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
Add your own comment

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

#1
HTC
by: LifeOnMars
Oh My....good news :) More benchmarks please!!
All the slides i found on this topic @ XS:

Posted on Reply
#3
AMDfur
Ok, I know now what my next CPU will be. Thanks for sharing the info. Good luck Intel fans.
Posted on Reply
#4
RejZoR
Now just release the damn thing...
Posted on Reply
#5
HTC
All i want to know now is:

1 - How will it underclock

2 - When will it be available for purchase in my area
Posted on Reply
#6
legends84
ok. I'll go for this.. early next year :D
Posted on Reply
#8
YautjaLord
Finally, some paper numbers; hope it'll be the same when you TPU staff guys bench this monster. :) Plus i wonder what mobo they used; i hope it was either Crosshair V Formula or Sabertooth 990FX. :toast:
Posted on Reply
#10
repman244
FX-4170 will be a best for gaming IMO, great price and great clock and same amount of L3 cache as the 8 core model.
Posted on Reply
#11
JrRacinFan
Served 5k and counting ...
by: repman244
FX-4170 will be a best for gaming IMO, great price and great clock and same amount of L3 cache as the 8 core model.
Unlockable 8 core? Hmmmm
Posted on Reply
#13
Recus
by: ViperXTR
what processor are they exactly comparing? i see 4C/8T but only 6mb cache, isnt the 2600K 3.4Ghz and 8mb cache?
Probably 2500k.
Posted on Reply
#14
Shihabyooo
Nah, I'm still sceptic about this. tis hard for me to believe AMD will own intel with a single release. Nope thx, I think I'll wait for a third party benchmarks and reviews.

It would be nice if these benches were accurate though. Wouldn't mind intel pushing down the prices on their sandy bridge to sub $150 :D
Posted on Reply
#15
TheMailMan78
Big Member
Well judging those MARKETING slides I would say AMD hit the spot I figured. About equal with Sandy. Thats about all anyone can ask for honestly. I'm looking forward to the upgrade. Ill take it all with a grain of salt until I see a TPU bench.
Posted on Reply
#16
KieranD
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.
Posted on Reply
#17
TRWOV
Finally. Although I'll likely wait until the socket change before deciding to upgrade to IB or BD these results are promising and Trinity just got more interesting. :rockout:
Posted on Reply
#18
TheMailMan78
Big Member
by: KieranD
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.
One thing ya gotta keep in mind with AMD is they are not real cores as AMD markets them. They are modular. So when you see this whole "8 core vs 4 core" debate its bulls@!t. An AMD 8 core vs a Intel 4 core is equal for all given circumstances.

Even if it was a true 8 core it shouldn't matter to you. All the consumer should care about it bang for the buck. I wouldn't care if it used 50 cores as long as its faster AND cheaper then the last generation.
Posted on Reply
#19
Crap Daddy
by: Shihabyooo
Nah, I'm still sceptic about this. tis hard for me to believe AMD will own intel with a single release. Nope thx, I think I'll wait for a third party benchmarks and reviews.

It would be nice if these benches were accurate though. Wouldn't mind intel pushing down the prices on their sandy bridge to sub $150 :D
Read again between the lines. This is AMD advertising and we don't know if it's true.
It's under sandy bridge in 6 out of eight multithreaded benches. Plus the cinebench which is awfull if true. Hence the price they're asking. In gaming the comparison are made against phenom II x6 1100 and 980x which is slower than sandy when we talk games. The only good thing is high OC potential - hence the OC record presented to the world -
Posted on Reply
#20
TheMailMan78
Big Member
by: Crap Daddy
Read again between the lines. This is AMD advertising and we don't know if it's true.
It's under sandy bridge in 6 out of eight multithreaded benches. Plus the cinebench which is awfull if true. Hence the price they're asking. In gaming the comparison are made against phenom II x6 1100 and 980x which is slower than sandy when we talk games. The only good thing is high OC potential - hence the OC record presented to the world -
I count 4 not 6 and its cheaper. So like I said on par with Sandy. Not above. Exactly where AMD should be.
Posted on Reply
#21
nINJAkECIL
by: TheMailMan78
One thing ya gotta keep in mind with AMD is they are not real cores as AMD markets them. They are modular. So when you see this whole "8 core vs 4 core" debate its bulls@!t. An AMD 8 core vs a Intel 4 core is equal for all given circumstances.

Even if it was a true 8 core it shouldn't matter to you. All the consumer should care about it bang for the buck. I wouldn't care if it used 50 cores as long as its faster AND cheaper then the last generation.
Couldn't agree more than that.
Although I've used Intel cpus for the past 5 years, I'm ready to jump ship if AMD FX 8150 is on par with 2600K.
Posted on Reply
#22
TRWOV
by: Recus
Probably 2500k.
2500K is 4C/4T



The 4170 looks interesting: 4 core with 125w TDP? Am I smelling an unlockable FX?
Posted on Reply
#23
xenocide
I always take performance numbers directly from a marketing department with a quarry full of salt.
Posted on Reply
#24
TRWOV
Of course, they are cherry picked benchs, maybe at settings that benefit AMD the most but still even if it ends being between Gulftown and Sandy Bridge plus the overclocking potential and the cheaper price, FX is an enticing platform, no doubt, and far from the catastrophic failure that a lot of people though it would be.

Is this keeps up for PD and IB I might buy my first AMD CPU. I'm somewhat tired of having to buy an entire new platform to upgrade.
Posted on Reply
#25
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: FordGT90Concept
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.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment