• 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

mastrdrver said:
It appears as though someone took official slides and modified them so as to "look" official with the i7 being more on top.
Click to expand...

Or the other way around.
 
Just noticed on a front page the FX-8120 related news - approx. 6 days left, last days to polish architecture, test revisions & officially launch 'em @ - what - night of October 12/noon October 13? Probably. When will they give a samples (prefferrably rev. B2) to all tech sites including TPU? At October 12? Good; have to give all CPUs - meaning, quad-, hex- & octo-cored ones. :toast:
 
Interesting how AMD is keeping this all very quiet. Also the fact they finally called a CPU "FX" which was originally waiting for the next high end CPU design deserving of this FX name. Plus once again, in those AMD slides, providing they are for real, still claim to be 50% better performance. I assume clock for clock, but it could very well mean Price/Performance.

Either way, I see a WIN for AMD, now lets see these babies in action... :toast:
 
its a bunk review

1100T is pretty much on par with the 8150 in cinebench 11.5 which is cpu agnostic it uses w.e the fuck you throw at it.

that review is utter crap lol
 
TheLaughingMan said:
I call BS for several reason, but lets start with: http://lab501.ro/procesoare-chipseturi/amd-fx-8150-bulldozer-preview/10

wPrime does give a "score" and that time needed to finish from the AMD 1100T....if it was in seconds that is. I know, because I ran it twice today.
Click to expand...

crazyeyesreaper said:
its a bunk review

1100T is pretty much on par with the 8150 in cinebench 11.5 which is cpu agnostic it uses w.e the fuck you throw at it.

that review is utter crap lol
Click to expand...

I call BS due to the fact some of those scores are worse then my 1090T. Sorry but I ain't buying it. However if that review is to be believed then we are all screwed. 12th can't come fast enough.
 
I really want to believe that this review is BS, but I'm afraid that I will find the same results @ launch day:(

Here is Monstru (the reviewer) answers...

screenshot218x.jpg
 
the review is BS,

lets move on, the asshat who did the review is just another moron his stats and benchmarks make no sense if you start cross reference his scores with Phenom II scores it makes it even more readily apparent
 
If this is true, get PII X6 while you still can. It is just as fast and costs less... If this is true I will make a lawsuit against AMD for disappointing me, and misusing my trust into buying AM3+ board for nothing...
 
It's sooo sad. Even being an Intel fanatic I would have wanted a decent performance from this revolutionary chip. Noone expected this I think. I think the (p)review is mostly reliable as the people who made it are some of the best in the enthusiast segment, and they have won the MSI oc cup a few days ago and wouldn't want to ruin their reputation with a fake review. So it might be disappointing, but true.
For a first impression it's very bad, but thinking of improvements with later revisions or BIOS updates it might be able to catch the 2500K and have a reasonable power consumption compared to the rival. Over 200W seems unlikely to be true for just a small bump in performance, but considering the fact that this is what was measured it worries me a bit... consuming more than a 6950/70 for a CPU.
 
ivicagmc said:
If this is true, get PII X6 while you still can.
Click to expand...

That is what i am thinking of doing , can't imagine how the 4100fx would perform probably be outperform by the good old PII :shadedshu

Anyhow ill wait for the official release/benchmarks of the Bulldozer FX before making my final decision (stick to AMD or go Intel) & beside i am not buying anything for my PC until Christmas time so i can wait a bit more...
 
zsolt_93 said:
It's sooo sad. Even being an Intel fanatic I would have wanted a decent performance from this revolutionary chip. Noone expected this I think. I think the (p)review is mostly reliable as the people who made it are some of the best in the enthusiast segment, and they have won the MSI oc cup a few days ago and wouldn't want to ruin their reputation with a fake review. So it might be disappointing, but true.
For a first impression it's very bad, but thinking of improvements with later revisions or BIOS updates it might be able to catch the 2500K and have a reasonable power consumption compared to the rival. Over 200W seems unlikely to be true for just a small bump in performance, but considering the fact that this is what was measured it worries me a bit... consuming more than a 6950/70 for a CPU.
Click to expand...

Huh? what are you looking at? the slides that have been given to us, and are more credible then any other shows it up with a 980X and 2600K and beats the 2500K by 30%, god even a 1100T looks at a 2500K eye to eye. (just not in games)

So unless your blind your statement is irrelevant!
 
This review is totally legit. Check other forums and understand the huge dissapointment. There's no reason to deny it.
 
Melvis said:
Huh? what are you looking at? the slides that have been given to us, and are more credible then any other shows it up with a 980X and 2600K and beats the 2500K by 30%, god even a 1100T looks at a 2500K eye to eye. (just not in games)

So unless your blind your statement is irrelevant!
Click to expand...


I was talking about this, which was posted above... nothing to do with those marketing gimmick slides. it shows just the opposite and people say it's legit, so? No equality with 2600 or 980 there.
 
If this is true, BD is just a big fail. Revolutionary architecture my ass. It has higher clocks, bigger cache and still lags behind Intel. Not to mention SB is almost a year old now. Weak.
 
Crap Daddy said:
This review is totally legit. Check other forums and understand the huge dissapointment. There's no reason to deny it.
Click to expand...

zsolt_93 said:
I was talking about this, which was posted above... nothing to do with those marketing gimmick slides. it shows just the opposite and people say it's legit, so? No equality with 2600 or 980 there.
Click to expand...

:laugh: From a site ive never heard of, not in English and with a dodgy CPU-Z shot like that you have gotta be joking?

And BD isnt even out officially.


Ill wait till a "real" review reviews it thanks. (TPU/Guru3D)
 
^ Trust me , is the real deal. A big disappointing Bulldozer... :shadedshu

As you wish...
 
Day said:
^ Trust me , is the real deal. A big disappointing Bulldozer... :shadedshu
Click to expand...

nah. i'll wait on proper results.
 
The review case out of an aris, I call it Bullshit...... That picture of the AMD FX looks like a photoshop IMO.
 
Melvis said:
:laugh: From a site ive never heard of, not in English and with a dodgy CPU-Z shot like that you have gotta be joking?
Click to expand...

There is a CPU-Z validation link in page 3.

Anyway, the review was done with an enginering sample (8150P) so I wouldn't put much weight in it. We already knew that the first steppings didn't perform well and this preview just proves that. If reviews aren't done with a B2 they aren't relevant.

On the other hand, don't expect a miracle either; AMD has always stated that Core i5 class performance is the goal.
 
Last edited:
Legit or fake, it's still moral breaking for people with AM3+ boards ready to install their BD chip. We could've gotten SB boards months ago if just people could have benched these earlier. This however seems like another of AMD's marketing tricks, to stall SB sales untill their bring a less performing but cheaper chip on the market for variance. In either case, I doubt this review is fake, perhaps doesn't show the full potential performance, but it's probably a good indication of overall performance
 
TRWOV said:
There is a CPU-Z validation link in page 3.

Anyway, the review was done with an enginering sample (8150P) so I wouldn't put much weight in it. We already knew that the first steppings didn't perform well and this preview just proves that. If reviews aren't done with a B2 they aren't relevant.

On the other hand, don't expect a miracle either; AMD has always stated that Core i5 class performance is the goal.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about. He is using a B2 stepping FX-8150 chip. It says so in the CPU-z screenshot, which is the latest version for BD reviewers also. He is also using the latest bios version for the C5F.(from 3.october)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top