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
EarthDog
Its as fast as a 2500/2600k Way to catch up!!!
Posted on Reply
#2
Lionheart
Well I know what I will be getting in 3 weeks, fuck yeah I can't wait to sell off my x58 platform + SSD and GTX 580, wooo :rockout::respect:

Stop arguing you fagboys:toast:
Posted on Reply
#3
EarthDog
That wasnt hate. Im proud of AMD for doing that! :)

Let me ditch the LOL up there! Done.
Posted on Reply
#4
LAN_deRf_HA
I'm inclined to wait for real reviews with some real benchmarks. On another note, are these 4 cores going to be the same as the "8" core but without the essentially hyperthreading? Making them like the 2500k? Or are their 4 cores going to be really dual cores?
Posted on Reply
#5
Jegergrim
The fact that AMD succeeded to reach this performance, with this price looks promising for 2012, not lacking a whole year behind intel in tech, I'm anxious to see their piledriver vs ivy bridge, we might finally have good price wars again
Posted on Reply
#6
MikeMurphy
LAN_deRf_HA said:
I'm inclined to wait for real reviews with some real benchmarks. On another note, are these 4 cores going to be the same as the "8" core but without the essentially hyperthreading? Making them like the 2500k? Or are their 4 cores going to be really dual cores?
I agree. No sense in jumping to conclusions so early.

They market them as 4 module / 8 core. This is traditionally known as 4 'cores' running 8 threads.

Hopefully the performance scales almost linearly from single-thread to multi-threaded workloads. The tech makes quite a bit of good sense, just like Intel hyper-threading.
Posted on Reply
#7
a_ump
This is great, though this simply brings AMD up to par. Maybe with the next family of chips from BD design they'll push past intel. Though my thinking is Intel has things in their possession that is held back incase AMD ever do break ahead of them. I mean with their income and how they've been baby-stepping performance the last 4 years(allowing AMD to catch up), i'd expect some monster to be waiting in the intel dungeon.
Posted on Reply
#8
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.
Posted on Reply
#9
TheGuruStud
Recus said:
Paper benchmarks. I wonder why they didn't include SiSoft Sandra benchmarks?

http://www.legitreviews.com/news/11430/ http://i56.tinypic.com/2e1sp3m.gif
For one, all benchies out they are fake (especially sandra) and two, that has to be one of the worst pieces of software ever written.

Also, don't believe that intel plays fair and actually achieves good performance by a good design. They cheat extensively.
http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49
Posted on Reply
#10
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
FordGT90Concept said:
Chart #2: Why is everything normalized to 2500K? I'll tell you why, it makes little differences look bigger. Take with a leathal dose of salt.
Price point I am sure AMD will probably drop prices in a week or two to hit the $220 price of the 2500K.

MilkyWay said:
8 cores vs 4 cores i would be surprised they couldn't match the i5 2500k, IMO its bollocks that it needs double the cores to just match it. Im more interested in those 6 core and 4 core bulldozer performance.

Still i call fud on everything until i see multiple random reviewers get their hands on them.
4C/8T these dozer chips are not real 8 core chips.

Recus said:
Paper benchmarks. I wonder why they didn't include SiSoft Sandra benchmarks?

http://www.legitreviews.com/news/11430/ http://i56.tinypic.com/2e1sp3m.gif
because sisoft sandra is a big steaming pile of shit. not to mention that has less proof than the AMD slides thats just a damn graph someone made without mentioning which chips they used what memory they used what motherboard they used.
Posted on Reply
#11
Rookienoob
Now... I wonder how many of the FX-8100's that will run at FX-8120 speeds @ 125W TDP...
It's a 11% speed bump, so at 30% TDP increase isn't totally unrealistic, right?

Considering even 8120's are going to run at 95W eventually, I guess it's not at all impossible.
Posted on Reply
#12
DannibusX
I was gonna buy a Bulldozer chip regardless, just to support AMD. I'm glad initial information shows good performance and I can't wait to see TPU's performance reviews.
Posted on Reply
#13
BrooksyX
Glad to see some real numbers and things a looking good. Don't regret going the 2500k route but if I was upgrading today I would definitely consider Bulldozer!!! Go AMD. Let the price war begin.
Posted on Reply
#15
Inceptor
a_ump said:
This is great, though this simply brings AMD up to par. Maybe with the next family of chips from BD design they'll push past intel. Though my thinking is Intel has things in their possession that is held back incase AMD ever do break ahead of them. I mean with their income and how they've been baby-stepping performance the last 4 years(allowing AMD to catch up), i'd expect some monster to be waiting in the intel dungeon.
AMD won't take the CPU crown away from Intel, unless Intel runs into a wall with their CPU architecture, which is not likely to happen again.

Intel hold back quite often... hyperthreading was introduced with their single core Pentium 4s, but not used again until first gen i3/i5/i7. They held it in reserve, in case AMD caught up in performace... it was like the hidden not-so-secret nitro system under the hood ready to kick in if there was ever any threat.

Hyperthreading was reintroduced, producing a very large performance boost.

Marketing.

Intel has the money and resources to 'hold things in reserve'. Tech that we're seeing now, from them, could probably have been produced 2 to 3 years ago.
Posted on Reply
#16
semantics
mmmmm marketing slides, where they slow jerk to their own performance numbers, Still wonder how it will oc(on air and with all the cores on =p), looks like in the multi threaded department they hit the numbers they wanted ie around sb.
Posted on Reply
#17
Steevo
If this is true I will need a new motherboard, RAM, and chip. Will a AM2 bracket fit the newer boards?


Wonder if they have hardened their IMC so it will handle 16GB of RAM with good timings.
Posted on Reply
#18
TheGuruStud
Intel doesn't hold anything back. They are limited by manufacturing and their own big hardheadedness. You can't make chips with 250w TDPs, no one is going to buy them lol.

Hyperthreading was dropped b/c it was crap and didn't work. It was made for marketing since AMD was wiping the floor with them. It still has to be turned off for some apps b/c you'll get negative performance. It was reintroduced once they incorporated it into their uarch and software was optimized.

Intel isn't comfortable enough to "hold back". You don't spend billions using illegal and unethical business strategies to knock AMD down b/c you're so secure with your prowess. You do it b/c you're scared.
Posted on Reply
#19
Benetanegia
Wow so they compare gaming performance against the 6 core Extreme chip, which costs 4x more, while being slower than Sandy and they compare multi-threaded performance against 4 core CPUs, where the 6 core chip would be faster, and to top it off it loses in most of them. Really funny. Not.

I knew it would be a dissapointment and that SB-E and Ivy would eat BD alive.

TheGuruStud said:
Intel isn't comfortable enough to "hold back". You don't spend billions using illegal and unethical business strategies to knock AMD down b/c you're so secure with your prowess. You do it b/c you're scared.
Intel is definately holding back for the past 2 years at least. There's absolutely no reason they could not release a 3.6-3.8 Ghz SB.

They definately cheated in the P4 era, and I wish they had been punished a lot harder than they were for that, but since Conroe they have been constantly beating AMD over and over.
Posted on Reply
#20
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
TheGuruStud said:
Intel doesn't hold anything back. They are limited by manufacturing and their own big hardheadedness. You can't make chips with 250w TDPs, no one is going to buy them lol.
thats a dirty lie i would buy several of them.

Benetanegia said:


I knew it would be a dissapointment and that SB-E and Ivy would eat BD alive.
says who? did you already get SB-E and Ivy benchmarks?
Posted on Reply
#21
TheGuruStud
cdawall said:
thats a dirty lie i would buy several of them.
Ok, almost no one :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#22
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
cdawall said:
4C/8T these dozer chips are not real 8 core chips.
That isn't what AMD says. From their own marketting slide: "4 extra cores"...

TheGuruStud said:
Hyperthreading was dropped b/c it was crap and didn't work. It was made for marketing since AMD was wiping the floor with them. It still has to be turned off for some apps b/c you'll get negative performance. It was reintroduced once they incorporated it into their uarch and software was optimized.
I don't think there is a single app today that HT has to be turned off in. In fact I had one of the first HT processors, a 478 P4, and never had to turn it off. There were some apps that ran slightly better with it off, but nothing that was really noticeable.
Posted on Reply
#23
Benetanegia
cdawall said:
says who? did you already get SB-E and Ivy benchmarks?
Simple math. 4 core SB matches BD even on multi-threaded apps (and on AMD's own cherry picked benchmarks). 6 cores, a 50% increase in resources, will simply obliterate BD.

Ivy Bridge will probably attain higher clocks, even if it doesn't its die size alone will destroy any real option for AMD to undercut Intel's prices, if so Intel wants. Which will not happen anyway, because Intel needs AMD as a competitor to avoid monopoly.
Posted on Reply
#24
nINJAkECIL
cdawall said:
4C/8T these dozer chips are not real 8 core chips.
I believe these AMD FX cpus with 4 modules are indeed has 8 integer core, not like hyperthreading. In Hyperthreading, 1 core are able to run 2 threads, while in Bulldozer, each interger core (I wouldn't call them only "core"), has their own L1 data cache, and each integer core has its own integer datapath and integer scheduler, while sharing L2 and L3 cache in one module.
Posted on Reply
#25
Inceptor
TheGuruStud said:
It was made for marketing since AMD was wiping the floor with them.
Exactly. Marketing.

TheGuruStud said:
You don't spend billions using illegal and unethical business strategies to knock AMD down b/c you're so secure with your prowess. You do it b/c you're scared.
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.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment