AMD FX-8150 Review

ccokeman - 2011-10-03 18:35:21 in CPU's
Category: CPU's
Reviewed by: ccokeman   
Reviewed on: October 11, 2011
Price: $245

Introduction:

It has been about a year and a half since AMD launched a six core processor dubbed the Phenom II X6 1090T, followed shortly by the 1100T, which was pretty much just a speed jump without a major technology shift. This is something AMD really has done over the past year to hit most of the pricing segments, which seemingly follow the segmentation model in the GPU sector. Intel had a semi-successful launch with its socket 1155 processors and this looks to be the performance target that AMD was aiming for. After all the speculation, hype, and leaks, the FX-8150 launch is what brings us to this point in time. AMD is launching their latest processors with an all-new architecture, code named "Bulldozer" for the desktop and Interlagos/Valencia for server markets. The desktop model is what we are looking at today, and with this launch, heralds the return of the FX moniker to the AMD lineup. In the past, the FX prefix was indicative of the highest performing CPU that AMD offered. Well, here we are again in the same boat, but instead of being limited to a single "Halo" chip, there are a series of FX processors to fill out the product stack – from the four core FX-4100 (3.6GHz; $115) to the eight core king of the hill FX-8150(3.6GHz; $245). Piled in between are two more eight core, two more four core, and a single hex core chip, all supporting Turbo Core technology, save for one of the four core offerings. At launch there will be four processors available: the FX-8150, FX-8120, FX-6100, and FX-4100. AMD showed off the technology and its overclocking prowess, back at the end of August, to a select number of guests and promptly broke the world record for CPU speed at 8.429GHz in an overclocking demonstration that set the bar for this launch. Max clock speeds are nice, but what does it mean to the average consumer and enthusiast? How will it perform and where does the performance fall by comparison? Its time to put the speculation to rest and see what AMD has put together with the world's first true 8 core processor for consumer use.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Closer Look:

The FX series processors are part of a platform designed for Gamers and High Definition content enthusiasts called Scorpius, which includes 990 chipset-based motherboards like the MSI FX990A-GD80 and the ASUS Crosshair V Formula, a 6 series video card, and of course the FX series processor.

 

The AMD FX series processors are built using "monolithic dual core building blocks" that have the ability to support two execution threads. Two building blocks under one die gives you the 4XXX series, three gives the 6XXX, and of course that means four blocks gives you a true 8 core chip. Built on the 32nm node for use in socket AM3+ motherboards, the FX-8150 specs include a die size of 315 mm2, 2 million transistors, 128 KB of Level1 Data Cache (16KB per core), 256 KB of Level1 Instruction Cache (64KB per module), 8 MB of Level2 Cache (2 MB per module), Integrated Northbridge controlling with 8 MB of Level3 Cache, two 72-bit wide DDR3 memory channels, and four 16-bit HyperTransport™ links. The base clock speed of the FX-8150 is 3.6GHz and supports Turbo Core technology with clock speeds of up to 4.2GHz in lightly-threaded applications, while still keeping within the 125watt TDP profile, which is done by dropping 4 cores for maximum clocks or reducing the maximum clock speed to 3.9GHz with all 8 cores enabled. DDR3 memory up to 1866MHz is supported natively with a 2.2GHz northbridge clock. Power and performance management can be controlled at the core or module level. Visually, the FX-8150 looks much the same as any AM3 CPU with the integrated heatspreader covering the die and the interface pin-set on the back side.

 

 

 

To make sure we had everything we needed to show off the FX-8150, AMD included two of the three major components of the Scorpius platform in the Asus Crosshair V Formula and of course the top of the line FX-8150. The packaging shows off the FX messaging. Inside was the 990FX board, CPU, retail packaging, and a Texas sized belt buckle with the Scorpius platform logo embossed on it. In select markets a liquid cooling solution by Asetek will be offered as an up-charge over the cost of the reference-based solution.

 

 

 

The chip is locked in and ready to go. The Crosshair V board was supplied by AMD for the review and we will also be testing out MSI's offering in the 990FXA-GD80 soon, to see if the board actually makes a difference in performance. After seeing that 8.429GHz world record, I need to see just how high this thing will go.

