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
HalfAHertz
by: Benetanegia
You just proved my point thanks. In any and every benchmark where Bulldozer is faster because it's 8 cores supose an advantage over less cores, SB-E will necessarily be (almost) 50% faster than SB. ANY code capable of extracting the most out of an 8 core CPU will ALWAYS extract the same, most probably MORE, performance out of 6 cores. If in those same benchmarks, the 8 core BD is just as fast as the 4 core SB, it will necessarily be almost 50% slower than the 6 core SB.



That's irrelevant. AMD clearly used SB and the 980X in the way they did (that is, where they are respectively weaker), because that's the only way to show BD in a "good light". Otherwise they would have been consistent on using either the 2500k, 2600k or 980X for every benchmark.

- If they had used 2500k the price/perf argument would be invalidated, especially in gaming, where the 2500k would be faster AND cheaper, which is why they didn't do that direct comparison.

- If they used 2600k it would have been a close fight in price/perf in almost all categories, according to AMD's own benchmarks. But the only thing Intel would need to do is lower 2600k price. Matching is bad when you opponent can price you out f the market if so he wishes.

- If they had used the 980X in multi-threaded benchmarks a 2 year old architecture would have consistenly beaten BD, which would not be good marketing.
Why would they compare it to the 980x in multithreading, when it costs 3x the price of BD?They chose to compare it to its real competition - the 2500 and 2600 :nutkick:

Seriously guys stop trying to make a mountain out of a molehill...
Posted on Reply
#2
Crap Daddy
So no comparison in games vs sandy, obviously why and all the slides try to convince us that this FX is meant for gaming. That's just great.
Posted on Reply
#3
AhokZYashA
SB is faster clock per clock and core per core than the 980x

that being said, 8core BD is about the same as 6 core 12t 980x in multi thread bench
that means clock per clock and core per core power of BD is lower than 980x

which still has looooong way to catch up with SB
Posted on Reply
#4
Benetanegia
by: HalfAHertz
Why would they compare it to the 980x in multithreading, when it costs 3x the price of BD?They chose to compare it to its real competition - the 2500 and 2600 :nutkick:

Seriously guys stop trying to make a mountain out of a molehill...
Then why compare it to a 980X in gaming AND most importantly price? :nutkick:

Seriously guys stop trying to defend AMD and their stupid marketing.

EDIT: Well the marketing is not entirely stupid. It assumes WE are stupid which is why I'm discussing it here to begin with. it's the "let's assume our customers are idiots" attitude taken to a new whole level. It's embarrasing and offensive.

We all want AMD to be fast and to compete, but not at this price. I'd rather keep my sould.
Posted on Reply
#5
heky
by: HalfAHertz
Why would they compare it to the 980x in multithreading, when it costs 3x the price of BD?They chose to compare it to its real competition - the 2500 and 2600
Seriously? You come with that statement? In games they use the old proc from intel becouse they cant compare to SB, becouse BD looses. And in multithreading the 2600K beats the shit out of the 8 core BD(or thread whatever you want to call BD). Just take a look at cinebench, a classic multithread test.

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
#6
erocker
by: Benetanegia
Seriously guys stop trying to defend AMD and their stupid marketing.
Honestly, why should you care? You obviously aren't changing anyone's mind and I recognize you are trying very hard with all of your posts in this thread. Those who know better will and those who don't can keep dreaming the dream. No amount of convincing or otherwise is going to change the truth.
Posted on Reply
#7
Benetanegia
by: erocker
Honestly, why should you care? You obviously aren't changing anyone's mind and I recognize you are trying very hard with all of your posts in this thread. Those who know better will and those who don't can keep dreaming the dream. No amount of convincing or otherwise is going to change the truth.
That sentence was just a response to the one he posted. I take it as a semi-offense when someone tells me I'm trying to blow things out of proportion with nothing to back it up, or flawed proofs when I'm just stating the facts so that people get all the info. Blame me for indirectly assuming some readers may lack the info, but then please blame AMD too for thinking we are stupid, please.

