Amd Fx 8150 Driver For Mac

  1. Amd Fx 8150 Review
  2. Amd Fx 8150 Processor
$245.00
  • Pros

    Excellent multithreaded performance. Attractive price. Unlocked multiplier for simplified overclocking.

  • Cons

    Not always faster than competing Intel or AMD CPUs. Sluggish with single-threaded workloads. High power usage under load. No integrated graphics. May require new motherboard. Windows 8 required for some features.

  • Bottom Line

    AMD threatens to make a dent in Intel’s performance leadership with its FX-8150 CPU, the first to use the company’s completely redesigned Bulldozer core architecture, but stumbles in a few key areas.

  1. AMD Opteron Bulldozer Currently, the CPU scheduling techniques that are used by Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 are not optimized for the AMD Bulldozer module architecture. This architecture is found on AMD FX series, AMD Opteron 4200/4300 Series, and AMD Opteron 6200/6300 Series processors.
  2. This page contains information about installing the latest AMD FX 8-Core FX-8100 driver downloads using the AMD Driver Update Tool. AMD FX 8-Core FX-8100 drivers are tiny programs that enable your Processor hardware to communicate with your operating system software.

For years now, those scoping out a system (or just the parts to build one) have had a simple choice to make when it comes to processors: Do you want the best performance (Intel) or do you want the best value (AMD)? With its new FX series of CPUs, AMD is proposing that maybe you don’t have to choose after all. The first desktop member of the family we've seen, the AMD FX-8150, which is due for release later in October, may offer Intel cause for concern down the line, but shouldn't worry the company quite yet. The FX-8150's eight processing cores (the first consumer chip so equipped), performance with multithreaded applications, and $245 list price are solid, the chip's hunger for power and struggles with single-thread workloads keep it from unseating Intel in the midrange space—at least for now.

  • $265.00
  • $317.00
  • $216.00

The FX-8150 is based on AMD’s “Bulldozer” core design, the company’s first major hardware rethink in years. Each individual dual-core Bulldozer module is designed to optimize resources, with functions with high utilization (such as integer pipelines and Level 1 data caches) dedicated in each core and everything else (fetch, decode, floating point pipelines, and the Level 2 cache) shared, which lets it both use a higher-performance function unit and reduce the overall die area on the CPU itself. AMD claims that this design offers improved “scalability and predictability” on multithreading applications, with its threading method superior to one in which two threads share a single core. (This is, ahem, the Intel method.) AMD has also implemented a number of instruction set extensions, such as for SSE 4.1 and 4.2 and Advanced Vector Extensions (AVX), though not all of these will deliver much benefit until Windows 8 comes out.

Aug 02, 2018  Thanks to Shaneee and vitorlage guide, i finally installed Sierra on my AMD pc on my first attempt. I recommend installing OSX on a seperate drive which makes room for less problems. I followed the guide made by vitorlage. Yea, I'm pissed. This is a new PC and the specs are: - AMD FX 8150 8 Core Processor, liquid cooled - 8 GB Corsair Vengeance RAM - 2 TB Seagate. AMD FX 8-Core Black Edition Processors.

But that’s all on the inside; from the consumer standpoint, the FX-8150 appears considerably more conventional. Though it's based on a newer 32nm production process that replaces AMD's 45nm process, on the exterior it's of an identical design to AMD’s previous chips, with its pins on the bottom (as opposed to Intel’s method of putting the pins are in the socket rather than on the chip itself). Just don't assume your existing motherboard will work with it: It must use the relatively new AM3+ socket, though in accordance with AMD’s dedication to backwards compatibility, you’ll still be able to use your older chips in the newer board.

The FX-8150 has a 3.6GHz base clock that can be increased to 3.9GHz when each processing core is taking advantage of AMD’s Turbo Core functionality. If they’re all maxed out, the chip’s speed rockets to 4.2GHz. In case this still isn’t enough speed for you, the FX-8150 has an unlocked multiplier; AMD insists that all chips in the FX family will. (This was a benefit previously reserved for the company’s higher-end “Black Edition” processors.) The L2 and L3 caches each measure 8MB, and the chip can use up to DDR3-1866 RAM. One thing this CPU is missing: integrated graphics, like those you’ll find on its Llano-based APU cousins, like the A8-3850 and A6-3650, so you’ll need at least one discrete card in a Bulldozer system. If you want to use two, the FX-8150 supports 2x16 CrossFireX, so both of your linked video cards will operate at higher speeds.

Performance and Power Usage
All this helps the FX-8150 in terms of performance, even when compared with AMD’s last flagship CPU, the six-core Phenom II X6 1100T, though not as much as you might expect—and certainly not in every situation. When multithreading was involved, the results were nice: The FX-8150 earned 6.01 in our CineBench R11.5 rendering test; the 1100T managed 5.88. When converting a video clip to iPhone format using the open-source program Handbrake, the newer chip finished the task in 1 minute 44 seconds, and the 1100T needed 1:48. The new instructions helped the FX-8150 make a major leap in our TrueCrypt 7.1 cryptography test, rising from 176MBps with the 1100T to 224MBps. We saw a smaller improvement in the Futuremark PCMark 7 full-system benchmark test (2,949 for the 1100T and 3,017 for the FX-8150), and slightly more when running Futuremark 3DMark 11’s CPU-based Physics test (a frame rate of 16.91 on the 1100T rose to 19.66 on the FX-8150).

