Featured Articles

IHS teardown reveals Galaxy S5 BOM

IHS teardown reveals Galaxy S5 BOM

Research firm IHS got hold of Samsung’s new flagship smartphone and took it apart to the last bolt to figure out…

Galaxy S5, HTC One M8 available selling well

Galaxy S5, HTC One M8 available selling well

Samsung’s Galaxy S5 has finally gone on sale and it can be yours for €699, which is quite a lot of…

Intel lists Haswell refresh parts

Intel lists Haswell refresh parts

Intel has added a load of Haswell refresh parts to its official price list and there really aren’t any surprises to…

Respawn confirms Titanfall DLC for May

Respawn confirms Titanfall DLC for May

During his appearance at PAX East panel and confirmed on Twitter, Titanfall developer Respawn confirmed that the first DLC pack for…

KFA2 GTX 780 Ti Hall Of Fame reviewed

KFA2 GTX 780 Ti Hall Of Fame reviewed

KFA2 gained a lot of overclocking experience with the GTX 780 Hall of Fame (HOF), which we had a chance to…

Frontpage Slideshow | Copyright © 2006-2010 orks, a business unit of Nuevvo Webware Ltd.
Wednesday, 12 October 2011 09:58

AMD falls short with Bulldozer

Written by Slobodan Simic

amd FXSeries

Intel still reigns supreme

AMD has officially lifted the NDA off its FX Series lineup of dekstop CPUs based on the 32nm manufacturing process and its new Bulldozer architecture. As official and full, in-depth, reviews have started to show up we can now get a clear picture of how fast the Bulldozer and the new FX-Series actually is. Unfortunately, things aren't looking well for AMD and the bottom line is that Intel still has an upper hand with its Sandy Bridge lineup.

As you already know, AMD launched a total of four FX Series CPUs, two octa-cores, one hexa and one quad-core CPU. The FX-8150, FX-8120, FX-6100 and FX-4100 are the part names for these four CPUs and the first number indicates the number of cores for a specific model. All four have 8MB of L3 cache, TDP ranging from 95 to 125W.

Today it looks like our sources were quite precise back when we wrote that Bulldozer is coming in mid-October and that performance isn't as good as expected. Most sites reviewed the flagship FX-8150 model, we'll start with that one. AMD is throwing its flagship model against Intel's Sandy Bridge flagship, the Core i7 2600K. Unfortunately, even the 2500K has an upper hand in some tests and games. Things get even worse if you compare the new FX-8150 to AMD previous flagship, the hexa-core Phenom II X6 1100T as even that CPU sometimes takes the lead.

Performance wise, if you compare the new FX to Intel, the latter scores a clear win, as the Sandy Bridge based Core i7 2600K is simply too much even for the flagship FX-8150, although we are talking about octa versus quad-core CPU. Price wise, the FX-8150 wins as currently it is priced at US $245 while Intel asks US $314.99 for its flagship. Of course, the more realistic comparison would be with Intel's Core i5 2500K CPU that sells for US $219.99 and that can beat the FX-8150 in some tests.

It's not all well in the power consumption department, either. Both the Core i5 2500K and the Core i7 2600K have lower idle and load power consumption and even AMD's Phenom II X6 1100T is better there.

The main concern regarding the FX Series is its lackluster performance in lightly threaded applications. This is due to the actual multi-core module design of the Bulldozer parts and AMD claims that Windows 7 just isn't that good for Bulldozer either and that Windows 8 will be much better with it. The Windows 7 OS scheduler doesn't know when to use single module or more modules for specific threads, claims AMD.

Of course, the FX Series lineup includes three more CPUs and it is never good to judge the entire lineup by a single CPU but we are yet to see some reviews of those other three CPUs. The guys from PCEkspert.com did a review of the FX-6100, a hexa-core Bulldozer and compared it to some AMD and Intel CPUs. The price of the FX-6100 stands at US $165, while Intel asks for US $179.99 for the Core i5 2300 model, so we are quite sure that AMD has an upper hand there. The quad-core FX-4100 might have a better chance as well and could offer nice bang for buck compare to Intel offerings.

Of course, bear in mind that Intel launched the 2500K and the 2600K back in January and won't sit back with its hands crossed. We are pretty sure that price cuts are coming from Intel and we can't forget that a new Core i7 2700K is en route as well.

Last modified on Wednesday, 12 October 2011 10:29
blog comments powered by Disqus


+2 #1 Marburg_U 2011-10-12 10:32
"This isn’t another Barcelona"
Sep 23 2011; Charlie Demerjian
+8 #2 dieterD 2011-10-12 10:38
was hoping that intel will need to react vs FX and do a Sandy price drop :(, but now - I can forget about it and I can expect Sandy-E prices liek in bad old days (500$-900$)
+11 #3 Jaberwocky 2011-10-12 11:22
Well, my 1055T 6 core is not going anywhere now.I'll stick with that I think.
+1 #4 leftiszi 2011-10-12 11:26
ATI should become a stand alone company again, for their own good!

Since English is not my native language, what is a stronger expression to describe an epic fail X10? I'm out of words here please.

As an (X) AMD fan, all I say to AMD is to get their act together or GTFO!
-4 #5 maroon1 2011-10-12 11:55
Please delete
+5 #6 techno 2011-10-12 12:11
It seems to me AMD have abandoned the high performance desktop market, the APU is primarily for portable and lower power systems and Bulldozer architecture is primary server targeted the FX desktop version with its lower performance per core per clock than its under performing phenom predecessor was obviiously an ill thought out after thought.
Forgive me if I pass on this one AMD most domestic consumers don't need more than 2 - 4 threads so your under performing 8 core monster is largely irrelevant and the lower core count versions don't stand up either.

The legend that was Bulldozer and the FX moniker died today.
-2 #7 nt300 2011-10-12 12:26
The results are not that bad. The issue is there's no programs or games that can use all those extra cores. A Quad-Core AMD FX 4170 may be the gamers choice in terms of Price/Performance.

Obviously AMD needs time to Tweak the Bulldozer design. AMD can fight in Price/Performance for the meantime.
+4 #8 fuadzilla 2011-10-12 13:53
+5 #9 jklauderdale 2011-10-12 13:55
Quoting nt300:
Obviously AMD needs time to Tweak the Bulldozer design. AMD can fight in Price/Performance for the meantime.

So you mean they're exactly where they've been for the past 8 years. On the plus side, my 955 quad and 6870 is pretty much all I needed to upgrade my 6yo PC over time.

Probably won't build a new rig for another 12-18 months. If AMD can deliver another 6+ year capable platform, I MIGHT consider another build using them. They have a year or so to prove their point.
+3 #10 Seraphim401 2011-10-12 14:01
Glad you got fired Dirk Meyer!
This is your turd!

To be able to post comments please log-in with Disqus


Facebook activity

Latest Commented Articles

Recent Comments