The Bulldozer Review: AMD FX-8150 Tested
by Anand Lal Shimpi on October 12, 2011 1:27 AM ESTOverclocking
AMD indicated the FX-8150 was good for around 4.6GHz using air cooling, 5GHz using water cooling and beyond with more aggressive cooling methods. In our experience with the platform, hitting 4.6GHz, stable, on a stock AMD HSF was not an issue. Moving beyond 4.6GHz on air saw a significant decrease in stability however. I could boot and run benchmarks at 4.7GHz but I'd almost always encounter a crash. I couldn't hit 5GHz on air.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
430 Comments
View All Comments
arjuna1 - Wednesday, October 12, 2011 - link
I was wondering the same, the OC part of the review seemed rushed by, almost lazy, I hope Anand can correct this and clear the doubts, can one of this cpus be run @ 5ghz or not?silverblue - Wednesday, October 12, 2011 - link
Anand did say that he doesn't yet possess one of the AMD sanctioned water coolers, but will test with it once he does.arjuna1 - Wednesday, October 12, 2011 - link
More of the reason to have considered in testing it with an aftermarket cooler, if it hits 5ghz only with AMD's sanctioned cooler (which given the insignificant difference between Corsair and Antec offerings wouldn't surprise me if it was just a rebrand) it can be a bit of a problem to those of us already using a similar water cooler.arjuna1 - Wednesday, October 12, 2011 - link
they have it on legitreviews running @ 4.9 with water cooling.silverblue - Thursday, October 13, 2011 - link
HardwareHeaven have theirs at 5.2.Jkm3141 - Wednesday, October 12, 2011 - link
I would LOVE to see how this handles a virtual server workloadJohanAnandtech - Wednesday, October 12, 2011 - link
Patience :-). We will do our best with a new virtualization benchmark besides the old one when the Interlagos server arrives.- Johan.
ghosttr - Wednesday, October 12, 2011 - link
Not only does CPU fail, it fails so hard it even struggles to compete with its aging predecessors. A new architecture AND a die shrink and it can barely hold its own.Whats really sad is that AMD could have updated k10, and probably achieved the same (or likely better) results.
bersl2 - Wednesday, October 12, 2011 - link
I'll probably end up buying one. I'm still on my socket-939 Opteron 165, and I can wait a little bit more. Since many of you seem to be wont to skip this one, I'll probably get it at a better price.Also, since I don't give a flying fsck about Windows, I'll probably get a Bulldozer-aware CPU scheduler before you clowns do. :P
Hrel - Wednesday, October 12, 2011 - link
Seriously disapointed now. I'm glad they put more than 2 freaking SATA 6GB ports on the mobo, but that's a 200 dollar+ mobo so it doesn't really matter.AMD's CPU performance is retarted. Honestly, all the hype, all the delays, this is a disaster. Good thing their GPU division is executing well or I'd be seriously worried about this company being around in 4 years.
Intel needs to stop jewing out on their mobo configurations. I need AT LEAST 4 SATA 6GBPS ports and I was like 12 USB 3.0 ports, but even with my gripes about them cheaping out on mobo's and switching sockets every year or two... at least their CPU's have gotten faster in the last 6 years. Beyond just expected incremental gains like AMD has made.... or this time around hasn't.