KitGuru KitGuru.net – Tech News | Hardware News | Hardware Reviews | IOS | Mobile | Gaming | Graphics Cards
The AMD FX 8150 Black Edition is certainly a high performance processor, although I have to admit that for the majority of applications on test today, it failed to really get me excited. I am loathe to give the impression that I am a ‘jaded reviewer', but with a brand new, ‘world first' eight core architectural design I had expected better results with our suite of today's ‘real world' software.
AMD have released the 2011 FX range with new instruction support for FMA4, XOP, AES, AVX, and SSE 4.2 and they are understandably keen to promote these features – even if, today, they mean very little. We certainly didn't use some of the (literally) unknown software on their recommended list, but we added several to our regular suite, such as Handbrake 9.5 and Fritz Chess. We selected these specifically because they will be utilised by a wide enthusiast audience on a fairly regular basis.
The FX 8150 performed very well with these programs, although it was still comfortably outperformed by the Core i7 2600k. The FX 8150 fares well against the Core i5 2500k, outperforming the Intel counterpart in almost everything at ‘out of the box' settings.
Realistically however this is only half of the story, because both the Core i5 2500k and FX 8150 Black Edition are heavily promoted as unlocked processors ideal for the overclocking audience. This is supported by AMD's FX 8150 pre launch media frenzy of achieving a world record clock speed of 8.429 ghz.
When we overclock the FX 8150 and i5 2500k to the same clock speeds, then the results aren't quite as crystal clear – Cinebench for instance, which is based on the Cinema 4D rendering engine, gives almost identical results which indicates that AMD really do need the 300mhz core clock advantage to have a clear and concise victory.
We also need to address the cost in the United Kingdom. AMD have said the processor will cost around $250 in the USA, which would directly convert to a price of £157. Sadly, this is never the case, and with a 20% VAT rate and other country specific charges it appears as if AMD will be releasing the processor around the £220 inc vat price point.
If this is the case, then it is basically going head to head with the Core i7 2600k, which won't be good for AMD on any level. Overclockers UK are selling the 2600k for £235 inc vat, and sadly the FX 8150 can't compete against this processor, either at reference speeds, or when overclocked. If AMD can get the UK price to £180-£190 inc vat it will make more sense.
We noticed great performance results when using the FX 8150 in a gaming system, as it often managed to keep up with, or outperform the Core i7 2600k with some of the engines we tested. These differences we might add, are often within one or two frames per second. Very slight.
We thought we would recap over all the review content today and present some graphs highlighting FX 8150, i7 2600k and i5 2500k performance. First place in a specific benchmark earns 5 points, second place earns 3 points and last place 1 point.
Let us look at results of the hardware at ‘out of the box' settings.
At reference clock speeds the Intel Core i7 2600k is the clear winner scoring 64 points out of a possible 70 points. The FX 8150 takes second place with 42 points and the Core i5 2500k takes last place with 20 points. Obviously this is at default clock speeds, and when overclocked to 4.6ghz (or beyond) then the results are a little closer between the FX 8150 and Core i5 2500k.
Would we buy an FX 8150? This is a good question and one that we have been debating for many days. The problem AMD have right now is the cost of ownership. If the FX 8150 retails at £220 inc vat, then we need to add the cost of the motherboard, which in the case of the 990FXA-UD7 is currently around £200. Aiming further down the food chain to an MSI 990FXA-GD80 will set you back £150 inc vat (saving £50). We haven't tested the MSI board however, so we can't confirm it will overclock as well as the Gigabyte 990FXA-UD7 used today.
The Intel Core i5 2500k system we built today costs £170 inc vat for the processor, with the Gigabyte GA-Z68AP-D3 Z68 motherboard adding another £82 inc vat. This means the Intel Core i5 2500k core components cost £252 inc vat, while the AMD FX8150 counterparts will cost £420 inc vat.
At £420 for the core components, it positions the FX 8150 build head to head against a Core i7 2600k system … which is not a win scenario for AMD.
Unless AMD can drop the UK price of the FX 8150 processor then it is going to be a tough sell, because when combined with the current pricing of the 990FXA motherboards the value for money aspect is relatively poor. We would still opt for the Core i5 2500k system, due to the competitive performance levels and significantly lower price.
If you can pick up a FX 8150 for around £180-£190 then it becomes a stronger buying decision, because at £220 the market is just too competitive right now for this to win our top award. Either that, or pick up an AMD FX 8150 on a holiday to America, because they are getting a heck of a deal at $250 (around £160).
Pros:
- overclocks well.
- good scaling.
- faster than the Core i5 2500k.
- performs exceptionally well with modern gaming engines.
Cons:
- UK pricing is high, putting it head to head against Core i7 2600k.
- When Core i5 2500k is overclocked it is closely matched, and costs less.
- 990FXA motherboards are still expensive.
Kitguru says: A high performance processor, but the launch is hampered with a higher than expected UK price.
It seems quite good, I preordered one, will try and get it past 5 ghz with water 🙂
Yeah 2600k is still the leader under £300, much as I had thought before release. Still, I like the eight core design, seems a fine gaming solution and thats really what most of us do.
Its disappointing. I dont think its much better, if at all than the 2500k and it costs more here. I prefer the motherboards from AMD but realistically, that cheapo gigabyte board you reviewed would be all I would ever need.
Not that impressed overall, but its not a poor product. I had imagined it might be a disaster.
In the hands of the expert crowd with phase, im sure this will hit 5-7ghz. it might be a killer product then.
@ samuel. Sure I game, but all I do? I think not.
My views on this are slightly disappointing. It is a good chip., but it is VERy late to the game. Intel have a new range to announce very soon. I dont think anyone would be massively happy about this release. Intel will be having a chuckle.
I know it is a new technology, but why is it failing so badly against the 2600k when rendering and professional tasks? It has double the physical cores? It seems such an inefficient design. Very disappointed, I wont be ordering one.
My friend told me I was mad buying a 2500k last month ‘because bulldozer will be a much better processor and cost less’.
What happened? AMD?
biased review. Just for your info the processors have to be tested at lower resolution in games just so you do not get limited by graphic cards performance (i thought you should know that by now), that being the case in this review where the scores in game are far to close. Give it a go at lower resolutions and see how it ends up then.
If you want to show the difrence between those procesors that should be the way to do it. The way this review is made doesn’t actually presents the difrences between tho competitors (because thay are all limited by the GPU). For that matter why should we buy any of those ? we should just go for a weaker CPU (and much cheaper one) that provides 3 less fps less (at that resolution) than those “high end” CPUS
And you skyped the power consumtion slide. I wonder why? from what i have read at 4,8 ghz the FX consumes as much as 260 W while running Cinebench.
Who cares about low resolution? I always read those in reviews and say ‘great this one is 3 fps more, but I never use that res anyway, so who cares?’.
Seems like a decent chip to me, but overprices here.
John, I don’t want to show differences between processors and system builds at settings that no gamer or enthusiast user will ever touch. We have limited time and focus on the important aspects of the hardware. When building a system it is key to factor in who will buy it and how much they will spend. No one will spend all this money on a gaming system then nothing on a screen to enjoy the high end hardware.
I think we have shown the differences between the processors in many ways. It actually highlights that at high resolution most of them perform at a very similar level with only slight variables. If you are buying a processor for gaming, then the Core i5 2500k is still the ideal ‘enthusiast’ solution due to the low price in the UK, as I said in the conclusion. A lot of people will be reassured to know that if they buy any of the processors on test today, with a good graphics card that their gaming experience will be first class (even if there are slight variables).
In regards to power consumption, we are always limited to time. I don’t publish a third party ‘slide’ showing a result. I would test it myself and give an analysis of idle and load results. I haven’t had time to do it right.
If you have any more concerns over ‘conspiracy theories’ please feel free to email me.
Makes sense and I found it a good review. always some haters 😉
Chip is good, but its not good enough, Not against Intel really.
It also looks weak on a single core basis. weaker than the last generation X6.
I got a lot from this, especially in regards to rendering. I work rendering 6 hours a day, sometimes from home and i have a 2600k which has b een a great, relatively inexpensive purchase. with studio max it performs well and a part of me was hoping that the 8 core 8150 could very well outperform the 2600k thanks to the extra physical cores, but sadly the cores seem inefficient, lacking ‘horsepower’.
In regards to other areas it seems strong, but really wont come to full force until the extra extensions are used, which going on history will be long into the next cycle of hardware from intel. Direct X 11 for instance is barely used now, and when it is, it makes very little image quality difference (apart from a few t itles).
Its not quite the release I was expecting or hoping for. I will wait for X79, but it will be out of my price league. shame the 8 cores hasnt really made any difference in the real world 🙁
Gaming on any of those systems is fine. thats the conclusion I get. 1080p, if you buy any of the chips you are set. Simple as that. I live in the real world myself and know that even if I bought a last generation X6 1090T or even the 1060 I could play any game on my TV at 1080p.
Im more interested in the raw productivity tests as I dont just game, and this chip hasn’t shown me I dont need to change my last generation AMD hardware for this. They really are so far behind Intel that I am shocked this was ever released.
All the new instruction support really will mean very little this year or perhaps even next year. quite saddened 🙁
Overclockers will like the processor however because it seems a little of fun, like the K series from Intel in that regard. hitting new speeds and seeing what is possible with cooling changes. the X4 and X6 sucked in that regard.
You complettly forgot about power consumtion… 260W at 4.8 while doing cinebench is ALOT… plus the 4 “cores”one are worst than the older quad core generation. This showld not have been released. Now Intel will just charge much more for their CPU… bad bad bad AMD
I find it rather worring that you publish a CPU review without showing power consumption, tight schedule or not. This review in my view gives a completely wrong signal to consumers. The AMD FX-8150 not only perform worse than for example the 2600K, its draws A LOT more power. Some one mentioned 4,8 GHz.. take a look at this graph from NordicHardware..
http://www.nordichardware.se/images/labswedish/artiklar/CPU-Chipset/Bulldozer/largethumbnails/poweroc.png
Source: http://www.nordichardware.se/test-lab-cpu-chipset/44360-amd-fx-8150-bulldozer-goer-entre-pa-marknaden-test.html?start=30#content
Hi Nize. We can take a look at power consumption later when we get time to do it properly. But people can certainly look at your links in the meantime.
Glad to hear it and good to see the open discussions in the comments Zardon!
Haters gonna hate.
I’m more interested in how it plays Shogun 2. I don’t play most of the games in the review except for Deus Ex. Basically AMD say “use the scorpius platform” which will be a FX cpu, any AMD GPU from 6850 upwards and the 990FX mobo’s. What I want to know is: will the FX-8150 with the HD6870X2 play Shogun 2 better than the 2500K with the same GPU?
That said, nearly all other reviews basically say “It’s ok, but it doesn’t live up to expectations”. My point is that all the hype surrounding it meant that it would never have met expectations because expectations were that it would beat the i7, it hasn’t but it does seem to have nestled into a niche between the i7 and i5.
Also, AMD doesn’t have the collossal R&D budget that Intel has.
I don’t think the review was biased at all.
Amazing how people always want more :p Im the same, id like to have seen detailed power consumption like the rest of the review which was very detailed.
No bias at all. I think all the hardware was presented very fairly and I can take from this that the core i5 2500k is still the bargain buy.
I dont think the FX chip is bad at all, and ive seen it online for £199.99 as it looks like AMD are taking the comments onboard. Some retailers selling it for £230 however so pay attention if you buy one !
All the good DX11 games covered and at the resolution I want to see.
Looks pretty good all around, but on a ‘core per core’ basis it is quite weak really. Still it looks like a mega fun processor to play with, which is one aspect AMD were missing for years. I can see guys getting 6ghz on high end cooling with this.
You know, I was really expecting better performance numbers at that price. Looks like I will be waiting until they go down a bit. I’m pretty excited to see what I can accomplish with my water cooling setup. For now, looks like I will be getting a second HD6870 and getting my 955BE stable at a higher clock speed.
Great review Z. As always, there are some people that like to nit pick but anyone who follows this site really regularly knows that you guys are super slammed with work.
If this CPU is priced below i5 2500k it would be interesting, maybe so for the people that bought 990-whatever board…
But still, the power consumption is really worrying… I hope they can fix this in next stepping.
all in all, disappointing release… but not that much for me, since I’m not a fanboi 😀
here is the Shogun 2 performance:
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/842-22/jeux-3d-total-war-shogun-2-starcraft-ii-anno-1404.html
an i3 2130 does better… cheers AMD
why your CPUZ says that your Bulldozer is 8130P? (ES) ?
Just the version of CPUz. correct name is listed in ‘specification’.
A lot of you are forgetting that this is a new design path that AMD has taken with their CPU (more like APU, as this is the first steps they are making towards it), also the troubles that AMD had with Global Foundries during production and release… and last but not least, you are all speaking as though this is what they will release for an entire year (or more even?), as I understand it, there will be further revisions/progression in 2012 and onward.
Now to be honest, I was waiting to see what Bulldozer would actually be like before making my uprgade from a Intel Q9400, and in all honesty, the only thing im really disappointed with about this processor is it’s price. it’s actual competition (2500K) doesnt hammer it to hell and back, not by a long shot.
Another test with Gigabyte 990FXA-UD7 and Crosshair Formula V
http://forums.extremeoverclocking.com/showthread.php?t=358508&page=3
Gigabyte 990FXA-UD7 runs better
8 Core Cpu | 8 Core Cpu . Information and reviews of the most current 8 core CPU s available.
Hi there it’s me, I am also visiting this site on a regular basis, this web page is actually good and the visitors are actually sharing pleasant thoughts.