AMD FX 8150 - 8120 - 6100 and 4100 performance review

Yesterday AMD released the FX series Zambezi - Bulldozer based processor. Everybody has been focusing on that most high-end AMD FX 8150 processor. However there where three other processors released.


The processors added into the chart are the eight core AMD FX 8120, the six-core AMD FX 6100 and the four core AMD FX 4100.

These processors are all based on the same Bulldozer architecture yet have a different numbers of cores with accompanying cache's, let's recap the four processors that have been launched first:


So the top of the range part, FX-8150, is clocked at 3.6 GHz, with a TDP of 125W. Next in line is the FX-8120, clocked at 3.1 GHz.


The sole 6-core CPU will be FX-6100 at 3.3 GHz while the 4-core CPU will be FX-4100 clocked at 3.6 GHz, interestign as for less threaded applications that 4100 would be faster..

Both feature a 95W TDP, and will compete up against the Core i5 series. All CPUs feature 8MB L3 cache. This suggests that FX-6100 and FX-4100 are simply Zambezi processors with 1 module or 2 modules disabled, respectively.

Hardware and Software Used

We now begin the benchmark portion of this article, but first let me show you our test system plus the software we used.

Mainboard

ASUS Crosshair V Formula

Processor

AMD FX 8150 - 8120 - 6100 - 4100

Graphics Cards
GeForce GTX 580

Memory
2x4096MB DDR3 1866 MHz CAS9 G.Skill RipJaws

Power Supply Unit
BFG 1200 EX Watt (DXX PCIe 2.0 model)

Monitor

Dell 3007WFP - up to 2560x1600

OS related Software
Windows 7 64-bit SP1 (latest patches & updates installed)
DirectX 9/10/11 latest End User Runtime
Geforce 263.09 WHQL

Software benchmark suite
SiSoft Sandra
Aida
3DMark06
3DMark Vantage
3DMark 11
Handbrake
Cyberlink MediaEspresso
CineBENCH 11.5
FryRender
Far Cry 2
Crysis 2

A word about 'FPS'
What are we looking for in gaming performance wise? First off, obviously Guru3D tends to think that all games should be played at the best image quality (IQ) possible. There's a dilemma though, IQ often interferes with the performance of a graphics card. We measure this in FPS, the number of frames a graphics card can render per second, the higher it is, the more fluently your game will display itself.

A game's frames per second (FPS) is a measured average of a series of tests. That test is often a time demo, a recorded part of the game which is a 1:1 representation of the actual game and its gameplay experience. After forcing the same image quality settings; this timedemo is then used for all graphics cards so that the actual measuring is as objective as can be.

Frames per second
Gameplay

<30 FPS very limited gameplay 
 30-40 FPS average yet very playable 
 40-60 FPS good gameplay >60 FPS

best possible gameplay

So if a graphics card barely manages less than 30 FPS, then the game is not very playable, we want to avoid that at all cost.
With 30 FPS up-to roughly 40 FPS you'll be very able to play the game with perhaps a tiny stutter at certain graphically intensive parts. Overall a very enjoyable experience. Match the best possible resolution to this result and you'll have the best possible rendering quality versus resolution, hey you want both of them to be as high as possible.
When a graphics card is doing 60 FPS on average or higher then you can rest assured that the game will likely play extremely smoothly at every point in the game, turn on every possible in-game IQ setting.
Over 100 FPS? You have either a MONSTER graphics card or a very old game.