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 $70 higher, Intel is in for a price-performance shock.
854 Comments on AMD FX 8150 Looks Core i7-980X and Core i7 2600K in the Eye: AMD Benchmarks
www.commit.si/sl/virtuemart/22-strojna-oprema/29-procesorji/207-amd-podnoje-am3/1071-amd-bulldozer-x8-fx-8150.html
plus imho software will deffinately need tweeking to best use its rescources
2) The CPU-Z font in the text boxes is slightly off; not quite correct.
3) The game benchmarks were only for 1280x1024. Game benchmarks do not scale linearly at higher resolutions, and are primarily dependent on the graphics card. Simplistic.
4) The review follows the usual template, but fails to give comprehensive and systematic detail, which is what is required for a review of this kind. Like other small review sites run by people with little formal logical and organizational training (or ability), the whole thing lacks a truly solid and methodologically unassailable foundation.
6) Simply for business reasons, AMD's secrecy over the BD processor doesn't mean it is worse than their last generation. I know it may seem that way to some of you, but AMD isn't run by teenage boys (or otherwise immature young men) who constantly make errors in reasoning that they don't notice and understand, because of their youth...
You can be guaranteed BD will outperform the Phenom II, as for everything else, that's just youthful nonsense.
5) The people with the knowledge, and the real BD cpus and reviews are under NDA. No one really has a clue about the performance except for them and AMD.
why do i say this ?
well i was tempted to get one but the price has sky rocketed from £750 or about 1 166.4 US$
to £819 or about 1 273.7088 US$ :eek::wtf::twitch:
ye i know things vary in price, but not by that much, it's actually more expensive than it was when it was first released :shadedshu
can't wait for more benches from the amd corner :D
They know what they're doing. :)
Maybe they don't have a special BIOS, maybe AMD will send another chip revision for official reviews but generally speaking miracles don't come over night so roughly speaking those are Bulldozer results. :(
Why bench games at 1280x1024 unless you have a bent on something? Adding 8xAA at that resolution does not keep it from becoming a CPU benchmark.
It's OBR version 2.0
I've been saying for MONTHS, peeple are expecting too much, and AMD DOES NOT NEED TO HAVE THE FASTEST CHIP EVER. They merely need to have similar or slightly less performance, for lower cost. And Bulldozer will be EXACTLY that.
Why does everyone think it need to be better than SandyBridge? Do you really think it's gonna cost $100 less than a chip it beats? Are you insane? Just because you want more for less $$$, doesn't mean AMD has any plans to give it to you!Yes, Matose won, and part of his prize was the article. He got to bench a BD system, keep the numbers, and write a review with it, IMHO. Nearly NOONE knows who Matose is, and this is a move to get his name out there more. There's no reason to doubt the numbers, and if they are low, then oh well. Doesn't mean it's a bad thing...that's 100% the fault of nearly everyone here having the wrong perspective on things, mind you, that's nothing new, either, is it?
Wait for official benchmarks then.
I just can't bring myself to believe that AMD is going to release something worse than what they already have.
I am going to wait these final few days until I find out for sure, but if these benches are legit, I am seriously disappointed.
It jsut stikes me as ood that he won, then all of a sudden, he has access to BD chips, but no NDA. That says someone with NDA gave him access to the chip, or it's 100% fake. I do not think Matose would really fake this, and he really does beleive the numbers are true, for whatever reason.
I see lots of numbers showing 8150 near 2600K...that's FAR BETTER than any phenom II chip. So what exactly makes you think this?
That said, I really think AMD expects enthusiasts to OC, so stock performance means little to us, doesn't it?
Perhaps, like I said, 50% performance is really 2 added cores, plus 17% from memory and IPC, but it overclocks WAY MORE than thuban, so enthusiasts get their extra performance there, when overclocked.
I've been running around begging everyone I can to get a chip for my future reviews, and obvioulsy i need one. But me actually getting a 100% yes answer from anyone seems near impossible..quite a few have told me they'll try to get me one...
If AMD had a clear winner here, I think i'd have no problem getting a chip for review purposes. I am having problems, so the chip cannot be as good as everyone here seems to expect. That's jsut my opinion, but we'll see how it pans out real soon.
Personally, stock performance means little. For personal uses, I'd be trying to 5GHz with 8150 this chip, like I do with my SB chips. Thuban cannot do 5GHz 24/7....
Handbrake, Cinebench, wPrime, SuperPi, and the SuperPI oc test are all much better than Thuban. The rest of the tests shown my Lab501 are memory limited, and are explained by the AIDA benchmarks. AIDA performance is about 10-20% faster than Thuban. Now, of course, we got 33% more cores..and are looking for that extra 20%...oh look..there it is.:laugh:
Frankly, those results are exactly what I expected. I've been saying forever that memory performance is critical, but still, noone seems to get it. :laugh: AMD cannot have excellent memory performance, or they'd not need 16MB of cache on the chip!!! Sixteen Megabytes!!!!!!
Like why would ANYONE expect stellar performance from a chip with so much cache! Cache is the largest heat producer in chips and needs to be kept to a minimum, so if there is large amounts of cache, it's because they had no other option!!!
If bulldozer had 8MB of cache, I would have expected much more, like everyone else here seems to, but that cache @ 8MB L3, and 8MB of L2, says A LOT to me.
Thank you :)
@ CrapDaddy.. For many games performance with a thuban is very good. There are some games out there that really like memory bandwidth though. In these games Intel excels in. With BD, that pic above looks promising. And that's an ES. :)
let's fudge those numbers to make this easy...Intel chip @ $400, and AMD @ $300. Well, so you'd expect the $300 chip to be 3/4 the performance of the $400 chip, right? It would be a better deal, if it's faster than what price says, right?
1100T is $200, and 8150 is $250...you'd expect the 8150 to be 25% faster than the $200 chip, based on cost, right?
Gamers, on a whole, are broke. So the affordable option, with near the same performance, or at least, a but extra performance, with cost considered, would be a winner.
Every single one of us here is an enthusiast. AMD isn't selling chips to enthusiasts...they are selling to the masses. Until you look at it from that perspective, you'll never be satified...AMD isn't going to make an enthusiast happy, really....becuase enthusiast don't pay the bills.
But, the FX moniker doesn't say anything about gaming...it's about overclocking. And these FX chips can clock like mad. Enthusiasts are covered, not my stock performance, but by being able to get near 5GHz on mid-high-end cooling, like the included watercoolers.
You need to keep in mind, AMd has but one complete fab line for 32nm products, and both APUs and CPUs need to run from it. They can only make so many chips, and making a killer chip, that wil lcreate demand they cannot supply, would be death.
I have NEVER expected Bulldozer to be the top performer...AMD as a company cannot handle that demand. They can afford to be the affordable option.;)I have a pic of my own, to show how POOR that there pic of p1t1's is(333MHz less clock, but 3000 MB/s better performance):
Again, the cache amount of Bulldozer tells me to not expect high memory performance. Note the differences in L2 cache speed. Note that screenshot was a set-up, thanks very much for coming through on that, erocker. :laugh: