[M] AMD FX 8150 Revisited

A couple of reasons why I wanted to share this article with you:

  • For one, I applaud reviewers going back to their labs and re-test hardware after receiving negative feedback. Reviewing hardware isn't an exact science and results are always open for debate. For reviewers, defending their initial figures comes naturally, but it can be interesting to just check your findings using someone else's methodology.
  • For two, I like the approach where the reviewer actually compares apples-to-apples and overclocks all configurations when comparing performance gain by overclocking. I've seen too many reviews where authors overclock one configuration and leave the other at stock settings (or well below what the configuration can do), creating a flawed view on the benefits of overclocking.
  • Thirdly, of course I can appreciate the (small) off-topic rant on how various other "review" websites seemingly cheat their readers by giving high ratings and "must buy"-awards to products that clearly do not stand out against the competition. Those websites are just not posting reviews, but are merely providing a platform for product advertisement and promotion.

And there is nothing wrong with being a platform for product promotion. In fact, I think we need it! We need websites that highlight the positive aspects of hardware. It's just ... we don't need those websites to pretend they're hosting honest reviews ...

After the hectic week of testing this brand new 8 core CPU from Advanced Micro Design, it's time to go a bit deeper. In this review we are gonna retest the Bulldozer CPU versus it's main rivals. Being AMD's own Thuban 1090T, Intels 2600K and the almighty Gulftown 990X CPU. Mainly because our test suite had to be slightly updated to give the new Zambezi architecture a shot to maybe show it's true potential. But most important to show some people the real deal. I've myself read through a few articles on AMD's latest flagship. To be honest some reviews made me wonder if they were really done or just a copy paste of the marketing slides. It was also kind of funny to see some renown websites include completely GPU bottlenecked game benchmarks. Kinda hard to tell the importance of the CPU part don't you think ? Even if they call it real world scenarios, it still made my eyebrows frown as they hardly used any game tests in older reviews. Why now include them ? So without boring you too much with my frustrations, let's get it on...

...

The biggest issue is that Bulldozer was too late on the market. This in reference to the performance it currently offers in most applications. Delay after delay is never a good indication of how things will fianlly turn out. Bundle the late arrival together with the unofficial leaks, the hype created around the architecture and it's performance. The overconfident PR campaign labelling this product as the first true eight core CPU. And then it finally arrives after a 5 year wait and most users notice it has a pretty rough time distinguishing itself from the previous AMD generation. What a dissapointment it must be for them that awaited a new competitive CPU. Only the real dedicated AMD fan boys still try to find a way to make AMDs latest offering shine. It must be applauded, nice dedication and devotion lads, but we will have to await at least newer and hopefully better steppings. In it's current state it's partly doomed. Piledriver might be what Bulldozer should have been right from the start.

...

Completely off topic now. It's so weird wading through some reviews and to see the different opinions, remarks, points of criticism (if any) and the given awards. So funny to see a pretty spot on conclusion, then still award the FX 8150 with a 9.5 out of 10. Recommend it as value, high tech, must buy, and so on... No idea where the reviewer honesty level is at lately. Do they even dare to look at themselves in the mirror ? The readers that dig this kind of behaviour must love to be fooled or partly lied too. Not many grasp the whole concept behind the award rating. How it can be used as an act to get more goodies. The manufacturers praise them sites as their samples will get awarded over and over again. Good for all of us of course, that there aren't any bad/flawed products around lately.


11

United States sin0822 says:

Thanks for sharing the article, I think its great what they are doing to retest the CPU. i applaud you leeghoofd!

Belgium leeghoofd says:

thanks, time to move on... X79 up next...

Czech Republic OBR says:

Leeghoofd on XS: Also most reviewers are testing with ES CPUs that don't seem to clock as high as the retails, mine would run the full test suite at 4.9, though prime stability was at max 4.6-4.7Ghz... You are wrong, ALL Retail FX in 1.58/1.58.5 looks like ES ... PS. My half year old B0 clocks 4,9 GHz on air too ... in Cinebench R11

Christian Ney says:

OBR said: You are wrong, ALL Retail FX in 1.58/1.58.5 looks like ES ...


What is the good cpu-z version to use then to really know if we are using an ES or a Retail

Czech Republic OBR says:

Christian Ney said: What is the good cpu-z version to use then to really know if we are using an ES or a Retail


1.85.7 and higher (1.58.8) i have these "ES" with Retail name on HS from september, i though it is ES because CPUz, but in 1.58.7 is not "ES" anymore ... it looks i have Retail 8150 TWO months at home :)

United Kingdom El Gappo says:

You can't tell with amd, we've discussed this before.

Belgium leeghoofd says:

OBR said: Leeghoofd on XS: Also most reviewers are testing with ES CPUs that don't seem to clock as high as the retails, mine would run the full test suite at 4.9, though prime stability was at max 4.6-4.7Ghz...

You are wrong, ALL Retail FX in 1.58/1.58.5 looks like ES ...

PS. My half year old B0 clocks 4,9 GHz on air too ... in Cinebench R11


ES or not my sample can't hold 4.7-4.8Ghz on prime95 mate. Many retails can on XS. But ofcourse at XS mostly only the golden eggs pop up...

I just wanted to point out real retails seem to go a tiny bit faster... then the one i have at home... though still great for testing mobos/rams and co... So I'm happy with it...

Czech Republic OBR says:

yes, its possible ... some FX are good, some bad ... in our AMD Press kit was one with max OC 4,4 GHz :)

United States sin0822 says:

yea it makes sense if you take into account that it happens with llano too, they clock higher with retail, seems to be that the quality of manufacturing or silicon increase with retails.

FlanK3r says:

last time I can see at XS some great pieces of FX....Stilt told about new one with very strong CPU-NB with low voltage.

Belgium leeghoofd says:

Lets pray for AMD Global Foundries can revise their manufacturing process... so 5Ghz daily at moderate power consumption and heat is doable for each CPU...

Please log in or register to comment.