with my 1055T, and i know i will be changing again at xmas... so why waste money!!!
...so, in conclusion (and in layman terms): the 990FX is the same boat on a different sea, carrying a different cargo. it's containers will be will not be fully explored until it reaches a new port called "FM".
i am waiting for the ship to dock PROPERLY
the 990FX chipset is comparable to the old 780a chipset, in terms: that it is a cross-over product and here is why:
this is what happened to me in the past....
i used to have a MSI K9NSLI AM2 mobo with a 6800+ cpu, with two 8800gt on it, and 4GB DDR2... this (i thought) was a top notch rig in its' day
then AM3 was launched, and i did not want to spend to much making a completely new rig, so, i bought JUST a new mobo (the ASUS M4N82 deluxe (AM2+))... it took all my old components, apart from the memory which was now DDR3. (cool savings)
i was quietly happy, knowing that the following month i could afford to make a huge leap to hexacore (1055T) with a simple BIOS update.
all was well... apart fromt the performance, as the AM2+ mobo was strangling the 1055T. i was getting about 3.1GHz (very stable), and it was a massive leap from my 2.1GHz dual-core.
unhappy with this, i went and bought 870A fuzion power edition and faster DDR3 - omfg - the difference was extreme... 4.2GHz (winter stable)... in 3months i had SIX times the speed (triple the cores and doubles their speeds)
i could easily upgrade my hexa to a 1100T, but why? i can get similar OC-ing speeds with my 1055T, and i know i will be changing again at xmas... so why waste money!!!
...so, in conclusion (and in layman terms): the 990FX is the same boat on a different sea, carrying a different cargo. it's containers will be will not be fully explored until it reaches a new port called "FM".
i am waiting for the ship to dock PROPERLY
nothingspecial
New member
I honestly hope you're right. I can't see why they'd release unless there was something forcing their hand.
Something in the back of my mind tells me that it has something to do with shutting down the old fab processes to get the new ones up and running. I'm certainly interested by the rumours of a B3 stepping to correct problems, due November 14th (SB-E launch date) as seen below:
FragTek
New member
Doubling performance is unrealistic. I'm just talking about getting it to a level where it's a very direct competition to the 2600k which is much more feasible.
S_I_N
New member
*coughs*
the 990FX chipset is comparable to the old 780a chipset, in terms: that it is a cross-over product and here is why:
this is what happened to me in the past....
i used to have a MSI K9NSLI AM2 mobo with a 6800+ cpu, with two 8800gt on it, and 4GB DDR2... this (i thought) was a top notch rig in its' day
then AM3 was launched, and i did not want to spend to much making a completely new rig, so, i bought JUST a new mobo (the ASUS M4N82 deluxe (AM2+))... it took all my old components, apart from the memory which was now DDR3. (cool savings)
i was quietly happy, knowing that the following month i could afford to make a huge leap to hexacore (1055T) with a simple BIOS update.
all was well... apart fromt the performance, as the AM2+ mobo was strangling the 1055T. i was getting about 3.1GHz (very stable), and it was a massive leap from my 2.1GHz dual-core.
unhappy with this, i went and bought 870A fuzion power edition and faster DDR3 - omfg - the difference was extreme... 4.2GHz (winter stable)... in 3months i had SIX times the speed (triple the cores and doubles their speeds)
i could easily upgrade my hexa to a 1100T, but why? i can get similar OC-ing speeds with my 1055T, and i know i will be changing again at xmas... so why waste money!!!
...so, in conclusion (and in layman terms): the 990FX is the same boat on a different sea, carrying a different cargo. it's containers will be will not be fully explored until it reaches a new port called "FM".
i am waiting for the ship to dock PROPERLY
Duggy I can see an understand alot of what ur saying. But in the words of AMD we used the Asus Crosshair V exclusively for our testing with the BD line so I cant totally swallow ur analogy True newer chipsets will improve BD but hey thats the same with all processors. If the BD line was supposed to be so damn good why not make it that way at Launch and not wait for new chipsets to bail it out. Sorry but IMHO its an epic fail for AMD cpu's and I for one am glad I went SB instead of waiting for BD's Bombing
SieB
New member
+1
It doesn't make sense for them to willingly release BD knowing how much of a fail it is. It makes no sense for them to do it because it will, scrap that IS affecting their reputation, their sales and their market shares.
For them to release BD and use the excuse BD was not made work fully on 990fx boards makes no sense what so ever, why would a company do something like that when it's only going to cause them to lose money and get slated? it's like me selling someone a brand new car and saying you can't drive it strait away you will have to wait until next year for the wheels.
And all this it will get better over time doesn't really matter either, the fact is at release, in it's current state, it's shit and first impressions count. Even with better BIOS and OS patches there isn't going to be an enormous leap in performance.
Solidarity
New member
The more I think about it the more i feel like AMD released bulldozer without really, finishing it. It would be like moving into a house with no roof.
dugdiamond
New member
good publicity
bad publicity
it's still publicity
i am not defending them for this massive fail
i am just saying that the true performance of BD hasn't been shown. it will be only when the FM chipset, and the new quad channel, mobos are released after xmas, will we all be able to see if it was a bigger fail than first noticed.
all new tech that is rushed will have flaws/bugs.
i am not going to be so quick as to write off AMD just yet!
bad publicity
it's still publicity
i am not defending them for this massive fail
i am just saying that the true performance of BD hasn't been shown. it will be only when the FM chipset, and the new quad channel, mobos are released after xmas, will we all be able to see if it was a bigger fail than first noticed.
all new tech that is rushed will have flaws/bugs.
i am not going to be so quick as to write off AMD just yet!
You have to think actually how bad do things have to be at AMD for them to release these chips in this state. AMD must be loosing millions to intel with their SB range so I guess that felt that they had to get something new out there on the market.
AMD know how fast the new Intel platforms are and would have known how far behind the BD was, and I'm sure they have been reverse engineering the shit out of them to try and get some good ideas to improve their own chips. But they choose the easy option of going with increased clock speeds to improve performance rather than coming up with an architecture that has a higher IPC.
They're not even particularly energy efficient even though they have moved to the new fab. I was hoping that the cock up with the B1 chipsets @ SB lauch would have given AMD to catch up and seize the moment given to them; but wasn't to be!
AMD know how fast the new Intel platforms are and would have known how far behind the BD was, and I'm sure they have been reverse engineering the shit out of them to try and get some good ideas to improve their own chips. But they choose the easy option of going with increased clock speeds to improve performance rather than coming up with an architecture that has a higher IPC.
They're not even particularly energy efficient even though they have moved to the new fab. I was hoping that the cock up with the B1 chipsets @ SB lauch would have given AMD to catch up and seize the moment given to them; but wasn't to be!
Scoob
New member
It really is such a shame things turned out this way. AMD would have known their product couldn't deliver. As Dugdiamond says, maybe the newer chipset/motherboards will unleash the true potential of BD - I really hope so! However, the chip avilable NOW, the current batch of motherboards supporting it are all that's available NOW, it's been reviewed NOW and, sadly, it disappoints NOW.
I confess, I don't really understand what AMD were expecting with this release. Intel 2500k and 2600k performance, along with the motherboards and memory they work with, have been out there for a while so AMD knew what they were up against. The "BD Ready" boards have been pimped for sometime now, maybe more by re-sellers than AMD directly, but still. So, we have two techs that were "made for each other" that don't deliver what was expected of them. I'd not be surprised if a first gen board for BD (as we're seeing now) limited overclocking etc. and shaved a few percent of performance at stock, but if it is indeed all down to the motherboards available at the moment, then they've CRIPLED it. People who were waiting to buy BD, so hoping for something better than what was already available, will doubtless pick up something from the prior AMD range or an SB now. They are unlikely to care if, in a couple of months, BD now performs on par with the (for example) 2600k they ended up buying.
It's true that AMD were on top once, I had their Athlon 900, a 2200+, 2400+, 3500+ and finally a 4200 x2 before moving to Intel. They were all great, reliable systems and did themselves proud. However, at the time Intel were complacent, releasing the same old crap with a slight clock bump and a more impressive marketing campaign...that changed when they got embarrased by AMD one time too many.
The worst bit for me is that AMD seem to be having trouble besting themselves as the current range of AMD chips offer great value for money with good performance. Ok, still pipped by Intels offering if you're talking just performance, but they still make for a fantastic PC for general home use and extreme gaming, given an appropriate GPU.
I've no doubt that the performance on offer from BD will improve with the usual BIOS updates, driver tweaks and a whole new chipset, that's true of many a release. But I have doubts that it will improve enough...though I hope to be wrong. However AMD chose to release BD NOW, and with current hardware it's...well, it's a bit rubbish really
You know, I'm well aware I waffle a bit, but really, I'm actually quite upset that AMD have almost embarassed themselves here. All that hype, all the comparisions to Intels high-end stuff, all the hopes for (at minimum) another great chip that once again hit that price/performance sweet spot and kept Intel honest with their pricing etc. *sigh*
In isolation, I'm sure a system built around a BD with plenty of ram and a good GPU would make a perfectly decent system. I'd likely do EVERYTHING you needed it to and do it well, that's a given really. However it's not quite as simple as that when other kit offers so much more by comparison. Plus only those on low-end last-gen or much older gen kit would see any significant increase in performance.
If I wasn't interested in tech generally, like most of us here are, I could see myself simply dismissing BD from this point forward as a fail. AMD had their chance to impress me at launch, they failed. Of course I AM interested in tech and DO want to see AMD's CPU business be a success and continue to offer that perfect (for many) price / performance balance...but I'm a little worried at the moment.
Ok, waffle over, sorry guys lol.
Scoob.
I confess, I don't really understand what AMD were expecting with this release. Intel 2500k and 2600k performance, along with the motherboards and memory they work with, have been out there for a while so AMD knew what they were up against. The "BD Ready" boards have been pimped for sometime now, maybe more by re-sellers than AMD directly, but still. So, we have two techs that were "made for each other" that don't deliver what was expected of them. I'd not be surprised if a first gen board for BD (as we're seeing now) limited overclocking etc. and shaved a few percent of performance at stock, but if it is indeed all down to the motherboards available at the moment, then they've CRIPLED it. People who were waiting to buy BD, so hoping for something better than what was already available, will doubtless pick up something from the prior AMD range or an SB now. They are unlikely to care if, in a couple of months, BD now performs on par with the (for example) 2600k they ended up buying.
It's true that AMD were on top once, I had their Athlon 900, a 2200+, 2400+, 3500+ and finally a 4200 x2 before moving to Intel. They were all great, reliable systems and did themselves proud. However, at the time Intel were complacent, releasing the same old crap with a slight clock bump and a more impressive marketing campaign...that changed when they got embarrased by AMD one time too many.
The worst bit for me is that AMD seem to be having trouble besting themselves as the current range of AMD chips offer great value for money with good performance. Ok, still pipped by Intels offering if you're talking just performance, but they still make for a fantastic PC for general home use and extreme gaming, given an appropriate GPU.
I've no doubt that the performance on offer from BD will improve with the usual BIOS updates, driver tweaks and a whole new chipset, that's true of many a release. But I have doubts that it will improve enough...though I hope to be wrong. However AMD chose to release BD NOW, and with current hardware it's...well, it's a bit rubbish really
You know, I'm well aware I waffle a bit, but really, I'm actually quite upset that AMD have almost embarassed themselves here. All that hype, all the comparisions to Intels high-end stuff, all the hopes for (at minimum) another great chip that once again hit that price/performance sweet spot and kept Intel honest with their pricing etc. *sigh*
In isolation, I'm sure a system built around a BD with plenty of ram and a good GPU would make a perfectly decent system. I'd likely do EVERYTHING you needed it to and do it well, that's a given really. However it's not quite as simple as that when other kit offers so much more by comparison. Plus only those on low-end last-gen or much older gen kit would see any significant increase in performance.
If I wasn't interested in tech generally, like most of us here are, I could see myself simply dismissing BD from this point forward as a fail. AMD had their chance to impress me at launch, they failed. Of course I AM interested in tech and DO want to see AMD's CPU business be a success and continue to offer that perfect (for many) price / performance balance...but I'm a little worried at the moment.
Ok, waffle over, sorry guys lol.
Scoob.
