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
Volkszorn88
by: AhokZYashA
BD have 8 cores.
bleh...

you need more cores AMD? to compete with 4core SB?
fix your architecture and FAST
Do you want AMD to fix their architecture fast because you're unhappy with your intel chip? Only reasoning I can think of over your distraught.
Posted on Reply
#2
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: cdawall
its still only 4 modules. If they do end up working like 8 true cores i will be excited.
And each module has 2 cores on it. Kind of like the Intel approach of duct taping two single-cores to get a dual-core, then AMD marketting their processors as "true dual-cores", then Intel duct taping two dual-cores together to get their quad-cores, and then AMD marketting their "true quad-cores". Except it is AMD doing it this time, so I don't think they will put that type of marketting spin on it...

If sharing L2/L3 is enough for you to consider two or more cores a single core, then the Core 2 Duo was a single core, the Core 2 Quad was a dual core, and the i7's are single cores...:shadedshu
Posted on Reply
#3
Damn_Smooth
by: AhokZYashA
BD have 8 cores.
bleh...

you need more cores AMD? to compete with 4core SB?
fix your architecture and FAST
It's not core count that matters, it's performance.
Posted on Reply
#4
AhokZYashA
by: Volkszorn88
Do you want AMD to fix their architecture fast because you're unhappy with your intel chip? Only reasoning I can think of over your distraught.
im just stating that AMD's architecture is not as good as intel

im happy with my SB now lol
Posted on Reply
#5
Volkszorn88
by: AhokZYashA
im just stating that AMD's architecture is not as good as intel

im happy with my SB now lol
So why would Bulldozer be any concern to you if you're perfectly happy with your SB? No need to make a pointless fan-boy comment.
Posted on Reply
#6
AhokZYashA
by: Volkszorn88
So why would Bulldozer be any concern to you if you're perfectly happy with your SB? No need to make a pointless fan-boy comment.
as i say earlier, im just stating that AMD should fix their architecture.

back like the old Athlon which trumps the P4's

im not a fanboy or whatever you call it.
Posted on Reply
#7
Damn_Smooth
by: AhokZYashA
as i say earlier, im just stating that AMD should fix their architecture.

back like the old Athlon which trumps the P4's

im not a fanboy or whatever you call it.
If these benchmarks and prices are true, there is definitely nothing wrong with the architecture.
Posted on Reply
#8
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: Damn_Smooth
If these benchmarks and prices are true, there is definitely nothing wrong with the architecture.
So you don't think requiring 8 cores to trump 4 core processors in Multi-threaded apps doesn't indicate that there is something wrong with the architecture?
Posted on Reply
#9
Damn_Smooth
by: newtekie1
So you don't think requiring 8 cores to trump 4 core processors in Multi-threaded apps doesn't indicate that there is something wrong with the architecture?
Not if it works.
Posted on Reply
#10
AhokZYashA
requiring double amount of cores to trump 4 cores in multithreaded apps, definitely have something to do with its architecture.
Posted on Reply
#11
Jstn7477
I don't really understand why everyone is shitting on BD because it can't beat an i7-2xxx. Did you forget about something called Phenom II? Phenom II has been out for 2+ years and SB has only been out for 9 months, yet just because AMD can barely match Intel means it's the end of the world for some reason.

If it beats Phenom II (which is still quite adequate for me) then it's a winner to me. (Notice how all my systems are AMD by the way, so don't pull the fanboy crap with me.)

Just because it's new doesn't mean it is 100% better than everything in existence. A 2011 Prius won't beat a 2010 Camaro unless you're talking fuel consumption.
Posted on Reply
#12
Damn_Smooth
by: AhokZYashA
requiring double amount of cores to trump 4 cores in multithreaded apps, definitely have something to do with its architecture.
What you are saying doesn't mean a thing. It's the price/performance that matters. I don't care how many cores are in any CPU as long as it performs, and neither should anyone else, really.
Posted on Reply
#13
Goodman
by: AhokZYashA
requiring double amount of cores to trump 4 cores in multithreaded apps, definitely have something to do with its architecture.
4 cores 8 threads , 8 cores 8 threads where is the difference?

Beside i view Bulldozer FX8150 more like a 4 cores with 8 hardware threads then a real 8 cores CPU...
Posted on Reply
#14
KieranD
by: TheMailMan78
Honestly I don't get all this bickering. These are MARKETING SLIDES. You know meant to SELL SOMETHING?! These are not a biased review by a third party like TPU. These slides are by AMD. They are garbage. Why fight?

Second keep things in perspective. Most people do not run multi GPU setups. So what advantage will SB have over BD other then that? If even that?! Will your E-mail open in 3 nano seconds with Sandy rather then 4 nano seconds with BD? BD will give you 150 FPS in Bad Company 2 when Sandy will give you 200 FPS? I mean really? Most console games run at 30 FPS! 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.

The amount of audio encoders and 3D animators are like .5% of the market. So for you I say buy the fastest. Get the super charger. For everyone else buy the cheapest. The regular old Super Snake with its pissy 500hp.

Its about perspective. Lets not lose it.
Its like some car manufacturer brought out a nice car and it wiped the floor with the current Lamborghini models so Lamborghini decide hmmmmn lets make a slight redesign of the car stick on an extra 100bhp. Yeah well not exactly but its like AMD was getting its ass handed and needed to bring out this thing with "modular" fake cores threads whatever it is just to keep up. In the end i guess it comes down to price IF it truly can match a Sandybridge, i mean the i5 2500k is only about £160 right now which i dont find that expensive.
Posted on Reply
#15
AhokZYashA
i5 2500k is 4C/4T

BD is designed and build to compete with the i5's

and for AMD requiring 8 cores is something

and for mussels at the bottom, i5 2500k is slightly cheaper from BD
Posted on Reply
#16
Mussels
Moderprator
if it needs 8 cores to match an intel with 4 cores and 4 threads, but costs less... whats the problem?

if it still performs just as good, who gives a shit about the performance crown? processors are just part of a tool (computers), its stupid to get to uppity about who has the best tools.
Posted on Reply
#17
mastrdrver
by: newtekie1
So you don't think requiring 8 cores to trump 4 core processors in Multi-threaded apps doesn't indicate that there is something wrong with the architecture?
And where does 8 cores lose to the 4 core 2500k? The 2600k is not a 4 core since it can handle 8 threads unless your implying that the 2500k = 2600k in performance?

Surely not though.

The 4 core 2600k does not always trump the 4 core 2500k. The more threaded the program (usually) the better performance you get from the 2600k over the 2500k. Like wise, the better the program is at multi threading, the closer to 2600k performance you get out a 8 core BD.

So where is the broken architecture? Is it with AMD or Intel?.......or in reality it depends on the program?
Posted on Reply
#18
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: Damn_Smooth
What you are saying doesn't mean a thing. It's the price/performance that matters. I don't care how many cores are in any CPU as long as it performs, and neither should anyone else, really.
Only in the short term. I would prefer that AMD get their asses in gear and actually start to compete with Intel on the high end, and that won't happen if they need 8 cores just to compete with 4. So if that trend continues they will need 16 cores to compete with Intel's planned 8. And with their much lower profit margins, they will have far less R&D funds, and will only continue to fall behind until they can't compete. I personally don't want to see that.

by: Goodman
4 cores 8 threads , 8 cores 8 threads where is the difference?

Beside i view Bulldozer FX8120 more like a 4 cores with 8 hardware threads then a real 8 cores CPU...
I assume you also think the Core 2 Quads were only 2 cores with 4 hardware threads then?

by: mastrdrver
And where does 8 cores lose to the 4 core 2500k? The 2600k is not a 4 core since it can handle 8 threads unless your implying that the 2500k = 2600k in performance?

Surely not though.
So... Your argument is the 2600K isn't a 4 core processor. If you believe that, you shouldn't be in a discussion about processors. Sorry, the 2600K is a 4 core. Just because each core can do two things at once doesn't mean they are magically considered 2 cores. I can type and chew gum at the same time, I'm not two people.
Posted on Reply
#19
Damn_Smooth
by: newtekie1
Only in the short term. I would prefer that AMD get their asses in gear and actually start to compete with Intel on the high end, and that won't happen if they need 8 cores just to compete with 4. So if that trend continues they will need 16 cores to compete with Intel's planned 8. And with their much lower profit margins, they will have far less R&D funds, and will only continue to fall behind until they can't compete. I personally don't want to see that.



I assume you also think the Core 2 Quads were only 2 cores with 4 hardware threads then?
They already have 16 core server CPU's. It's not like they can't easily translate that to desktop.
Posted on Reply
#20
AhokZYashA
by: mastrdrver
And where does 8 cores lose to the 4 core 2500k? The 2600k is not a 4 core since it can handle 8 threads unless your implying that the 2500k = 2600k in performance?

Surely not though.
the 2600k IS a 4 core CPU, but it has HyperThreading which exists since the P4 era.
that doubles the amount of thread in each core.

that said 2600k have 4 physical cores.

but the BD have 4 integer cores and 8 physical cores inside their hood
Posted on Reply
#21
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: Damn_Smooth
They already have 16 core server CPU's. It's not like they can't easily translate that to desktop.
Obviously they can't, or they already would have. And have you seen the cost on 12 core Opterons? Yeah, a pittiful 2.2GHz will cost you $1,300! Yeah, turns out when you start using all that silicon those prices start to skyrocket. Oh, and in desktop environments the 12 core gets it ass handed to it in pretty much everything by a SB processor.
Posted on Reply
#22
Damn_Smooth
by: newtekie1
Obviously they can't, or they already would have.
Show me an 8 core Intel CPU available today. The fact is that they don't need one right now.
Posted on Reply
#23
AhokZYashA
by: Damn_Smooth
Show me an 8 core Intel CPU available today. The fact is that they don't need one right now.
i think they have from the Xeon 7xxx or something like that
CMIIW

intel doesnt need 8 core desktop CPU because 4 intel cores can trump 8 AMD cores.

i dont see the point where intel should do that.
4 cores is sufficient
Posted on Reply
#24
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: Damn_Smooth
Show me an 8 core Intel CPU available today. The fact is that they don't need one right now.
Xeon X7560.

But yeah, you are right, when Intel's 6 core processors are outperforming AMD's 12, an 8 core isn't really necessary. But it sure is nice they offer it. Now where is AMD's 16 core processor to compete with Intels 8 core w/ HT that is already out?
Posted on Reply
#25
Damn_Smooth
by: AhokZYashA
i think they have from the Xeon 7xxx or something like that
CMIIW

intel doesnt need 8 core desktop CPU because 4 intel cores can trump 8 AMD cores.

i dont see the point where intel should do that.
4 cores is sufficient
Who has a Xeon?

Not enough is known about performance to determine who trumps who yet.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment