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
random
Bahaha, if this is true then AMD just took a huge dump on Intel's mountain of cash. Nothing more satisfying than seeing a midget heabutt a fat guy in the balls.
Posted on Reply
#2
Over_Lord
News Editor
But in general applications the FX-8150 can't beat the Core i7 2600k?

That's a shame.
Posted on Reply
#3
nINJAkECIL
by: thunderising
But in general applications the FX-8150 can't beat the Core i7 2600k?

That's a shame.
We don't know for sure until an objective benchmark comes out.
But I do hope that FX 8150 could beat 2600K in some games/apps to lower the price of Intel cpus.
Posted on Reply
#4
Crap Daddy
I really fail to see where this enthusiasm comes. From their own marketing slides it is obvious that the 8150 is under the 2600K and it should be if they ask 60-70$ less. In gaming Dirt3 and Deus ex (both AMD gaming evolved) they compare it with the 1100T. That's the FX competition, AMD's own Phenom II x6 series. There's no magic trick here.
Posted on Reply
#5
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
by: newtekie1
That isn't what AMD says. From their own marketting slide: "4 extra cores"...
its still only 4 modules. If they do end up working like 8 true cores i will be excited.

by: Benetanegia
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.
well thats fine this is still a 4 module chip. It may or may not be considered a true 8 core chip in the end. we have also already seen overclocking increase within the AMD generations of chips. Even with intel running a smaller die size AMD has always managed to accomplish more with a larger die than intel. quotes from intel actually stated they could not have done what AMD did with a single 65nm die and phenom I. Prise wise AMD has been the "smart choice" for a while now due to low prices. Hell a 6 core unlocked 1100T for $189 vs a $315 2600K means you could go from a GTX570 to a GTX580 and gain quite a bit more than the CPU performance difference. AMD may not be a full competitor in price but in bang for the buck they are winning.

by: nINJAkECIL
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.
Its still not a true 8 core in the same sense we are used to.
Posted on Reply
#6
heky
Ehm...if the slides are true, that means the top bulldozer with its 8 cores and a higher stock clock scores 5.95 points in cinebench(rendering, highly multithreaded) while my 2600K with 4 cores 8 threads at stock scores 6.90.
Bulldozer overclocked to 4.8ghz scores 7.8, while my 2600K @4.8ghz scores 9.38! So much for multithread superiority of BD.
Posted on Reply
#7
de.das.dude
Pro Indian Modder
OH HELL YEAH!!
its AMD!!!
Posted on Reply
#8
Crap Daddy
by: cdawall
Hell a 6 core unlocked 1100T for $189 vs a $315 2600K means you could go from a GTX570 to a GTX580 and gain quite a bit more than the CPU performance difference. AMD may not be a full competitor in price but in bang for the buck they are winning.
If you are talking about gaming then no. For 25$ more 2500K smokes the 1100T. So it's not bang for the buck.
Posted on Reply
#9
nINJAkECIL
by: cdawall
Its still not a true 8 core in the same sense we are used to.
Exactly. That's why I called them "integer core".
As for AMD marketing people, they would call them "core". Meh.
Posted on Reply
#10
Benetanegia
by: cdawall
well thats fine this is still a 4 module chip. It may or may not be considered a true 8 core chip in the end. we have also already seen overclocking increase within the AMD generations of chips. Even with intel running a smaller die size AMD has always managed to accomplish more with a larger die than intel. quotes from intel actually stated they could not have done what AMD did with a single 65nm die and phenom I. Prise wise AMD has been the "smart choice" for a while now due to low prices. Hell a 6 core unlocked 1100T for $189 vs a $315 2600K means you could go from a GTX570 to a GTX580 and gain quite a bit more than the CPU performance difference. AMD may not be a full competitor in price but in bang for the buck they are winning.
Nothing of that changes the fact that SB-E will probably be almost 50% faster than BD. A 2600k costs so much because it has no competition and in fact it really surprised me when I saw that price, since the only CPUs that could compete with SB's introduction, were Intel's own $600+ CPUs.

