To AMD, or not to AMD? That is the question

Fine! Here I am in the tek syndicate forum asking you guys what you think?
So I better hear some good answers or im buying the AMD FX 8150.
Me and AMD have a long history, my first PC was AMD and I loved it. And all other my PC's were AMD. And I would like to by 8150, but everyone is just like "dude, buy 2500k, AMD sucks".  In Serbia 2500k is 190euro and 8150 is 160euro. It is like 15% price deference, and performance deference is like 5% on the Intel side.  AMD motherboards are also little cheaper. So it make sance..AMD right?
I need my PC for a gaming and work, nothing special. Both of these CPU will be enough power for me.

My corent plan:

CPU: AMD FX 8150,
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5,
GPU: MSI GeForce GTX 660 Twin Frozer 3,
RAM: Patriot Viper 3 1866 MHz,
SSD: Kingston Hyper X 3K 120GB,
Power supply: Seasonic 620GB,
Case: Bitfenix Shinobi.

What are you think?

If you're going AMD, go Phenom II X4 or X6 Black Edition. They are better gaming CPUs for the money.




... but very outdated.

First off, calm the hell down, no need to be so excitable, use the enter key from time to time. Yes this forum is rampant with fanboys, though most of em try to guise it, but some of what they say isn't without logic. Lemme explain some strengths and weaknesses of the FX chip and I'll let you draw your conclusions from that. (I'm gonna put this whole thing into super rough terms, and not likely give it a second read, I've been awake for far too long to care, if I make a mistake someone will point it out)

For some time now AMD has been tackling the CPU market with a slightly different strategy than Intel has. Intel concentrates on making fast and efficient CPU cores and charges a premium for them. AMD on the other hand has been concentrating on making more cost efficient cores, though not as powerful; subsequently they can afford to put more cores in a single die for cheaper price. This has been the basic differentiation between the two companies methods since the early Phenom days I believe. Due to an array of constraints, it has been difficult to fit a great number of CPU cores into a single chip, thus in the high end market Intel has dominated since quad core vs quad core always favors Intel, Intel having the better core architecture (server chips have greater number of cores but they have an array of different requirements and prices). The FX chips are the result AMD trying to continue with this trend, while it has its advantages, it has a number of pitfalls as well.

With the FX chips, the concept of a CPU "core" has been modified. Previously, a CPU core was considered a single unit, with an integer process, floating point process, L1 cache, etc. The FX-81** chips are considered eight "core" CPUs, but they are more correctly defined as Quad Module CPUs. A module consist of two "cores", but the cores are actually an integer processing unit with cache and a shared a floating point processor with the other "core" in the module. This results in a strange beast, one that is excellent at heavily threaded integer based loads. The chip also has a few other pitfalls, since AMD concentrated so much on getting this architecture to work, they didn't put much resources into improving the base components of the chip much, thus the processing units in the chip and the memory controllers are roughly on par with their previous generation offers. Other issues, like the chip's long pipelines result in costly branch mispredictions, etc etc. The result of this is a chip that has some not overly advanced base components, quad core floating point processing, and eight core integer processing. That is why this chip, more so than any chip I can recall, has such an inconsistant performance amongst a series of tests. Any test that is single threaded is not going to take advantage of the chip's architecture, but it will be held back due to its issues. Heavily threaded applications, particularly ones that favor integer processes (easy way of thinking about this is if the operation is lossful or lossless, as integer processes are lossless) will perform very well, often times beating Intels much more expensive chips. Generally you can predict which tests the FX chips will perform well in and which ones it won't by simply understanding the processing the test will do (int vs float, branchy vs sequential, threaded vs single etc) and the strengths and weaknesses of the FX chip.

Intels chips, on the other hand, are much more consistent, they haven't done anything overly dramatic with their architecture in a while, instead opting for a steady consistent improvement (which btw, as AMD falters, that improvement becomes slower).

