Saturday, September 24th 2011

AMD FX 8150 Looks Core i7-980X and Core i7 2600K in the Eye: AMD Benchmarks

by
btarunr
 Discuss (854 Comments)
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

Related News

Add your own comment

854 Comments on AMD FX 8150 Looks Core i7-980X and Core i7 2600K in the Eye: AMD Benchmarks

#576
YautjaLord
Just noticed on a front page the FX-8120 related news - approx. 6 days left, last days to polish architecture, test revisions & officially launch 'em @ - what - night of October 12/noon October 13? Probably. When will they give a samples (prefferrably rev. B2) to all tech sites including TPU? At October 12? Good; have to give all CPUs - meaning, quad-, hex- & octo-cored ones. :toast:
Posted on Reply
#577
Super XP
Interesting how AMD is keeping this all very quiet. Also the fact they finally called a CPU "FX" which was originally waiting for the next high end CPU design deserving of this FX name. Plus once again, in those AMD slides, providing they are for real, still claim to be 50% better performance. I assume clock for clock, but it could very well mean Price/Performance.

Either way, I see a WIN for AMD, now lets see these babies in action... :toast:
Posted on Reply
#579
Thefumigator
LagunaXNot good AMD, not good at all(Bulldozer vs. 2600k):
lab501.ro/procesoare-chipseturi/amd-fx-8150-bulldozer-preview
That previews shows bulldozer not doing very well against i7 2600, but at least BD has lower power consumption (90 something against 120 something of i7)

which brings us to the fact that it could be more power efficient at least.

Assuming the preview can be trusted, of course...
Posted on Reply
#581
crazyeyesreaper
Not a Moderator
its a bunk review

1100T is pretty much on par with the 8150 in cinebench 11.5 which is cpu agnostic it uses w.e the fuck you throw at it.

that review is utter crap lol
Posted on Reply
#582
TheMailMan78
Big Member
TheLaughingManI call BS for several reason, but lets start with: lab501.ro/procesoare-chipseturi/amd-fx-8150-bulldozer-preview/10

wPrime does give a "score" and that time needed to finish from the AMD 1100T....if it was in seconds that is. I know, because I ran it twice today.
crazyeyesreaperits a bunk review

1100T is pretty much on par with the 8150 in cinebench 11.5 which is cpu agnostic it uses w.e the fuck you throw at it.

that review is utter crap lol
I call BS due to the fact some of those scores are worse then my 1090T. Sorry but I ain't buying it. However if that review is to be believed then we are all screwed. 12th can't come fast enough.
Posted on Reply
#583
dumo
I really want to believe that this review is BS, but I'm afraid that I will find the same results @ launch day:(

Here is Monstru (the reviewer) answers...

Posted on Reply
#585
crazyeyesreaper
Not a Moderator
the review is BS,

lets move on, the asshat who did the review is just another moron his stats and benchmarks make no sense if you start cross reference his scores with Phenom II scores it makes it even more readily apparent
Posted on Reply
#586
ivicagmc
If this is true, get PII X6 while you still can. It is just as fast and costs less... If this is true I will make a lawsuit against AMD for disappointing me, and misusing my trust into buying AM3+ board for nothing...
Posted on Reply
#587
zsolt_93
It's sooo sad. Even being an Intel fanatic I would have wanted a decent performance from this revolutionary chip. Noone expected this I think. I think the (p)review is mostly reliable as the people who made it are some of the best in the enthusiast segment, and they have won the MSI oc cup a few days ago and wouldn't want to ruin their reputation with a fake review. So it might be disappointing, but true.
For a first impression it's very bad, but thinking of improvements with later revisions or BIOS updates it might be able to catch the 2500K and have a reasonable power consumption compared to the rival. Over 200W seems unlikely to be true for just a small bump in performance, but considering the fact that this is what was measured it worries me a bit... consuming more than a 6950/70 for a CPU.
Posted on Reply
#588
Goodman
ivicagmcIf this is true, get PII X6 while you still can.
That is what i am thinking of doing , can't imagine how the 4100fx would perform probably be outperform by the good old PII :shadedshu

Anyhow ill wait for the official release/benchmarks of the Bulldozer FX before making my final decision (stick to AMD or go Intel) & beside i am not buying anything for my PC until Christmas time so i can wait a bit more...
Posted on Reply
#589
Melvis
zsolt_93It's sooo sad. Even being an Intel fanatic I would have wanted a decent performance from this revolutionary chip. Noone expected this I think. I think the (p)review is mostly reliable as the people who made it are some of the best in the enthusiast segment, and they have won the MSI oc cup a few days ago and wouldn't want to ruin their reputation with a fake review. So it might be disappointing, but true.
For a first impression it's very bad, but thinking of improvements with later revisions or BIOS updates it might be able to catch the 2500K and have a reasonable power consumption compared to the rival. Over 200W seems unlikely to be true for just a small bump in performance, but considering the fact that this is what was measured it worries me a bit... consuming more than a 6950/70 for a CPU.
Huh? what are you looking at? the slides that have been given to us, and are more credible then any other shows it up with a 980X and 2600K and beats the 2500K by 30%, god even a 1100T looks at a 2500K eye to eye. (just not in games)

So unless your blind your statement is irrelevant!
Posted on Reply
#590
Crap Daddy
This review is totally legit. Check other forums and understand the huge dissapointment. There's no reason to deny it.
Posted on Reply
#591
zsolt_93
MelvisHuh? what are you looking at? the slides that have been given to us, and are more credible then any other shows it up with a 980X and 2600K and beats the 2500K by 30%, god even a 1100T looks at a 2500K eye to eye. (just not in games)

So unless your blind your statement is irrelevant!
I was talking about this, which was posted above... nothing to do with those marketing gimmick slides. it shows just the opposite and people say it's legit, so? No equality with 2600 or 980 there.
Posted on Reply
#592
heky
If this is true, BD is just a big fail. Revolutionary architecture my ass. It has higher clocks, bigger cache and still lags behind Intel. Not to mention SB is almost a year old now. Weak.
Posted on Reply
#593
Melvis
Crap DaddyThis review is totally legit. Check other forums and understand the huge dissapointment. There's no reason to deny it.
zsolt_93I was talking about this, which was posted above... nothing to do with those marketing gimmick slides. it shows just the opposite and people say it's legit, so? No equality with 2600 or 980 there.
:laugh: From a site ive never heard of, not in English and with a dodgy CPU-Z shot like that you have gotta be joking?

And BD isnt even out officially.


Ill wait till a "real" review reviews it thanks. (TPU/Guru3D)
Posted on Reply
#594
Day
^ Trust me , is the real deal. A big disappointing Bulldozer... :shadedshu

As you wish...
Posted on Reply
#595
Mussels
Freshwater Moderator
Day^ Trust me , is the real deal. A big disappointing Bulldozer... :shadedshu
nah. i'll wait on proper results.
Posted on Reply
#596
Super XP
The review case out of an aris, I call it Bullshit...... That picture of the AMD FX looks like a photoshop IMO.
Posted on Reply
#597
TRWOV
Melvis:laugh: From a site ive never heard of, not in English and with a dodgy CPU-Z shot like that you have gotta be joking?
There is a CPU-Z validation link in page 3.

Anyway, the review was done with an enginering sample (8150P) so I wouldn't put much weight in it. We already knew that the first steppings didn't perform well and this preview just proves that. If reviews aren't done with a B2 they aren't relevant.

On the other hand, don't expect a miracle either; AMD has always stated that Core i5 class performance is the goal.
Posted on Reply
#598
Jegergrim
Legit or fake, it's still moral breaking for people with AM3+ boards ready to install their BD chip. We could've gotten SB boards months ago if just people could have benched these earlier. This however seems like another of AMD's marketing tricks, to stall SB sales untill their bring a less performing but cheaper chip on the market for variance. In either case, I doubt this review is fake, perhaps doesn't show the full potential performance, but it's probably a good indication of overall performance
Posted on Reply
#599
heky
TRWOVThere is a CPU-Z validation link in page 3.

Anyway, the review was done with an enginering sample (8150P) so I wouldn't put much weight in it. We already knew that the first steppings didn't perform well and this preview just proves that. If reviews aren't done with a B2 they aren't relevant.

On the other hand, don't expect a miracle either; AMD has always stated that Core i5 class performance is the goal.
What are you talking about. He is using a B2 stepping FX-8150 chip. It says so in the CPU-z screenshot, which is the latest version for BD reviewers also. He is also using the latest bios version for the C5F.(from 3.october)
Posted on Reply
#600
TRWOV
Sorry, you're right. I didn't catch that up. As he was listing the FX-8150 as an 8150P in the graphs I assumed he was using an ES.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Nov 22nd, 2024 23:30 EST change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts