| AMD FX-8150 Bulldozer Processor |  |
| Reviews - Featured Reviews: Processors | |
| Written by David Ramsey | |
| Tuesday, 11 October 2011 | |
|
Page 1 of 18
AMD FX-8150 Bulldozer CPU ReviewThe days when AMD processors ruled the performance roost are long gone, and most enthusiasts have forgotten they ever existed. But less than a decade ago, the Athlon X2 dual-core processor thoroughly spanked Intel's first crude dual-core efforts, which were simply two separate processor dies on one chip, communicating through the front-side bus, as opposed to AMD's much more advanced true dual-core CPUs. But AMD's been playing catch-up since then, and has been forced to compete on price rather than performance in desktop processors. Now Benchmark Reviews tests the high end of the new Bulldozer desktop CPU line, the multiplier-unlocked 8-core FX-8150 CPU. Enthusiasts have been slow to adopt multi-core CPUs beyond dual cores. Few software used them (especially games), and while extra cores could help a system running multiple applications, only a few individual applications could really leverage the extra power provided by multiple cores. But multi-core processor penetration in the market is increasing: while the largest percentage of users in the Steam hardware survey use only dual-core processors (47.6% as of August, 2011), four-core CPUs are close behind at 43.5%. Beyond four cores, the numbers drop off dramatically. Only 1.45% are using six-core processors, and 0.07% have 8 cores (and most of these are probably dual four-core processors). So the FX-8150 has an open market...
I've been a fan of AMD processors for some time, unbothered by their performance deficit relative to Intel since we've long since passed the point where almost any processor is more than fast enough for anything most people would want to do, and AMD simply offered better bang for the buck. But AMD's got a tougher challenge this time in Intel's new Sandy Bridge processors, not to mention the upcoming Sandy Bridge E series and Ivy Bridge. AMD already cedes the high end to Intel when they say the FX-8150 is designed to compete against the Core i7 2500K CPU rather than the top-end 2600K, but even that will be a strong competitor: it's even less expensive, at $219.99 at Newegg compared to the FX-8150's MSRP of $245.00.
Manufacturer: Advanced Micro Devices Full Disclosure: The product sample used in this article has been provided by AMD.
|
|
Comments
BTW, why would you bet on a chip?
Every time someone releases a product there are people like you who dump all over it as if you've been personally harmed. Please get some perspective.
The perspective that needs to be gained here is that he has as much right to his opinion as you do to yours without being labeled as "dumping all over it". You work for AMD or something?
ASUS M5A87 Mobo
AMD Bulldozer FX 8120 BE
16GB DDR3 RAM 1600MHZ
Radeon HD 6950 2GB GDDR5 (1408 Cores)
Cougar CMX 1000W PSU
(unfortunately running on stock cooling)
so far i've been really impressed with the chip battlefield 3 in % cpu usage barely tickles the 8120 you could run the game twice and still have enough left over for antivirus defrag or god knows what else. And yes i am a little disappointed with its gaming bench tests i read in PC Format. But still its doing me really really well.
My "Intel system" is an overclocked Core i7-3960X CPU and two GTX580 video cards in SLI. My "AMD system" is an overclocked FX-8150 and a single Radeon 6950 video card.
With a 27", 1920x1200 monitor, I can't see any difference in any of the games I play between one system and the other. Sure, I can measure frame rate differences with benchmarks, but these aren't noticeable in actual game play.
The situation would likely be different were I running, say, a triple-monitor setup. But how many people actually do?
Fanboy alert...
#goldsborowebdevelop ment.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/166987_10150634210759250_754109249_8984775_54639276_n.jpg
#goldsborowebdevelop ment.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/420930_10150634211719250_754109249_8984779_2126751342_n.jpg
My cousin has the latest Intel i5 and this rig rips him apart on passmark and he's using the same hardware (I too am using 3x EVGA 570's with the same model 16gb ripjaw ram)
I have noticed that when I run the Windows test, it only loads all cores to 60%! Try it yourself download the CPU gadget for your desktop...
All CPU Meter from addgadget.com is a good one, and you will see when you run the windows test it only loads the AMD to 60%!!! What about the other 40%????
This is why its showing a low score... Trust me this CPU is one of the best multitasking cpu's on the market right now...
Also its my first build with all AMD, AMD chipset, processor and the new AMD performance memory 16gb's worth, all in all only cost me £350 for the mainboard, memory and processor and £100 for the ATI 6850 gcard and another £150 for the 256GB solid state hard drive...
