AMD Bulldozer / FX-8150 Desktop Performance Review

Computer hardware enthusiasts have literally waited for years for AMD's Bulldozer architecture to come to market and we finally see this today in its desktop form, code named Zambezi, brand named AMD FX. In this article we share with you our analysis of Bulldozer's performance in synthetic benchmarks and desktop applications.


Here we have some real world looks at some program types that many of us use daily. What we simply did was run the same work load on each system and time how long it took for the system to accomplish it.

Music Encoding

LAME is being used from the command line with default settings. It is basically a single threaded program as it does not reach across all the resources available to it.

Article Image

Right off the bat we see that again Bulldozer looks a lot like Thuban and even comes in around stock i7-920 (2.6GHz+) performance levels. Sandy Bridge is again the star of the show with 2600K and 2500K time coming in nearly identical.


These next two benchmarks represent two compression programs that I know many enthusiast and IT professionals encounter on a daily basis.

Article Image

In WinRAR compression we again see the Bulldozer run into the ground by the Intel processors. At least in this example we find Bulldozer pull ahead of Thuban. It is worth noting that while WinRAR is very clock sensitive, it is also memory bandwidth sensitive.

Article Image

7-Zip compression shows us more of the same, but this time Thuban slightly leads Bulldozer.

It is hard to say that Bulldozer has shown us anything yet to be impressed by, even compared to AMD's own aging product. It is worth mentioning that Bulldozer does AES encryption in hardware, and that would come in handy if you are using programs like Windows 7 BitLocker Drive Encryption to encrypt big stores of data. While we did not do extensive testing on this. Our FX-8120 showed to come in about the same speed as the i5-2600K.