New passmark benchmarks for FX-8150

[techpops]

I can't say whether the following results are accurate but they come from a respected benchmarking tool and were just released today, namely Passmark7 so chances are these are fairly close to accurate, unless anyone here knows better.

OK so the FX-8150, AMD's top of the line desktop CPU scores, compared to Intel and AMD's older offerings.

CPU overall score

Intel Core i7 995X @ 3.60GHz 10945
Intel Core i7-2600 @ 3.40GHz 8941
AMD FX-8150 8681
AMD X6 1090T overclocked 7290
AMD X6 1100T 6314

Just looking at this is depressing for me. I was really hoping the 8150 would be significantly faster than the 1100T

I still need to see more benchmarks, especially cinebench which relates perfectly to what I use the cpu's for, Cinema 4D for 3D work but also that moving to an expensive 990FX board, which is something you have to do if you want to be able to later take advantage of even faster CPU's from AMD and make use of everything the CPU's have to offer, well it just doesn't look that attractive to me anymore.

A cheap AMD board that can run a 1090T is still a beast compared what Intel offers at the same price point and holds its head up even against Intels more popular monsters. For instance check the following multithreaded CPU results in Cinebench as published on their site.

Intel Core i7 980 @ 3.79Ghz £stupid money 12.19
Intel Core 17 2600K @ 3.4Ghz £293 8.12
AMD X6 1090T @ 4.23Ghz (overclocked) £140 7.30

Yes its unfair to compare standard with overclocked but I don't care what's fair. I care about getting the best value for money in my next CPU purchase. So while I know I can overclock the 2600K brilliantly, it's still £293 and the motherboards are still expensive, and its lifespan is still limited with motherboard types changing so quickly on the Intel side.

So far I'm concluding that the best value for money for 3D rendering is a 1090T on a decent but cheap board with a third party air cooler so it can be overclocked reliably. My dreams of a bulldozer chip that's twice as fast as the 1100T seem to be all but dashed and without at least doubling in speed, there's really no point in upgrading IMO. I should also add that for gaming this isn't the same. My needs are for as many cores as I can get with as much ghz as I can get. Games benefit more from quadcore chips that are rated higher than the AMD X6 cores so even AMD's own quadcore chip is better for gaming and intel wipe the floor on clock speed for quad cpu's.

I'm currently on one of the old AMD Quad 620's overclocked which gets 3.60 in cinebench so that 1090 gets me my doubling in performance and I dont even need to change my motherboard.

Hope this is of some use to any 3d heads looking for bulldozer info and I actually hope the passmark scores are way off and the 8150 ends up being better than these scores suggest. Have to wait a few weeks yet I guess.I'm also dying to see if the 1090T drops in price. I can see its already dropping a bit on some sites, including this one.

 

[djkav]

Yes its unfair to compare standard with overclocked but I don't care what's fair. I care about getting the best value for money in my next CPU purchase. So while I know I can overclock the 2600K brilliantly, it's still £293 and the motherboards are still expensive, and its lifespan is still limited with motherboard types changing so quickly on the Intel side.

Same can be said for AMD. AM3+ is already gonna be superseded by FM2. So really, AM3+ is already a dead socket before its properly come out.

I know I won't be going AMD route until at least FM2 platform and Piledriver.

 

[Martini1991]

Since when was the 2600k 293 quid?

 

[Surveyor]

i7-2600k £233.99 at OcUK

 

[techpops]

Since when was the 2600k 293 quid?

Since today at ****** and other big retailers.

 

[Sin_Chase]

Since today at ****** and other big retailers.

Other peoples RRPs does not make the chip cost that much. It just means people are selling it for that much. I thought that was rather obvious?

 

[techpops]

i7-2600k £233.99 at OcUK

I should have checked prices here but already had a tab open with another site so just grabbed all the prices from there. Overclockers is cheaper for both intel and AMD.

 

[Surveyor]

Since today at ****** and other big retailers.

That's irrelevant when you can buy it for £233.99 from OcUK.

 

[drunkenmaster]

Firstly, that Bulldozer result is 35% faster than the x1100t, secondly, its likely to overclock further than the x1100t, thirdly, due to no links I have no idea where those numbers have come from, thirdly they don't indicate single thread scaling, nor if its a great benchmark for showing the difference between the chips. Its also going from AMD being 40% behind the 2600k, to being what, 5% behind.......thats awesome, Haswell is TWO years away and before then Ivy is only a 5% clock for clock IPC increase, with minor clock speed boosts(though overclocking might have higher increase). This is awesome news for AMD, being within 5% of Intel's top end chip for the next 2 years is MILES ahead of where they've been for the past 4 years. Also Sandybridge is an excellent chip, matching it is no mean feat, at all, its a huge jump forwards. Also its the first of many in a new architecture, which is always the least efficient and least tweaked, because you learn the most from the first chip in real world usage, and incorporate things into the next chip. AMD will likely gain a lot more IPC in their next two chips than Intel will. Which is why I've been so optimisitic about AMD's next two years. Bulldozer very competitive to Intel, Trinity being awesome as an APU with a gpu Intel won't come close to for years.

For instance Handbrake, 1st pass, 3 threads, 2nd pass, I don't even know, unlimited, 6 threads, 8 threads, 12, but it gives vastly different results for different core numbers, a hexcore AMD being thumped by a 2500k in pass one, and getting very close to a 2500k in pass two.

Thirdly, your comparison that the hexcore is a great option because of the cinebench result.... its heavily overclocked vs a stock 2600k, which is still 15% faster, and overclocks very very well, with the same overclocks it would be what, around 50% faster, for around, 50% higher cost....... making the AMD chip not a bad option, but not a "beast" either.

 

[techpops]

Same can be said for AMD. AM3+ is already gonna be superseded by FM2. So really, AM3+ is already a dead socket before its properly come out.

I know I won't be going AMD route until at least FM2 platform and Piledriver.

I think you can plan ahead so far as to never actually get anything. AMD has a history of giving us motherboards with long lives. I've read nothing that changes my mind on that. I know later next year when the 8170's come out and maybe other models that are much faster will all run on 990FX's under AM3+ At least that's the impression given from the tech sites talking about this. I've read nothing concrete about FM2 that would make me want to wait beyond AM3. But happy to read that if you can link me up where you got your info. that's put you off so much as to abandon AMD altogether.

 

[HangTime]

Yes its unfair to compare standard with overclocked but I don't care what's fair. I care about getting the best value for money in my next CPU purchase.

If that's a case then why compare a 2600K at stock speed with an overclocked AMD? Surely a better comparison would be with an overclocked 2500K, which is priced much much closed to the 1090T? I mean, if you are looking for value for money then it would make more sense to look at cheaper Intel chips if you think the 2600K is overpriced, rather than just look at the more expensive ones and then dismiss the prospect.

 

[techpops]

Firstly, that Bulldozer result is 35% faster than the x1100t, secondly, its likely to overclock further than the x1100t, thirdly, due to no links I have no idea where those numbers have come from, thirdly they don't indicate single thread scaling, nor if its a great benchmark for showing the difference between the chips.

For instance Handbrake, 1st pass, 3 threads, 2nd pass, I don't even know, unlimited, 6 threads, 8 threads, 12, but it gives vastly different results for different core numbers, a hexcore AMD being thumped by a 2500k in pass one, and getting very close to a 2500k in pass two.

Thirdly, your comparison that the hexcore is a great option because of the cinebench result.... its heavily overclocked vs a stock 2600k, which is still 15% faster, and overclocks very very well, with the same overclocks it would be what, around 50% faster, for around, 50% higher cost....... making the AMD chip not a bad option, but not a "beast" either.

The results come from passmark, I didn't think I needed to post a link to it, being such an industry favourite benchmark that I thought everyone knew about.

http://www.passmark.com/

Here are the benchmarks from passmark.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/

I think you're all about the speed and if I had unlimited cash, I would be too but I have to put price on equal footing with speed. So that 35% boost in speed doesn't actually look very attractive when I'd need a high end motherboard and what are going to be more expensive AMD FX chips, I still don't know the final price in the UK. As I said, I only ever upgrade the CPU when its giving me a doubling in performance. Something I can really feel and make use of. 30% isn't enough for the investment required but if it is for you, then great.

Also I don't really care about handbrake or encoding. That's obviously important to you so you have to base your buying decisions around that. The main application I use is Cinema4D which makes full use of extra cores. The more you give it, the faster it goes and the happier I am.

And I'm still happy to call the 1090T a beast. That's twice as fast as my current CPU and when compared to an Intel i5 of the same price, it smokes it in Cinebench. That's just one specialist use though and I appreciate for most people who aren't all about multithreaded apps it isn't a first choice.

 

[techpops]

If that's a case then why compare a 2600K at stock speed with an overclocked AMD? Surely a better comparison would be with an overclocked 2500K, which is priced much much closed to the 1090T? I mean, if you are looking for value for money then it would make more sense to look at cheaper Intel chips if you think the 2600K is overpriced, rather than just look at the more expensive ones and then dismiss the prospect.

I acknowledged the 2500 can overclock very well but it doesn't change that its more than £100 more expensive and needs an expensive motherboard. Also cinebench benchmark site didnt have a score for an overclocked 2500 on air so couldn't really give an accurate score for that. All I had to go on was the stock 2500.

 

[Martini1991]

Since today at ****** and other big retailers.

Some random high price doesn't make a 2600k 280 quid.

I acknowledged the 2500 can overclock very well but it doesn't change that its more than £100 more expensive and needs an expensive motherboard. Also cinebench benchmark site didnt have a score for an overclocked 2500 on air so couldn't really give an accurate score for that. All I had to go on was the stock 2500.

The 2500k and 1100T are near the same price.
Are you justifying buying a crap AMD processor?

 

[techpops]

That's irrelevant when you can buy it for £233.99 from OcUK.

Quoting prices from the biggest computer retailers in the UK is irrelevant is it? I see. So you're saying that any time anyone mentions a price on anything, they should conduct a country wide exhaustive search to find the absolutely lowest price or consider anything they post as irrelevant?

OK. I call BS on that. I think its fine to post a price from a major retailer as long as other products you're quoting prices on are from that same major retailer. It would be unfair to find a really cheap price on an AMD chip and then quote the price for an Intel one from PC World.

And I've already admitted it would be better to quote the lowest price you can find but that wasn't the point of the post and the point still stands that the 2500 is £100 more for a very small boost in performance and a still not that great leap when overclocked. So your nitpicking doesn't really change anything.

 

[Martini1991]

You're a proper nut case.

 

[tabletf5]

Ignorance is bliss, We clearly have an AMD fanboy here that is blind to logic.

Leave him to it.

 

[drunkenmaster]

The results come from passmark, I didn't think I needed to post a link to it, being such an industry favourite benchmark that I thought everyone knew about.

http://www.passmark.com/

Here are the benchmarks from passmark.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/

I think you're all about the speed and if I had unlimited cash, I would be too but I have to put price on equal footing with speed. So that 35% boost in speed doesn't actually look very attractive when I'd need a high end motherboard and what are going to be more expensive AMD FX chips, I still don't know the final price in the UK. As I said, I only ever upgrade the CPU when its giving me a doubling in performance. Something I can really feel and make use of. 30% isn't enough for the investment required but if it is for you, then great.

Also I don't really care about handbrake or encoding. That's obviously important to you so you have to base your buying decisions around that. The main application I use is Cinema4D which makes full use of extra cores. The more you give it, the faster it goes and the happier I am.

And I'm still happy to call the 1090T a beast. That's twice as fast as my current CPU and when compared to an Intel i5 of the same price, it smokes it in Cinebench. That's just one specialist use though and I appreciate for most people who aren't all about multithreaded apps it isn't a first choice.

Sorry but everything you said is wrong, and beyond daft.

Firstly, doubling performance is only happening with the x1090t, because you've got a VASTLY cheaper cpu to start with, its utterly ridiculous to say a cpu that will come out and replace the hexcores at similar pricing should have double the performance and if it doesn't its dissappointing.

By your theory, a X4 athlon could be a beast, if you had a £20 old athlon XP you got a while back.

IF you had a quad core phenom that you got for £150 at launch, and you bought a £150 x1090t at launch, you'd have paid the same, and gotten no where near double the performance, anything from 0-40% depending on the benchmark.

I've never used passmark, I'm not into encoding, nothing in my posts indicate that encoding is important to me, I mentioned Handbrake BECAUSE of the reasons I said, in various benchmarks chips are being used differently, one chip can be 50% behind another chip in one benchmark, and 50% ahead of it in another. I have no idea how passmark works, as many cores as possible, cache limited, memory bandwidth intensive, single threaded, what, without that the comparison means nothing.

There will be an octo core priced around the £150 mark, where the current hexcores are. As I said before, just because you're talking about doubling your cpu performance, because you bought a vastly cheaper cpu and are then comparing it to a far more expensive one, its madness, you simply can't base any comparison on what a chip should offer based on that.

Where did I say I was all about the speed, another conclusion pulled from your rear end, infact, considering I suggested the 2600k was circa 50% ahead, for roughly the same cost, I was pretty obviously comparing value, which suggested both chips were pretty much of equivilent value, from that one benchmark. What has value got to do with all out performance, where did I say I'd only buy a 2600k because its faster, where did I mention the 980X at all?

As for high end mobo's, well for a change Z68 mobo's are relatively cheap, even I was fairly surprised by that, £72 for the cheapest "high end" mobo for a Sandy, what makes a mobo high end, having more features you pay for, or supporting the latest chips. In which case, it will cost no more for a mobo for a x1090t than a mobo for the highest end, or lowest end Bulldozer, nor significantly different in price to the cheapest Sandybridge mobo.

You seem to be saying that a x1090t is a beast, when a x8120 will be, 25-30% faster than it, for the same price, that will work in the same mobo.........yeah, the x1090t is great, to be fair they aren't both out yet, and when they do the x1090t price will drop but your entire reasoning for what makse the x1090t great, is flawed beyond belief.

IF the x1090t is double the performance of your current CPU, then, the 8120 will be EVEN FASTER, for the same price, but you're dissappointed in it.

 

[techpops]

Ignorance is bliss, We clearly have an AMD fanboy here that is blind to logic.

Leave him to it.

How can I be an AMD fanboy when I just posted how dissapointed I am with AMD's new lineup and what a let down it seems to be?

Show me a deal where I can get an Intel set up that gives me at least as much performance as even a standard clocked 1090T when using all the cores in a multi threaded app for less, even £1 less and I'll look into buying it. Yeah a real fanboy we have here.

 

[HangTime]

the 2500 can overclock very well but it doesn't change that its more than £100 more expensive

You need to change where you shop if a 2500k is £100 more expensive (you quote the 1090T at £140 so £240 sounds quite frankly ridiculous for a 2500k, that's more expensive than a 2600k!)