If this was an I7 build it would have cost near £1000 and its not even a real 8 core processor...
What else can I add it really does rock. ;)
Asrock z77 pro-4 $110
4x4 GB ddr3 $80
Far from $1000!
You might consider shopping in some other place...
Oh yes, and it thrashes a 8150. I know, I have both.
And you need a $100 H100 or a custom loop to reach 4.6GHz with the fx, when a 2500k does it with a $30 Hyper 212.
I can't even sell my fx-8120: it's such a failure than nobody wants one! Even at 120 bucks!
It remains to be seen if this strategy will have any real-world impact, but benchmarks will certainly improve if they're multi-threaded.
I hope they pull a rabbit with Piledriver. The decision to focus on clockspeed rather than shortening the pipeline seemed like a strange plan.
not sure if i can put links in here so i'll just say its on toms hardware. Microsoft has already released the amd bulldozer hot fix which brings performance to proper levels using the (SMT) scheduling features correctly. You can gain the hotfix for windows 7 on request from microsoft.
##itproportal.com/2011/12/19/microsoft-pulls-windows-7-bulldozer-performance-patch-following-complaints/
WHAT A waste
I was trying to find the chap who quoted that his Windows 7 performance score at stock was 7.2, I do not believe in overclocking, why damage a system to get another 10% out of it. My system at stock scores 7.7 with the same for memory. So build quality can make such a difference even you should know that.
And dont take it to heart, I did not mean to offend, just could not understand why your scores were lower!
You claim you've built a system where the "processing power, GPU, and chipset have all been sourced from 1 company." Well, let's see: I was using a motherboard with an AMD 890FX chipset, and AMD FX-8150 CPU, and an AMD Radeon video card. Did you even read this review?
It just seems unusual that I am getting 10 to 15% more than your review on my ASUS board... its the M5A78L, which I will be writing a review on it later...
Obviously the Bulldozer CPUs were brand new at the time of these tests, and vendors have have more than six months since then to fine-tune their BIOS code. I imagine if I retested today with the current BIOSes the scores would be somewhat higher.
As I said somewhere else, someone said they got 7.2 on the WIn 7 check, but I am getting 7.7 at stock speeds... Might be worth a follow up, how about running it with Windows 8 so we can see what a difference we may get, as AMD say it does run better with WIN 8, however saying that I am very happy with the way my system is running, its a very nice processor which I feel will be more future proof then others. ;)
Ok how about just 1 test, which you ran before?
Have you checked to see if any updates are out for your mainboards. My bios for mine was completed end of FEB. How much performance can you get from just software and BIOS updates?
Have you ever tried it before, say with the Sandy bridge when they were slowing down...
you could expenct proper hardware support so it would be weird to ignore this and leave it out.
Imagine making a tablet version of Windows that won't run Windows software....well, you don't have to imagine any more because MS pulled it off. What a bunch of great guys. (I hope they know what they can do with their ribbon)
The new memory management/memory saving feature is intriguing.
Now we wait to see how much prices of previous generation AMD hardware drops...
The 1090T is $20 dollars cheaper than the 1100T (at Newegg), and only .1GHz slower, but it's still a Black Edition, and I'd venture that the overclocking is not that much better, if at all better, between the two. On top of this, the older releases of Phenom IIs are regularly seeing $10-$15 promo-code sales at Newegg, dropping their prices even further. $114.99 dollars for Phenom II x4 965 or (for a current example) $159.99 for 1090T is much more justifiable than spending $190 on an 1100T when ~$20-30 extra will get you a 2500K.
Future is SB-E and Ivybridge.
FX8150 is already smashed up by the 2600k.
It will be funny to see it burried by sb-e and IB!
Despite of this actual fact, I am bloody sorry, 'cos going the way it goes, Intel wil have monopoly for middle and high end CPUs within a couple of years and prices will reach the sky.
BTW, unless you are a hardcore OC'er using Ln2 and DICE, I really don't see the point of buying a FX. More watt, less power!
I love AMD and like Intel, but their BD is a FAIL. And when windows 8 will be out (I am not talking about developer version for "experts" like you, but retail, you know, for "normal" PPL), BD will be crushed by SB-E and IB. That's fact, it is already crushed by 2xxK series.
You think I like monopoly? Well,that's the end of competition, and competition is good for customers, lowering prices and bringing better products.
I think your "expertise" lacks judgement, lol.
Talk about a fanboy.
Intel has no policy about running memory > 1333MHz automatically voiding your warranty. However, running the memory voltage > 1.5V will.
However, I have to point out that if you are overclocking (as I am) it's up to YOU to take responsibility for what you're doing. Most of the time you can get away with it, but if you kill a piece of equipment while overclocking, there's no one to blame but yourself. That's the chance you take when you overclock. This is hardly Intel's fault. I know people these days don't want to accept responsibility for anything, but in this case no one else is responsible.
Also, to the reviewer, most of your graphs include an i5-"23500k OC" instead of the 2500k(?). I'm sure you were just pressed for time to get the review posted, though, haha.
The only time this ever worked for me was with the i7 920. My longest running chip between upgrades, still have it three years later, blazing at 4.2Ghz with apps that can use it's cores.
Buy what's fast today. Don't worry about tomorrow. AMD dropped the ball on BD.
"it operates 2 fpu's in a ganged mode to perform a hack job emulation of the wide instructions and cripples the cpu performance."
That post criticized FP performance when FP was one of the things it excelled in. So... yeah. That's wrong.
As a comparison, I ran the Cinebench 11.5 benchmark on my rig.
Core i7 920 3.8OC
OCZ Gold 12GB RAM at 1440Mhz
MB: Gigabyte x58 Extreme ver 2
Cinebench 11.5 score: 6.27
I ran it with many open programs taking up over 4.5GB of ram. Some of the apps I had open were Photoshop CS5, Lightroom 3, ZoneAlarm, Avast--which I shut off for the test, but left the program loaded--Open Hardware Monitor, several utility gadgets, Speedfan, Foobar 2K, Firefox 6, and several more background apps. I don't know if that would make any difference, but I just wanted to list them in case. (I couldn't close out all my apps because I had open work in them. I didn't reboot or anything. I just downloaded it and ran it.)
Well, it looks like we'll have to wait once again for the prize fight between AMD and Intel. Not a bad fight from AMD, but once again, falls short of the prize. Since 2004 and x64 AMD has gotten its ass kicked by Intel every time, except in the price range. Ouch!
With their graphics segment barely breaking even, it's going to be difficult times for AMD.
This all sounds a bit fatalist, but suffice to say the outlook is far from good.
#benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=714&Itemid=38
Exmples of questions I am curious about: would a Single-Core AMD processor running at 2GHz be sufficient?
Would a Dual-Core Athlon processor? Would a Dual-Core Sandy Bridge? Do these lower cost parts degrade the effectiveness of high end GPUs like the GTX 580 or AMD 6970 such that those high-end GPUs practically require high-end CPUs to match?
etc, etc...
arma 2 17-37fps. the low fps are important. this unit is working like would be stuck. by the way after 4 days od having it its running on 4.1Ghz still (no tubrocore) its more stabil- in the stock relase is has ben traic. im to lazy to bring it back to shop.
Not saying that even close to 60% of my 2500k is used, just saying the old card hamstringed my video card hard.
My two bits.
FX-8150 - $259.99 (shipping estimates is between 30-45 days)
FX-8120 - $219.99 (shipping now)
FX-6100 - $189.99 (shipping now)
Then again, even newegg is out of stock of the 8150 and Amazon doesn't even have a product listing for it.
For gamers the 4170 or 4100 may be the best value, and produce the highest frame rates .
Downclock your gfx card with the driver utility (CCC for ATI° to half it's frequency and run 3dmark11. Check graphic score.
Increase the gfx card freq by 10%, run 3dmark11 and check gfx score.
Do so until you reach either a constant gfx score in 3dmark11 (cpu limited) or you max card clock (not cpu limited).
#benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=721&Itemid=62
Think about it this way too. Bulldozer is AMDs first real change, on par with Sandy Bridge, in a while, and they are already near top performance of Intel. Now, I said near, not there. But Bulldozer is the first iteration of a whole new approach to CPU development by AMD that current OS's don't support or don't support well. (The same thing happened with SSDs and Windows, if you remember.)
How well will Bulldozer technology scale compared to Intel's? We'll just have to wait and see. AMD has been playing catch-up in the desktop speed market, and now their right on the heels of their competition.
Disappointed to say the least, especially at AMD's releasing something right out of the gate AGAIN that needs fixing and optimization to work on already existing software.
I skipped Phenom I because it was a pig and stuck with older AM2 dual core tech that did a very good job for the price, then upgraded to Phenom II when it intro'd in January '09 and was very satisfied.
Now we have a processor meant more for server applications IMO than desktop... having suffered through delays and mis-marketing only to find out it performs badly in many areas on CURRENT software is not encouraging to say the least.
AMD, I'm NOT a guinea pig...I won't buy a CPU that needs further refinement to realize it's full potential, nor will I buy a "testbed" for future technology.
Get it right like Intel did with Core2, Nehalem and Sandy Bridge, get it right like you did with the old AMD 64 stuff...but don't make statements like " will perform 50% better than i7 and Phenom II" only to have it fail like it did.
Back to Intel I go, for an i5-2500K with stellar performance for $60 US less.
Better luck next time.
I don't think AMD will ever get it right.
Intel is where it's at.
So then its not really a fair matchup then is it, lol.
I think this article did an adequate job of showing that the 8150 is barely a 2500k competitor, and in my humble opinion, far overpriced for that reason. AMD usually had the edge in performance/$. In that case, it should be priced below the 2500k, not above it. Looks like they are hoping the marketing advantage of calling it an 8-core will win over the poorly informed. At this rate, I'll be buying Ivy Bridge to replace my Phenom II.
"overclocking both the processor and memory, which only a tiny fraction of users ever do"
Be sort of stupid to buy a 2500K if your not going to OC it, even most that buy the stock 2500 use turbo charge to OC it, which is OCing. Further if it doesn't matter (OCing), why have a section of the review on just that.
"What, you want I should rag on them some more?"
Were't they advertising the Dozer as the chip that would equal or better Intel's chips, yet they are still behind Sandy Bridge, even further behind Sandy Bridge E and Ivy Bridge is around the corner. If AMD put a little more money into R&D and developed a good MC (Memory Controller) they'd have a much better product, but then too prices would go up, and as is with the Dozer the PP (price point) is already yto high for the performance delivered....which is why it is Dull
We test CPUs at their stock clock speeds with their highest officially supported memory speeds, because that's what the manufacturer guarantees they'll work at. 95+% of any CPU's sales are in pre-built systems like Dell, HP, etc. that are not only never overclocked but in most cases CAN'T be overclocked.
We overclock the CPU being tested to get an idea of the extra performance an enthusiast can unlock. Results are never guaranteed and a comparison of overclocked speeds of all CPUs might be interesting to some people but would have virtually no ral-world relevance.
And, for what it's worth, AMD never advertised the Bulldozer as something that would "equal or better Intel's chips." I spent a full day in Austin at AMD's Bulldozer tech conference and the most they said is that it would be performance-competitive with the 2500K, which it is.
No need to reply, I'm gone, I'll stick with sites that ACTUALLY perform reviews that are objective rather than w/ bias. And just a note, if you actually want to get truer results it would be best to test with sticks that are based on what you want.....i.e. if you want to test with rated 1333 sticks get a set of 1333 sticks with JEDEC rated timings, don't take high performance 2133 sticks rated for CL7 and dump them down to 1333 and raise the CL to 9, even JEDEC 8-8-8-24 is slow for these.
I think you're all wrong there...
Now, if you are talking about the Phenom II line of chips, I agree there are incredible bargains to be had. The 955 is a great value! But in terms of performance, it is not competitive. As always, its a matter of picking the components for the job at hand. If speed is what you need, Intel is the only game in town. If you want value, the OLD AMD lines are great bargains, but this new FX line is, imho, priced completely incorrectly. The FX-8150 should be cheaper than the 2500k, not more expensive.
And if it makes any difference, I am writing this from an Opteron 165, my main desktop is a Phenom II 955, and my mobile device is an E-450. But at this rate, my main desktop will be getting an Ivy Bridge update in the coming year, unless Piledriver is something that competes. That computer I use for extreme multi-tasking over 3 monitors worth of running programs, as well as Folding@home when I am away. So I have often hit with wall with my 4GHz trusty old Phenom. I'd have dropped in a FX series upgrade but my motherboard is only AM3 and does not support that chip. I'll need a new motherboard either way, so I'll most likely make it something LGA1155.
Given the growth of "the cloud", it's not surprising that Intel and AMD are putting so much effort into server processor design. But remember both companies have very strong consumer CPUs: Intel's original Sandy Bridge and forthcoming Ivy Bridge processors, and AMD's "Fusion" CPUs (even if enthusiasts sneer at them, Fusion CPUs are perfect for 90+% of the market).
All that said, I do think your idea of introducing the FX-8150 as a four-core CPU with some AMD brand of Hyper-Threading would have been a great idea for AMD.
good theory but i'm a gamer who wasn't interested in multitasking i've built a FX bulldozer 8120 Radeon HD 6950 2gb ddr5 16 gb ddr3 1666 mhz. and as it turns out since I've been able to multitask I've been using this machine to much more of its capability the thing is though i could have installed the I5 and i suspect though on a whole it doesn't perform as well as the bulldozer i wouldn't be able to see any differentiating results. I'm a gamer and by rights I should have bought an I5 however I'm also english which means i love the underdog I cannot resist an heroic second lol. It doesn't matter whether you buy a FX 8120-8150 I5 or I7 the chances are you will love the result for what you want to do just do me a favour and chuck 1000w minimum psu in and 16gb of ddr3.
Thanks for the review. When you wrote it i'd like to bet you where expecting this kind of debate and it has been fun, people are now talking about differences that they will never really notice in real world situations i like to stick to the fact that the FX8120 (which im using) is a more than adequate CPU for the price tag and has served me well so far. Cheers for this i've learnt more about CPU's in this last couple of weeks than at any other time in my life (pretty sure i could design one now lol).
Also one last thing the windows 7 update for SMT has now been released im currently running it and so far so good.
Thanks Again
I have the FX 8120 and i have to say i do use it for gaming and i find it amazing at multitasking I can run Battlefield 3 with as many programs as i want running in the background and the system has never got over 50% cpu usage.
When you say "cores", I believe you mean "threads", as there is no i7 8 cores yet (who's wrong?)...
50% on each core? How do you explain then that it run with 1 to 2 more fps with HT disabled on i7 cpu's?
Link: ##overclock.net/t/1151970/my-own-bf3-benchmark-hyperthreading-on-vs-off
- Show quoted text -
very true it is GPU intensive you are right however modern games do use a hell of alot of cpu power as well they have to network they usually need something horrible like steam to run (which eats resources) they have to handle predictive technology which lowers the lag problems these things and many more use cpu power rather than gpu then you run loads of other entertaining things on your second monitor and the draw increases. I understand what your saying but the only thing (and its a biggy) that the gpu does is run your output.
##amd.com/us/products/desktop/processors/amdfx/Pages/amdfx-model-number-comparison.aspx
##amd.com/us/products/desktop/processors/amdfx/Pages/amdfx-competitive-comparison.aspx
##amd.com/us/products/desktop/processors/amdfx/Pages/amdfx-key-architectural-features.aspx
One thing AMD have got that Intel does not have, is I have a seem less system with all AMD spec equipment, that works really well together, along with the AMD chipset and ATI 6850 graphics card, intel will never be able to do that AMD have done.
Create a cheap gaming machine for under £550 using only AMD / ATI components. ;)
My opinion would be that Intel may have to charge more because of some of this but AMD should get some credit. And most of us probably could care less about a 32 bit, (if you ask me - they should be extinct!) but where would Intel be? AMD could Rule!
Anyway- everyone thank AMD for that bad ASS I5 2500K, it should have the name AMD on it, I am sure they both deserve credit, and two good ideas made what we have now. AMD makes their own processors more than likely while Intel takes a good AMD and soups it up with their works. Maybe!.
reason I like it because it was a good price along with the motherboard and spent more on RAM and a nice full size case.for what I do I wouldnt know the difference if I had Intel except for the price of the CPU and motherboard.
Given your transition, I'd have bet you'd have been similarly pleased with a 2500.
If you're really interested, you can download the trial version of Lightwave and the Spec APC scripts and run the benchmark yourself.
VERY PLEASED with it for what I needed it for.
One more thing pad what score have you got on the WIN 7 guide and did you overclock?
I did not overclock, its fast enough as it is... ;)
Have you done that?
However, I'm puzzled by your assertion that AMD "said to use" 2133MHz memory. 2133MHz memory is hardly standard, and AMD certainly doesn't "recommend" it, since the highest DRAM frequency their 990FX chipset officially supports is 1866MHz.
Your messages would be much easier to understand with punctuation...
A year earlier I helped a friend build an intel based system with the i5 2500K processor. We used a P67 Revision 3 MB I believe. It has 8 GBs of 2.0GHz RAM but only uses a GT440 Series GPU. It can play all the games at high res with full detail just like mine. The only difference is, his system cost over 1,400 USDs to build. We searched Google Shopping, did all the comparisons and made sure to get the best price. His processor and MB were the most expensive items and were far more pricier than my MB and processor.
I believe that when it comes to personal gaming, AMD takes it with the FX-8150. It just had the price that everyone is looking for. If you are a loyal Intel fan and have the money to spend then you ARE making a good choice but for those of us who work for a living...we need those savings...period.
Point 1: AMD disagrees with you. That's why they promote the FX-8150 as an "eight core processor" rather than the "four core processor" it would be if they thought a Bulldozer module was a core as you do.
Point 2: Software disagrees with you. Single-threaded code will not magically re-arrange itself to run on the two integer execution units of a Bulldozer module; it will run on just one. Nor is there any setting or configuration you can tweak to make this happen.
No benchmark in the world will run on one Intel core and yet spread the load to run on all the resources of a Bulldozer module. And if such a benchmark did exist, it would be useless, since no other software works that way.
Regardless of the doubtless wonderful code you're cranking out, the fact is that most consumer application code remains (primarily) single-threaded. This means that single-core performance is currently the most important aspect of CPU performance.
This is why it's important to compare single-core performance of the FX-8150 against Intel processors. I don't see why this is so hard to understand.
Of course any modern OS keeps dozens of threads going, so a multi-core CPU can help system responsiveness even if individual applications don't run any faster. AMD used to beat this drum when the weakness of their single core performance relative to Intel was brought up, but I haven't seen them do it lately.
Again, just look at the benchmarks. I ran a lot of them, and the performance trend is very clear. AIDA64, CINEBENCH, SPECviewperf, SPECApc, media encoding, POVRay, Blender....all heavily multithreaded, and the FX still can't pull decisively ahead.
Performance isn't everything, of course. The FX platform has a lot more PCI-E lanes, and six native SATA 6G ports, so that's something to keep in mind.
And while the 8150 was $254 when I wrote this review, it's currently selling for $189 at Newegg...which should also tell you something: the 2500K price is actually _up_ a few dollars in that same time period.
I refuse to just stare benchmark numbers all day and conclude that one processor is better than the other without thinking about what it actually mean. And thanks for people hyping the benchmark numbers in the wrong section, great cpu like the FX-8150 doesn't get as a great of sales number.
But I do appreciate for the numbers that people should really care about, if they actually considering about usage.
There were relatively few benchmarks, though, and no single-core benchmarks. In fact we were specifically asked not to run any single core benchmarks on the demo machines they had available.
We did get the "AMD CPUs excel at multitasking" spiel. This may well be true, but the problem with this claim is that it's very hard to quantify repeatably. I can run synthetic and real-world benchmarks all day long, and get repeatable results, which I can then use to compare the performance of the items I'm reviewing. But trying to quantify something like "System responsiveness seems better with the Bulldozer when running 18 background tasks" is kinda hard. How hard? Well, when asked, AMD couldn't offer a specific test scenario that would show this in a consistent fashion.
While I'm not an AMD fanboy per se, I still use the system I built to test this processor. It's outfitted with 8GB of AMD Black Edition qualified memory and a bespoke XSPC water cooling system, all in an AMD-themed Cooler Master HAF case I reviewed a couple of years ago. It's a powerful and visually impressive system (LED lightning, don't you know). It's overclocked and much faster than most user's machines, and I have no complaints at all about its performance, nor would almost anyone else.
That still doesn't change the fact that a system based on the Intel 2500K would be just as fast if not slightly faster, and with a higher spec Intel CPU, or an overclocked on, there would be no contest.
With the price cuts on Bulldozer it arguably has more bang for the buck than Intel, and things like the extra PCI-E lanes and SATA 6G ports a Bulldozer system offers are other things to consider. But there's no point in pretending that Intel doesn't decisively own the performance crown.
For an all round gaming package you cannot beat an AMD machine. And its a lot cheaper to!
Gee, if only someone had run 27 or so synthetic and real-world benchmarks comparing the 8-core 8150 against a four-core Intel chip. Then we could look at actual numbers and make an informed decision.