• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

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

official Test

hello techp forums and peeps.
Heres an official bench, posted this weekend.

8150 is about 17 proc's down @ 8,600+
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

so im guessing the 8170 released down the road will be up to the Intel EX SB's.
not bad not bad,

this will be my 1st "personal" AMD build in 10yrs, but i've built alot for others...
i cant wait
 
sk said:
so im guessing the 8170 released down the road will be up to the Intel EX SB's.
not bad not bad,
Click to expand...

If the FX-8170 is 10% faster than the FX-8150, then yes, at stock speeds, it will probably be in the SB-E stock range. But somehow I doubt that the overclock performance will be any different than the FX-8150. They are both from the same processor line, after all. Unless the FX-8170 has an improved IMC...
 
Inceptor said:
If the FX-8170 is 10% faster than the FX-8150, then yes, at stock speeds, it will probably be in the SB-E stock range. But somehow I doubt that the overclock performance will be any different than the FX-8150. They are both from the same processor line, after all. Unless the FX-8170 has an improved IMC...
Click to expand...

Normally the fastest CPU is deved then the lower models are gained from it, so the IMC could be slower on the 8150 or clock speed could be slightly less cuz they cant obtain the clock speed they want etc
 
Inceptor said:
If the FX-8170 is 10% faster than the FX-8150, then yes, at stock speeds, it will probably be in the SB-E stock range. But somehow I doubt that the overclock performance will be any different than the FX-8150. They are both from the same processor line, after all. Unless the FX-8170 has an improved IMC...
Click to expand...
FX 8170 is based on Bulldozer, not Piledriver. Piledriver should use a different name such as FX 9150, 9170 etc....

LINK:
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/20887/amd_fx_8150_to_take_on_core_i7_980x_and_2600k_pushes_them_up_against_a_wall_and_mugs_them_of_their_price_performance_crown/result.html
 
One thing bugs me, in all threads like that & in this one especially that there's no mention of something quite important for me (& i bet for some of you too): what revision are those? If rev. B2 - ace; if C0 - quite a dream.

Besides, it should be more important than whether to buy Dozer or wait for Piledriver: wait & buy rev. C0 FX-8150; unless PileDriver actually is rev. C0. If there is a slight chance there will be rev. C0 FX-8150 right or soon after rev. B2 - dream. :toast:
 
nt300 said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inceptor View Post
If the FX-8170 is 10% faster than the FX-8150, then yes, at stock speeds, it will probably be in the SB-E stock range. But somehow I doubt that the overclock performance will be any different than the FX-8150. They are both from the same processor line, after all. Unless the FX-8170 has an improved IMC...

FX 8170 is based on Bulldozer, not Piledriver. Piledriver should use a different name such as FX 9150, 9170 etc....
Click to expand...

Yes, but we're talking about FX-8170 vs FX-8150, not Piledriver.
To link it to your line of thought, think about this: If Piledriver is going to be 10% faster than Bulldozer, which BD cpu are they talking about, the 8150 or 8170? Then link that to reports of the 8170 being either, 1) up to 10% faster than the 8150, or 2) simply 200Mhz faster than the 8150.
Either way, the purported Piledriver performance increase may be on top of the 8150-to-8170 purported performance increase.

Conjecture: FX-8150 + 200Mhz? + 10% performance = stock Piledriver?:cool:
[That would be ~16% stock performance increase over a stock FX-8150, if true.]
 
Last edited:
The estimate 10% increase over an unknown estimate .............. the 12 can't come fast enough
 
My desire is the best bang for the buck, and without spending more than half a grand on a processor. My guess is that those numbers are neither spectacular enough, nor dismal enough, to be too far in the extreme, which puts them close enough to middle to suit me. So, the math is simple. For the price, the 'Dozer 8-core will be the best purchase. Put it on a Crosshair, and squeeze the trigger ;)
 
Ahhzz said:
My desire is the best bang for the buck, and without spending more than half a grand on a processor. My guess is that those numbers are neither spectacular enough, nor dismal enough, to be too far in the extreme, which puts them close enough to middle to suit me. So, the math is simple. For the price, the 'Dozer 8-core will be the best purchase. Put it on a Crosshair, and squeeze the trigger ;)
Click to expand...