Closer Look:

Rather than dazzle you with rewriting what AMD already has to say about the Bulldozer architecture, I have a few slides that really deliver the messaging on the architecture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In select markets the AMD FX processor will be available with an optional liquid cooling solution from Asetek and is essentially an Antec Kuler 920. The expected upcharge is reported to be around $100 where available. The cooling system interfaces with the operating system via a program called FX Chill Control. It's meant to interface with the operating system for full control of the cooling solution. There are four tabs to the software — Dashboard, Graphs, Fan control, and Settings. The dashboard shows the speed of the pump and fans, the sound level, and liquid temperature. The graphs plot the temperature curve of the liquid in the loop and the fan speed. Fan control allows you to set up a fan profile with fan ramp start temperature and full fan speed temperature of the liquid. Notifications can be set for liquid temperature and fan speed. Last is the Settings tab, where you can change the temperature display configuration, allow the application to start at boot, and how often that the data points are polled. The skin color can be changed from red to black but the red is easily the better looking of the two options. When the FX-8150 is put under a load, the temperatures delivered were in the range I expected and were similar to the results delivered by the Corsair H80 used for testing. Prime stability, at least for 5 hours, was reached at 4.6GHz with load temperatures of 71 to 79 degrees Celsius depending on the program used. AMD Overdrive reports lower than the motherboard utility. So pick one and stick with it.

 

 

 

8.4GHz is not going to happen with traditional cooling solutions but lets see how high the FX-8150 can go with commercially available cooling.

Specifications:

 

Processor Model
CPU Base
CPU Turbo Core
CPU Max Turbo
TDP
 
Cores
L2 Cache
L3 Cache
Max DDR3
PKG
NB
FX-8150*
3.6GHz
3.9GHz
4.2GHz
125W
8
8MB
8MB
1866
AM3+
2.2GHz
FX-8120
3.1GHz
3.4GHz
4.0GHz
125W
8
8MB
8MB
1866
AM3+
2.2GHz
FX-6100
 
     
3.3GHz
3.6GHz
3.9GHz
95W
6
6MB
8MB
1866
AM3+
2.0GHz
FX-4100
3.6GHz
3.7GHz
3.8GHz
95W
4
4MB
8MB
1866
AM3+
2.0GHz

 

CPU
Description
Tech/Package
32nm / AM3+
TDP Configs
95W, 125W
Processor Core
“Bulldozer” (up to 8 Cores), 8MB L2 cache, 256-bit FPUs, 8MB L3 cache
Memory
DDR3, 1333-1866, 1.5V
Graphics Core
N/A – Pair with AMD Radeon™ HD 6000 Series Graphics
Performance Management
-Core Level: CC6 Power State
-Module Level: L2 Cache power gating via CC6

 

Testing:

Testing AMD's latest contender to the throne, we will run the FX-8150 and its comparison products through OCC's test suite of benchmarks, which include both synthetic benchmarks and real-world applications, to see how each of these products perform. The gaming tests will also consist of both synthetic benchmarks and actual game play, in which we can see if similarly prepared setups offer any performance advantages. The system will receive a fully updated, fresh install of Windows 7 Professional 64-bit edition in addition to the latest drivers for each board and the latest AMD Catalyst drivers for the XFX HD 6970. To ensure as few variables as possible, all hardware will be tested at their stock speeds, timings, voltages and latencies – unless otherwise stated. Turbo Boost is disabled on all processors to make a fair comparison without skewing the results.

 

Testing Setup: AMD AM3

 

Testing Setup: Intel Core i5/i7 Socket 1155

 

Testing Setup: Intel Core i7 Socket 1366

 

 

Comparison CPUs:

 

Overclocking:

Overclocked settings:

 

