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
ensabrenoir
MM:)MMMOOOOOORRRRRTTTTTAAAALLLLL. CCCCCCCCOOOOOOOMMMMMMBBBBAAATTTTTT!!!!!!!!.

FIGHT!:rockout:
Posted on Reply
#2
lashton
they released this NOT for us but the scare the shit of intel and make intel think they will loose the performance crown
Posted on Reply
#3
cadaveca
My name is Dave
by: erocker
I'm a tech enthusiast. Any other factors mean nothing to me.
This was the answer I was hoping for, and expecting, the edit is the part that made me laugh.

:D

I trust the non-marketing results than the marketing results, anyway. There are many things that can influence results.
Posted on Reply
#4
lashton
by: 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.
Are you seriously that ^%&% stupid, the 980X is in there for one reason ALONE, to show that a $1000 CPu can be beaten (spanked on the ass) by at @$250 processot, no matter what industry you are in that ALL good value for money, im sorry intel fanboy you have finally lost :rockout:

It funny how when Intel does this EVERYONE accepts it, but when AMD does it no one likes it, the Performance crown with be taken by AMD again, Intel fanboys are trying to mark this is not good, if friggin awesome AMD here i come again, you will see lots of people jump from intel to AMD on this mark my words!
Posted on Reply
#5
trickson
OH, I have such a headache
YES ! About time AMD !
Posted on Reply
#6
nINJAkECIL
I'd still buy BD, and boasts it to all of my friends. Saying that it has the most core of all of desktop cpus :D
Posted on Reply
#7
NC37
Wow only 181 posts in this fanboy war...whats wrong with you people, you should be at 500+ by now!! Come on they insulted your silicon wee wee!! Show them your true flamewar power!!! :D
Posted on Reply
#8
Damn_Smooth
by: NC37
Wow only 181 posts in this fanboy war...whats wrong with you people, you should be at 500+ by now!! Come on they insulted your silicon wee wee!! Show them your true flamewar power!!! :D
I would like less fanboyism from both sides and more reasonable discussion, but that's just me.
Posted on Reply
#9
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Everything substantive to discuss has already been discussed (like modules, the higher clock speeds, etc.). All that is left is the real products with real benchmarking. In short, there's nothing to discuss (that isn't fanboyism driven) until it hits the shelves or NDAs are lifted.
Posted on Reply
#10
Damn_Smooth
by: FordGT90Concept
Everything reasonable to discuss has already been discussed (like modules, the higher clock speeds, etc.). All that is left is the real products with real benchmarking. In short, there's nothing to discuss (that isn't fanboyism driven) until it hits the shelves or NDAs are lifted.
I agree. I still don't see any reason to throw out posts that are overly fanatical one way or the other though. Like it or not, we need both of these companies to be healthy and competitive.
Posted on Reply
#13
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
AMD has been sickly since 2006 (Core 2 debut, buyout of ATI, and disappointment of Phenom). They do need another breakthrough on the level of K6 or Athlon 64 (Hammer). I'm not so certain this (Bulldozer) is it but it's better than nothing.
Posted on Reply
#14
cadaveca
My name is Dave
by: FordGT90Concept
AMD has been sickly since 2006
Yep. and even though we are near 6 years later, AMD is still alive and kicking, evne though they lacked a "top performer". Clearly they don't need one to stay afloat...they merely need to sell every chip they make, which shouldn't be hard, IMHO.
Posted on Reply
#15
ensabrenoir
by: lashton
Are you seriously that ^%&% stupid, the 980X is in there for one reason ALONE, to show that a $1000 CPu can be beaten (spanked on the ass) by at @$250 processot, no matter what industry you are in that ALL good value for money, im sorry intel fanboy you have finally lost :rockout!
Aaaahhhh...... intel showed this when they released sandy bridge:rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#16
mastrdrver
by: btarunr
Btw, price confirmation of $245 for the FX8150:

http://img.techpowerup.org/110924/bta022.jpg

I'm off for the evening.

Argue to your heart's content, but please don't flame/get personal. Report comments you don't like. :)
I'm not sure I believe that price. Why is it a different color and font then the rest of the text in that slide? I think it has been edited from some original.

Maybe the rest is correct, but that price I don't believe. I suspect $300 though time will tell, surely.
Posted on Reply
#17
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
by: cadaveca
Yep. and even though we are near 6 years later, AMD is still alive and kicking, evne though they lacked a "top performer". Clearly they don't need one to stay afloat...they merely need to sell every chip they make, which shouldn't be hard, IMHO.
Frankly, most people don't care what's inside their computer as long as it works. So long as AMD can keep selling processors to Dell, HP, Sony, Lenovo, Acer, and the other big computer manufacturers out there, they'll be fine. All those manufacturers appeal to price moreso than performance. AMD made that component of their business easier by spinning off Global Foundries. I think AMD's greatest weakness is if Global Foundries fail and they have no means to cheaply manufacture new processors. As far as I know, Global Foundries isn't in any imminent danger.
Posted on Reply
#18
Thefumigator
by: cadaveca
Yep. and even though we are near 6 years later, AMD is still alive and kicking, evne though they lacked a "top performer". Clearly they don't need one to stay afloat...they merely need to sell every chip they make, which shouldn't be hard, IMHO.
They still sell their processors. I mean, take Intel's best selling processors, suppose they are Celeron, Pentium dual core and core i3. AMD has some nice alternatives to each one. Where AMD is lacking is in the core i5 and i7 arena and mobile market (I love llano for gaming on a budget, but for everything else you have to admit there's nothing like SB)

But anyway, I'll take a Phenom 9550 over a celeron or sempron all the way if I had the chance to.

