PCSTATS Main Page Follow PCSTATS on Facebook PCSTATS RSS Feed PCSTATS Twitter Feed + Motherboards
+ Videocards
+ Memory
+ Beginners Guides
News & Advanced Search  Feedback?
[X]   Directory of
Guides & Reviews
The PCstats Forums

Beginners Guides
Weekly Newsletter
Archived Newsletters

+70 MORE Beginner GUIDES....  

Contact the Suite 66 Advertising Agency
Beginners Guide: How To Install / Remove an Intel Socket LGA2011 CPU

AMD FX-8150 Bulldozer Tested - Windows 8 vs. Windows 7 Performance

AMD FX-8150 Bulldozer Tested - Windows 8 vs. Windows 7 Performance - PCSTATS
Price Check: $/£/€
Abstract: AMD talked a bit about benefits for 'Bulldozer' when paired with Microsoft's upcoming Windows 8 operating system. At the moment there is a Windows 8 Developer Preview available from Microsoft Dev Center. In this short article PCSTATS will test this claim by comparing identical computer systems running an AMD FX-8150 'Bulldozer' processor, under both operating systems.
Filed under: CPU / Processors Published:  Author: 
External Mfg. Website: AMD Oct 26 2011   Max Page  
Home > Reviews > CPU / Processors > AMD FX-8150

AMD talked a bit about benefits for 'Bulldozer' when paired with Microsoft's upcoming Windows 8 operating system. At the moment there is a Windows 8 Developer Preview available from Microsoft Dev Center. In this short article PCSTATS will test this claim by comparing identical computer systems running an AMD FX-8150 'Bulldozer' processor, under both operating systems.

PCSTATS decided to compare the AMD FX-8150 processor against itself in Windows 8 and Windows environments and see what kind of performance gains AMD was talking about. Going into this test we (frankly) did not expect Windows 8 to come out ahead, mainly because of the sheer frustration of working in Windows 8 Developer.... but on closer examination of the benchmark results the AMD FX-8150 CPU does, on average, see a benefit from this upcoming OS.

It's exciting to test out a brand new processor in an unreleased operating system such as Microsoft Windows 8 Developer, so before diving into 'Bulldozer's architecture, fantastic overclockability or it's mixed bag of results compared to competing CPUs, we wanted to jump ahead and post this quick little Windows 8 vs. Windows 7 face off. See the full AMD FX-8150 processor review for how this 3.6GHz 8-core processor stacks up against competing Intel and AMD flagship chips.


Windows 8 Developer desktop - looks like Windows 7, runs a hair faster.

Since the hardware was identical between the two tests so we're not going to bother with a boring test system spec chart. Explanations after the benchmark chart.

PCSTATS Benchmark Report Windows 8
(Developer Preview)
Windows 7

AMD FX-8150

AMD FX-8150

- SiSoft Sandra 2011 - Processor
Processor Arithmetic Dhrystone ALU: (GIPS) 87.64 88.16
Processor Arithmetic Whetstone iSSE3: (Gflops) 62.82 62.87
Processor Multi-Media Int x8 iSSE3: (Mpixels/s) 210.79 221.27
Processor Multi-Media Float x4 iSSE2: (Mpixels/s) 136.66 100.37
Processor Multi-Media Float x2 iSSE2: (Mpixels/s) 76.36 56.2
- SiSoft Sandra 2011 - Memory
Multicore Efficiency Bandwidth: (GB/s) 10.45 9.35
Multicore Efficiency Latency: (ns) 173.6 206.7
Memory Bandwidth Int iSSE2: (GB/s) 16 15.56
Memory Bandwidth Float iSSE2: (GB/s) 16 15.56
Memory Latency (Random): (ns) 82.5 82.3
Memory Latency (Linear): (ns) 10.7 10.9
- SYSMark 2007 Preview 1.06
Overall: .... failed 215
E-Learning: .... failed 169
Videocreation: .... failed 341
Productivity: .... failed 185
3D: .... failed 202
- Futuremark PCMark Vantage 1.0.0.0
Overall: .... failed 13240
Memory: 9326 8917
TV and Movies: .... failed 6593
Gaming: 8640 8089
Music: 14273 13165
Communications: .... failed 13550
Productivity: .... failed 13344
HDD: 29476 28263
- Bibble 5.0
Time to Complete 50 Photo's: (sec) 9.39 9.36
Batch RAW-to-JPEG Conversion: (sec/Image) 0.188 0.187
- ScienceMark 2.3
Primordia: (sec) 2-core 290.31845 292.3531
Mol Dyn: (sec) 2-core 74.86448 69.18975
- Cinebench R10
1 CPU (split between cores) 2867 2895
x CPU (full load all cores) 14785 14431
- Super Pi Mod 1.5 XS
1 Million Digits: (sec) 22.164 21.981
16 Million Digits: (sec) 566.776 576.374
- wPrime 2.0
32 Million Digits (1 thread): (sec) 49.077 53.567
32 Million Digits (2 thread): (sec) 24.897 26.987
32 Million Digits (3 thread): (sec) 19.858 18.326
32 Million Digits (4 thread): (sec) 14.726 15.538
32 Million Digits (5 thread): (sec) 13.058 13.153
32 Million Digits (6 thread): (sec) 10.951 11.979
32 Million Digits (7 thread): (sec) 9.766 10.72
32 Million Digits (8 thread): (sec) 8.876 9.895
- Pov-Ray 3.7 BETA 30
Render Time (sec) 64.27 63.77
Render Average (Pixels Per Sec) 4078.67 4110.64
- Futuremark 3DMark06 1.1.0
Overall: 15075 15326
CPU: 5401 5807
- Futuremark 3DMark08 Vantage 1.0.1
Performance Overall: (P) 7886 7900
CPU Score: 18936 18936
- Crysis v1.2.1 No AA
800x600 LQ Physics Very High (FPS) would not run would not run
1024x768 LQ Physics Very High (FPS) would not run would not run
- Sierra FEAR 1.08 No AA
800x600 LQ 605 573
1024x768 LQ 595 565
Number of times out performed other OS: 24 21

For the most part Windows 8 saw a 1%-5% improvement with the AMD FX-8150 processor, though benchmarks like Sandra's multi-media float x4 test net a healthy 26% improvement in Windows 8.

Unfortunately, Sysmark refused to run in Windows 8 and PCMark Vantage gave up the ghost for half of its sub-tests. Where PCMark Vantage did work correctly, the results saw an average 4% - 6% improvement in Windows 8 vs. Windows 7. Computational benchmarks like Bibble 5.0, Sciencemark and SuperPi were too close to call.

WPrime shaved a whole second off its score compared to the results achieved by the AMD FX-8150 in Windows 7. Cinebench was inconclusive. With 'One CPU' core loaded the Windows 7/FX-8150 platform came out ahead. With 'All CPU Cores' loaded the Windows 8/FX-8150 saw a 2% lead. 3DMark 06 and 3DMark Vantage clearly favoured the Windows 7 environment while FEAR benefited 5% from Windows 8. The Crysis benchmark refused to een run on the FX-8150 chip, regardless of the operating system.


Windows 8 Developer Task Manager - love it!

Even with these 6-of-1, half a dozen of the other benchmark results between Windows 8 and Windows 7, on the whole the AMD FX-8150 processor was slightly faster under the Windows 8 Developer environment. Not at all what PCSTATS expected, but a welcome result none the less for AMD.

Find out about this and many other reviews by joining the Weekly PCstats.com Newsletter today! Catch all of PCSTATS latest reviews right here.

Related Articles
Here are a few other articles that you might enjoy as well...
- AMD Phenom II X4 975 Black Edition 3.6 GHz Socket AM3 Processor Review
- AMD Athlon II X4 645 3.1GHz Socket AM3 Quad-Core Processor Review
- AMD Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2GHz Socket AM3 6-Core Processor Review
- AMD Phenom II X4 910e 2.6 GHz Quad-Core 65W Processor Review
- AMD Phenom II X2 555 Black Edition 3.2 GHz Socket AM3 Processor Review
- AMD Athlon II X4 635 2.9GHz Socket AM3 Quad-Core Processor Review


 

Contents of Article: AMD FX-8150

SEARCH PCSTATS 
Use the power of Google to search all of PCSTATS and the PCSTATS Forums. Tell us what you think of this new feature - FEEDBACK?
   09 / 02 / 2014 | 6:44AM
Hardware Sections 


google
 
PCSTATS Network Features Information About Us Contact
FrostyTech
TransmetaZone
BeginnersPC
PCSTATS Newsletter
PCSTATS Forums
ShoppingList Assistance
Tech Glossary
Technology WebSite Listings
PermaLink News
Archived News
Submit News (Review RSS Feed)
Site Map
PCstats Wallpaper
About Us
Employment
Privacy Policy
Advertise on PCSTATS

How's Our Driving?
© Copyright 1999-2014 www.pcstats.com All rights reserved. Privacy policy and Terms of Use.