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
Stop arguing you fagboys:toast:
Let me ditch the LOL up there! Done.
They market them as 4 module / 8 core. This is traditionally known as 4 'cores' running 8 threads.
Hopefully the performance scales almost linearly from single-thread to multi-threaded workloads. The tech makes quite a bit of good sense, just like Intel hyper-threading.
AND at a currently cheaper pricepoint than SB, exactly where they needed to be to continue their price/performance buyer aesthetic.
Looks like the right moves have been made.
As for the comparison to the 980X, forget about it, it's just marketing-flashiness ... doesn't matter what field you're in, what industry you're talking about, or what company you're talking about, there's always dumb stuff like that in press packages.
Also, don't believe that intel plays fair and actually achieves good performance by a good design. They cheat extensively.
www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49
It's a 11% speed bump, so at 30% TDP increase isn't totally unrealistic, right?
Considering even 8120's are going to run at 95W eventually, I guess it's not at all impossible.
:laugh:
Intel hold back quite often... hyperthreading was introduced with their single core Pentium 4s, but not used again until first gen i3/i5/i7. They held it in reserve, in case AMD caught up in performace... it was like the hidden not-so-secret nitro system under the hood ready to kick in if there was ever any threat.
Hyperthreading was reintroduced, producing a very large performance boost.
Marketing.
Intel has the money and resources to 'hold things in reserve'. Tech that we're seeing now, from them, could probably have been produced 2 to 3 years ago.
Wonder if they have hardened their IMC so it will handle 16GB of RAM with good timings.
Hyperthreading was dropped b/c it was crap and didn't work. It was made for marketing since AMD was wiping the floor with them. It still has to be turned off for some apps b/c you'll get negative performance. It was reintroduced once they incorporated it into their uarch and software was optimized.
Intel isn't comfortable enough to "hold back". You don't spend billions using illegal and unethical business strategies to knock AMD down b/c you're so secure with your prowess. You do it b/c you're scared.
I knew it would be a dissapointment and that SB-E and Ivy would eat BD alive.Intel is definately holding back for the past 2 years at least. There's absolutely no reason they could not release a 3.6-3.8 Ghz SB.
They definately cheated in the P4 era, and I wish they had been punished a lot harder than they were for that, but since Conroe they have been constantly beating AMD over and over.
Ivy Bridge will probably attain higher clocks, even if it doesn't its die size alone will destroy any real option for AMD to undercut Intel's prices, if so Intel wants. Which will not happen anyway, because Intel needs AMD as a competitor to avoid monopoly.
The day when corporations act completely upright and ethical is the day hell freezes over :laugh:
As for the effectiveness of hyperthreading, it did work, it just did not provide the kind of performance boost seen in current hyperthreading enabled cpus. Yes, not many applications took advantage of it, but it performed its purpose. Marketing.
The method was improved, announced, more developers came on-board, etc., performance boost. Marketing.
Could have been done years sooner, if Intel so chose. It wasn't necessary, AMD didn't catch up to Conroe.