The other day I updated a friends rig, he is broke so we spent the least amount of money EVER. I just did that, I dropped in a Phenom 9550 X4 (I particulary own the same model, but mine isn't for sale) and we even had the chance to sold the old sempron he had. A huge difference in performance, noticeable from the beginning to the end. mobo was AM2/AM2+ compatible, that helped.
Posted on Reply
#19
xenocide
by: lashton
Are you seriously that ^%&% stupid, the 980X is in there for one reason ALONE, to show that a $1000 CPu can be beaten (spanked on the ass) by at @$250 processot, no matter what industry you are in that ALL good value for money, im sorry intel fanboy you have finally lost :rockout:
Sandy Bridge called, it wants it's title back. The 980X was cherry-picked because even their fluffed numbers in those slides don't show it beating the 980x, which the 2500k/2600k can beat in gaming performance. They picked the 980x because they probably ran the tests against SB, and couldn't get a reliable enough result to ensure it looked good to investors. As stated, these slides are intended to be viewed by investors. AMD needs to make their products look like the company will sell them like hot cakes so said investors will dump more money into the company.

The i5-2500k is just as good a value, the key difference is that it has been out for over 9 months now, and we're still not sure Bulldozer really is going to be out 2nd week of October. (10/12 or 10/15 are the 2 dates I heard). Once SB came out, nobody even gave the 9x0x CPU's a glance. The reason AMD compared the price, is because if they had done the i5-2500k the difference in price would have been -$25 - $25. Doesn't exactly seem impressive that their new product would only be on par in terms of cost and performance does it?

by: lashton
It funny how when Intel does this EVERYONE accepts it, but when AMD does it no one likes it, the Performance crown with be taken by AMD again, Intel fanboys are trying to mark this is not good, if friggin awesome AMD here i come again, you will see lots of people jump from intel to AMD on this mark my words!
Well when was the last time AMD had the performance crown? Pre-Core2 series which was about 5-6 years ago. Nobody denies that (here at least), so I'm not sure who you're talking about. I'm not a fanboy in the slightest, but it's not exactly inaccurate to say Phenom I was a bust and AMD hasn't offered a competative Enthusiast product for quite some time. The last real one I can remember was the Athlon 64 FX-series CPU's. Granted those were $1200 CPU's at the time, they were also Single-Cores that outperformed the first Dual-Cores.

As for the people jumping ship claim; People said the same thing about SB too, that it would be too expensive, it was only a slight upgrade, it wasn't going to be that good. The result? I recall Intel posting record profits off SB sales. No matter which company you favor, you cannot deny SB hit the sweet spot everyone wanted. It offered top-notch performance, and cost 1/3-1/2 what similar performing products cost. Everyone won with that.
Posted on Reply
#20
TRWOV
by: lashton
Are you seriously that ^%&% stupid, the 980X is in there for one reason ALONE, to show that a $1000 CPu can be beaten (spanked on the ass) by at @$250 processot, no matter what industry you are in that ALL good value for money, im sorry intel fanboy you have finally lost :rockout:
wow, stop your horses. I think that everyone understands why did AMD pick up the 980X for price comparison.

And seriously, relax, these are just pieces or silicon.
Posted on Reply
#21
Inceptor
Where to begin...

by: HalfAHertz
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$
Exactly my thoughts, I couldn't agree more.

by: Benetanegia
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".
Of course, why would you expect anything more? See first quote, above.

by: 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.
Definitely.

by: TheMailMan78
Is Sandy faster? Who knows. Probably. But how much faster is really needed at this point and is worth the price? I mean in a real world scenario. Is it worth the extra money. I mean you guys are arguing over a Shelby Super Snake with a super charger vs a Shelby Super Snake without a super charger. WTF does it matter?! They are both SUPER SNAKES.
You Sir, are my hero. :respect:

by: lashton
im sorry intel fanboy you have finally lost
Umm, I'm not a 'fanboy' of either side... but uhh, did you look at my system specs? I currently own an AM3+ board and will be buying a BD cpu within the next year...
But uhh, good job with the fanboy bit, you're good at it, maybe a bit too enthusiastic. :cool:

Honestly people, this is waayyy too much hate and love over this thing.
It's gratifying to see so much ethical outrage playing itself out, but really, what's the point?
You can't change it, all you can do is figuratively bang your head against the wall.
Corporations do what corporations do, which is anything that's either not outright illegal or will only result in a corporate wrist slap. It doesn't matter which perspective you look at it from, Intel or AMD, someone somewhere is fracking someone over, or causing some kind of outrage; just as in life in general.

The sad thing is this, this argument is playing itself out, in all the same ways on every damn tech site on the planet. A Win - Win proposition for both AMD and Intel. Marketing.
Epic fail.
Posted on Reply
#22
Volkszorn88
Just got my 990fx board and i'm f*cking ready for BD and BF3!!! ^^
Posted on Reply
#23
Jonap_1st
rarely believe 100% anything that still based on the paper, so i give 50% and wait another 50% until the real benchmark comes out..
Posted on Reply
#24
lashton
bench-markers will be given the processor in 7-14 days to run benchmarks maybe someone will leak them early
Posted on Reply
#25
AhokZYashA
BD have 8 cores.
bleh...

you need more cores AMD? to compete with 4core SB?
fix your architecture and FAST
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment