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

[newtekie1]

Chart #1: FX-8150 has a natural clockspeed advantage and the 980X is an old architecture (Gulftown which is based on Bloomfield that is over two years old). Would have been more fair to leave the 980X out of it but, they did it for a reason (cherry picking).

Chart #2: Why is everything normalized to 2500K? I'll tell you why, it makes little differences look bigger. Take with a leathal dose of salt.

Chart #3: Fantastic! AMD processors work with instructions only their software uses. Kind of pointless.

Chart #4: Comparing to the most expensive Intel platform (LGA1356) with the second most expensive CPU (980X) proves nothing that isn't already known (its expensive). If they had a case to argue, they'd be comparing it to the price of a Core i7 2600 system...

Pretty much everything I was going to say. The only reason they picked the 980X for the price compare is because it is an Extreme edition and it is $1000. Compare it to a 2600K build and I bet the numbers are pretty damn close.

And all the talk in the OP about Intel being in for a "Price-performance shock" is hardly accurate. They possitioned the 2700K in a way that allows them to adjust prices on the 2600K as they wish specifically in preperation for this.

 

[EarthDog]

Its as fast as a 2500/2600k Way to catch up!!!

 

[Lionheart]

Well I know what I will be getting in 3 weeks, fuck yeah I can't wait to sell off my x58 platform + SSD and GTX 580, wooo

Stop arguing you fagboys

 

[EarthDog]

That wasnt hate. Im proud of AMD for doing that!

Let me ditch the LOL up there! Done.

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

I'm inclined to wait for real reviews with some real benchmarks. On another note, are these 4 cores going to be the same as the "8" core but without the essentially hyperthreading? Making them like the 2500k? Or are their 4 cores going to be really dual cores?

 

[Jegergrim]

The fact that AMD succeeded to reach this performance, with this price looks promising for 2012, not lacking a whole year behind intel in tech, I'm anxious to see their piledriver vs ivy bridge, we might finally have good price wars again

 

[MikeMurphy]

I'm inclined to wait for real reviews with some real benchmarks. On another note, are these 4 cores going to be the same as the "8" core but without the essentially hyperthreading? Making them like the 2500k? Or are their 4 cores going to be really dual cores?

I agree. No sense in jumping to conclusions so early.

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.

 

[a_ump]

This is great, though this simply brings AMD up to par. Maybe with the next family of chips from BD design they'll push past intel. Though my thinking is Intel has things in their possession that is held back incase AMD ever do break ahead of them. I mean with their income and how they've been baby-stepping performance the last 4 years(allowing AMD to catch up), i'd expect some monster to be waiting in the intel dungeon.

 

[Inceptor]

So, roughly on par with SB, exactly where AMD needed to be with the 8 core.
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.

 

[TheGuruStud]

Paper benchmarks. I wonder why they didn't include SiSoft Sandra benchmarks?

http://www.legitreviews.com/news/11430/ http://i56.tinypic.com/2e1sp3m.gif

For one, all benchies out they are fake (especially sandra) and two, that has to be one of the worst pieces of software ever written.

Also, don't believe that intel plays fair and actually achieves good performance by a good design. They cheat extensively.
http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49

 

[cdawall]

Chart #2: Why is everything normalized to 2500K? I'll tell you why, it makes little differences look bigger. Take with a leathal dose of salt.

Price point I am sure AMD will probably drop prices in a week or two to hit the $220 price of the 2500K.

8 cores vs 4 cores i would be surprised they couldn't match the i5 2500k, IMO its bollocks that it needs double the cores to just match it. Im more interested in those 6 core and 4 core bulldozer performance.

Still i call fud on everything until i see multiple random reviewers get their hands on them.

4C/8T these dozer chips are not real 8 core chips.

Paper benchmarks. I wonder why they didn't include SiSoft Sandra benchmarks?

http://www.legitreviews.com/news/11430/ http://i56.tinypic.com/2e1sp3m.gif

because sisoft sandra is a big steaming pile of shit. not to mention that has less proof than the AMD slides thats just a damn graph someone made without mentioning which chips they used what memory they used what motherboard they used.

 

[Rookienoob]

Now... I wonder how many of the FX-8100's that will run at FX-8120 speeds @ 125W TDP...
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.

 

[DannibusX]

I was gonna buy a Bulldozer chip regardless, just to support AMD. I'm glad initial information shows good performance and I can't wait to see TPU's performance reviews.

 

[BrooksyX]

Glad to see some real numbers and things a looking good. Don't regret going the 2500k route but if I was upgrading today I would definitely consider Bulldozer!!! Go AMD. Let the price war begin.

 

[RoutedScripter]

but, will it run crysis ?

 

[Inceptor]

This is great, though this simply brings AMD up to par. Maybe with the next family of chips from BD design they'll push past intel. Though my thinking is Intel has things in their possession that is held back incase AMD ever do break ahead of them. I mean with their income and how they've been baby-stepping performance the last 4 years(allowing AMD to catch up), i'd expect some monster to be waiting in the intel dungeon.

AMD won't take the CPU crown away from Intel, unless Intel runs into a wall with their CPU architecture, which is not likely to happen again.

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.

 

[semantics]

mmmmm marketing slides, where they slow jerk to their own performance numbers, Still wonder how it will oc(on air and with all the cores on =p), looks like in the multi threaded department they hit the numbers they wanted ie around sb.

 

[Steevo]

If this is true I will need a new motherboard, RAM, and chip. Will a AM2 bracket fit the newer boards?


Wonder if they have hardened their IMC so it will handle 16GB of RAM with good timings.

 

[TheGuruStud]

Intel doesn't hold anything back. They are limited by manufacturing and their own big hardheadedness. You can't make chips with 250w TDPs, no one is going to buy them lol.

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.

 

[Benetanegia]

Wow so they compare gaming performance against the 6 core Extreme chip, which costs 4x more, while being slower than Sandy and they compare multi-threaded performance against 4 core CPUs, where the 6 core chip would be faster, and to top it off it loses in most of them. Really funny. Not.

I knew it would be a dissapointment and that SB-E and Ivy would eat BD alive.

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.

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.

 

[cdawall]

Intel doesn't hold anything back. They are limited by manufacturing and their own big hardheadedness. You can't make chips with 250w TDPs, no one is going to buy them lol.

thats a dirty lie i would buy several of them.

I knew it would be a dissapointment and that SB-E and Ivy would eat BD alive.

says who? did you already get SB-E and Ivy benchmarks?

 

[TheGuruStud]

thats a dirty lie i would buy several of them.

Ok, almost no one

 

[newtekie1]

4C/8T these dozer chips are not real 8 core chips.

That isn't what AMD says. From their own marketting slide: "4 extra cores"...

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.

I don't think there is a single app today that HT has to be turned off in. In fact I had one of the first HT processors, a 478 P4, and never had to turn it off. There were some apps that ran slightly better with it off, but nothing that was really noticeable.

 

[Benetanegia]

says who? did you already get SB-E and Ivy benchmarks?

Simple math. 4 core SB matches BD even on multi-threaded apps (and on AMD's own cherry picked benchmarks). 6 cores, a 50% increase in resources, will simply obliterate BD.

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.

 

[nINJAkECIL]

4C/8T these dozer chips are not real 8 core chips.

I believe these AMD FX cpus with 4 modules are indeed has 8 integer core, not like hyperthreading. In Hyperthreading, 1 core are able to run 2 threads, while in Bulldozer, each interger core (I wouldn't call them only "core"), has their own L1 data cache, and each integer core has its own integer datapath and integer scheduler, while sharing L2 and L3 cache in one module.