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
AMDs memory controller team needs to get their heads out of there asses...
I can't seem to get to load bit-tech.net for me...hmm. Someone else took the screenshot.
slightly dissapointed... was reallying hoping for atleast NEAR 2600k performance even if i had to OC a little further, if it could have just competed with it!!!
Pretty much does sum it up.
Only thing that would have made the review better would to have included right next to the overclocked 4.6ghz 8 Core Bulldozer an overclocked 4.6ghz 8 Thread i7-2600k.
But that probably would not have been too pretty.
Kudos to AMD but I'm sticking to my 2600k for now :cool:
Windows 7 scheduler for the cpu is fucked up it dosent work properly with Bulldozer
Windows 8 dosent have these problems and Bulldozer shows a 5-20% performance improvement in Windows 8 over Windows 7 currently
Windows 7 needs patches and updates and they could be here tomorrow or 2-3 months from now sadly...
if you want realy Bulldozer benches youll have to find someone willing to test the cpu in Windows 8 which is surprisingly stable... stable enough to handle the BF3 beta etc. but i doubt youll see any benchmarks running Bulldozer in the enviroment its suppose to be in lol.
AMD admits to the problem openly in the reviewers bundle and info they included with it,
Laughingman might do a Windows 8 bench session so it will be interesting to see if he can finish the current review and find time for it.
As for the FXs I think that AMD is thinking too far ahead of themselves. Sure, multithreaded applications are the future but they need to sell their CPUs in the present. Maybe they should have released a PII die shrink with some improvements in IPC and memory bandwidth and refine the Bulldozer architecture for FM2 next year. Might it be that the AM3 platform is holding it back a little?
I don't put too much importance on the benchmarks using legacy instruction sets, like Prime (x87), but still I hope that the next steppings along with bios updates, kernel patches and applications' updates extract more performance from the architecture to make it at least beat the 1100T consistently.
Anyway, in short, a good productivity processor but average for gaming. The problem is that Intel has processors that are good at both things.
but it still shows a near 17% performance shift correct?
so the 5-20% argument still stands
and i would expect WoW to perform like crap its still based on the ancient Intel Compiler that is from pre lawsuit days meaning the unoptimized code path is used
so on an unoptimized code path the performance shift is 17%
what i would like to see is Crossfire results and high resolution gaming tests
in which case on Kitguru and Hardware heaven the 8150 performs much better getting withing 1-2FPS of the 2600k
now if 5%-20% is added to that it puts them on completely equal footing which means the memory bottleneck is gone and in general performance with multi gpus has improved which was AMDs biggest draw back.
]in reality AMD shouldnt have called the FX 8150 an 8 core chip
the discussion on teamspeak tonight was enlightening
look at Bulldozer 8150 as a quadcore dual threaded chip and it looks alot better in that regard LOL
also 2 tests on Windows 8 is hardly indicitive of performance solidworks is a decent test but WoW isnt really suited to a test,
would be more interested to see
Bad Company 2 on Windows 8
BF3 beta
GTA IV
etc.
but overall im glad i didnt wait for Bulldozer ive had this performance level for awhile now out of a 2500k.
Single thread performance is basically ≤ Deneb.
It's an FX for sure...
Disappointing to not see any 5.0 GHz OC results, or did I miss a review?
Also interesting to see some reviews done on ES chips, too.:wtf:
I'm upset a bit at the perforamnce, but glad that I was right.
indeed, last time i see a GTA4 bench was in behardware and toms, would love to see this heavily multithreaded game run on this new architecture.
@ViperXTR: Too late on the warning, I already asked him if I posted links to reviews on a Cooler Master CPU cooler would that mean I'm automatically "relying on other people's opinions"? :laugh:
cause if its me i fail to see it im running a 2500k and ive bashed the Phenom II architecture for the last 6 months for shit multigpu scaling lol
and for the most part im just trolling tossing out hope to those hanging on by a thread for Bulldozer. been stirring the pot and trolling all day :roll: but im guessing everyone but cadaveca and mailman missed the fact i was trolling.
what i can say is this
if you do any
Encoding
Photoshop
3D rendering aka Maya, 3DS max etc, you know real apps not Cinebench
Bulldozer is win...
if you do none of the above its epic fail :roll:
my last parting gift is dont hate me for trolling someone had to do it. cause Mailman couldnt. he was to emotionally attached to the AMD / fanboy love child that is BD ;)
Their timing was off, I think. But it definitely is an interesting architecture.
There really aren't any surprises here. No point holding banners for AMD or Intel.
So, there are some things that need fixing, but the 8150 is at the moment, at least, in the i5-2xxx performance range, overall, and approaches the i7-2xxx range. Anyone who was expecting more than that was dreaming, I think.
The architecture is promising, but it looks to me like it is 'looking forward in time' to the later generation APUs -- which might explain its poor FPU performance --- something that would be offloaded onto an on-die gpgpu.
That brings up the question as to whether, a BD or PD cpu, paired with an AMD gpu, could see some performance optimization, in the future.