After having the opportunity to watch some of the world's best overclockers pull a Guinness World record of 8.4GHz from the "Bulldozer" architecture using liquid helium as the cooling medium, I figured a solid 5GHz would be attainable in this case. After all, AMD had also set up a rig running all day long at 4.8Ghz with nothing more than a self-contained water cooling solution keeping it cool. Simple enough, I found that managing the thermal load was the key to overclocking this chip when the voltage is ramped up – just as expected. However, it was not as easy as it would seem, with 8 physical cores in four Bulldozer modules. Rather than fight for big clock speeds on air, I used a Corsair Hydro Series H80 to manage the thermal load and closely replicate what I saw at AMD's Austin headquarters in terms of cooling solution and clock speeds. There are two stability levels here: benchmark stable and what I consider fully stable with Prime95. At 4940MHz (229x21.5 @ 1.435V), I was able to navigate through the OS and game for hours, though the system was not fully stable due to the thermal load. To get Prime95 stable, I had to drop the clock speeds down to 4640MHz (232x20 @1.325V) for a more easily-managed thermal load . After a ton of trial and error to reach my stability point, however, I found that results were not indicative of clock speeds during load testing. Through further research, I found that the FX-8150 starts throttling the clock speed (multiplier) at roughly 81°C, hence the need to further manage the thermal load to get the highest clocks from the FX-8150. A perfect example is shown in the Prime95 screen shot below. In the end, a 1.34GHz or almost 38% bump in clock speed is not that bad and is similar to the gains I have seen with some of my Intel chips. With a full-on water loop, speeds this high should be attainable and fully Prime95 stable. I do have to say, though, this is the highest-clocking AMD chip I have ever laid hands on. 5.0GHz, here I come!

 

 

Manually changing the operating speeds of the Bulldozer-based FX-8150 is part and parcel to overclocking. Several methods can be used, from good old-fashioned overclocking through the BIOS (uEFI-based on many of the newer boards) to using supplied applications such as AMD Overdrive and other popular applications such Core Center from MSI or TurboV from ASUS. However, built into the FX-8150 is AMD's Turbo Core Technology that boosts the processor's clock speeds depending on its operating states. While the FX-8150 has a base core speed of 3.6GHz, all cores will show a boost up to 3.9Ghz when there is power TDP headroom. With lightly-threaded applications, up to 4 cores will run at 4.2GHz while the others stay at an idle state, as to stop from exceeding the TDP limits. Three usage scenarios are shown below, with the first being a single-threaded run of Cinebench 10, followed by a multiple-threaded run using all cores, and finally with cores dropping out as the TDP limits are reached.

 

 

 

Maximum Clock Speeds:

Each CPU has been tested for stability at the overclocked speeds listed. These clock speeds will represent the overclocked scores in the testing.

 

 

Benchmarks:

  1. Apophysis
  2. WinRAR
  3. Geekbench 2.1
  4. Office 2007 Excel Number Crunch
  5. POV Ray 3.7
  6. Bibble 5
  7. Sandra 2011
  8. AIDA64 1.85
  9. Proshow Gold
  10. Handbrake .9.5
  11. ScienceMark 2.02
  12. Cinebench 10 & 11.5
  13. HD Tune 4.60
  1. Aliens vs. Predator
  2. Civilization V
  3. Battlefield Bad Company 2
  4. 3DMark 11

Testing:

The first part of our testing will involve system-specific benchmarks.

 

Let's get started with Apophysis. This program is used primarily to render and generate fractal flame images. We will run this benchmark with the following settings:

 

 

The measurement used is time to render, in minutes, to complete.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

Lower is Better

 

WinRAR is a tool to archive and compress large files to a manageable size. Here, we will test the time needed to compress files of 100MB and 500MB. Time will be measured in seconds.

 

ZIP:

  

  

Lower is Better

 

 

RAR:

  

  

Lower is Better

 

Geekbench:

Geekbench 2.1 is a benchmark that tests CPU and memory performance in an easy-to-use tool. The measure used for comparison is the total suite average score.

  

  

Higher is Better

 

Bibble 5:

This test consists of converting 100 8.2MP RAW images to jpeg format. The file size is 837MB. The measure used for comparison is time needed to convert the file in seconds.

  

Lower is Better

 

In Apophysis, the latest architecture from AMD seems to have some single-threaded performance issues, as seen with the FX-8150 delivering the slowest time in rendering the OCC Fractal image. Winrar testing shows that it fares better in RAR compression than ZIP compression. Performance is roughly similar to that given by the Core i5 2500K. Floating point performance sees similar results to that in Geekbench, falling just short of the 2500K. In Bibble 5, the FX-8150 finally shines, with performance just shy of the i7 980X. When the processors are overclocked, the FX-8150 completes the workload ahead of all the Intel and AMD processors, save the 2600K and 980X.

Testing:

Office 2007 Excel Big Number Crunch: This test takes a 6.2MB Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and performs about 28,000 sets of calculations that represent many of the most commonly used calculations in Excel. The measure of this test is the amount of time it takes to refresh the sheet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

Lower Is Better

 

POV-Ray 3.7: This program features a built-in benchmark that renders an image using Ray Tracing. The latest versions offer support for SMP (Symmetric MultiProcessing), enabling the workload to be spread across the cores for quicker completion.

  

Higher Is Better

 

ProShow Gold: This program is used to take a collection of images and stitch them together in a slide show, using a variety of transitions and effects, to make a compelling show you can share with friends and family. The workload consists of 29 high-resolution images that are stitched into a 3 minute video file.

  

Lower Is Better

 

Handbrake .9.5: is an open source application used to transcode multiple video formats to an h.264 output format. The test file size is 128MB in size and 43 seconds in length.

  

Lower Is Better

 

The FX-8150 finishes the Excel workload faster than previous generation, lower core-count processors, but still falls short of the performance given by the 2500K. The difference appears to rely on more than sheer core-count. However, the additional cores of the FX-8150 pay dividends in the PovRay testing, where it renders a higher pixel count than all but one of the Intel processors – when overclocked with similar clock speeds, the 2600K delivers a higher score. In ProShow Gold, the FX-8150's 8 cores deliver performance that trumps that of the 2500K and previous-gen AMD processors. Overclocked, it completes the workload in more time than the lower-clocked, aging i7 920. In Handbrake, the workload completes just a tad slower than the 2600K in both the stock and overclocked scenarios.

Testing:

SiSoft Sandra is a diagnostic utility and synthetic benchmarking program. Sandra allows you to view your hardware at a higher level to be more helpful. For this benchmark, I will be running a broad spectrum of tests to gauge the performance of key functions of the CPUs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Processor Arithmetic

  

  

Multi-Core Efficiency

  

  

 

Memory Bandwidth

  

  

 

Memory Latency

  

 

Cache and Memory

  

 

 

Power Management Efficiency

  

 

AIDA64 Extreme Edition: is a software utility designed to be used for hardware diagnosis and benchmarking. I will be using the CPU Queen test that looks for the solution for the "Queens" problem on a 10x10 chessboard. This tests the branch prediction capabilities of the processor. The FPU Mandel test measures double precision floating point performance through computation of several frames of the "Mandelbrot" fractal.

  

  

Higher is Better

The results in Sandra are a mixed bag, with the FX-8150 showing mostly middle-of-the-road performance against the Intel chips. This may be due to the higher inter-core latency and memory latency in comparison to the previous-gen AMD chips. In the AIDA64 tests, the FX-8150 has a hard time keeping up with the 1090T.

Testing:

ScienceMark tests real-world performance instead of using synthetic benchmarks. For this test, we run the benchmark suite and will use the overall score for comparison.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

  

Higher is Better!

 

 

 

CineBench 10 is useful for testing your system, CPU, and OpenGL capabilities using the software program, CINEMA 4D. We will be using the default tests for this benchmark.

 

  

 

  

Higher is Better

Cinebench 11.5

 

  

Higher is Better

 

HD Tune measures disk performance to make comparisons between drives or disk controllers.

 

  

 

  

Higher is Better

 

  

 

  

Lower is Better

 

PCMark 7 is the latest iteration of Futuremark's popular PCMark system performance tool. This latest version is designed for use on Windows 7 PCs and features a combination of 25 different workloads to accurately measure the performance of all PCs from laptops to desktops.

  

  

Higher is Better

 

In the single-threaded tests, we again see a distinct drop in performance when compared to previous-generation AMD processors and against the 2600K and 2500K. Multi-threaded performance is still where the FX-8150 shows its best performance. In Cinebench 11.5, only the 980x and 2600K outperform it. The HDTune testing shows that regardless of platform, the drive will perform similarly. The latency scoring and CPU usage show that the Scorpius platform needs a tweak with Bulldozer before it can lower the usage and access times. PCMark 7 gives a little more of the same, with the FX-8150 showing performance above that of previous-generation AMD chips by virtue of the additional core count.

Aliens vs. Predator, developed by Rebellion Developments, is a science fiction first-person shooter and a remake of its 1999 game. The game is based on the two popular sci-fi franchises. In this game, you have the option of playing through the single player campaigns as one of three species: the Alien, the Predator, or the Human Colonial Marine. The game uses Rebellion's Asura game engine, which supports Dynamic Lighting, Shader Model 3.0, Soft Particle systems and Physics. For testing, I will be using the Aliens vs. Predator benchmark tool with the settings listed below. All DirectX 11 features are enabled.

 

Settings

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

  

Higher = Better

 

Throughout the four tests, the average FPS varied by less than 2 FPS between all of the comparison processors in the Aliens vs. Predator benchmark.

Testing:

Civilization V is a turn-based strategy game. The premise is to play as one of 18 civilizations and lead it from the "dawn of man" up to the space age. This latest iteration of the Civilization series uses a new game engine and brings massive changes to the AI behaviour in the game. Released for Windows in September of 2010, Civilization V was developed by Firaxis Games and published by 2K games. Testing will be done using actual gameplay, with FPS measured by Fraps through a series of five turns, 150 turns into the game.

Settings

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

  

Higher = Better

 

Having more than four cores available, either physical or virtual, pays dividends with giving higher FPS at stock speeds. Overclocking helps to some degree.

Testing:

Battlefield: Bad Company 2 is a first-person shooter developed by EA Digital Illusions CE (DICE) and published by Electronic Arts for Windows, PS3, and Xbox 360. This game is part of the Battlefield franchise and uses the Frostbite 1.5 Engine, allowing for destructible environments. You can play the single-player campaign or multiplayer, with five different game modes. Released in March 2010, it has sold in excess of six million copies so far.

Settings

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Across the board, the difference in average scoring is minimal in this game, with all of the tested processors falling into a narrow performance margin. Overclocking did not make a noticable difference during actual gameplay.

Testing:

3DMark 11 is the next installment for Futuremark in the 3DMark series, with Vantage as its predecessor. The name implies the benchmark's focus on Microsoft DirectX 11 and with an unintended coincidence, matches the current year in number (which was the naming scheme to some prior versions of 3DMark nonetheless). 3DMark 11 was designed solely for DirectX 11, so Windows Vista or 7 are required alongside a DirectX 11 graphics card in order to run this test. The Basic Edition gives unlimited free tests on performance mode, whereas Vantage only allows for a single test run. The advanced edition costs $19.95 and unlocks nearly all features of the benchmark, while the professional edition runs for $995.00 and is mainly suited for corporate use. The new benchmark contains six tests, four of which are aimed only at graphical testing – one that tests physics handling and one that combines graphics and physics testing together. The open source Bullet Physics Library is used for physics simulations and although not as mainstream as Havok or PhysX, it still remains a popular choice.

The new benchmark comes with two new demos that can be watched; both of which are based on the tests, but unlike the tests, contain basic audio. The first demo is titled "Deep Sea" and involves a number of vessels exploring what looks to be a sunken U-Boat. The second demo is titled "High Temple" and displays a location similar to South American tribal ruins, with statues and the occasional vehicle. The demos are simple in that they have no story, but really demonstrate testing conditions. The vehicles have the logos of the sponsors, MSI and Antec, on the sides, helping to make the basic edition free. The four graphics tests are slight variants of the demos. I will use the three benchmark test preset levels to find the performance of each card. The presets are used because they are comparable to what can be run with the free version, so results can be compared across more than just a custom set of test parameters.

 

Settings

 

 

 

 

 

 

The FX-8150 starts off in the middle of the pack, but with increased resolution, the scores for the FX-8150 move up and delivers the highest average scores at the extreme preset.

Conclusion:

With all the hype surrounding what seems like the launch of every new product, it's difficult to see when they don't all live up to the hype. But "living up" to expectations of the masses is a tough job when you can't seem to please everyone. What looks like a win to one person may always look like a loss to another. This brings us to the AMD FX-8150, with which I have spent a few up close and personal moments. The FX series is no longer meant to be just the CPU, but a platform. There's no reason against this, when, as a company, you can leverage all of your assets to provide an all-in-one performance solution to anyone who steps up to the plate for a piece of the action. The Scorpius platform combines a 9-Series chipset-equipped board like the Crosshair V Formula or the MSI 990FXA-GD80, an AMD FX processor like the FX-8150, and a 6000-Series discrete graphics card. To get the most from the FX Scorpius platform, you can also add video cards as your needs increase or step up to an Eyefinity SLS setup. The platform concept works, but there are some who wouldn't want to put all their eggs in one basket. While AMD has got the concept down, it falls a bit short in places as the next latest and greatest thing. Sure, you have a whole new architecture with new instruction sets that potentially yield performance above that of the competition, but not everyone has gotten optimized coding to show off the strength of the architecture. In single-threaded applications, the FX-8150 scores lower than expected, by comparison. An example would be the Cinebench 10 single-threaded testing, where it took a 600+MHz bump in clock speed to deliver higher scores than the 1090T and 980BE. It seems more like a sideways step until the process matures and "Piledriver" arrives to gain back the current losses in clock-per-clock performance. Make the move to multi-threaded applications and the FX-8150 steps up on the performance ladder. In real life tests such as ProShow, Bibble 5, and Handbrake, the FX-8150 shows promise by virtue of the programs being able to effectively utilize all eight physical cores. The multi-threaded tests show the FX-8150 performing better than the six core 1090T and four core 980BE, but not by much.  Memory performance has also increased over the previous generation processors, as seen in the Sandra testing. That, however, is tempered by the increased inter-core latency. Running the FX-8150 at 3.2GHz (1866MHz memory) with two cores disabled against a 1090T at 3.2GHz (1600Mhz memory) for a direct six-on-six core processor comparison, the FX-8150 ran roughly 10% (at least) slower, based on our benchmarks. Even with the negatives, the architecture shows some promise. More and more applications are using multiple cores to get the work done – they run the gamut from content creation suites to PC games.

After seeing AMD break the world record for CPU speed at the Bulldozer tech day, the expectation was set that this chip would overclock well. That it did, which drove performance up another notch. To reach above 4.5GHz, you will need a good cooling system to maximize the clock speeds. Good air cooling should be considered mandatory, such as the Corsair H80 or the Antec 920-based pre-filled liquid cooling system offered in select markets for purchase with the AMD FX processor. A custom loop will be needed to really push the clock speeds above 4.5 GHz, as the FX-8150 starts to throttle down its clock speed once the temperature reaches the 81°C threshold. That being said, I was able to get an overclock of 4.94GHz out of this processor, fully-benchmarked and game stable. I could even push over 5.0GHz for some of the less intensive benchmarks. The FX-8150 wanted to scale with voltage, but the thermal load must be kept in check – hence the bundling of a pre-filled liquid cooling solution. Benchmark stable is one thing, but full-time stability is an entirely different animal. This FX-8150 was Prime95 stable at just over 4.6GHz, with temperatures in the high 70s Celsius. The reference clock could be cycled up at will, with 235Mhz just as easy as 200MHz. As a Black Edition processor, the FX-8150 is built for overclocking and comes fully unlocked. This means that you get the best of both worlds when overclocking, tweaking both the multiplier and reference clock.

Priced at $245 for launch, the FX-8150 appears to cost a bit much for the price/performance tag that it delivers initially. Comparing clock-to-clock, the 1090 and 1100T offer a better value when core-count is not a factor. The new feature sets will help drive performance in applications that use them, but keep in mind that the current state is not the future state – future state looks brighter than the current picture. Throughout the launch presentations, gaming performance was touted as a way to add value to the buy-in of a new system. When testing at common gaming resolutions, however, we see the GPU as more of a limitation than the CPU in most cases. The future state will allow games to take advantage of the additional cores and drive performance, but it really is not something I currently see in my testing – a 1.5 to 2 FPS difference is really not going to be felt or seen during gameplay. For the same $245, you can get equivalent performance in games as Intel's high-end 2600K and 980(990) Extreme processors. While the Extreme edition is a far-out comparison, the 2600K can be had for only $40 more than the entry price for the FX-8150, making cost concerns a little tighter when pushing the buy button. Going through the testing process, we see the FX-8150 have both performance positives and shortcomings to address. All things considered, it does well in its market envelope, regardless of how narrow that may be.

 

Pros:

 

Cons: