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
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.
854 Comments on AMD FX 8150 Looks Core i7-980X and Core i7 2600K in the Eye: AMD Benchmarks
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
im happy with my SB now lol
back like the old Athlon which trumps the P4's
im not a fanboy or whatever you call it.
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.
Beside i view Bulldozer FX8150 more like a 4 cores with 8 hardware threads then a real 8 cores CPU...
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
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.
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?
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
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
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?
Not enough is known about performance to determine who trumps who yet.