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.

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

#1 FreedomEclipse

~Technological Technocrat~ But will it blend?? Posted on Sep 24th 2011, 15:05 Reply

#2 btarunr

Editor & Senior Moderator FreedomEclipse But will it blend?? Yes, it will blend, its Blender rendering performance should be comparable to Core i7-990X. Yes, it will blend, its Blender rendering performance should be comparable to Core i7-990X. Posted on Sep 24th 2011, 15:06 Reply

#3 chrone

it's about time! yay :D Posted on Sep 24th 2011, 15:09 Reply

#4 LifeOnMars

Oh My....good news :) More benchmarks please!! Posted on Sep 24th 2011, 15:09 Reply

#5 FreedomEclipse

~Technological Technocrat~ still be interested in how it overclocks though. stock performance is nice and all, but were not in the habbit of not tickering here Posted on Sep 24th 2011, 15:10 Reply

#6 Frick

Fishfaced Nincompoop If this is accurate.. Sweet times ahead. Posted on Sep 24th 2011, 15:10 Reply

#7 Melvis

Surprise!!!! :roll: Posted on Sep 24th 2011, 15:10 Reply

#8 naoan

finally! or is it?



btw, afaik there's no 990x and the slide says 980x. Posted on Sep 24th 2011, 15:10 Reply

#9 Cybrnook

Shabbadooo!!!! Posted on Sep 24th 2011, 15:11 Reply

#10 JrRacinFan

Served 5k and counting ... If they want to boast numbers, show actual screenshots. Just a few slides does not have me beleiving this. Posted on Sep 24th 2011, 15:12 Reply

#11 Crap Daddy

Read more carefully. Out of 8 multithreaded tests the higher clocked 8150 8 core wins in 2 against 2600k. And that's from AMD marketing. In gaming it is compared with 980X which is under 2600-2500 performance in 95% of the games out there, and it is just able to be on par.

Cinebench is a joke, performance is worse than phenom 2 x6. 2600k has a score of 6,8 on stock speed. So look behind the marketing smoke. Posted on Sep 24th 2011, 15:15 Reply

#12 Frick

Fishfaced Nincompoop Crap Daddy Read more carefully. Out of 8 multithreaded tests the higher clocked 8150 8 core wins in 2 against 2600k. And that's from AMD marketing. In gaming it is compared with 980X which is under 2600-2500 performance in 95% of the games out there, and it is just able to be on par. Considering it was talks about how it would never be able to reach 2600k in anything it's still good news, if true. Considering it was talks about how it would never be able to reach 2600k in anything it's still good news, if true. Posted on Sep 24th 2011, 15:20 Reply

#13 DaJMasta

Looks like performance is good - let's hope power efficiency is at least in the neighborhood too.





My question is why the hell does it show memory as 1/2 the price in the example build saying you save $800. Wouldn't it be more expensive if anything since the memory controller supports higher frequencies officially? Oh marketing... Posted on Sep 24th 2011, 15:23 Reply

#14 FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!" Chart #1: FX-8150 has a natural clockspeed advantage and the 980X is an old architecture (Gulftown which is based on Bloomfield that is over two years old). Would have been more fair to leave the 980X out of it but, they did it for a reason (cherry picking).



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.



Chart #3: Fantastic! AMD processors work with instructions only their software uses. Kind of pointless.



Chart #4: Comparing to the most expensive Intel platform (LGA1356) with the second most expensive CPU (980X) proves nothing that isn't already known (its expensive). If they had a case to argue, they'd be comparing it to the price of a Core i7 2600 system...



To AMD: Give the FX-8150 to someone that isn't you to benchmark. Posted on Sep 24th 2011, 15:23 Reply

#15 Crap Daddy

I don't say it's bad news but I would not consider it to be good either. Expectations were very high. It seems that FX is having a fierce competitor in Phenom 2 X6. Would be interesting to have a clock per clock comparison between these 2. Posted on Sep 24th 2011, 15:26 Reply

#16 Frick

Fishfaced Nincompoop FordGT90Concept 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. It also shows where 2600k is so I don't really know what you're talking about here. It also shows where 2600k is so I don't really know what you're talking about here. Posted on Sep 24th 2011, 15:26 Reply

#17 FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!" They should have normalized it to the FX-8150 and/or given the actual numbers instead of percentages. Posted on Sep 24th 2011, 15:28 Reply

#18 naoan

Crap Daddy Cinebench is a joke, performance is worse than phenom 2 x6. 2600k has a score of 6,8 on stock speed. So look behind the marketing smoke. I may be missing something here, but I don't see any cinebench score on this news... I may be missing something here, but I don't see any cinebench score on this news... Posted on Sep 24th 2011, 15:28 Reply

#19 mtosev

internal amd tests aren't relevant.somebody else who isn't associated with the company should review the cpu:) Posted on Sep 24th 2011, 15:29 Reply

#20 damric

Posted on Sep 24th 2011, 15:29 Reply

#21 Frick

Fishfaced Nincompoop FordGT90Concept They should have normalized it to the FX-8150 and/or given the actual numbers instead of percentages. The first thing wouldn't really matter as the results would still be the same, the second is obvious but that is probably above marketing slides. ^^ The first thing wouldn't really matter as the results would still be the same, the second is obvious but that is probably above marketing slides. ^^ Posted on Sep 24th 2011, 15:30 Reply

#22 Crap Daddy

naoan I may be missing something here, but I don't see any cinebench score on this news... Look on the link posted to donanimhaber. There are more slides there. Look on the link posted to donanimhaber. There are more slides there. Posted on Sep 24th 2011, 15:31 Reply

#23 btarunr

Editor & Senior Moderator







I'm off for the evening.



Argue to your heart's content, but please don't flame/get personal. Report comments you don't like. :) Btw, price confirmation of $245 for the FX8150:I'm off for the evening.Argue to your heart's content, but please don't flame/get personal. Report comments you don't like. :) Posted on Sep 24th 2011, 15:36 Reply

#24 Recus





www.legitreviews.com/news/11430/ Paper benchmarks. I wonder why they didn't include SiSoft Sandra benchmarks? Posted on Sep 24th 2011, 15:43 Reply