AMD's FX-8150 After Two Windows 7 Hotfixes And UEFI Updates

Benchmark Results: Skyrim And StarCraft II

We expected big improvements in Skyrim, since this is a game that seems to emphasize processor performance, and AMD previously faltered in our benchmark. Instead, it seems that Skyrim is still completely CPU-limited at our least-demanding settings, at least on the FX-based platform.

While the results from our patched operating system are slightly higher, the difference is small to the point that we can't draw any concrete conclusions.

The Core i5-2500K’s performance advantage drops off at our most graphically-demanding setting, which tells us that this is where GPU bottlenecks limit any performance gain we'd see from the platform itself. We were really hoping the patches would put AMD’s FX-8150 in the same league at 1920x1080.

StarCraft II is GPU-bottlecked at 2560x1600 and CPU-constrained at lower resolutions. Yet, even the slowest configuration was able to achieve playable frame rates throughout the test. As a result, any advantage offered by Intel's Core i5 is superfluous.

Create a new thread in the UK Article comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
Comment from the forums
    Your comment
  • sosofm
    FX- 8150 for those who work with threaded workloads can be a cheaper alternative.
  • jrtolson
    when it come to processor reviews, the reviews always seem biased towards games...

    the point im trying to make is that i have athlon64 3200+ (venice) 754, agp, 3gig ram, x1950pro 512, (soon to be hd4670, as i want to play swords of the stars 2).. its single core built in 2004 runs windows 7.. it plays games at pretty decent fps and i have little or no reason to upgrade it...

    if i did, it would require a rebuild, and i would probabily base it on a athlon//phenom 2 dual/tri core setup.. i think processors reached a threshold a few years back in that it makes little difference on having the latest multicore processors.. chips like bulldozer show their strength in render farm setups and other demanding application enviroments.. not games!!
  • joedastudd
    @jrtolson a majority of custom and high end systems are built/brought by gamers.
    User average user isn't going to go out and spend $/£/€250 on a the processor alone just for browsing the web and emails.
    The other market is power users which is what the productivity and media converting benchmarks are for.

    If your happy with your system thats fine, but most PC gamers want to be able to play modern games at decent resolutions with the eye candy turned on.
    As for none gaming applications you'd be surpized at the the difference a newer processor would make. Lets not even talk about trying to encode/transcode media on your system...
  • jrtolson
    @joedastudd for the most part u are right, but owning a athlon/phenom or even an older intel core 2 duo with a decent gfx card will allow most games at max or near max settings this is because the games are originally developed for consoles so any pc with similar or new setup than the 360/ps3 should be able to run games no problem.. u are right on the media thing tho, however the point i was making is that the review should concentrate on that more than fps in games.. i as a potential buyer would want to know for e.g how much does having an 8 core fx benefit me in rendering an animation in lightwave 3d (for e.g) against a similar priced 4 core intel product?

    the only way i can describe wot i mean, is like reviewing a new Supercomputer capable of trillions of operations per nano second (exagerating lol), then slating it because it runs skyrim 2 fps slower than a intel i7?

    for wot i understand the bulldozer has extended pipelines so that when using optimised threaded workloads ot runs faster, however bacause of the extended pipeline un optimised code will run per clock slower..

    so to me this means optimised batch processing should fly on these chips, so amd must have targeted the FX line at pro power user market and not gamers? imo
  • HEXiT
    i always said FX was not a gaming part, but rather a productivity 1. if you want to play games then amd fx just doesnt cut it at the price. but if you need highly threaded programs like photoshop then its worthy.
    but the forum is gonna be over run buy amd fanboys who ignore good advice and just buy phenom 2 for gaming, asking why there systems dont perform... even with a different o.s. its unlikely the fx will ever be a true gaming grade part. unless every game coming out needs 8 cores...