A 2500k costs a lot less than 2600k and is a lot faster than 1100T. I bought a 2500k and believe me at the time it was by far the smartest choice: cheaper than the 1100T and a hell of a lot faster. Plus 90% of games are probably faster on SB + GTX570 than on 1100T + GTX580. I have no facts to back that up, but stock clocked 2500k + GTX460 is more than 25% faster than the 3.8 Ghz Q6600 + GTX460 setup I had before.
AMD may not be a full competitor in price but in bang for the buck they are winning.
No. You are winning, AMD definitely is not.
Posted on Reply
#11
AhokZYashA
good job AMD,
now I'm off to go buy a 2500k
Posted on Reply
#12
EastCoasthandle
If this is true it's good news for AMD at their price point.
Posted on Reply
#13
cadaveca
My name is Dave
by: EastCoasthandle
If this is true it's good news for AMD at their price point.
If the prices are true, it's fantastic. Good is an understatement.
Posted on Reply
#14
xenocide
by: cadaveca
If the prices are true, it's fantastic. Good is an understatement.
I think the other way. If the performance is true, it's fantastic. The price's are pretty much what I expected.
Posted on Reply
#15
kid41212003
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...

To AMD: Give the FX-8150 to someone that isn't you to benchmark.
- Cherry pick or not - the chip ran at stock speed... cherrypicked chip doesn't run faster than "normal" chip at same clockspeed just because it was cherrypicked...

- They compared it to 980X because it's the fastest current Intel cpu...

- These benchmarks are pretty legit... why? Because going from 3GHz to 4GHz in games give you like half a frame more. :roll:
Posted on Reply
#16
heky
by: kid41212003
- Cherry pick or not - the chip ran at stock speed... cherrypicked chip doesn't run faster than "normal" chip at same clockspeed just because it was cherrypicked...

- They compared it to 980X because it's the fastest current Intel cpu...

- These benchmarks are pretty legit... why? Because going from 3GHz to 4GHz in games give you like half a frame more.
1. Wrong, read the slides again. In some tests it was stock, but on some it was oc`d.

2. Wrong, at least not in games.

3. Wrong again. Where do you get those statements?
Posted on Reply
#17
TheLaughingMan
by: heky
Ehm...if the slides are true, that means the top bulldozer with its 8 cores and a higher stock clock scores 5.95 points in cinebench(rendering, highly multithreaded) while my 2600K with 4 cores 8 threads at stock scores 6.90.
Bulldozer overclocked to 4.8ghz scores 7.8, while my 2600K @4.8ghz scores 9.38! So much for multithread superiority of BD.
If you are talking about the Legitreview "leak" then they aren't even remotely true. If true was a city, that post would be on Pluto's dark side. The beauty of that post was not only was it complete BS someone made up and that its obvious BS, is that neither "tested" chip completely conforms to their specs.

by: Benetanegia
Nothing of that changes the fact that SB-E will probably be almost 50% faster than BD. A 2600k costs so much because it has no competition and in fact it really surprised me when I saw that price, since the only CPUs that could compete with SB's introduction, were Intel's own $600+ CPUs.

A 2500k costs a lot less than 2600k and is a lot faster than 1100T. I bought a 2500k and believe me at the time it was by far the smartest choice: cheaper than the 1100T and a hell of a lot faster. Plus 90% of games are probably faster on SB + GTX570 than on 1100T + GTX580. I have no facts to back that up, but stock clocked 2500k + GTX460 is more than 25% faster than the 3.8 Ghz Q6600 + GTX460 setup I had before.

