Even so, when we ran our encoding benchmarks, which focus on tests capable of using all eight cores, the FX-8150 didn’t exactly shine. The Core i5-2500K was slightly faster when using HandBrake, while it was worlds faster in TMPGEnc XPress, not to mention it blasted the FX-8150 in the x264 HD Benchmark. To think that the FX-8150 had twice as many cores to play with and it still came up short, really speaks volumes about the core efficiency of the Sandy Bridge processors.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
« OCZ RevoDrive 3 X2 480GB · AMD FX-8150, FX-8120, FX-6100 and FX-4170
· Synology DiskStation DS712+ and DX510 »
pages 1 2 3
|
ProX |
Posted on: 10/12/2011 03:25 AM
wow that's really disappointing. Can't see many Phenom II owners making the move to FX right now. I for one will stick with my Core i5-2500K  |
|
drbaltazar |
Posted on: 10/12/2011 09:50 AM
i am sorry to say:seeing the number here,amd should have just shrunk the 980 and 1100 and create a 8 core based on those.no sense rewriting history when you got number like the phenom serie,,as for the 8150 and all most program you used are probably niot optimised for it! and sad to say in computing program rarelly do ubless it is big jump.now we know why amd made them so inexpensive.so when is amd shrinking the 980 & 1100 to 32 nm? |
|
hanks |
Posted on: 10/12/2011 10:57 AM
What a joke, slower than previous generation in half the tests. What was AMD thinking? Anyway nice review, very well done and certainly one of the best I have read today. I do agree with your closing thoughts, FX might get better, but for now it sucks. |
|
Big V |
Posted on: 10/12/2011 01:13 PM
Any thoughts on virtualization? Specifically running vmware or virtual box and proving the virtual machine 4 cores. |
|
tiger |
Posted on: 10/12/2011 05:34 PM
I must say it's very disappointing. AMD is throwing cpus on the market that no games or applications are optimized to handle and the result looks like a disaster. To bring a new generation of cpus on the market which are slower and more power hungry than the old ones is simply stupid. |
|
PanzerGrenadier |
Posted on: 10/12/2011 06:08 PM
AMD fails this time round, fails miserably. It's a joke that they launch something slower than the predecessors!!!! Anyway, thanks Steve. Best review yet, better than other sites. Intel must be having a good laugh now! |
|
Stroov |
Posted on: 10/12/2011 09:13 PM
Certainly a disappointing release from AMD. Thank you for the honest review. |
|
LukaZ |
Posted on: 10/12/2011 09:44 PM
I really wanted to believe in Bulldozer, but that performance for THAT much power usage? well I can say I was patient but in the end its another 2500k sale over here. btw thanks for the review, best FX one yet imo. |
|
Steve Posts: 80 Joined: 2010-02-08 |
Posted on: 10/12/2011 10:12 PM
Thank you for all the great feedback guys. Unfortunately this has been a disappointing launch and AMD knows it, it will be interesting to see where they take it from here. |
|
SaveA$ |
Posted on: 10/13/2011 01:45 PM
You people are weird and propably very rich. Definitely you have no ability to comprehend the meaning of what you read. A 245$ product is compared to a 307$ product (thus 25.3% more expensive), and comes short in terms of performance by a percentage between 3-20% (you can all do the math maybe)but more importantly the cheaper product comes on top of the more expensive by 6.5-17.2% when comparing performance on serious software where a good processor is really needed (Maya-Solidworks). If you add the AMDs platform overall benefits (ease of use, severall graphics configurations, overclockability, lower price) then i think they did a pretty good job and definitely there is a good basis for improvement. |
|
Steve Posts: 80 Joined: 2010-02-08 |
Posted on: 10/13/2011 10:30 PM
@ SaveA$ - I am quite certain you will find the Core i7-2600K is $300+ and not the Core i5-2500K. The Core i5-2500K is what we compared the FX-8150 with, its cheaper, faster and uses less power. So you see its not about being "rich" and you are not saving a buck! |
|
SaveA$ |
Posted on: 10/14/2011 05:29 AM
Thanks for the reply Steve. The price i use as base for comparison is the official intel-announced (its in their site) just because it is possible for everyone to search and find several prices on the market. I for once, live in Europe and not the U.S. and the actual price tag for 2600k ranges between 278 Euros (381$ !!!!) and 300 Euros (412$ !!!!!!!) according to availability, while the AMDs FX-8150 just came out at 252Euro (345$) for no availability but special advanced purchase (meaning that this is the highest it will get, and in a weeks time the price will lower). What you actually did was to run tests on several processors which is good (and that is why i read your reviews, but inevitably when you line up several ranging ammounts of anything, the comparison happens between the higher (2600k)and the chosen ammount (for me and i think many others fx8150, if the case would be to compare fx6100, then everyone should be very happy with amd since the cpu clearly rocks). The 2500k is cheaper but is definitely not better so i don't believe the comparison stands since in that case many things works the same but with 2500k in the place of fx8150! And that, i consider is an interesting remark for all of us that spend time and money for pcs. Both companies seem to price tag their products in some kind of symmetry to each other. Anyway as far as for performance, fx8150 is better than the competition in heavy software and 2000k series are certainly better for gaming. But as i said i don't understand why AMD failed, in which way and on what operational basis. |
|
Steve Posts: 80 Joined: 2010-02-08 |
Posted on: 10/14/2011 07:20 AM
What I can tell you for certain is that the FX-8150 is competition for the Core i5-2500K and not the Core i7-2600K. More over the Core i7-2600K wipes the floor with the FX-8150, that’s just a fact. The FX-8150 should be compared to the 2500K and as I just said it is more expensive, slower and uses more power than the 2500K. There are very few instances right now where the FX-8150 outperforms the 2500K and when it comes to gaming almost every game out there will run better with the 2500K. Perhaps one of the biggest ways AMD failed was in their effort to design an entirely new architecture that in the end is more often than not clock-for-clock as fast as their previous architecture. That in itself is more of a concern than how it compares to the Core i5-2500K. |
|
SaveA$ |
Posted on: 10/14/2011 01:00 PM
I disagree with your view. What is clearly evident is that a totally new and cheaper architecture is on par ( i consider 3-20% performance difference and >25% price difference to verify that) with a more expensive, as far as performance is concerned. I myself and propably many others , am not an avid gamer but an occasional one and small framerate differences (2600k/68.7fps-FX8150/64.4fps, 2600k/36.9fps-FX8150/33.6fps, 2600k/92.4fps-FX8150/92.3fps) mean nothing, nor they are of deciding value for a product, hence a generalisation regarding a cpus gaming ability does not seem of importance. So if the comparison is about better gaming performance then yes intels cpus are generally better but still not cheaper. By the results of your test is clearly evident that 2600k is left behind fx8150 by a cosiderable performance percentage, which combined with the higher price tag leaves intels processor even in a worse position, in some occasions of course and not in all. What should be critical then for deciding whether one or the other is better, is the actual use that one needs each processor for. And that is my point from the first comment and still is my point. It is undeniable (supported by your results) that FX processors just rule on professional software which is more demanding in processing power and accuracy, and far far more expensive than 50$ games. The only actuall fact that is against amds new series is the processors power consumption when opperating on full load, which is actually an issue in my opinion since it raises considerably any systems power needs. I am not convinced thought that this should render FX series as failures since up to now intels cpus were much less power productive than amds and no one cared. |
|
Steve Posts: 80 Joined: 2010-02-08 |
Posted on: 10/14/2011 08:21 PM
I’m sorry but you seem delusional, there is not a single real-world test where the FX-8150 is faster than the 2600K. Meanwhile it is also slower than the 2500K in almost every real-world test, often much slower. I agree that gaming is not a serious issue but the fact remains for gaming the 2500K is faster, cheaper and uses less fuel in the process. Posted by SaveA$ on 10/14/2011 02:00 PM
I am sorry but what review were you reading? There is not a single FX-8150 review on the Internet that shows that. |
pages 1 2 3