The CPU That Almost Killed AMD: Bulldozer FX-8150 Benchmarks in 2020
video description
Date: 2020-08-21
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
Mat
I don't want to be that guy and this is not meant as an insult.... but I think you guys don't know why Intel is sticking with 14nm for such a long time.
With clockspeed still being king in games it's good to have CPUs that can go above 5GHz rn. The problem Intel has with the 10nm is that the process is not that good in achieving high clockspeeds because the 14nm process is just that much more optimized. This is not an issue for mobile CPUs where the lower power consumption that 10nm provide is much more important than hitting a high clockspeed because mobile devices won't hit 5 GHz all core anyway. In desktop however it's better to be able to achieve a high clockspeed which is why Intel is still using the better process for that which is their very optimized 14nm process.
Yes, they need to get 10nm ready ASAP but it's not that easy since the transistor density is actually higher than on TSMCs 7nm (ask google for that or use wikichip if you know how to read the table) I get why they are struggling with that jump.
Maybe you guys could make a video about that... it's a very interesting matter I guess most of your viewers either don't know that much about or are just as interested in it as I am.
And lastly for all the guys who want to call me an Intel shill: I've been using AMD CPUs for a long time already. I used an Athlon II and upgraded from that to Ryzen.... I've been called an AMD shill before so... yeah.
reply
I don't want to be that guy and this is not meant as an insult.... but I think you guys don't know why Intel is sticking with 14nm for such a long time.
With clockspeed still being king in games it's good to have CPUs that can go above 5GHz rn. The problem Intel has with the 10nm is that the process is not that good in achieving high clockspeeds because the 14nm process is just that much more optimized. This is not an issue for mobile CPUs where the lower power consumption that 10nm provide is much more important than hitting a high clockspeed because mobile devices won't hit 5 GHz all core anyway. In desktop however it's better to be able to achieve a high clockspeed which is why Intel is still using the better process for that which is their very optimized 14nm process.
Yes, they need to get 10nm ready ASAP but it's not that easy since the transistor density is actually higher than on TSMCs 7nm (ask google for that or use wikichip if you know how to read the table) I get why they are struggling with that jump.
Maybe you guys could make a video about that... it's a very interesting matter I guess most of your viewers either don't know that much about or are just as interested in it as I am.
And lastly for all the guys who want to call me an Intel shill: I've been using AMD CPUs for a long time already. I used an Athlon II and upgraded from that to Ryzen.... I've been called an AMD shill before so... yeah.
reply
Wolfshark
I really don't understand why you wouldn't include some intel cpus from that period in the test. i7 920 and i7 2600 come to mind. These cpus also aged badly, and to be honest the fx kinda closed the performance gap with time. And to be honest people at the time were recommending i5's and even i3's for gaming (and price wise they were closer to the bulldoser) and they are absolutely useless now. Bulldozer wasn't great, but it was much better than the garbage people are trying to call it. After all you can mostly game at 60fps after 10 years. Do that with an i3-2100 which people recommended. These days benchmarks were done with the lowest possible resolution the game would let you run and on low settings, so the cpu would be the bottleneck. This was absolutely garbage metric that didn't show at all how future proof the cpu was, although that was the purpose of these type of benchmarks.
reply
I really don't understand why you wouldn't include some intel cpus from that period in the test. i7 920 and i7 2600 come to mind. These cpus also aged badly, and to be honest the fx kinda closed the performance gap with time. And to be honest people at the time were recommending i5's and even i3's for gaming (and price wise they were closer to the bulldoser) and they are absolutely useless now. Bulldozer wasn't great, but it was much better than the garbage people are trying to call it. After all you can mostly game at 60fps after 10 years. Do that with an i3-2100 which people recommended. These days benchmarks were done with the lowest possible resolution the game would let you run and on low settings, so the cpu would be the bottleneck. This was absolutely garbage metric that didn't show at all how future proof the cpu was, although that was the purpose of these type of benchmarks.
reply
BigAl268
Seeing just how bad AMD was back then is Kinda a Shock! I ran AMD CPU's like Phenom II 955, the Later FX 8150 and 8350's pretty much from 2005 to 2017 when Ryzen launched! Never had any Issues Playing My games which I'm Kinda Sad you didn't at Least show How Phenom II and FX were with Games More from that Time Like Mass Effect 1 on 2, Fallout 3/4, ES III : Morrowind , ES IV: Oblivion And Civ 5 Just to name a Few! Yea, Once more Modern stuff Like GTA V came around, which was not Great, I started looking to upgrade, AMD prices were always cheaper! I'm Mean, Yea Intel would have been Better, but At that Time There wasn't any Review Sites like Today Running Benchmarks! It was all Written Reviews from PC Magazines you had to Reference! Which by the time something got Published, it was Always AFTER i already Bought Something! LOL!
reply
Seeing just how bad AMD was back then is Kinda a Shock! I ran AMD CPU's like Phenom II 955, the Later FX 8150 and 8350's pretty much from 2005 to 2017 when Ryzen launched! Never had any Issues Playing My games which I'm Kinda Sad you didn't at Least show How Phenom II and FX were with Games More from that Time Like Mass Effect 1 on 2, Fallout 3/4, ES III : Morrowind , ES IV: Oblivion And Civ 5 Just to name a Few! Yea, Once more Modern stuff Like GTA V came around, which was not Great, I started looking to upgrade, AMD prices were always cheaper! I'm Mean, Yea Intel would have been Better, but At that Time There wasn't any Review Sites like Today Running Benchmarks! It was all Written Reviews from PC Magazines you had to Reference! Which by the time something got Published, it was Always AFTER i already Bought Something! LOL!
reply
Tek_Lynx
Most of this era has no issue running WinXP still without jumping through hoops or sacrificing chipset drivers. They make good DX9 Class retro boxes, and since most have a couple PCI slots still for older hardware accelerated soundcards mostly live!\Audigy\X-fi, there also good dual boxers for PCI 3dfx (mostly V3\4\5) cards alongside a PCI-E DX9 card like a x18xx\x19xx or geforce 9 class gpu. Really overkill but it does beat re-purposing A64 class \ P4 class hardware for the same purpose as most of these boards use ceramic caps and come with better vrms then those generations, and don't need to be recapped probably for another decade or more.
reply
Most of this era has no issue running WinXP still without jumping through hoops or sacrificing chipset drivers. They make good DX9 Class retro boxes, and since most have a couple PCI slots still for older hardware accelerated soundcards mostly live!\Audigy\X-fi, there also good dual boxers for PCI 3dfx (mostly V3\4\5) cards alongside a PCI-E DX9 card like a x18xx\x19xx or geforce 9 class gpu. Really overkill but it does beat re-purposing A64 class \ P4 class hardware for the same purpose as most of these boards use ceramic caps and come with better vrms then those generations, and don't need to be recapped probably for another decade or more.
reply
BOT
Forgive me if I'm wrong but wasn't there a thing about the 8k series for the FX line having core instability issues?
I just seem to disctinctly remember that since there was a clear comparison at one point where the FX-6300 straight up worked better for a period of time than the 'more powerful' lineup upwards.
And I do remember an example of this where a friend had an 8320 and it had problems with streaming properly but I had a 6300 that did it just fine so he swapped down a 6100 and the problem was solved.
reply
Forgive me if I'm wrong but wasn't there a thing about the 8k series for the FX line having core instability issues?
I just seem to disctinctly remember that since there was a clear comparison at one point where the FX-6300 straight up worked better for a period of time than the 'more powerful' lineup upwards.
And I do remember an example of this where a friend had an 8320 and it had problems with streaming properly but I had a 6300 that did it just fine so he swapped down a 6100 and the problem was solved.
reply
ThreeSevenRetro
I never had any issues with my 8350, sure it was not the fastest out there but I never felt like I 'needed' to upgrade till I bought Ryzen. For a short time I held the world record on Futuremark for a 8350 combined with an Nvidia 1080. 4.8GHz on the CPU and 2100MHz on the GPU, a lot fo fun overclocking those. I bought a 4100 also which I think was 3.9GHz stock (correct me if I am wrong) and it would do 4.5GHz on stock voltage.
reply
I never had any issues with my 8350, sure it was not the fastest out there but I never felt like I 'needed' to upgrade till I bought Ryzen. For a short time I held the world record on Futuremark for a 8350 combined with an Nvidia 1080. 4.8GHz on the CPU and 2100MHz on the GPU, a lot fo fun overclocking those. I bought a 4100 also which I think was 3.9GHz stock (correct me if I am wrong) and it would do 4.5GHz on stock voltage.
reply
Andrew
I am quite surprised that you actually made a video on this CPU! I am still using one in my current PC with 12GB RAM and an RX 480. Still does more than adequately for me, but in a fair share of modern games there is noticeable stutter at times. I've gotten used to it, but I can only imagine how much smoother (wink) an upgrade would be.
reply
I am quite surprised that you actually made a video on this CPU! I am still using one in my current PC with 12GB RAM and an RX 480. Still does more than adequately for me, but in a fair share of modern games there is noticeable stutter at times. I've gotten used to it, but I can only imagine how much smoother (wink) an upgrade would be.
reply
rampage
fun fact. a fx8320 is not bad enough to bottleneck a rx580 8gb GPU when you play forza horizon 4. i got my ryzen 4 3600 yesturday and did a forza benchmark with the fx and with the ryzen. the ryzen actualy had 5fps less in the benchmark than when i had my fx. when i overclocked the gpu the ryzen setup was 1fps less than my fx8320.
reply
fun fact. a fx8320 is not bad enough to bottleneck a rx580 8gb GPU when you play forza horizon 4. i got my ryzen 4 3600 yesturday and did a forza benchmark with the fx and with the ryzen. the ryzen actualy had 5fps less in the benchmark than when i had my fx. when i overclocked the gpu the ryzen setup was 1fps less than my fx8320.
reply
flaggeable
Could you check out if and what older ryzen cpus run on b550? I have an 1700 and it is more then enough for the gaming and coding stuff I do, but my motherboard is crap. So my plan was since the launch of b550 to upgrade motherboard first and then go to 3xxx or 4xxx later. So for me that would be a great upgrade path
reply
Could you check out if and what older ryzen cpus run on b550? I have an 1700 and it is more then enough for the gaming and coding stuff I do, but my motherboard is crap. So my plan was since the launch of b550 to upgrade motherboard first and then go to 3xxx or 4xxx later. So for me that would be a great upgrade path
reply
kiaas
curious with some of those stutters, bulldozer inserts NOPs into the pipeline if the temperature goes over 65C and that can cause some notable slowdowns and I've seen reviewers not know this and wonder why OC'd 83xx CPUs were slower than stock while letting the temperature get to 70C on the OC.
reply
curious with some of those stutters, bulldozer inserts NOPs into the pipeline if the temperature goes over 65C and that can cause some notable slowdowns and I've seen reviewers not know this and wonder why OC'd 83xx CPUs were slower than stock while letting the temperature get to 70C on the OC.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
