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

[bear jesus]

From a logical point of view surly even if there was no intel then AMD would surly make the next generation better than the past one, it would truly defy logic to produce a new product that is worse than the last ones to then discontinue the older better performing products.

Until the NDA lifts and there is reviews from multiple trusted sites which can be compared to each other there is no reason to think any of these "leaks" are accurate or anything other than attention whoring by sites who are desperate to try and increase how many people visit their site.

I try to have no expectations for bulldozer but one i cannot help but have it the one of it being better performing than the phenom II architecture, i'm just waiting to see legit reviews before i get excited or disappointed.

 

[eidairaman1]

only thing that got be was changing the CPU names n then Phenom 1 had serious issues.

 

[Melvis]

Seriously why would AMD even consider releasing a product the performs worse than it's last generation?

Do people think AMD wants to commit corporate suicide?

Yea i agree with ya there, that would just defeat the purpose.

Far as im concerned if these CPU's are about as fast as intels then thats good enough for me, who here would love to have the performance of a 980X but just cant afford it. Yes i know the 2600K is there and it would be one to go to for sure, but for the AMD users this is awesome realy.

And for the new SB-E been 50% faster? i call BS on that right now, as not even SB was 50% faster then Skt 1366. It was just cheaper and more affordable, performance wasnt a big difference.

 

[eidairaman1]

From sounds of it Amd intends on releasing 2 more CPU series for the AM3+ Platform before going full FM2, its nice considering Intel is constantly changing sockets, first 1366, then 1156, now 1155, WTF Intel stick with 1 socket for desktop, 1 for Server and 1 for mobile.

Yea i agree with ya there, that would just defeat the purpose.

Far as im concerned if these CPU's are about as fast as intels then thats good enough for me, who here would love to have the performance of a 980X but just cant afford it. Yes i know the 2600K is there and it would be one to go to for sure, but for the AMD users this is awesome realy.

And for the new SB-E been 50% faster? i call BS on that right now, as not even SB was 50% faster then Skt 1366. It was just cheaper and more affordable, performance wasnt a big difference.

 

[Wile E]

Yea i agree with ya there, that would just defeat the purpose.

Far as im concerned if these CPU's are about as fast as intels then thats good enough for me, who here would love to have the performance of a 980X but just cant afford it. Yes i know the 2600K is there and it would be one to go to for sure, but for the AMD users this is awesome realy.

And for the new SB-E been 50% faster? i call BS on that right now, as not even SB was 50% faster then Skt 1366. It was just cheaper and more affordable, performance wasnt a big difference.

SB-E is 50% faster than SB i7 (and therefore roughly BD) because it has 50% more cores available.

Really, it's just simple math: 4 cores with HT in SB i7, and 6 cores with HT in SB-E's top offerings (and hopefully 8 core offerings on refresh).

 

[entropy13]

http://library.madeinpresse.fr/samples/MPqY2Vg2v45Z-f

This is what I hacked together with Google translator:

FX-8120 has the best price/performance ratio of the Bulldozer line. It is able to compete with 2500K in most computing applications, but lags in video games.

FX-8150 is the fastest model "currently" available. Slightly cheaper than 2600K, but can at best match it in some multimedia processing applications, and is systematically left behind in games.

 

[Damn_Smooth]

http://library.madeinpresse.fr/samples/MPqY2Vg2v45Z-f

Not done with the FUD yet? Wait for launch.

 

[Inceptor]

That doesn't tell us anything new.
I think that you'll find, aside from flaming fanboys, what people interested in Bulldozer like is not that gaming benchmarks might lag behind Sandybridge, but that overall, it looks to be a well rounded cpu at a reasonable price, with an interesting architecture.
We're not all hardcore gamers.

 

[Melvis]

SB-E is 50% faster than SB i7 (and therefore roughly BD) because it has 50% more cores available.

Really, it's just simple math: 4 cores with HT in SB i7, and 6 cores with HT in SB-E's top offerings (and hopefully 8 core offerings on refresh).

Yea ok i can understand that, more cores to get the 50%. But that doesn't mean it will perform 50% better.

It will be an increase that's for sure, but it wont be 50% no way, regardless if it gets 50% more cores.

Ok to me if its going to be a 50% increase i would expect the new SB-E to be 50% faster then there current 980/990X CPU's ( both 6 cores of course) , if not then its not going to be anything to write home about in my eyes. As SB vs the old 1366 975 isnt much different in performance at all if any. Just more affordable.

 

[Inceptor]

Yea ok i can understand that, more cores to get the 50%. But that doesn't mean it will perform 50% better.

It will be an increase that's for sure, but it wont be 50% no way, regardless if it gets 50% more cores.

Well... I'm sure at least one of those SB-E chips will be +50% performance... like the $1000 i7-3960X.
But that's off topic and not even in the same performance category as the FX processors.

 

[entropy13]

Not done with the FUD yet? Wait for launch.

Where's the Fear, Uncertainty, and Despair there?

I doubt a published magazine would be publishing FUD. What are they, a tabloid?


The relevant pages would be 8 and 9, btw. Which I guess you didn't bother reading.

 

[Melvis]

Well... I'm sure at least one of those SB-E chips will be +50% performance... like the $1000 i7-3960X.
But that's off topic and not even in the same performance category as the FX processors.

We dont know that for sure, and i honestly dont think it will be, if there both 6 cores with HT?

Heck we dont even know 100% how well BD is going to be against SB, but going by what we have got in this thread its up there.

I think SB-E will be an improvement in performance just not what everyone things it will be, maybe 20% im guessing, hell we all are.

 

[Damn_Smooth]

Where's the Fear, Uncertainty, and Despair there?

It's doubt, and if you can't see it, there's something seriously wrong there.

I'm not going to listen to some French moron that won't give any specifics. You can if you want to, but I pity your gullibility.

 

[Mussels]

From a logical point of view surly even if there was no intel then AMD would surly make the next generation better than the past one, it would truly defy logic to produce a new product that is worse than the last ones to then discontinue the older better performing products.

geforce FX anyone? radeon 6K vs 5K?

 

[entropy13]

It's doubt

Making it redundant then, does "uncertainty" mean something else?

I'm not going to listen to some French moron that won't give any specifics. You can if you want to, but I pity your gullibility.

I pity how quick you "defend" AMD then, blindly even. He actually says that the 2 AMD CPUs are great in price/performance. Which would actually be akin to how AMD's GPU division has been relatively successful of late. It's not like he said that Bulldozer was a failure or something.

 

[Damn_Smooth]

Making it redundant then, does "uncertainty" mean something else?




I pity how quick you "defend" AMD then, blindly even. He actually says that the 2 AMD CPUs are great in price/performance. Which would actually be akin to how AMD's GPU division has been relatively successful of late.

You have no need to pity me, I'm not sticking up for anyone. I just prefer to listen to credible sources. It's a shame we don't all feel that way.

 

[Melvis]

geforce FX anyone? radeon 6K vs 5K?

Yea we get it, but this isnt about GPU's, its CPU's. has there been a time in the past that the new high end gen from either company been "less" then there older current gen? i cant think of any.

Honestly if a program is coded well for 8 cores then surely it would perform better then its last gen 6 core? surely????

 

[mastrdrver]

SB-E is 50% faster than SB i7 (and therefore roughly BD) because it has 50% more cores available.

Really, it's just simple math: 4 cores with HT in SB i7, and 6 cores with HT in SB-E's top offerings (and hopefully 8 core offerings on refresh).

50% faster (probably) in well threaded programs. Otherwise it will be just as fast as SB regardless of how much PR Intel throws at it.

 

[bear jesus]

geforce FX anyone? radeon 6K vs 5K?

I can't say with the gefore fx as i was not using nvidia back then but as far as i knew the 6970 does not perform worse than the 5870, same with 6950 vs 5850.

I admit ignoring the change to naming so if trying to compare the 6870 to a 5870 instead of what should really be 6870 vs 5770 then yes it does not look good but the whole point of the name change i though was to be able to push in another core under the top end but still above 57xx cards leaving them to be re branded.

Did the nvidia fx cards really perform worse than the generation before?

 

[eidairaman1]

I can't say with the gefore fx as i was not using nvidia back then but as far as i knew the 6970 does not perform worse than the 5870, same with 6950 vs 5850.

I admit ignoring the change to naming so if trying to compare the 6870 to a 5870 instead of what should really be 6870 vs 5770 then yes it does not look good but the whole point of the name change i though was to be able to push in another core under the top end but still above 57xx cards leaving them to be re branded.

Did the nvidia fx cards really perform worse than the generation before?

Cough GF 8, 9, 250 Series were just rebags.

 

[Frick]

Cough GF 8, 9, 250 Series were just rebags.

Geforce 8xxx was a rebagde?

 

[eidairaman1]

the 512 GTS Model was

 

[Frick]

the 512 GTS Model was

Very different from "Geforce 8 was just a rebadge", which indicates that the entire series was rebadged.

 

[eidairaman1]

Regardless, when the 512 Model came out there was no GTX model, when GF 9 Came out they just renamed the unsold 512 Units as GF 9 Units n same with the 250 Models

 

[bear jesus]

Cough GF 8, 9, 250 Series were just rebags.

But surly they had at least the same power not a reduction, the point i was trying to make is pretty much every CPU or GPU the next generation is better than the last, i admit that does not take in to account re branding but in those cases it normally means the same performance but as bulldozer is a new architecture it is obviously not a re branded phenom II thus in theory should be faster than them.

I admit the new architecture could in theory cause a reduction in performance per core but with increased IPC surly AMD's CPU design team would at least aim to keep the same performance per core if not try to increase it?

But as i said, my point is surly it would be unlikely that clock for clock bulldozer would be beaten by the phenom II architecture going by previous CPU releases for as many years as i have been paying attention .