When we used our FX-8150–based test system to apply a dozen filters to a large image using Adobe Photoshop CS5 Extended, its time of 4 minutes 12 seconds was superior to the 4:16 the 1100T required, but with one wrinkle: the Smart Blur effect. The 1100T actually finished this task 18 seconds faster than the FX-8150, so ignoring that one filter would give the newer chip an even greater lead. We asked our AMD contact about this, and he responded, “There will be some instances where calculations will be faster on the Phenom II X6, to do with threadedness, thread scheduling, types of calculations, etc.” We’re still waiting to hear more specifics, and when we do we’ll report them, but the takeaway is that the FX-8150 will not always be faster than its predecessor, something that's troubling for a CPU at the forefront of its company's line.

These patterns continued against Intel’s current-generation chips. The FX-8150's multithreaded CineBench R11.5 score fell somewhere between the Core i5-2500K’s 5.46 and the Core i7-2600K’s 6.94; but it proved much better at Cryptography in TrueCrypt (the Core i5-2500K earned 143MBps, the Core i7-2600K 196MBps). On the other hand, both Intel chips turned out superior frame rates in the 3DMark 11 Physics test (20.37 for the Core i5-2500K and 26.15 for the Core i7-2600K) and better overall results in PCMark 7 (3,471 and 3,649). In terms of media handling, there was no contest: They plowed through Photoshop in 3 minutes 4 seconds (the Core i5-2500K) and 2 minutes 43 seconds (the Core i7-2600K), and each finished Handbrake in 1 minute 11 seconds—more than half a minute less time than the FX-8150 required. (Note: This is with a discrete video card in all cases.)

But take away the multithreading, and major problems emerge for the FX-8150. When running CineBench R11.5 in single-core mode, its score was pathetic: 0.96, not just well behind both the Core i5-2500K (1.49) and Core i7-2600K (1.54), but even AMD's own last-generation 1100T (1.10). This shows that, unless the software you use is dependent on multithreading, the FX-8150 is not a wise choice.

Nor is it ideal if power usage is a significant concern. We measured the full draw of our test-bench system using an Extech Datalogger and discovered that, at idle, the FX-8150 used 155.9 watts compared with the 1100T's 145.6. That's not too bad, but under load the FX-8150's usage skyrocketed up to 250.2 watts, whereas the 1100T topped out at 178.5 watts. The FX-8150's performance is simply not remarkable enough against the 1100T's to justify that extreme a difference.

If you're determined to build a midrange-or-better AMD computer, the AMD FX-8150 is in no way a bad choice, particularly if you regularly depend on multithreaded software to wrap up your daily tasks before the beginning of the next century. But the 1100T is overall a better value if you're not in desperate need of additional threads. If, on the other hand, you're platform agnostic, the choice is easier. Intel's chips put up a fierce fight, particularly in terms of media manipulation and gaming, and won't draw as much power under load, and those qualities will make them a superior choice for many users. The good news is that AMD's new FX line shows the company takes its competition seriously, and is laying the groundwork for more exciting innovations in the years to come. There's every reason to believe that AMD can make this gambit work and steal away the price-performance crown from Intel, which captured it with its sizzlingly placed Core i5-2500K. That time may not be far away, but the FX-8150 shows it's not here yet.

Amd Fx 8150 Review

Amd fx 8150 max temp

More CPU Reviews:
• Huawei Launches Kirin 990 Chipset With Built-In 5G Modem
• Beginner's Guide: How to Get Started With Raspberry Pi
• Which CPU Should You Buy? Intel Core i5 vs. i7
• Report: Intel's Comet Lake-S Chips Require a New Motherboard
• Intel Reveals Project Athena Badge
• more

Driver

AMD FX-8150

Bottom Line: AMD threatens to make a dent in Intel’s performance leadership with its FX-8150 CPU, the first to use the company’s completely redesigned Bulldozer core architecture, but stumbles in a few key areas.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.blog comments powered by Disqus

Amd Fx 8150 Processor

  • Similar Content

    • By shinho73
      Can someone help me fix reboot issue? Actually it reboots, but sometimes the hackintosh just hangs with screen off. Here is the Extra folder containing org.chameleon.boot.plist. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1MX8-DpQk9kaRUfjPcToxf-ElWh-bN6EY?usp=sharing and the spec of the PC. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1NlcUNK5DBzJFxeFeuyt92eRjQqwO5T32?usp=sharing Can someone look at it? I might be doing something wrong. Any help will be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
    • By shinho73
      I need a good vanilla guide for AMD A8 7600 with A58M-E FM2+ mother board and Palit GEforce GT 730. Any help will be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
    • By mpe
      Hi,
      After wakeup my system is slow, console input show some duplicate character when I type some commands. Intel Power Gadget is shows no more statistics.
      I am looking for solution several days, but I can't find.
      Maybe some one have the same system or tips for me?
      I have already attach the Runme.app zip
      Best regards,
      mpe
      Send me mpe.zip
    • By AwlsomeAlex
      My Laptop:
      ASUS ZenBook UX330UAR
      8GB RAM / 256GB SSD
      Intel i5-8250U
      1920 x 1080 (UHD 620)
      After using this guide to setup my laptop as a Hackintosh (macOS 10.14.6), every once in a while it'll result in the screen flickering, and usually the intervals between the flickering get smaller and smaller to the point where sometimes the screen just panics. I tried injecting my EDID and setting my SMBIOS to iMac18,1 but none of those defeated the dreaded flickering.
      Any assistance would be greatly appreciated!
      24838.zip
      EDIT: I'd also note that this does not happen with Linux nor Windows so it is a macOS issue not a hardware issue.
Comments are closed.