I'm not a person to damn a chip, but you should understand that while the FX chip has its strengths, it has a number of weaknesses which has ended up giving itself a bit of a niche market. Going for an Intel chip can be an easy, thoughtless choice, due to its consistancy of performance it should do what you need regardless. When it comes to picking up an FX chip, you should take time to consider if what your doing is going to take advantage of its strength or be held back by its weaknesses.

In conclusion, the FX chip is the right chip for the right job. Video games are primarily floating point base applications, which are lightly threaded, not the FX strong points, but honestly, your GPU is much more likely to hold you back than your CPU. In scientific applications, often floating point based yet commonly heavily threaded, the FX chips will do well, but will likely still under perform compared to the core i# chips that have the same number of floating point processors, but more updated ones. In areas like lossless file/video/image compression, data parsing etc, heavily threaded integer based processes, is where the FX chips can out perform their more costly competition and really deliver some bang for your buck

Holy balls for such a whiny post I wrote a shit tonne.

All i will say is i have a 8150,and i don't regret getting it.

The new piledriver's I think are announced for October. Check it out, may as well wait a few weeks for these to come around. They are supposed to be a big improvement over the intial bulldozer batch, which had a pretty crummy debut.

I'm considering an FX-6300 or 4300 myself. I'll see how they compare at launch.

my fx-8150 aint bad right now just need an ssd, i dont see any bottleknecks its only my gpu at 100% usage when i see lag. But theres a lot of new amd stuff coming out later this year such as the new rog motherboard that supposingly increases the performance. And there is the new amd piledriver cpu's as well to consider.

With all due team red ftw

As someone else mentioned, I'd probably wait for the new Piledriver stuff to come out and get benched before I bought an AMD right now.

Also I think that you need minimum 650W PSU for a 990FX mobo.


was a long tine AMD user, but the FX8150 was CPU very bad for me and I have made the move to Intel. 

A little back ground, I have been using AMD since K6II and at times been a real fanboy about it. A few years back I build what at the time was a monster gaming rig around a Phenom II 1090t and a pair of 6870's. It was a bit of a monster running 24/7 stable at 4GHz. After a while the ASUS Crosshair IV Formula died that was replaced be a ASRock AM3+ Then the 1090t chuffed it and while waiting for AMD to RMA a replacement back to me I picked up am FX 8150. Most of the time it was OK, but only that just OK. It ran real hot and in the ASRock board didn't like to OC much. Something it was faster but some were slower. I has a 10fps drop in ArmA compared to my Phenom II, and anyone playing ArmA knows the 10fps is a lot! 

I had replaced my G/Cards by this point and my bench results were terrible  Comparing my cards to others results, well it was like looking at completely different cards. We are talking over 1000 points on the Heaven benchmark compared to others with the same cards. The FX8150 was seriously bottlenecking my G/Cards. It was running  Cinebench that finally tipped me over the edge when I say this new FX 8150 was slower than my three year old Phenom II. 
Well at this point I scrapped my penny's together, plundered my savings and spent some hard cash on an Intel setup. I'm now running Sandy-E 3930K, I realise it's not fair to compare the FX 8150 with such an expensive one from Intel so I wont. I do think it's fair to compare AMD's finest new CPU with their older model the Phenom II. It's  getting a little old in the tooth but still a strong CPU, the FX line up has no place in an enthusiasts computer. A regular user it will do just fine but gone are the days when AMD enthusiast could stand toe to toe with an Intel fanboy and trade blows. You just can't do it, it would be like putting a fly weight in with a middle weight, carnage... You can talk of cost vs performance but there has to be performance to compare and some of the things we want our computers to do there just isn't any...

Wait... A synthetic test is what pushed you over the edge? Thats... Interesting.

But it is a strange transition for those who used the Phenom II x6 to the FX 81** chips in heavily threaded floating point calculations, as the PIIX6 actually has 6 full fledge floating point processors, the FX chips only have 4. 

Thank you guy's... i must do some thinking. Phenom II are all gone in my contry, so 8150 or i5 (3570k, 2500k).

I noticed that amlost all users of 8150 are satisfied. I am not buying CPU to do benchmark's, I'm buying it to work nice. If AMD is 7 and Intel is 9, and for good PC experience (internet, gaming, HD, work) these days you need  like 4, then it is not so important I'ill grab cheaper one and have smile on my face.

And if AMD CPU's are bottlenecking graphic cards, like 10 fps down or something like that..i don't want that.

what is your budget, and which country do you live in, I'll make both a amd and Intel build and see which one is better for the price

If I considered spending up to 200 € on a new CPU I would get a 2500K or just the 2500 because both, the FX-8150 and the 2500k, cost approx. 190€ (+/- 5€) here in Germany. Therefore I´d have to get a new motherboard as well though, and tbh with you, I haven´t got any clue what features to look out for on Intel based motherboards.

If you want a CPU for gaming and working, just regular stuff, then the 2500k is definetely the better choise. I used to buy, therefore support AMD, knowing that their CPUs are inferior, but since they don´t want to ditch this stupid module architecture and are releasing the Piledriver based on the same, with just a few improvements, I am not willing to support them any longer.

Seriousely, how can a company continue an architecture that has proven to be a major fail?

It doesn´t do anything good. It´s mediocre at best when it comes to heavy threaded apps, looking at several benchmark test results here. And don´t get me started on gaming performance. That thing blows and so does the power consumption. Over 125 Wattage on full load is just not acceptable in this day and age, especially with the electricity prices skyrocketing, at least in my country.

Yet those lunatics are about to release sort of a Bulldozer 2 (Piledriver) on the 24th of October, so I´ve read on the internet.

Why didn´t they just take the Phenom II series, worked on the latency of lvl 1, 2 and 3 caches, shrinked the size to 28 nm, and increased either the transistor count and or the lvl 1, 2 and 3 cache size? The Phenom II had potential and they could have improved this architecture furthermore.

Also, energy efficiency is a big issue. They MUST work on this.

The Piledriver is not an option for me and I would highly recommend you to stay away from it, too.

I´d rather wait for the Steamroller which will be, according to AMD, less of a modular based CPU. Still cores will share some resources.

AMD is just destroying itself with this self-choking architecture crap which they´re pushing as true Octa-Core CPUs with shady marketing.

I almost bought into it but was saved by the many reviews on the internet which I eventually stumbled upon.

You would do that? I live in Serbia, and my budget is around 80.000 dinara (~700 euro).

Man, some of you kids really get fiery about this, as if your CPU purchases are life and death decisions.

I realize what I write was dauntingly large, so I'll throw thanks out to those who actually read it. 

It all depends on what your doing with it. General computing then it's not too imortant. but if gaming is your interest then a 2500k is way better then an FX8150.

Well that's my opinion,,,

Trust me I was looking at the 8150 as well on 

I read HUNDREDS and I mean HUNDREDS of reviews alone on and the consensus was that this CPU was by far worse than an i3 for older applications and games.

You're basically going to get a CPU (if you buy the AMD 8150) that renders your graphics card useless except for rendering video. That's it. Everything else your graphics card would be on par with an INTEGRATED GRAPHICS system. 

Do not waste your money on AMD in this case.

The i3 would give you overall superior performance gaming, HD, work, internet etc. and comes at a much cheaper price. The 1155 socket is great to have in a motherboard because you can always upgrade to a 2nd gen i7 later. However the newer i7s will be out of your reach. At this moment, nothing AMD has put forward can even compete with the i5 3570k for overall stability in games and application use.  

That's not opinion it's professional consensus ALL OVER THE INTERNET.

To the guys saying things like "oh my 8150 is fine" that counts for virtually 0% in any intelligent computer buyers decisions.

Also AMD 8150s are being reported as defective and there has been a recall on some of them. This may result in some less than favourable reviews for an average if not mediocre processor. Google search it. 

I want to commend you. You did a good job explaining the differences between AMD and Intel