AMD FX-8150 8-Core Black Edition Processor Socket AM3+ FD8150FRGUBOX

by AMD

• Overclocking capabilities - Unlocked for a big boost in performance and speed.
• "Bulldozer" architecture - Designed to increase core communication for unparalleled multitasking and pure core performance.
• AMD Turbo CORE Technology - A burst of speed for the task at hand. Delivers dynamic core performance boosts depending on users' workload at frequencies of up to 900MHz faster.
• AMD OverDrive software - Tuning controls to push performance to the limits and monitors system stability when overclocking
• 32nm die shrink - Stable and smooth performance with impressive energy efficiency

Product Details

• Product Dimensions: 5.9 x 3.4 x 5.1 inches ; 1 pounds
• Shipping Weight: 1.6 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Shipping: Currently, item can be shipped only within the U.S.
• ASIN: B005UBNLFK
• Item model number: FD8150FRGUBOX
• Average Customer Review: 4.6 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (116 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank:
  • #32 in Electronics > Computers & Add-Ons > Computer Components > CPU Processors
• Date first available at Amazon.com: October 15, 2011

Product Description

Experience responsive game play and mega-tasking performance with AMD FX Processors. Get AMD FX in your system.Power Supply: 700 watts

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

195 of 215 people found the following review helpful

4.0 out of 5 stars Recommend for AMD fans, heavy threaded applications. Everyone else, not quite October 17, 2011

By Amir Khusrau

Amazon Verified Purchase

This is going to be a rather long review; so I'll get the condensed version
out of the way first. If you enjoy reading long reviews, well, you are in luck!

Who should buy this CPU:

* If you already have an AMD AM3+ capable motherboard and have a low end quadcore or an
entry level Phenom II x6 (6 core)
* You have to buy AMD because that's how you will always be (see my paragraph below)
* You require serious number crunching ability for your heavy threaded applications
* You love to overclock your CPU and the price of cooling equipment be damned! This is a
Black Edition processor aka the CPU is built for overclocking and comes fully unlocked
* You care about native DDR3-1866MHz support and Quad Channel DDR3

Why you would want to skip this one:

* You have a decent Phenom II X4 or a Phenom II X6 processor
* Your applications are single-threaded (Bulldozer lags behind Intel I5-2500k here)
* If you are in the "should I buy Intel I5-2500(k) or go AMD" camp
* You upgrade every 9-12months; might as well wait for early 2012 (2nd generation Bulldozer)

Now the longer version:

I usually start my reviews by giving the context of where I stand with a particular
product line and how that influences my buying process. Since 2000, I've had nothing
but AMD processors in my desktops. I've moved around as far as motherboards and chip-
sets go but as far as processors go, it's been AMD all along. Even for my fileserver/
secondary machines at home. I am probably what you'd call an AMD fanboy except for the
fact that I exclusively buy Thinkpads for my personal laptops (current one has the older
generation I7-640m) and Thinkpads usually come with Intel processors. The machines at
work run I5-2500k and I7-2600. So the point is that I love AMD processors but I am not
quite a fanboy.

What do I use my AMDs for? My main desktop at home has 3 different uses: 1. Video
(Capture, Editing, General Processing), 2. Gaming (think resource intensive titles),
3. Photo processing (Lightroom 3, Photoshop). My current machine has an AMD 1090xt
6core and while I am generally happy with the unit (bought it on Amazon for $169),
I find myself wanting more CPU power during video processing (6 cores being maxed
out by a H.264 encoder makes me want more CPU power).

This is my current setup:
. Motherboard: GIGABYTE GA-990FXA-UD3
. RAM: G.Skill 1866MHz DDR3 16GB
. VGA: Asus GTX 480 with Nvidia drivers 280.26
. OS Disk: Kingston SSDNow V Series 128 GB
. Scratch Disk: Raid0 with 2*Crucial M4 128 GB SSDs

I managed to get my hands on an 8150 and slapped it on my GIGABYTE GA-990FXA-UD3
(grabbed the latest AGESA dated October 13th from the Gigabyte website). The
1866MHz DDR3 memory was recognized natively at its intended speed and Windows 7
x64 Ultimate booted without any issues. What I was most interested in was how
x264 encoding (2 pass) would benefit from this new processor. Since the first
pass is just analysis, I ignored the first pass numbers and measured the second
pass numbers for both the average fps value and the time it took for an encode.
The source was a 30Mbps 720p MJPEG file in an AVI container and I encoded it to
a 10Mbps 720p H.264in an MP4 container. Over 3 encodes, I got a performance boost
ranging from 8% to 11% on both the FPS and time-taken front. Not a small number
but not the boost I was hoping for. Granted, that the x264 encoder I have does
not have AVX enabled.

As far as the games went (Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Batman: Arkham Asylum GOTY),
I did not see a noticeable increase in frame rates (around 1-2% average frame rate
increase at best) but this was rather expected at 1920x1080 since these games are
not heavy on thread usage.

I wasn't quite sure how to measure any gains in Photoshop CS / Lightroom 3 -
so I skipped this part. At this point, I have mixed feelings about this
processor (considering my 1090xt is only 6 months old) and my conclusion would
be to wait for the second generation of Bulldozer scheduled to come out in Q1 2012.
The problem as I see it is that this processor seems to be future-ready as far as
applications go but 6 months from now, there will be a better Bulldozer and a better
Intel processor or two out there. AMD has always been my favorite as they've always
delivered on the price/performance front but that isn't quite true with Bulldozer.
I hope AMD cleans up their act with their next release; the desktop/server computing
market cannot afford to have Intel call the shots.

I was split between a three star and a four star review and I realized that I
was drifting towards three stars because of the expectations (and partly the
hype) and how I wanted this processor to be a huge upgrade from my current AMD
Phenom II X6 1090xt. In itself, this processor isn't that shabby. One might argue
that compared to the Intel I5-2500, this process lags in the price/performance
category. That would be true but I am an AMD fan and I am willing to give them a
second chance before ditching them. Those of you who are on the fence might want
to wait a few months.

61 of 71 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars FX8150 really is not bad at all. It certainly beats my I7-960 December 10, 2011

By Suhail Ahmad

I pre-ordered this cpu from Ebuyer UK in early September 2011. It was supposed to be released on 16/09/11 but due to delays, I did not receive it until end of October. I initially purchased an Asus Crosshair formula V mb but due to ongoing problems, I had to return it. I suspected the mb was inherently unstable or it was causing some compatibility issues with the FX8150. Fortunately, on USA Amazon, there are 4 reviews (and many comments) for the FX8150 (where a few guys have confirmed there is some compatibility issues between the Asus mb and FX cpu). I replaced the Asus crosshair V with the Gigabyte UD7 990FX AM3+ mb. It is a great mb. It is working perfectly and I have no issues whatsoever. I gave reviews on UK Amazon for both motherboards. I was also very disappointed to find out there are no reviews on UK Amazon, Novatech, Overclockers, Ebuyer, etc for this FX8150 cpu. So I have just submitted my review on UK (and now USA) Amazon (and a short version on Ebuyer).

Despite all of the negative reviews given by Intel fanatics, this FX8150 really is not bad at all. I also prefer to judge for myself (although I was initially hesitant/concerned due to negative reviews by intel fanboys). I have been using it on a stable mb for just over 4 weeks now. At idle, cpu remains within 35C. When stressed (gaming), cpu remains within 55C (I am using it in a coolermaster HAF 932 atx case). BTW, over the last 7 years, I have had 6 Intel based pc's but now I decided to give AMD a go, as I was intrigued by the Bulldozer.

My AMD rig = FX8150, Gigabyte UD7 AM3+ mb, 580gtx, 8GB DDR3 corsair vengeance ram 2000MHz but at default 1333MHz, 1200watt psu. Everything is working perfectly. I ran cpu bench mark tests. The FX8150 CPU results:

CPU integer maths: 1663.9 out of 2000
CPU floating point maths: 5404.6 out of 6000
CPU-find prime numbers: 1704.1 out of 2000
CPU-SSE: 30.2 out of 40
CPU compression: 9850.1 out of 10,000
CPU encryption: 28 out of 30
CPU-Physics: 513.6 out of 600
CPU-string: sorting 6170.4 out of 7000

Compare this to my previous I7-960 rig (Asus sabretooth X58mb, 12GB Kingston hyperX ram @ 1600MHz, 560 GTX Ti SOC, 1200 watt psu):

CPU integer maths: 1079.5 out of 2000
CPU floating point maths: 1416.1 out of 2000
CPU-find prime numbers: 765.3 out of 800
CPU-SSE: 8.8 out of 10
CPU compression: 4160 out of 5000
CPU encryption: 13.3 out of 20
CPU-Physics: 257.8 out of 300
CPU-string sorting: 2712 out of 3000

Once I adjust the corsair ram (via mb BIOS) from 1333MHz to 2000MHz, I am sure the benchmark results will be higher still.

In a nutshell, this FX8150 cpu serves all of my needs. It is as fast as my I7-960 with video/music encoding, surfing net, using various software, etc and I have no complaints whatsoever (it is also significantly faster/better than my original I7-920 cpu in every way). However, Intel cpu's are fast straight out of the box whereas this AMD cpu seems to have a learning curve. Initially in video editing, it was c.30% slower than the I7-960 but due to repeated use of video editing software, cpu performance is now on par with I7-960. I was initially thinking of upgrading my I7-960 cpu and mobo etc, but since Intel are now phasing out the LGA 1366 platform and replacing it with the LGA 2011 rig, investing a large amount of capital on a soon to be defunct platform would have been a pointless exercise and a complete waste of money. What I really wanted was something new, affordable and preferably with 8 genuine physical processing cores. I had to rule out Intel I7-980 and 990 (LGA1366, 6 cores, too expensive despite end of line) and the new Intel LGA2011 (ludicrously extortionate prices). I was also reluctant to jump on the Intel 2nd generation I7 bandwagon. Next on my list was the bulldozer. Whilst the BD is apparently not so great with single threaded apps, it does shine with respect to heavily, multi-threaded applications such as gaming. Now that is what I am looking for.

The FX8150 is substantially better than my original I7-920 for gaming (this was the biggest and most noticeable improvement). It also bettered my I7-960, as the difference was noticeable yet again. Even with the 560 GTX Ti SOC (before getting the 580GTX two days ago), the picture quality when gaming with the FX8150 was far better. Objects had better definition and clarity, more visual depth and breadth and richer colours. In short, the games felt more lifelike and ran very smoothly. By contrast, the I7-920 had a lack lustre feel when gaming. The I7-960 was good but it was bested by the FX8150 wrt richness in picture colour/clarity, fluidity of gameplay and fast response). BTW, Toms Hardware gave a review saying that W7 and other software were never designed to work with 8 cores. Hence poor bench result for FX8150 which caused c.40% bottle neck performance. MS have acknowledged this and are engineering a patch for W7 which should resolve this problem. W8 should hopefully be compatible with the heavily multi-threaded BD 8 core and piledriver (8 and 10 core) cpu's (but compatibility for FX cpu's will be directly proportional to the length of the leash that Intel has over Microsoft!).

Furthermore as one reviewer has correctly stated, AMD have acknowledged Bulldozer's minor design issues (Branch Prediction, Pipeline Flushing, Cache Trashing, Decode unit not wide enough etc). Clearly, fine tuning was required but due to the impending release date, AMD decided to rely on the higher clock frequencies until R&D resolved these minor issues and release the improved version, via the FX8170 (Q1 or Q2 2012) and the 'Piledriver' cpu to be released on 1090FX AM3+ platform (Q3 2012). The piledriver will deliver 20-30% improved performance under video/digital workload and if MS get their act together and release the patch for W7 in order to fully utilise the 8 core multi-threading cpu, then performance for the FX8150 should increase by c.15% at stock speeds (and more when overclocked).

The cpu and mb cost me Ł200 each (total Ł400). If I were to opt for an equivalent Intel pairing, then it would cost me at least Ł520. I look forward for the FX8170 and piledriver cpu's and the new 1090FX mobo which should hopefully have PCIE3 lanes (although Toms hardware seems to think otherwise, but many usa discussion threads are claiming the 1090FX AM3+ mb will have PCIE3 lanes in order to accomodate the new 7000 series graphics cards by AMD). I have no regrets migrating from Intel to AMD (and I did so for personal/ethical reasons). I sincerely hope AMD do not throw in the towel, despite their claims that they will no longer compete with Intel. At the end of the day, AMD deserves a pat on the back for designing a cpu with completely new architecture and trying to push the performance envelope. Yes, it did not perform as well as expected but that is due to five issues -

1) W7 and other software were never designed to utilise a heavily multi-threaded cpu with 8 genuine physical processing cores. Furthermore, MS software is optimized to work efficiently with all 4 of Intel's cpu algorithms but not with AMD cpu algorithms (which is interesting, since MS has very strong business ties with Intel).

2) Above mentioned design issues and also errors made by marketing department when ignoring R&D recommendations and not delaying the release date. This is courtesy of David Meyers, who was subsequently fired by AMD but is now working for Intel. Hmmmm...

3) Flawed manufacturing process courtesy of 'Global Foundries' with regards to the 32nm chip (which is why AMD is shifting production to another company).

4) The BD cpu is not from a dedicated desktop cpu lineage. It's design is based upon the Zambezi architecture. In other words, the BD is actually a mainframe server cpu built for number crunching!. There is a big difference in structure and function between a mainframe server cpu and a dedicated desktop cpu. This is why Intel as a general rule, do not use the mainframe server `Xeon' cpu's for desktop machines without modifying them first.

5) Last but not least, according to an eye opening revelation given on the lenzfire website, AMD has 20 TIMES LESS FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR R&D WHEN COMPARED TO INTEL'S BUDGET ($100 million and $2 billion respectively). When you consider this massive difference, AMD has done a very good job on a comparatively limited budget.

All things considered, this FX8150 is not bad at all and if AMD can tweak it and sort out the minor issues, then the FX8170 and piledriver will be very good indeed. The FX8170 will be the improved version of the FX8150. Indeed, according to one of the latest Tom's hardware reviews, AMD has guaranteed a minimum of 15-20% performance improvement per watt for the revised FX8170.

If AMD throws in the towel, then Intel will hike their extortionate prices even further. As a consumer I do not want that, so I have decided to give AMD the benefit of the doubt and buy their products. Despite Intel propaganda, I wanted to judge Bulldozer for myself and I am glad I did, because the AMD FX8150 cpu is really not bad at all. In real life terms, it serves all of my needs, it has not given me any problems (so is reliable) and unlike Intel, it is affordable. So that makes me happy. IMHO, if people were to undertake a double blind trial, then they would not be able to tell the difference between an Intel and AMD cpu (since the majority of people are not `extreme' users). I think the differences would only come in to play if you are a performance enthusiast (afterall, both brands of cpu's have their strengths and weaknesses and I learned firsthand that the FX8150 is much better for gaming than my G1 I7 920 & 960). Sweet.

UPDATE -

As of today (Saturday 10/12/11 at 1. Read more ›

25 of 29 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars Excellent Value for the Money April 22, 2012

By Madscientist

Update:

I just wanted to provide a few more details to those who are still undecided about this chip and have read all the negative reviews and benchmarks out there. We had a couple of slow days at the lab while we prepare for other projects and we have had more time to play with this chip. We compared the FX to Intel core i5 2500K and core i7 2600k. Clock for clock, the Intel chips are faster. The Intel chips are also better suited for gaming as they performed better on almost all the games we tested. The reason for that is the games we had to test with do not seem to support multicore chips and cannot effectively use more than 2 cores. In games, the FX is more or less comparable to a core i5 where the FX is just below the i5.

Where the FX really excels is in multicore and multithreading. Using scala and compiling multicore support, the FX beats both the 2500K and the 2600K. Virtually every multicore test we performed, the FX took the lead (except in OpenSSL where even the i5 won). If you plan to virtualize machines using VMware Workstation or equivalent, the FX is the better chip by a mile. If you plan to run a lot of applications at the same time, FX is the way to go. With the FX chip we were playing Dirt3, compiling scala code, compiling C source code, using 7zip to compress a 2 GB image, and doing some minor integer computations in Matlab. All at the same time without any noticeable lag in performance. The Intel 2500K and 2600K could not come close to handling this with the same smoothness as the FX chip.

In summary,

If you play games, Intel is the way to go. Core i5 2500K is the best bang for the money. Not worth investing in a core i7 2600K from what we thought. Keep in mind that the FX also performs nicely in games and 95% of gamers will probably not notice the difference. Still, Intel is the favorite here even if it is because games are optimized for it.

For multithreaded stuff, the FX is the winner. When you use apps that can utilize the 8 cores (remember it is 8 cores and 4 floating points), the true power of this chip can be seen. The 2500K and 2600K can hold their own here too but not at the level that the FX chip can take it. Get this chip for multithreaded, multicore, and VMware.

Even though it has shortcomings, the chip is a good value for the money, even more now that the price has been reduced. Unless you are a hardcore gamer or an Intel fanboi, there is no reason not to get this chip. Do not be mislead by the negative reviews. This is a fine chip for the money. By the way, we tested the FX against an Intel Core i7 3930K in some very high performing scala algorithms. Even though the 3930K was faster, it was not by that much more (only 38 seconds less). Consider that the 3930K sells for more than two times the price of the FX.

Original Review below

The value you get with this processor is unbeatable. Do not be confused and/or misguided by the mostly negative reviews about this chip. Those reviews are either biased or the benchmarking was done incorrectly. How the so-called "benchmarkers" calling themselves "experts" do their benchmarks is laughable. To correctly benchmark a CPU like this one, you need specific operating systems and software (no, not Windows). Windows does not have the necessary scheduling and queuing algorithms to correctly benchmark a CPU like this one and Windows builds and designs their optimization around Intel CPUs. Other operating systems also use Intel CPUs to design the optimization. These operating systems cannot efficiently schedule threads to fully utilize this multicore chip. So benchmarks are not fair at all. Read on to find out the correct way to benchmark.

We purchased 2 of these chips to build 2 workstations for scientific computing for our lab. Initially, we wanted to go with Intel chips as we always do, but the budget allocated for this particular project was not sufficient. We are glad we went this route. We designed a special purpose operating system and software needed to carry out the calculations we needed. Also, this operating system as simple as we wanted it to be had the requirement that it had to take advantage of all 8 cores. We enlisted the help of two professors on campus to help us with designing and writing the algorithm for true multicore programming to build it in the operating system. Also, we contacted AMD to obtain the programming manuals and technical specifications on this chip. We even had to modify our compilers to include the optimization. After 7 weeks of work, we were ready to run the simulations. This CPU is a beast. The results were calculated right inside the parameters we required for the experiments. This CPU is a true power house. It completely destroyed the Intel workstations (Intel Core i7-970 and Bloomfield) we were using. These were 25 seconds behind in the calculation and their results could not be used because of that. For the money, the performance this CPU delivers is unparalleled.

What is interesting is that when the experiments were over, the grad students started to play with benchmarking this chip with the Intel core i7 family. Our lab has several of those chips at different frequencies since we favor the Intel architecture and that is what we usually buy. In almost every test on the Windows OS and benchmarking software, the core i7 scored better. This proves the bias of Windows toward the Intel chips. It was clear to us that this AMD chip is the clear winner by a mile, at least for our purposes.

This is a great value in a CPU for $250 at the time of this writing. It doesn't get any better for the money. Although we favor the Intel architecture here, this is the second time we have purchased AMD and we have not been let down. On both occasions, the AMD chips have represented both a cost savings and delivered incredible performance. Great CPU.