AMD Bulldozer FX-8150 Processor Benchmarks & Review
AMD Bulldozer FX-8150 Review – We’ve waited a long time for AMD to release a brand new processor architecture, but Bulldozer has finally arrived. This first chip is the vanguard of the somewhat tardy Bulldozer technology and is this top-of-the-line AMD FX-8150, codenamed Zambezi. This is the full-fat, eight-core AMD super-chip running at a not inconsiderable 3.6GHz straight out the box.
The Bulldozer modules at the heart of the FX series represent the future of AMD processors -these modules are likely to last as the basis for its CPU range for j the next five to seven years. At the moment we’ve only seen the roadmap for the next couple of years, with the Piledriver update coming in 2012, Steamroller on the way in 2013 and Excavator in 2014. Yes, we know it sounds like a joke, but AMD’s latest roadmap really does read like the Urban Dictionary Karma Sutra.
Nevertheless, hopes are still high for these new AMD FX processors, especially after it managed to snag the Guinness World Record for the highest CPU clockspeed in September, when we saw this top CPU running at well over 8GHz.
That’s impressive, but realistically it’s just numbers. The world record didn’t demand the machine to actually run any applications – it just needed to boot into Windows and report its clockspeed. Neither did it have to run all its cores. The world record was actually only broken by a single Bulldozer module in operation and under serious liquid helium cooling.
Architecture
The AMD FX-8150′s new Bulldozer technology is a fairly radical departure from the standard model of processor design. The big news is the modular design, which houses the constituent components of a dual-core CPU in one. It’s also AMD’s first 32nm desktop CPU. Sadly that does make the chip seem a little behind the times, with Intel set to release it’s first 22nm processor in spring next year. But like Intel’s shift in process size, the change to this modular design allows the AMD engineers to squeeze more performance into a smaller space, and therefore also cut the costs of manufacturing.
Essentially, the idea is to I share parts of the module with lower utilisation, such as the Level 2 cache, Fetch and Decode components, while high utilisation parts, such as the Integer pipelines and Level-1 data cache, are separated out per core. According to AMD’s literature, that should give each Bulldozer module around 80 per cent of the performance of a standard dual-core CPU. It’s this squeezing of two cores into each module that means AMD can produce an eight-core CPU for less than the price of Intel’s top Sandy Bridge quad-core.
Considering competition on price rather than performance is more AMD’s concern than Intel’s, this is something it had to do with the AMD FX CPUs. Still, like the AMD FX-8150, the Core i72600K – that top of the range Sandy Bridge chip – can run eight processes in parallel. Intel doesn’t call the 2600K an eight-core chip – instead it uses its HyperThreading technology to split the four cores in its die into eight processes. There is a certain amount of hardware in the Sandy Bridge die to make the HyperThreading magic happen, but for the most part it’s a software-oriented model.
Again, like the Intel chips, the AMD FX CPUs use a form of on-the-fly overclocking to boost performance when there’s spare capacity available. The AMD Turbo Core technology has been used in the Phenom II CPUs before, but has been specifically enhanced for the Bulldozer architecture. The AMD FX-8150 has a standard clockspeed of 3.6GHz, with a possible Turbo Core available to it to allow it push up to around 3.9GHz.
But what about the platform? Despite the delay to the CPUs themselves, the motherboard platform was actually launched a fair while back. The AMD 9-series motherboards have been doing a roaring trade out there, even without the chip to back them up. There’s precious little difference between the 8-series and 9-series motherboards, with the exception of one vital
ingredient: the AM3+ socket that supports the new AMD FX CPUs. That also means they aren’t the priciest boards in existence. Still, if you want to get the best out of your Bulldozer CPU, at least in overclocking terms, dropping some cash on a decent board should be well worth the money.
Performance
That said, all the clever architectural tricks in the world count for nought if the sheer performance isn’t there, so how does the top-end AMD FX chip stack up against its rivals? The short answer is not as well as we might have hoped. AMD really needed this chip to be at least a rival for the current generation of Sandy Bridge CPUs, especially with a new production process and accompanying chips arriving on the scene in the first half of next year from Intel.
With the high clockspeed and nominal eight cores, we had hoped to see the AMD FX-8150 taking the resolutely quad-core Intel Core i5 2500K to task. In fact, it turns out the competition is a lot closer than Intel could have dared hope, and certainly a lot closer than AMD would have wanted – especially in the multi-threaded benchmarks, which is quite a surprise.
In the heavily multi-threaded Cinebench Rlltest, the AMD FX-8150 comes away with a decent 5.98 index score, but with only four threads of processing grunt against the FX chip’s eight, the i5 2500K manages to get awfully close at 5.90. That test is also interesting when you compare the results to those of the previous top AMD chip, the Phenom IIX61100T. That’s a full six-core CPU, but is running on the older 45nm hardware and at a slower clockspeed too, yet that older brother still manages to put up a score of 5.88.
The eight-threaded Core i7 2600K however is streets ahead of all three. Still, those extra threads come into their own with the x264 video encoding benchmark. Even at stock speeds, the FX-8150 actually starts clawing back some ground on the i7 2600K, beating the quad-core i5 2500K easily as it does so. Unfortunately the actual cores in the Bulldozer modules look like the weak link in he multi-threaded chain.
A check on the single-threaded performance of the FX-8150 highlights that weakness. Using the single-threaded Cinebench RIO benchmark, you can immediately see the problems the FX-8150 faces. Even the ageing Phenom II cores run faster than this brand new Bulldozer core. And the two Sandy Bridge.
AMD Bulldozer FX-8150 Review – We’ve waited a long time for AMD to release a brand new processor architecture, but Bulldozer has finally arrived. This first chip is the vanguard of the somewhat tardy Bulldozer technology and is this top-of-the-line AMD FX-8150, codenamed Zambezi. This is the full-fat, eight-core AMD super-chip running at a not inconsiderable 3.6GHz straight out the box.
The Bulldozer modules at the heart of the FX series represent the future of AMD processors -these modules are likely to last as the basis for its CPU range for j the next five to seven years. At the moment we’ve only seen the roadmap for the next couple of years, with the Piledriver update coming in 2012, Steamroller on the way in 2013 and Excavator in 2014. Yes, we know it sounds like a joke, but AMD’s latest roadmap really does read like the Urban Dictionary Karma Sutra.
Nevertheless, hopes are still high for these new AMD FX processors, especially after it managed to snag the Guinness World Record for the highest CPU clockspeed in September, when we saw this top CPU running at well over 8GHz.
That’s impressive, but realistically it’s just numbers. The world record didn’t demand the machine to actually run any applications – it just needed to boot into Windows and report its clockspeed. Neither did it have to run all its cores. The world record was actually only broken by a single Bulldozer module in operation and under serious liquid helium cooling.
Architecture
The AMD FX-8150′s new Bulldozer technology is a fairly radical departure from the standard model of processor design. The big news is the modular design, which houses the constituent components of a dual-core CPU in one. It’s also AMD’s first 32nm desktop CPU. Sadly that does make the chip seem a little behind the times, with Intel set to release it’s first 22nm processor in spring next year. But like Intel’s shift in process size, the change to this modular design allows the AMD engineers to squeeze more performance into a smaller space, and therefore also cut the costs of manufacturing.
Essentially, the idea is to I share parts of the module with lower utilisation, such as the Level 2 cache, Fetch and Decode components, while high utilisation parts, such as the Integer pipelines and Level-1 data cache, are separated out per core. According to AMD’s literature, that should give each Bulldozer module around 80 per cent of the performance of a standard dual-core CPU. It’s this squeezing of two cores into each module that means AMD can produce an eight-core CPU for less than the price of Intel’s top Sandy Bridge quad-core.
Considering competition on price rather than performance is more AMD’s concern than Intel’s, this is something it had to do with the AMD FX CPUs. Still, like the AMD FX-8150, the Core i72600K – that top of the range Sandy Bridge chip – can run eight processes in parallel. Intel doesn’t call the 2600K an eight-core chip – instead it uses its HyperThreading technology to split the four cores in its die into eight processes. There is a certain amount of hardware in the Sandy Bridge die to make the HyperThreading magic happen, but for the most part it’s a software-oriented model.
Again, like the Intel chips, the AMD FX CPUs use a form of on-the-fly overclocking to boost performance when there’s spare capacity available. The AMD Turbo Core technology has been used in the Phenom II CPUs before, but has been specifically enhanced for the Bulldozer architecture. The AMD FX-8150 has a standard clockspeed of 3.6GHz, with a possible Turbo Core available to it to allow it push up to around 3.9GHz.
But what about the platform? Despite the delay to the CPUs themselves, the motherboard platform was actually launched a fair while back. The AMD 9-series motherboards have been doing a roaring trade out there, even without the chip to back them up. There’s precious little difference between the 8-series and 9-series motherboards, with the exception of one vital
ingredient: the AM3+ socket that supports the new AMD FX CPUs. That also means they aren’t the priciest boards in existence. Still, if you want to get the best out of your Bulldozer CPU, at least in overclocking terms, dropping some cash on a decent board should be well worth the money.
Performance
That said, all the clever architectural tricks in the world count for nought if the sheer performance isn’t there, so how does the top-end AMD FX chip stack up against its rivals? The short answer is not as well as we might have hoped. AMD really needed this chip to be at least a rival for the current generation of Sandy Bridge CPUs, especially with a new production process and accompanying chips arriving on the scene in the first half of next year from Intel.
With the high clockspeed and nominal eight cores, we had hoped to see the AMD FX-8150 taking the resolutely quad-core Intel Core i5 2500K to task. In fact, it turns out the competition is a lot closer than Intel could have dared hope, and certainly a lot closer than AMD would have wanted – especially in the multi-threaded benchmarks, which is quite a surprise.
In the heavily multi-threaded Cinebench Rlltest, the AMD FX-8150 comes away with a decent 5.98 index score, but with only four threads of processing grunt against the FX chip’s eight, the i5 2500K manages to get awfully close at 5.90. That test is also interesting when you compare the results to those of the previous top AMD chip, the Phenom IIX61100T. That’s a full six-core CPU, but is running on the older 45nm hardware and at a slower clockspeed too, yet that older brother still manages to put up a score of 5.88.
The eight-threaded Core i7 2600K however is streets ahead of all three. Still, those extra threads come into their own with the x264 video encoding benchmark. Even at stock speeds, the FX-8150 actually starts clawing back some ground on the i7 2600K, beating the quad-core i5 2500K easily as it does so. Unfortunately the actual cores in the Bulldozer modules look like the weak link in he multi-threaded chain.
A check on the single-threaded performance of the FX-8150 highlights that weakness. Using the single-threaded Cinebench RIO benchmark, you can immediately see the problems the FX-8150 faces. Even the ageing Phenom II cores run faster than this brand new Bulldozer core. And the two Sandy Bridge.
