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. Shihabyooo

    Shihabyooo

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    566 (0.41/day)
    Thanks Received:
    110
    Location:
    A sad excuse of a country called Sudan.
    Applause for what ? A self-claimed increase in performance against dated hardware ? Or maybe it's outstanding value compared to a niche product aimed for a very limited section of the market ?
    You should know better than to believe companies self-made benchmarks. Just wait for a unbiased source to do a review on them. If these numbers turn out to be accurate (against rivalling products from the same class/price range) then I'll clap my hands till they bleed.

    ^ Really, is it possible to do that ?
     
    heky says thanks.
  2. reverze

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,368 (0.55/day)
    Thanks Received:
    131
    ill be getting a bulldozer next month :) gonna save money on the CPU and not to mention the mainboard also for top performance ( more than i even need )
     
  3. erocker

    erocker Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    39,795 (13.19/day)
    Thanks Received:
    14,175
    I don't even care about screenshots. Show BD vs. 980x vs. 2500/2600K in gaming. Hmmm, what will come out on top? I already know.

    Judging by the few gaming benchmarks (especially F1 2010) it looks like BD's IMC is just a bit behind Intel's older gen. i7.

    It's going to be a great chip for the price.

    They can speak all the marketing jargon they want. Performance wise the chip either is bad at multi threading "real" cores or, it's really good "hyper threading".
     
  4. cdawall where the hell are my stars

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    Messages:
    20,683 (6.86/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,984
    Location:
    some AF base
    Never said there was no difference. Said to my eyes I could not tell. Was playing @1080p on a projector so that may have hidden some.
     
  5. NC37

    NC37

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,196 (0.55/day)
    Thanks Received:
    266
    Like you'd expect AMD internal benching to be completely accurate. Stop getting your undies sweaty over this. You all wanted benches and now your complaining cause they aren't independent. But AMD did give you benches finally.

    Performance is on par with what I was expecting. Something that can put them in the range of i7, even if low end, and something better than i5. Truthfully that is all that matters is that they at least have something they can be competitive with.

    In the end, FX will probably be akin to the Radeon 3870. It couldn't beat NV but it got in at a price point which saved ATI till 4k series. As I said before, I'd be more interested in Piledriver than BD. BD to me seemed like a small step up from Phenoms while PD was looking to change more things.

    Let the stopgap wars begin!
     
    Inceptor and MxPhenom 216 say thanks.
  6. Benetanegia

    Benetanegia New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,683 (1.44/day)
    Thanks Received:
    694
    Location:
    Reaching your left retina.
    And that has nothing to do with what I said. SB-E will have 50% more cores and will be 50% faster than SB in multi-threaded apps. Fact.

    BD seems to be on par with SB. Fact(?) according to AMD's internal benchmarks.

    A+B= SB-E will be 50% faster than BD at least in those apps where BD is faster, due to having more cores.

    SB-E is NOT the next gen. It's the high-end part of the current gen, while SB was the mid-range. It should have been obvious considering the prices for SB.

    PII was never much faster than Intel's Conroe. If a huge difference exists between Conroe and SB, it also exists between SB and PII. Many TPUers went to SB from PII's and have accounted for this massive difference. I guess it's good for you that you don't?

    Oh sure IF they can snatch those vendors, but that's a big if because Intel can always undercut AMD's price where required.

    And BD does not have IGP so I don't know wtf are you saying there. SB on the other hand does have IGP, which is why it will most probably win all those vendors. Ivy will have an even better IGP.

    Llanos and Piledrivers sure, but that's a story for another day. We are discussing Bulldozer.
     
    heky says thanks.
  7. Dent1

    Joined:
    May 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,158 (1.95/day)
    Thanks Received:
    915

    So which hardware should they have review it against :)


    So the i5 2500k and i7 2600k which came out this year are dated?

    Obviously the benchmarks are somewhat bias they are from AMD. But we can only go by the information we have at the moment whether true or not - and the information which we have right now is the AMD Bulldozer is the superior CPU. Until unbiased AMD reviews become available AMD deserve the benefit of the doubt and some applause. Let them have their victory until a unaffiliated website gets a chance to review it.
     
  8. Benetanegia

    Benetanegia New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,683 (1.44/day)
    Thanks Received:
    694
    Location:
    Reaching your left retina.
    Sandy Bridge. But in every benchmark, not only in those where it could win, while using an old and expensive CPU for gaming benchmarks and then say something as stupid as "$800 doesn't buy much in terms of performance improvement." God, stfu AMD and use a 2500k, then try to make the same claim with a straight face.
     
    heky and Shihabyooo say thanks.
  9. Dent1

    Joined:
    May 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,158 (1.95/day)
    Thanks Received:
    915
    Yes it would be nice to see Sandybridge in every benchmark and AMD's quotes were in bad taste.

    However, a few days ago the same people in this forum were saying Bulldozer will be slower than Sandybridge. Heck you guys were saying Bulldozer wouldnt touch any of the i7/i5 family including the Gulftown. The fact Bulldozer has been seen atleast on a FEW occassions to beat out Sandybridge (even if was cherrypicked results) demonstrated that AMD still proved you guys wrong.

    Edit:


    Maybe so, but the 2500k and 2600k not old


    That has nothing to do with Sandybridge vs Bulldozer. Stay on topic.
     
  10. Shihabyooo

    Shihabyooo

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    566 (0.41/day)
    Thanks Received:
    110
    Location:
    A sad excuse of a country called Sudan.
    ^ this

    The Xeon 5150 and the i7 980x are.

    I would've given them that, if they hadn't called the 6990 "the world's fastest graphics card" :shadedshu .
     
    heky says thanks.
  11. NdMk2o1o

    NdMk2o1o

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    3,444 (2.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    922
    Location:
    Redditch, Worcestershire, England
    They did and a 2600k or did you just decide to omit that because you felt like it?

    Jesus, I can't wait until BD is released so all the fanboyism (from both sides) will stop, and as has been the case with AMD for the last 5 years even if they don't take the performance crown from the prices they are going to go for should be about right for the performance they give.
     
    Inceptor says thanks.
  12. erocker

    erocker Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    39,795 (13.19/day)
    Thanks Received:
    14,175
    With things like gaming and other things where more memory bandwith is utilized, AMD FX series is slower. How much will remain to be seen. A comparison of a SB rig vs. a BD rig running CrossFire or SLi will clearly show this. That being said, BD is a winner at its price point.
     
    Shihabyooo says thanks.
  13. RuskiSnajper

    RuskiSnajper

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2009
    Messages:
    1,608 (0.78/day)
    Thanks Received:
    231
    Location:
    slovenia , europe
    no brainer ;)
     
  14. TheLaughingMan

    TheLaughingMan

    Joined:
    May 7, 2009
    Messages:
    4,998 (2.51/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,291
    Location:
    Marietta, GA USA
    Even I will have to watch for TPU to see BD in Crossfire.
     
  15. MxPhenom 216

    MxPhenom 216 Corsair Fanboy

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    10,051 (6.64/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,267
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    8 cores needed to beat 4 cores? hahahahahahahaha:roll:
     
    Recus and heky say thanks.
  16. de.das.dude

    de.das.dude Pro Indian Modder

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    7,802 (4.90/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,066
    the haha is 4 cores cost more than 3times of 8 cores. shows how you are getting ripped off.
     
    v12dock, Damn_Smooth and Dent1 say thanks.
  17. Dent1

    Joined:
    May 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,158 (1.95/day)
    Thanks Received:
    915
    I fixed it :)
     
  18. erocker

    erocker Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    39,795 (13.19/day)
    Thanks Received:
    14,175
    Hopefully it will be done, but if not I will post results.
     
    Damn_Smooth says thanks.
  19. cdawall where the hell are my stars

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    Messages:
    20,683 (6.86/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,984
    Location:
    some AF base
    NO, NOT all multithreaded apps are the same, SB will not be faster in the vast majority which cap out at 4 cores. It will not be faster in any of those same games, etc. You are also assuming multithreading is linear. It is not take cinebench a "normal HT-less" quad will often score 3.79X when multithreaded vs a single core. thats not 100% scaling just incase your math needs help.
     
  20. MxPhenom 216

    MxPhenom 216 Corsair Fanboy

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    10,051 (6.64/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,267
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    uhhh if my math is correct $219 is not 3x more then $245
     
  21. cdawall where the hell are my stars

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    Messages:
    20,683 (6.86/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,984
    Location:
    some AF base
    if my math is correct they were trading blows. wait lets use your logic intel is probably still faster at superpi no matter what. better chip cause of it right?
     
  22. MxPhenom 216

    MxPhenom 216 Corsair Fanboy

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    10,051 (6.64/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,267
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    yeah but he was like 4 cores that a priced 3x higher then 8 cores shows how much you got ripped off.
     
  23. Benetanegia

    Benetanegia New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,683 (1.44/day)
    Thanks Received:
    694
    Location:
    Reaching your left retina.
    Oh I must be blind, or maybe you can't read my post. This is not meant to be offensive, it's just that either of us is reading something wrong.

    Show me the benchmark where BD is put against SB (2500k or 2600k I don't care) in gaming benchmarks. I can't find that chart. They deliberately used the slower and much more expensive 980X for gaming and the fewer core SB for multi-threaded apps. Also whenever price or perf/price is mentioned, the 980X is again used, instead of the faster and far far cheaper SB.
     
    HumanSmoke, driver66, heky and 2 others say thanks.
  24. Dent1

    Joined:
    May 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,158 (1.95/day)
    Thanks Received:
    915
    Benetanegia. But that only holds true for gaming.

    Putting gaming aside until we have better gaming benchmarks available. We all know the 980X is faster than the Sandybridge overall (due to additional cores/threads/cache).

    It is clear the Bulldozer is as faster than the 980X, thus the Sandybridge overall. Again putting gaming aside.

    Considering that gaming is just 1 cateogry, it's fair to say the Bulldozer is faster than the Sandybridge overall and is the more well rounded choice according to the information we have right now.
     
    Inceptor says thanks.
  25. Benetanegia

    Benetanegia New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,683 (1.44/day)
    Thanks Received:
    694
    Location:
    Reaching your left retina.
    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.
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2011
    heky says thanks.

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

Share This Page