Lollipop
New member
It really is such a shame things turned out this way. AMD would have known their product couldn't deliver. As Dugdiamond says, maybe the newer chipset/motherboards will unleash the true potential of BD - I really hope so! However, the chip avilable NOW, the current batch of motherboards supporting it are all that's available NOW, it's been reviewed NOW and, sadly, it disappoints NOW.
I confess, I don't really understand what AMD were expecting with this release. Intel 2500k and 2600k performance, along with the motherboards and memory they work with, have been out there for a while so AMD knew what they were up against. The "BD Ready" boards have been pimped for sometime now, maybe more by re-sellers than AMD directly, but still. So, we have two techs that were "made for each other" that don't deliver what was expected of them. I'd not be surprised if a first gen board for BD (as we're seeing now) limited overclocking etc. and shaved a few percent of performance at stock, but if it is indeed all down to the motherboards available at the moment, then they've CRIPLED it. People who were waiting to buy BD, so hoping for something better than what was already available, will doubtless pick up something from the prior AMD range or an SB now. They are unlikely to care if, in a couple of months, BD now performs on par with the (for example) 2600k they ended up buying.
It's true that AMD were on top once, I had their Athlon 900, a 2200+, 2400+, 3500+ and finally a 4200 x2 before moving to Intel. They were all great, reliable systems and did themselves proud. However, at the time Intel were complacent, releasing the same old crap with a slight clock bump and a more impressive marketing campaign...that changed when they got embarrased by AMD one time too many.
The worst bit for me is that AMD seem to be having trouble besting themselves as the current range of AMD chips offer great value for money with good performance. Ok, still pipped by Intels offering if you're talking just performance, but they still make for a fantastic PC for general home use and extreme gaming, given an appropriate GPU.
I've no doubt that the performance on offer from BD will improve with the usual BIOS updates, driver tweaks and a whole new chipset, that's true of many a release. But I have doubts that it will improve enough...though I hope to be wrong. However AMD chose to release BD NOW, and with current hardware it's...well, it's a bit rubbish really
You know, I'm well aware I waffle a bit, but really, I'm actually quite upset that AMD have almost embarassed themselves here. All that hype, all the comparisions to Intels high-end stuff, all the hopes for (at minimum) another great chip that once again hit that price/performance sweet spot and kept Intel honest with their pricing etc. *sigh*
In isolation, I'm sure a system built around a BD with plenty of ram and a good GPU would make a perfectly decent system. I'd likely do EVERYTHING you needed it to and do it well, that's a given really. However it's not quite as simple as that when other kit offers so much more by comparison. Plus only those on low-end last-gen or much older gen kit would see any significant increase in performance.
If I wasn't interested in tech generally, like most of us here are, I could see myself simply dismissing BD from this point forward as a fail. AMD had their chance to impress me at launch, they failed. Of course I AM interested in tech and DO want to see AMD's CPU business be a success and continue to offer that perfect (for many) price / performance balance...but I'm a little worried at the moment.
Ok, waffle over, sorry guys lol.
Scoob.
/thread
Would anyone on here know if its true that the 8150 is faster than the 2600k in battlefield 3 and f1 2011? If this is true I might pick one up as was planning on building a rig just for battlefield and every frame will help with eyefinity. If its true I think it would also show that maybe when future games take advantage of the cpu's they will perform better.
Just in case anyone is wondering, i'm not an amd fanboy. I havent built an amd machine for myself since core2duo came out.
Just in case anyone is wondering, i'm not an amd fanboy. I havent built an amd machine for myself since core2duo came out.
google will help you
The important bottom line in the article is "Whether the CPU was running at stock settings, overclocked, or if it was AMD FX-8150 or Intel Core i7 2500K or 2600K, they all let us play BF3 with the same performance and image quality." Meaning that you should pick whichever option is cheapest, bearing in mind that the cheapest of the three (CPU only, the rest of your costs depend on your current platform) is the 2500k which is as good as or better than the 8150 in most other tasks. Then you can throw your saved money into the GPU - A far more important part of your system for modern games.
FragTek
New member
Considering neither BF3 nor the 8150 are readily available yet, it's hard to say....
Sorry should have said bf3 beta. Heres hoping it will improve with windows 8 and newer games as it would be good to finally have competition again.
I have found this http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/10/11/amd_bulldozer_fx8150_gameplay_performance_review/5
