1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

AMD FX 8150 Looks Core i7-980X and Core i7 2600K in the Eye: AMD Benchmarks

Discussion in 'News' started by btarunr, Sep 24, 2011.

  1. Inceptor

    Inceptor

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    Messages:
    497 (0.43/day)
    Thanks Received:
    119
    Exactly. Marketing.

    Well, I don't know about the 'illegal and unethical' part -- many business strategies can be seen as unethical or in grey areas. Considering the market share that Intel has, I really don't think they're scared, at all. A competitor is a competitor, you do what you think is best to make sure they don't cause you to lose money.
    The day when corporations act completely upright and ethical is the day hell freezes over :laugh:

    As for the effectiveness of hyperthreading, it did work, it just did not provide the kind of performance boost seen in current hyperthreading enabled cpus. Yes, not many applications took advantage of it, but it performed its purpose. Marketing.
    The method was improved, announced, more developers came on-board, etc., performance boost. Marketing.
    Could have been done years sooner, if Intel so chose. It wasn't necessary, AMD didn't catch up to Conroe.
     
  2. random

    random

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    3,043 (1.36/day)
    Thanks Received:
    686
    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.
     
    v12dock and de.das.dude say thanks.
  3. Over_Lord

    Over_Lord News Editor

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2010
    Messages:
    753 (0.50/day)
    Thanks Received:
    86
    Location:
    Manipal
    But in general applications the FX-8150 can't beat the Core i7 2600k?

    That's a shame.
     
  4. nINJAkECIL

    nINJAkECIL New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2007
    Messages:
    235 (0.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    16
    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.
     
  5. Crap Daddy

    Crap Daddy

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2010
    Messages:
    2,764 (1.85/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,059
    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.
     
    INSTG8R and heky say thanks.
  6. cdawall where the hell are my stars

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    Messages:
    20,683 (6.78/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,984
    Location:
    some AF base
    its still only 4 modules. If they do end up working like 8 true cores i will be excited.

    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.

    Its still not a true 8 core in the same sense we are used to.
     
  7. heky

    heky

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    888 (0.47/day)
    Thanks Received:
    144
    Location:
    Slovenia, Europe
    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.
     
    INSTG8R says thanks.
  8. de.das.dude

    de.das.dude Pro Indian Modder

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    7,896 (4.84/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,115
    OH HELL YEAH!!
    its AMD!!!
     
  9. Crap Daddy

    Crap Daddy

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2010
    Messages:
    2,764 (1.85/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,059
    If you are talking about gaming then no. For 25$ more 2500K smokes the 1100T. So it's not bang for the buck.
     
  10. nINJAkECIL

    nINJAkECIL New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2007
    Messages:
    235 (0.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    16
    Exactly. That's why I called them "integer core".
    As for AMD marketing people, they would call them "core". Meh.
     
  11. Benetanegia

    Benetanegia New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,683 (1.41/day)
    Thanks Received:
    694
    Location:
    Reaching your left retina.
    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.
     
    heky says thanks.
  12. AhokZYashA

    AhokZYashA

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154 (0.53/day)
    Thanks Received:
    155
    good job AMD,
    now I'm off to go buy a 2500k
     
  13. EastCoasthandle

    EastCoasthandle New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    6,889 (1.96/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,506
    If this is true it's good news for AMD at their price point.
     
  14. cadaveca

    cadaveca My name is Dave

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    14,101 (4.47/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7,284
    Location:
    Edmonton, Alberta
    If the prices are true, it's fantastic. Good is an understatement.
     
    v12dock says thanks.
  15. xenocide

    xenocide

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    Messages:
    2,150 (1.60/day)
    Thanks Received:
    463
    Location:
    Burlington, VT
    I think the other way. If the performance is true, it's fantastic. The price's are pretty much what I expected.
     
  16. kid41212003

    kid41212003

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    3,584 (1.53/day)
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Location:
    California
    - 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:
     
  17. heky

    heky

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    888 (0.47/day)
    Thanks Received:
    144
    Location:
    Slovenia, Europe
    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?
     
  18. TheLaughingMan

    TheLaughingMan

    Joined:
    May 7, 2009
    Messages:
    4,998 (2.46/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,291
    Location:
    Marietta, GA USA
    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.

    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.

    Shop for a good bargin as prices can fluctuate based on the store.
     
  19. heky

    heky

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    888 (0.47/day)
    Thanks Received:
    144
    Location:
    Slovenia, Europe
    Nope, i am talking about the AMD slides from donanimhaber, the source we are comenting in this thread!
     
    TheLaughingMan says thanks.
  20. cdawall where the hell are my stars

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    Messages:
    20,683 (6.78/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,984
    Location:
    some AF base
    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.
    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.

    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.

    in his defense that depends on the game and it could in fact be half a frame more
     
  21. Live OR Die

    Live OR Die

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    4,025 (1.46/day)
    Thanks Received:
    422
    Nice AMDs matching a 3 year old socket only time will tell :laugh:
     
  22. heky

    heky

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    888 (0.47/day)
    Thanks Received:
    144
    Location:
    Slovenia, Europe
    If YOU cant notice a difference, that doesnt mean its not there. Not by a long shot.
     
  23. Dent1

    Joined:
    May 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,167 (1.91/day)
    Thanks Received:
    926
    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.
     
  24. kid41212003

    kid41212003

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    3,584 (1.53/day)
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Location:
    California
    I'm trading my Intel setup for Bulldozer.
     
  25. TheLaughingMan

    TheLaughingMan

    Joined:
    May 7, 2009
    Messages:
    4,998 (2.46/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,291
    Location:
    Marietta, GA USA
    Cause its the socket that has all the power.
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page