Shoot any AM3+ Motherboard just about, I think U can get some really good numbers out of AsRock n GB, MSI I dunno
 
Ahhzz said:
My desire is the best bang for the buck, and without spending more than half a grand on a processor. My guess is that those numbers are neither spectacular enough, nor dismal enough, to be too far in the extreme, which puts them close enough to middle to suit me. So, the math is simple. For the price, the 'Dozer 8-core will be the best purchase. Put it on a Crosshair, and squeeze the trigger ;)
Click to expand...
That is what I am doing, getting a new setup ready for Rage, Skyrim and Diablo III :D
It includes the AMD FX 8150 with a Crosshair V Formula along with a nice 16GB of DDR3-1866 G-Skill RipJaw or what ever they call it:D
 
Super XP said:
That is what I am doing, getting a new setup ready for Rage, Skyrim and Diablo III :D
It includes the AMD FX 8150 with a Crosshair V Formula along with a nice 16GB of DDR3-1866 G-Skill RipJaw or what ever they call it:D
Click to expand...

Max 7 HP 64bit supports is 16GB so Id say if you plan on more get Pro or Ultimate
 
Actually the big problem for AMD is not the performance gap but the fact that intel will focus on power reduction and not performance with ivy. So they'll try to offer a marginally better performance for half the power of BD/PD. And unless Glo Fo magically manages to catch up to intel's manufacturing process AMD has nothing in response...So for the sake of AMD i hope that BD can scale in power efficiency.
 
HalfAHertz said:
Actually the big problem for AMD is not the performance gap but the fact that intel will focus on power reduction and not performance with ivy. So they'll try to offer a marginally better performance for half the power of BD/PD. And unless Glo Fo magically manages to catch up to intel's manufacturing process AMD has nothing in response...So for the sake of AMD i hope that BD can scale in power efficiency.
Click to expand...

For some people, they just want the raw clock speed, some prefer the performance per cost numbers, and some like the power efficiency. Personally, I don't care how much the draw is. I've got a Corsair enthusiast 750 waiting for it, and I'm not concerned. I don't particularly see AMD concerned that if they're not efficient enough, that people won't buy, but that's my opin...
 
eidairaman1 said:
Max 7 HP 64bit supports is 16GB so Id say if you plan on more get Pro or Ultimate
Click to expand...
Socket AM3+ spports 32GB of Dual-Channel ram. Windows 7 x64 Ultimate supports a lot more than that.
 
nt300 said:
Socket AM3+ spports 32GB of Dual-Channel ram. Windows 7 x64 Ultimate supports a lot more than that.
Click to expand...

Yes I know, it supports 192GB I believe, but to not be capped at 16GB you need Win 7 64 Pro or Ultimate
 
eidairaman1 said:
Yes I know, it supports 192GB I believe, but to not be capped at 16GB you need Win 7 64 Pro or Ultimate
Click to expand...



buy technet = problem solved, multiple ultimate keys!
 
Looking forward to the Bulldozer Launch!!!! :D
 
Looking forward to the Bulldozer Lunch!!!! :laugh:

30001633128653944634000.jpg


Sorry, had to. :p


6 more days! :rockout:
 
Found this article about Bulldozer...

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9220590/AMD_s_first_eight_core_desktop_processors_detailed Oct 5 2011

The FX-8150 and FX-8120 processors are part of the re-launched FX family of chips, which are pitched as high-performance parts aimed at gaming machines and other high-end systems. The FX chips are based on AMD's new Bulldozer architecture, which provides a speed boost of 50% or more compared to its predecessor, according to AMD.
Click to expand...

The chips will compete with Intel's high-end Core i7-990X Extreme Edition
Click to expand...

But...
AMD plans to launch the FX chips this quarter but can't yet give a specific date, said AMD spokesman Phil Hughes, who declined to comment further about the chips.
Click to expand...

More wait?
 
Googe Cache

Check the bottom of those slides. They say October 12th. Do you really think that AMD is going to commend on something that is under NDA? Reason demands a no answer.

Also note this image
7dcf774d14a2521055029436ee66f0e2.png


Notice that the FX and i7 parts are switched from this slide
116c.jpg


It appears as though someone took official slides and modified them so as to "look" official with the i7 being more on top.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top