If trying to get people informed and avoid them to harm themselves is a crime, please shoot me now, because I'm guilty.
Posted on Reply
#8
erocker
by: Benetanegia
That sentence was just a response to the one he posted. I take it as a semi-offense when someone tells me I'm trying to blow things out of proportion with nothing to back it up, or flawed proofs when I'm just stating the facts so that people get all the info. Blame me for indirectly assuming some readers may lack the info, but then please blame AMD too for thinking we are stupid, please.
Um, no. I actually agree with what you are saying in regards to the topic. I'm saying that a thousand forum posts isn't going to change people's minds. If you feel insulted that was not my intent.

Have a nice day.
Posted on Reply
#9
Benetanegia
by: erocker
Um, no. I actually agree with what you are saying. I'm saying that a thousand forum posts isn't going to change people's minds. If you feel insulted that was not my intent.

Have a nice day.
I didn't feel insulted by you. I felt semi-insulted by his claim of me (between others) making a mountain out of a molehill... That sentence has bad connotations here.
Posted on Reply
#10
the54thvoid
I feel for you Ben. I post and run away - you stay to metaphorically 'fight'. Not that you are fighting! What erocker is saying is that your well reasoned argument is falling on deaf ears.

Fans will be fans. It's like football, hockey, baseball, tiddlywinks and chess. Kasparov for the win.
Posted on Reply
#11
HalfAHertz
by: Benetanegia
I didn't feel insulted by you. I felt semi-insulted by his claim of me (between others) making a mountain out of a molehill... That sentence has bad connotations here.
I'm sorry you felt insulted. That wasn't my intention. Marketing is marketing, they'd do anything to sell you a product. Their logic was as it follows: gamers always try to go for the best product, the 980x costs an arm and a leg, therefore it should be the best, therefore we should bench games against it. The 2500/2600 are in our price range, therefore we should bench against them for everyday tasks like encoding, archiving, etc...The thing is their logic is very sound for the average consumer who hasn't read all the reviews and thinks that price is the only thing that matters. So if anything, you should ask ntel why they're still tryig to sell you a 2 year old technology that is supposed to be inferior for 800$
Posted on Reply
#12
3volvedcombat
by: erocker
Um, no. I actually agree with what you are saying in regards to the topic. I'm saying that a thousand forum posts isn't going to change people's minds. If you feel insulted that was not my intent.

Have a nice day.
You just talk to people on the wrong day, and regret it for the rest of the day :roll::laugh:

So far, I like what I see with these benchmarks. 980x is fast enough, it isn't dated yet. No matter what theories any of you have in your minds.

The way AMD is, there going to drop the prices on the FX BD's really low like they usually do in some time. Basically AMD is doing EXACTLY what AMD does, and releasing competitive hardware at great price points. There is absolutely NO reason to be hating or stating anything about non support and bull propaganda benchmarks period. This is going to be the same situation when the AMD Phenom 940 and 920 came out. Not as fast, fast enough, fun for the gamer, cheap, competitive.

Just take it easy lets not widen a topic up so wide there's 500 ways to get mad about it.
Posted on Reply
#14
Benetanegia
by: HalfAHertz
I'm sorry you felt insulted. That wasn't my intention. Marketing is marketing, they'd do anything to sell you a product. Their logic was as it follows: gamers always try to go for the best product, the 980x costs an arm and a leg, therefore it should be the best, therefore we should bench games against it. The 2500/2600 are in our price range, therefore we should bench against them for everyday tasks like encoding, archiving, etc...The thing is their logic is very sound for the average consumer who hasn't read all the reviews and thinks that price is the only thing that matters. So if anything, you should ask ntel why they're still tryig to sell you a 2 year old technology that is supposed to be inferior for 800$
Come on but you know that's not what they thought, at all. :laugh:

Their logic was "if we compare the 980X for gaming and price, and 2600k for multi-theading (workstation tasks), Bulldozer will look a lot better than if we compare SB for gaming and price and 980X for workstation tasks".

I cannot say their logic is flawed at all, considering they have to sell, and after an inside inspection I dn't even have a problem with them doing that as much as I have a problem with people defending or rationalzing that behavior. It's as if just because we are bombarded with this marketing shit every day, everywhere, on top of having to smell it all day, we should concede and eat it too.
Posted on Reply
#15
Steevo
by: Benetanegia
Come on but you know that's not what they thought, at all. :laugh:

Their logic was "if we compare the 980X for gaming and price, and 2600k for multi-theading (workstation tasks), Bulldozer will look a lot better than if we compare SB for gaming and price and 980X for workstation tasks".

I cannot say their logic is flawed at all, considering they have to sell, and after an inside inspection I dn't even have a problem with them doing that as much as I have a problem with people defending or rationalzing that behavior. It's as if just because we are bombarded with this marketing shit every day, everywhere, on top of having to smell it all day, we should concede and eat it too.
You just don't like it enough. Try it with some gravy. :laugh:


A drop in replacement for many users here makes it a win.


Cheap comparison a 2500 is at $219 in a box, and a motherboard to fit it is only $50.
At $245 and $60 for a BD combo, RAM being equal it needs to outperform it by 10% on average to be worth it.


But then again, why do you care? Intel has reverted to a oh shit move by "officially' showing and supporting how to overclock. If some of the users here go thread crap in every Intel thread would that make you feel any better? That is what some feel you are doing here.
Posted on Reply
#16
Benetanegia
by: Steevo
But then again, why do you care?
Oh because I'm stupid in my own way and I'm morally allowed to. :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#18
Steevo
by: Benetanegia
Oh because I'm stupid in my own way and I'm morally allowed to. :laugh:
I prefer the immoral way, their cookies are better. ;)


Really most here commenting are probably considering it for a cheap upgrade, I am considering it as I want to try it since it is new, and with a server upgrade coming up soon I can dump it off it doesn't perform. They can read.......believe it or not.


And yes, much like drunken painted football fans there are fanbois for each side.
Posted on Reply
#19
Mindweaver
Moderato®™
This has me excited! I want 3 or 4 of these to crunch! :toast:
Posted on Reply
#20
NdMk2o1o
If it holds up to SB in multithreading and 980x for gaming at the price they are going to be selling it regardless if it is 100 cores/threads, it's a win for the consumer.

/thread
Posted on Reply
#22
seronx
by: erocker
Wat? Seriously, what is this?
x264 with XOP and FMA4 instructions getting implemented after August 31st

so, x264 1st pass and 2nd pass results are going to be inconsistent after some odd release
Posted on Reply
#23
the54thvoid
by: seronx
x264 with XOP and FMA4 instructions getting implemented after August 31st

so, x264 1st pass and 2nd pass results are going to be inconsistent after some odd release
lol.

I'm going to go and play with my lego bricks now. I know when my knowledge is 0% about something.
Posted on Reply
#24
NC37
by: Benetanegia
Then why compare it to a 980X in gaming AND most importantly price? :nutkick:

Seriously guys stop trying to defend AMD and their stupid marketing.

EDIT: Well the marketing is not entirely stupid. It assumes WE are stupid which is why I'm discussing it here to begin with. it's the "let's assume our customers are idiots" attitude taken to a new whole level. It's embarrasing and offensive.

We all want AMD to be fast and to compete, but not at this price. I'd rather keep my sould.
So AMD is taking souls for CPUs now? :rolleyes:

If you don't think "Customers are idiots" then you have no sense of the corporate world or even society as a whole. If customers weren't idiots, Best Buy wouldn't be in business, lawyers wouldn't exist, and we'd actually have competent people in government.
Posted on Reply
#25
Yellow&Nerdy?
These slides should probably be taken with a grain of salt, since they are from AMD. But they must have some truth in them, and I have to admit, it doesn't look that bad. Considering it's much cheaper than the 2600K, the performance is actually pretty damn good. As the marketing trick with the huge OC showed, these processors should have pretty good OC potential. I have to say that I do look forward to October 12th and the 3rd party reviews.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment