AMD FX8150 CPU Review

Well I think it's very sad and I use an AMD rig atm and now, well I guess it's back to a 2nd hand Intel rig next year.

AMD should have pulled the plug months ago knowing they underperformed agaisnt the I5's..shocking business decision to bother releasing them. WE need AMD to be competitive against Intel because as end users having only 1 GPU manufacturer would be a dissaster.

AMD need some massive support and huge financial investment for them now as I fear that on GPU's they are a spent force.
 
That's exactly one of the reasons we were so disappointed, Mr Muggles. We all know how bad pricing gets if Intel are left to do their own thing. Having two companies fighting for the same money is vital to us, the end users.
 
We might be seeing an IvyBridge price increase
sad.gif
. I hope Intel use this as an opportunity to lower prices a bit and drive in more customers.
 
All talk, it's the same every time with the hype. Glad I went for 2500K now, I was considering going AM3, AMD's CPU days are over tbh. When do you ever see on adverts saying, PC powered by AMD, it's days of glory in mid 2000's are long gone. Although the GPU's are nice though, hopefully this doesn't mean an increase in the price from competitors (lol Intel does it again).
 
To be fair, I think they had to put these out now, what with the amount of people waiting on them and EOLing the old Phenom II chips (end of the year? that's what I heard) to get the new fabrication process up and running properly (on a side note, the 6990 has also just been EOL'd).

And this "modules"/cores thing. Would we have been impressed if they'd called it a 4 core chip that replaces a 6 core? Because that's what it really is. 8 threads, but with parallel processing instead of hyper-threading. Now, when they can actually shove 8 of these "modules" on a chip, we might see some improvement.

Let's just hope this is a stumble, forced by having to start production the more scalable architecture, and that the "Bulldozer II"/"Piledriver" chips on this architecture are considerably better.
 
Good review Tom, although I'm a little disappointed that in the gaming section of graphs the 2500k OC disappeard although in your write ups, you on occasion compared the 8150s OC wins to the standard 2500k results when the 2500k OC could have bridged the gap completely, thus potentially eliminating any wins for the 8150 at all.

Still, even without that I think it can be taken as a severe loss for Bulldozer.

Tis a shame really.

Perhaps the next revisions of this architecture will be a bit better.
 
Bungral said:
... Perhaps the next revisions of this architecture will be a bit better.
Click to expand...

That's what I'd look out for.

The arch is new, does better in newer apps than older apps, which is ~kinda~ a good sign.

Fear I have tho is the mobos are not doing the arch justice either. Which isn't really the fault of the manufs. They can only play with the toys they have. We could be boasting 2xdual (quad) memory, amongst other things, as standard in so many months time from the Intel camp.

Competition baby.

Still - more than decent for general use. Not priced for decent general use tho.
 
Also not sure why everyone wants to go SB-E so bad.... Still on the 32nm process.

Surely wait for the X79 22nm CPU's? If they stay on that chipset that is.

Find it odd that the SB-E top of the line CPU's are to be 32nm with Ivy Bridge mainstream being 22nm.
 
Why oh why oh why????

Looking at the datasheets for both the i5 and the fx I noticed something that's been apparent in AMD processors for as long as I can remember and that's the apparent lack of layer 1 data cache.

Maybe they thought the clock speed could mask the half size data cache against the i5 but to then go and put 64k instruction caches on die so you can put more TLA's on your publicity may not have been the best choice.

Maybe it's a cost or tech implementation issue but there has to be some fundamental architecture issue that's holding this processor back.

Maybe it's a cost thing or a techn
 
I was worried this might happen; throwing a new architecture at an old platform, instead of working on ground up.

So that's a fail for Zambezi, but a win for the new lapel microphone and grey wall. The video was quite relaxing to look at and listen to, no hard lighting and echo-y audio; also the most annoying thing about the old videos was the constantly spinning logo in the bottom corner has been replaced with a static logo, but the "3D.NET" has been lost in the shadows. Bring on the 1100T vs FX6100 hex-core showdown!

So those going to Sandy Bridge, got a 1090T, 870A Power Edition or 970FXA GD70 to spare?
biggrin.gif
Joking... no selling in the main forums.
 
Just had another thought. With the reckoning that AMD will qualify alot of these benchmarks with "Windows 7 isn't suited up for predicted thread allocation like Windows 8 will be..." (words to that effect) to whit, there should be better daylight under Windows 8 (which 'most' people may not enjoy until mid-late next year, if they ever do).

How about another "AMD x2 fashion" Windows patch for Bulldozer, for Windows 7 seeing as a huge percentage may just stick with 7 ? Which may unleash.. something..

That and £30-40 off the launch price in so many months.

Bit rosier a picture ?
 
Hmmm just relating to my previous post even though slightly off this topic.

I've just read the following which I found interesting:

X79 will have PCIe 2.0 for graphics and PCIe 3.0 dedicated for storage.

That's not very good.
 
Bungral said:
Hmmm just relating to my previous post even though slightly off this topic.

I've just read the following which I found interesting:

X79 will have PCIe 2.0 for graphics and PCIe 3.0 dedicated for storage.

That's not very good.
Click to expand...

WTH? Link please
 
Lollipop said:
WTH? Link please
Click to expand...

Take it easy. X79's likely to use a pcie 3.0 lane for a direct controller->cpu coms. Equates to around 10g from the cpu to sata.

The physical slot to stick stuff in will depend on the manufacurer's use of the 'toys' they have available.
 
Well, I can't say I'm surprised but i'm certainly disappointed. I probably wouldn't have gone with Bulldozer anyway in a new build BUT it really would have helped things to see Intel have competition again.

Now i'm quietly hoping a new company comes out of nowhere and destroys intel
laugh.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

WYP
Intel Core Ultra 200S CPU Review
Replies
0
Views
270
WYP
WYP
WYP
Valkyrie Surge SL125 CPU Air Cooler Review
Replies
0
Views
142
WYP
WYP
WYP
AMD officially confirms new Ryzen Threadripper CPUs and other processors
Replies
0
Views
118
WYP
WYP
WYP
MSI CoreLiquid I360 CPU Cooler Review
Replies
1
Views
2K
Deadtroopers
Deadtroopers
WYP
be quiet! Light Loop 360 CPU Cooler Review
Replies
3
Views
1K
Dawelio
Dawelio
Back
Top