AMD’s FX-8150 vs. Core i7 & Phenom II – Bulldozer Arrives!

by · October 13, 2011

Tags:

5 Responses

  1. Ocre says:
    October 14, 2011 at 3:36 am

    Your review is a lot different than most of them out there. And that is a good thing. Its a different view comparing BD with the phenom 980 and the i7 920. Most other sites used the phenom x6 and intel’s Sandy Bridge. With the latter configurations its harder to see BD in a good light. Especially considering AMDs own 6 core phenoms which in, my opinion, currently a much better value. As a slightly revised model, I believe many ppl have overlooked the 1100t. it pulls away from then phenom x4 by a decent amount. Its a bar that bulldozer is struggling to surpass.

    But your review focus is interesting because it does show BD isnt that bad compared to the phenom2s (4 core versions). Its not so bad at all in this comparison. AMD can only improve on this design from here. It will get better. Its just a terrible way to start it off. only if that 1100t (and 1090) wasnt in the picture, bulldozer would be a much better looking AMD option!

    Thanks for your angle in reviewing the BD, it is something unique and useful. Its a review that i enjoyed mostly because it helps see a more complete picture.

  2. nomail says:
    October 18, 2011 at 5:53 pm

    The benchmark charts was a clusterfuck that I couldn’t understand. The gaming chart was much better. Need to create readable charts and organize the scores accordingly instead of copy and paste results at tiny pics which are hard to see, this review is a fail.

  3. hansmuff says:
    October 20, 2011 at 4:28 am

    I don’t understand why this review was posted in the shape it’s in.

    First off, apoppin, this is way below your standard just in terms of presentation. The pasted screenshots make comparisons awkward.

    SATA scores with some 500GB seagate drive.. wtf? Use some high-speed SSD, maybe some fast USB flash to evaluate the south bridge performance.

    Sometimes you have Intel scores, sometimes you don’t. How much work is it really to run SuperPi on the Intel setup?

    And lastly, why the 920? The AMD chip just came out, I think it makes more sense to compare it to current Intel chips. The Sandy Bridge comparison is fair in terms of price and availability. Who buys a 920 today?

    Overall this isn’t up to ABT’s standards, I feel.

  4. apoppin says:
    October 20, 2011 at 5:01 am

    First of all, I have to agree. And I am not going to make excuses for it. There is not even a real conclusion in my article.

    Let me start with the last issue first – the i7-920. Don’t forget that it is benched at 3.80GHz with turbo on to 4.0GHz. That is faster that the current stock i7-960, Intel’s fastest LGA 1366 quad-core on their lead platform – the X58 motherboard (until it is replaced this month). As noted in the article, it would be about as fast as a stock i5-2500K. So it is a very valid comparison. That said, we are also again evaluating new CPUs from Intel and I just received a Core i3-2105 for comparison so we can see how the dual cores perform, including the Phenom II X2 in gaming.

    The main issue with the FX-8150 evaluation was one of lack of time. Reviewers mostly had 7 days from the receipt of the FX-8150 until publication which is time pressure enough. However, the ABT review kit’s ASUS AM3+ motherboard was DoA; a hardware issue and it would not even post.

    It took over two days to get a replacement AM3+ MB and that left only about 3 days for the entire evaluation (considering that it takes a day to set up Windows and 20 games and all of the benchmarks, updates and patches – and I did it twice).

    Worst of all, CrossFire didn’t scale well with the stock-clocked FX-8150 on the replacement motherboard and it also had issues which meant a lot of retesting. While overclocking the FX-8150, the MB’s LAN became defective and a PCIe riser pulled loose from the MB with the video card, and I am now waiting for a third motherboard as replacement so that I can finish Part two of this FX-8150 Evaluation.

    In the meantime, I will clean up my charts and put up easier to see images as needed. And I will add in the few comparable Intel benches which I had no time to run. An overall summary chart would also be nice. But I am saving that for Part two which will also explore CrossFire scaling with the overclocked FX-8150 (at 4.4GHz on air and perhaps further under watercooling).

    All of ABT’s evaluations are always done from a gamer’s point of view. That is why you see 20 games benched as a minimum with far less emphasis placed on other CPU functions. Also, normally I run Total War: Shogun II and Deus Ex: Human Revolution, but they BSoD the PC when I tried to launch them with the FX-8150. AMD acknowledged it and believes that it may be due to an issue with Steam.

    Over the next couple of days, I will clean up this article. But watch for Part II – that is the important part with a real conclusion about FX-8150 as a gaming CPU. Having two weeks with it (now) makes a lot of difference than taking a superficial 3-day look at it. I am not under time pressure now.

    If I may make a suggestion to everyone reading this, follow us on ABT forum. The members find out exactly what is going on – first, before it is polished up for an article and you may even have input into the way the testing is conducted before we do it. How and what we test is driven by our members.

  5. hansmuff says:
    October 21, 2011 at 4:35 am

    Fair enough — waiting for Part II. Thanks for the explanations!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Follow:

More