No. You are winning, AMD definitely is not.
I am not sure what old comparisons have to do with anything? Or comparisons to produces not out that will likely have the same $600 price tags as well.

by: AhokZYashA
good job AMD,
now I'm off to go buy a 2500k
Shop for a good bargin as prices can fluctuate based on the store.
Posted on Reply
#18
heky
by: TheLaughingMan
If you are talking about the Legitreview "leak" then they aren't even remotely true. If true was a city, that post would be on Pluto's dark side. The beauty of that post was not only was it complete BS someone made up and that its obvious BS, is that neither "tested" chip completely conforms to their specs.
Nope, i am talking about the AMD slides from donanimhaber, the source we are comenting in this thread!
Posted on Reply
#19
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
by: Benetanegia
Nothing of that changes the fact that SB-E will probably be almost 50% faster than BD. A 2600k costs so much because it has no competition and in fact it really surprised me when I saw that price, since the only CPUs that could compete with SB's introduction, were Intel's own $600+ CPUs.
How about the fact that nothing except for core 2 has ever been "50%" faster than the last gen and even then it wasn't "50%" faster than the first set of core architecture chips.
by: Benetanegia

A 2500k costs a lot less than 2600k and is a lot faster than 1100T. I bought a 2500k and believe me at the time it was by far the smartest choice: cheaper than the 1100T and a hell of a lot faster. Plus 90% of games are probably faster on SB + GTX570 than on 1100T + GTX580. I have no facts to back that up, but stock clocked 2500k + GTX460 is more than 25% faster than the 3.8 Ghz Q6600 + GTX460 setup I had before.
I have been an AMD fan for a while now as everyone on here knows however. I still argue off of what i own in games i noticed no difference between a >4ghz clocked xeon 4c/8t with faster ram and my 1090T @4ghz. I have not personally played the new SB chips nor do i care too there is not enough performance gain. Your Q6600 having a crap FSB setup probably accounts for 90% of your speed increase.

by: Benetanegia

No. You are winning, AMD definitely is not.
AMD can if this launch is done correctly. All they have to do is get a hold of more than HP/Compaq and Acer. You would be surprised the number of inexpensive machines sold vs expensive ones at BBY. If I had to choose between an Acer quad core AMD and Dell quad core Intel both with IGP's I am sorry but the AMD/Ati package makes more sense to me even if I loose 10-20% cpu performance I gain all of that back in GPU performance. Think that doesn't sell? your wrong.

by: heky
3. Wrong again. Where do you get those statements?
in his defense that depends on the game and it could in fact be half a frame more
Posted on Reply
#20
Live OR Die
Nice AMDs matching a 3 year old socket only time will tell :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#21
heky
by: cdawall
I have been an AMD fan for a while now as everyone on here knows however. I still argue off of what i own in games i noticed no difference between a >4ghz clocked xeon 4c/8t with faster ram and my 1090T @4ghz. I have not personally played the new SB chips nor do i care too there is not enough performance gain. Your Q6600 having a crap FSB setup probably accounts for 90% of your speed increase.
If YOU cant notice a difference, that doesnt mean its not there. Not by a long shot.
Posted on Reply
#22
Dent1
by: Live OR Die
Nice AMDs matching a 3 year old socket only time will tell :laugh:
What has the socket got to do with anything? AMD is matching Intels latest i7 2600k which came out this year in January 9, 2011.

Stop making excuse and give AMD some applause.
Posted on Reply
#23
kid41212003
I'm trading my Intel setup for Bulldozer.
Posted on Reply
#24
TheLaughingMan
by: Live OR Die
Nice AMDs matching a 3 year old socket only time will tell :laugh:
Cause its the socket that has all the power.
Posted on Reply
#25
Shihabyooo
by: Dent1

Stop making excuse and give AMD some applause.
Applause for what ? A self-claimed increase in performance against dated hardware ? Or maybe it's outstanding value compared to a niche product aimed for a very limited section of the market ?
You should know better than to believe companies self-made benchmarks. Just wait for a unbiased source to do a review on them. If these numbers turn out to be accurate (against rivalling products from the same class/price range) then I'll clap my hands till they bleed.

^ Really, is it possible to do that ?
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment