|AMD FX-8150 Bulldozer Processor|
|Reviews - Featured Reviews: Processors|
|Written by David Ramsey|
|Tuesday, 11 October 2011|
Page 18 of 18
AMD FX-8150 Conclusion
Benchmark tests should always be taken with a grain of salt. It's difficult to try and isolate the performance difference a single component in a computer system makes, especially when it's necessary to compare across different manufacturers and platforms. Complicating the matter is the fact that benchmarks change, a manufacturer may change the technical details of a product, and the retail price may change as well. So please use this review as just one piece of information, and do your research before making a buying decision.
AMD fans have been awaiting the Bulldozer for months, and while it represents a significant performance improvement over Thuban, I'm disappointed with its overall performance, especially the memory bandwidth and single-core performance. Prior to Sandy Bridge, the FX-8150 would have been a very competitive processor; now, the best you can say is that performance-wise it's as good, overall, as a Core i5 2500K. Except that the Intel processor costs about $35 less: and that's a sore point, because historically AMD processors tend to beat Intel in a "bang for the buck" competition due to their lower prices.
As of November 2011, the previous-generation "Thuban" 1100T six-core processor sells for a mere $190 while Bulldozer costs $269.99 at Newegg, so AMD fans will want to carefully consider if two more cores are worth another $64 and a new motherboard, especially given that the per-core performance is virtually the same between the Bulldozer and Thuban cores.
We can hope that Windows 8 and upgraded applications and utilities that use the new FX instructions will make it more competitive, and I'd expect these things right about the time Ivy Bridge become available.
+ First consumer eight-core processor
Cons:- Requires a new Socket AM3+ motherboard
- Single core performance has remained static
- Full performance requires Windows 8 system and applications that use its new instructions
- Overall similar performance to Core i5 2500K, but at a higher price
Final Score: 8.60 out of 10.
Benchmark Reviews invites you to leave constructive feedback below, or ask questions in our Discussion Forum.