The wraps are off the beast and while most of the reviews are “not bad” they are not exactly brimming with enthusiasm.
Tom’s Hardware said that if someone put an i5-2500K and FX-8150 in front of him and the Core i5 costs $220, and the FX runs at $245 he would go for the Core i5. Ouch.
In the best-case scenario when the FX can fully use its eight integer cores, it generally falls in between Core i5-2500K and Core i7-2600K although sometimes the FX manages to outperform the higher-end -2600K.
HardOCP wrote that AMD had delivered what will be a disappointment to many and the Intel fanboys have won this round. If you expected something to outshine Sandy Bridge in terms of performance overall, it is just not there.
Part of the problem is that the software is not really there yet. Single threaded Bulldozer performance leaves a lot to be desired and it only does any good when Bulldozer can flex all its cores. Software will move there eventually but it is not there yet.
Techspot said that the the cheaper FX-8120 gives the Core i5-2500K a serious run for its money and it’s a worthy alternative. Meanwhile the FX-6100 is also great value at $165, as it undercuts both the Phenom II X6s but it wasn’t always faster.
But really it was hoping for a lot more from Bulldozer and AMD’s eight-core processors. The FX processors come short of competing hand to hand with the now nine-months old Sandy Bridge processors, and in certain instances surpass their own Phenom II range.
All of the reviews say that the new chips are just the start and thinks it will get better. But heck, it has been four years and AMD was expected to really give Intel a kick in the nadgers with the release.