Another disappointing cpu line from AMD---Bulldozer mostly dozes

Looking through a few of the reviews for AMD’s new Bulldozer line of cpu’s, you get a sinking feeling, realizing that AMD simply cannot compete with Intel’s Sandybridge processors. There are a dozen or more reviews online now. Here are a couple if you are interested:

I was mostly interested in Bulldozer’s ability to run X264 encoding. This has been one of the very few bright spots for AMD in recent years since it can make use of multithreading. Even here the best of the Bulldozer cpu’s falls behind in overall performance, though not by much. The FX-8150 does have the fastest second pass encoding in x264 when compared to the i7 2600K, i5 2500K and X6 Thuban processors, but the lower priced Bulldozers can’t even beat the earlier generation AMD X6 Thubans.

Video encoding was one of the only good scores in the reviews I’ve seen, so the only real reason to buy one of these cpu’s is if you are setting up a machine dedicated to working with multithreaded encoding programs. And even then, you’d need to invest in the FX-8150 to get performance beyond that of the old AMD X6 Thubans. For a general purpose machine, the Intel cpu’s are clearly superior.

It’s a sad day for AMD, and also for the mainstream PC user.

I really wanted Bulldozer to be able to challenge the i7 2600K in terms of price/performance, but it doesn’t even really outperform an i5 2500K.

Given that the i5 2500K has only 4 cores compared to the FX8150’s 8 cores, the FX8150 should be able to eat the 2500K for breakfast.

The FX8150 has done pretty well at video encoding but, those tests didn’t use Intel Quick Sync on the 2500K. If it had the 2500K would have been miles ahead.

The FX8150 is £199 here in the UK, compared to £239 for the i7 2600K, and £176 for the i5 2500K. It’s really a no brainer as the i5 2500K is cheaper, and the 2600K is miles ahead of FX8150, and the extra £40 will soon be recovered when you consider the TDP of FX18050 is 125W compared to i7 2600K which is 95W.

Bulldozer needed to be good, and be able to compete head on with Sandy Bridge.
Now Intel can do what they want regarding near future CPU’s, as they know AMD has nothing to compete with them in the price/performance stakes.

Honestly i dont see any reason why someone would want to go to the new FX series. Ok if the price is ok maybe someone can think about it, you will need a AM3+ mobo, but thats another story.

The sad truth is that AMD cant compete with the latest cpu’s from intel, and i hope that AMD had a plan B.

Hilarious (be aware the captions contain some strong language, and some folks could be offended by the content)


Be aware contain some strong language, and some folks could be offended by the content.

I honestly can’t quite figure out why AMD’s new 8 core processor is slower than Intel’s i7 2600 considering that Intel’s processor only has 4 real cores and 4 virtual cores as opposed to AMD’s 8 real cores, not only that but Intel’s i7 2600 is also clocked lower than AMD’s FX-8150.

I can see two simple explanations. First, AMD did something wrong with the design of the CPU, or second some of the benchmark programs cant take full advantage of the 8core’s (highly unlikely).
For the moment i will put my money on the first option.

Actually, I think the FX is not 8 actual cores, but 4. (marketing claims aside) But this is another AMD chip that’s meant to be O/C’d to get real performance.

[QUOTE=Dee;2607414]Hilarious (be aware the captions contain some strong language, and some folks could be offended by the content)


LOL, classic! :bigsmile:


I think that the Intel design is just far better for single threaded applications, and probably a better pre-fetcher and branch prediction. Then of course, there is that very fast ring bus that Intel use for sharing the cache.

The FX can be overclocked, but then again so can the SB K series, and hit 4.4GHz to 4.6Ghz with ease with decent air cooling.

another 15 review AMD FX-8150
I almost got this if they not delay Release date