Saturday, September 24th 2011
AMD FX 8150 Looks Core i7-980X and Core i7 2600K in the Eye: AMD Benchmarks
The bets are off, it looks like Intel is in for a price-performance shock with AMD's Bulldozer, after all. In the press deck of AMD FX Processor series leaked by DonanimHaber ahead of its launch, AMD claims huge performance leads over Intel. To sum it up, AMD claims that its AMD FX 8150 processor is looking Intel's Core i7-980X in the eye in game tests, even edging past it in some DirectX 11 titles.
It is performing on par with the Core i7-2600K in several popular CPU benchmarks such as WinRAR 4, X.264 pass 2, Handbrake, 7Zip, POV Ray 3.7, ABBYY OCR, wPrime 32M, and Bibble 5.0. AMD FX 8150 is claimed to be genuinely benefiting from the FMA4 instruction set that Sandy Bridge lacks, in the OCL Performance Mandelbrot test, the FX 8150 outperforms the i7-2600K by as much as 70%. Lastly, the pricing of the FX 8150 is confirmed to be around the $250 mark. Given this, and the fact that the Core i7-2600K is priced about $70 higher, Intel is in for a price-performance shock.
Source:
DonanimHaber
It is performing on par with the Core i7-2600K in several popular CPU benchmarks such as WinRAR 4, X.264 pass 2, Handbrake, 7Zip, POV Ray 3.7, ABBYY OCR, wPrime 32M, and Bibble 5.0. AMD FX 8150 is claimed to be genuinely benefiting from the FMA4 instruction set that Sandy Bridge lacks, in the OCL Performance Mandelbrot test, the FX 8150 outperforms the i7-2600K by as much as 70%. Lastly, the pricing of the FX 8150 is confirmed to be around the $250 mark. Given this, and the fact that the Core i7-2600K is priced about $70 higher, Intel is in for a price-performance shock.
854 Comments on AMD FX 8150 Looks Core i7-980X and Core i7 2600K in the Eye: AMD Benchmarks
I admit i was heavily suggesting an increase per core or an increase overall due to it being the next generation but would you not agree it would be unlikely for it to be a reduction over the previous generation?
Even when there is no improvement between generation due to whatever reason is it not very rare that there is a decrease in performance?
Their numbering scheme may be similar, but they are not equivalent performace tiers.
5970 vs 6990 is valid, and there is a performance increase in the 6990.
5870 vs 6970 is valid, and there is a performance increase in the 6970.
5850 vs 6870 is valid, and there is a performance increase in the 6870, albeit a slight increase.
5770 vs 6850 is valid, and there is a performance increase in the 6850.
It's amazing that even over a year since release and explanation, the 5870 vs 6870 and 5850 vs 6850 mistake is still made, constantly. What flavour of gpu core that is in each card is irrelevant, what matters is the performance tier in which the card is meant to compete.
some folks here say to wait and see what the real world numbers will look like before buying.
very wise imho. its still fun to read the opinions over speculation ;)
will have fingers crossed until after Oct 12th.... :D:toast:
Nobody thought that BD could "beat" SB, not even AMD (if they did they would have said so) BUT with the announced prices and the fully unlocked multiplier I think that BD would be a very good choice for gaming on a budget. People with larger budgets will go for the highest performance regardless of cost but that isn't AMD's turf right now.
Clock for clock BD will fall behind SB, of course, but that only matters in technical discussion. For the end user it's about the price/performance and I hope that AMD can deliver. :respect:
By the way, does someone know how to convert from AMD's TDP to Intel's TDP? :confused: I think that AMD should market their consumer CPUs with the same measure. People are going to see the 95w v 130w and probably choose SB because it seems to be "greener". :nutkick:
Pile Driver have to be monstrous car to crash Ivy's Bridge; i'd like to see the Ped Basher vs Army Hangar. :laugh: jk Just having laugh @ the AMD's & Intel's CPUs naming scheme; though AMD reminds me why i love Carmageddon & this firm's CPUs. They had SledgeHammer, don't they? :) How's that ambulance from Carmageddon Splat Pack called? Fits in it's nature to AMD names. :toast:
Calm down people.:slap: It's just two more weeks.
Besides, I never decided the context of the 50% comment. That was established earlier by someone else as being 50% faster than current SB and BD. And while 50% more cores doesn't give exactly a 50% increase, it's damn close in multithreaded apps. 50% was being used as a ballpark figure. And in that context, it's pretty much correct.
Now, that says nothing of pricing. The 50% increase over BD/SB will cost an arm and a leg.Or able to run 50% more tasks without a performance penalty. Still 50% faster. You just have to use it to it's potential. That's like saying a Ferrari isn't faster than a 370z. Just because you don't use the available performance on your drive to work, doesn't mean it isn't there when you do want or need it.
True, more or less what i say: while i participate here, why not have a good laugh. BTW: the ambulance from Carma Splat Pack called BloodMobile; will AMD use that name for some future CPU? :roll: jk
Seeya all in 10 days (actually few hours less lol) from now. :toast:
And where is this mythical performance left untapped you talk of? It is in well threaded programs. Of which very few exist that will see work on a desktop PC. Server is a different story and I would agree with the 50% faster on them.
You also drive a Ferrari instead of a 370Z because you have the money and want to show it off. Not necessarily because it's faster, that's a secondary concern. Ferrari's also are higher maintenance then a 370Z. What are you trying to say about SB-E? :p (j/k)
And all you need to do to see the 50% increase is encode some videos. Not an uncommon task at all.
they OC'd an i7 more then the 8150, i know it's "clock to clock" but that is utterly pointless really, if the 8150 has as much overhead to OC as we are seeing how about we do either "stock to stock" or "max to max" because really those are the two things that matter, nobody is going to clock an 8150 to 4.2 just because its a good number, they will either leave it stock or crank it up high enough to feel good about themselves. now sure SOME people might land at 4.2 but its retarded to think that its a good comparison to OC them to the same clock, when that comparison doesn't mean anything...
if the i7 is faster at the SAME clock, but the 8150 can OC much more then the i7 then what good is that test? its pointless
I wouldn't blame you if you wanted to start doing that yourself. :D
It was like that with Lynnfield vs Bloomfield. The only real reason to get Bloomfield was for triple SLI/Crossfire and 6 core CPU support. You could easily (about 2 yrs ago) build a Lynnfield system for a lot cheaper then a Bloomfield one.
We weren't talking price/performance here. We were talking raw numbers. 50% faster is 50% faster. Price doesn't change that.
hello techp forums and peeps.
Heres an official bench, posted this weekend.
8150 is about 17 proc's down @ 8,600+
www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
so im guessing the 8170 released down the road will be up to the Intel EX SB's.
not bad not bad,
this will be my 1st "personal" AMD build in 10yrs, but i've built alot for others...
i cant wait