New passmark benchmarks for FX-8150

Martini1991 · 1 Oct 2011 at 18:11

techpops said:
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.

When are all your cores ever used though?

If you do use all your cores, then fair enough, a 1090T is okay..

Mollari · 1 Oct 2011 at 18:24

techpops said:
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

Only thing disturbing in these numbers is they are either fake results or then theyve used broken/older stepping chip.

Again, at this point I wouldnt believe anything unless its coming directly from AMD.

Martini1991 · 1 Oct 2011 at 18:40

All the "leaks" have been around the same performance, everyone's jumping on the "IT'S A CRIPPLED ES" bandwagon, maybe it's time to accept its IPC is lower than Phenom II 9XX edition.
Who knows, it might come out kick ass, but I doubt it, we'd have seen it by now.

techpops · 1 Oct 2011 at 18:51

Martini1991 said:
You're a proper nut case.

I'll just reply to this as there isn't really a discussion going on elsewhere in this thread either. Just trolling, hate and fanboism.

I bought a new monitor from here a few weeks ago and I love it. That really warmed me to this site, but the hate from you guys has done nothing but turn me away from shopping at overclockers and taking part in the forum.

If that was your aim, mission accomplished.

Martini1991 · 1 Oct 2011 at 19:00

techpops said:
I'll just reply to this as there isn't really a discussion going on elsewhere in this thread either. Just trolling, hate and fanboism.

I bought a new monitor from here a few weeks ago and I love it. That really warmed me to this site, but the hate from you guys has done nothing but turn me away from shopping at overclockers and taking part in the forum.

If that was your aim, mission accomplished.

The only fanboyism is coming from yourself.
You're fabricating prices, and ignoring logic.

SeraphX · 1 Oct 2011 at 19:04

techpops said:
I'll just reply to this as there isn't really a discussion going on elsewhere in this thread either. Just trolling, hate and fanboism.

I bought a new monitor from here a few weeks ago and I love it. That really warmed me to this site, but the hate from you guys has done nothing but turn me away from shopping at overclockers and taking part in the forum.

If that was your aim, mission accomplished.

Silly Naive person

you post benchmark results with no pictures? no links? basically nothing, you can't even manage to find the correct price for a processor.

LOL, people here generally know what they're talking about before they post it, troll's and blaggers are generally weeded out very fast lol :rolleyes:

ScratchFive · 1 Oct 2011 at 20:03

techpops said:
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.

well if you bought the 1090T at Cu**ys (one of the largest, if not the largest computer sales businesses in the UK) for a web exclusive price of £246.81, almost any of the intel processors are under that price at ocUK so take your pick...

lollyhayes · 1 Oct 2011 at 20:05

techpops said:
I'll just reply to this as there isn't really a discussion going on elsewhere in this thread either. Just trolling, hate and fanboism.

I bought a new monitor from here a few weeks ago and I love it. That really warmed me to this site, but the hate from you guys has done nothing but turn me away from shopping at overclockers and taking part in the forum.

If that was your aim, mission accomplished.

Actually our aim was to stop you paying 290 for a 2600k, or or 140 for an EOL Cpu...

But hey, I'm also fairly happy with "turning you away" as you're clearly a head case/troll.

Leeroy123 · 1 Oct 2011 at 20:06

Tech your quoting a price 60 pounds dearer than other places, does that make sense, mmmm no

drunkenmaster · 1 Oct 2011 at 21:10

Martini1991 said:
All the "leaks" have been around the same performance, everyone's jumping on the "IT'S A CRIPPLED ES" bandwagon, maybe it's time to accept its IPC is lower than Phenom II 9XX edition.
Who knows, it might come out kick ass, but I doubt it, we'd have seen it by now.

No they aren't, these results show 37% faster than a hexcore Phenom, with 33% more cores, how does that show worse IPC exactly?

Infact ALL the leaks show higher IPC, and yes, they probably aren't final products. According to several places EVERY mobo out there will need a new and final bios update before use(this is the rumoured one to improve performance and VERY few people if any outside AMD have this yet, so your average joe who picked out a Bulldozer from where they work, distribution centre or something, won't have it).

Also, several of the leaks, because the inherant problems with overclocking and benchmark programs being stupid, are often rated against overclocked 2600k's.

http://www.overclock.net/15136591-post6839.html

for instance that, a stock 2600k actually gets around 9000 +/-100 depending on the setup, memory, margin of error. Which the 8150 is VERY close to.

So we have the POTENTIAL for faster final bioses, faster chips, and we still have no clue what speeds these chips are running, with turbo, with full turbo, who knows. The benchmark programs can't detect the speed on a 6 month old 2600k, let alone an unreleased chip.

AgedIdiot · 1 Oct 2011 at 21:37

Why do people have to make it personal - the original poster is entitled to his view, wether one agrees with it or not. (and yes he got his pricing wrong - not the end of the world )

Chill.

wannabedamned · 1 Oct 2011 at 22:06

Dude, just hush. You're giving us Barnsley lads a bad name. And although some of what you said had basis, most of it was completely unbalanced.

I care about getting the best value for money in my next CPU purchase

Comparing a 2600k to a 1090t is an instance of that is it?? People should expect criticism when posting what was for the most part... Drivel.

No one sees a 2600k as value for money, People who buy them are buying them for the extra HT performance, but they do so knowing its less about value and more about the increase. I find it strange that you dont mention the 2500k, Maybe you're actually just out of touch with whats available and its place with regards to performance and value. But if thats the case then making a thread with the inclusion of performance and value was a tad silly

Martini1991 · 1 Oct 2011 at 22:20

drunkenmaster said:
No they aren't, these results show 37% faster than a hexcore Phenom, with 33% more cores, how does that show worse IPC exactly?

Infact ALL the leaks show higher IPC, and yes, they probably aren't final products. According to several places EVERY mobo out there will need a new and final bios update before use(this is the rumoured one to improve performance and VERY few people if any outside AMD have this yet, so your average joe who picked out a Bulldozer from where they work, distribution centre or something, won't have it).

Also, several of the leaks, because the inherant problems with overclocking and benchmark programs being stupid, are often rated against overclocked 2600k's.

http://www.overclock.net/15136591-post6839.html

for instance that, a stock 2600k actually gets around 9000 +/-100 depending on the setup, memory, margin of error. Which the 8150 is VERY close to.

So we have the POTENTIAL for faster final bioses, faster chips, and we still have no clue what speeds these chips are running, with turbo, with full turbo, who knows. The benchmark programs can't detect the speed on a 6 month old 2600k, let alone an unreleased chip.

Higher stock clock?

Like I said like a week ago, take an FX6100 at the same clock as an 1100T, run fritz on 6 threads, compare, we don't know anything till launch really, everything is conjecture.

Matterez · 1 Oct 2011 at 23:27

Even if those scores are true. It still whoops the 1090T (a respectably powerful CPU) and hopefully BD will overclock better too..

As I run an Athlon II x4, when I get an 8 core BD or a 2500k or an Ivy Bridge, i'm gonna feel the extra power..

Don't even bother arguing with my post, 'cause I cba arguing back

davieg · 1 Oct 2011 at 23:40

The worrying thing is though from what I gather that should really be one of the benchmarks that BD excels in as its heavily threaded?
Maybe I've got that wrong but am sure I read that Passmark was one that suited more cores etc?

Martini1991 · 1 Oct 2011 at 23:49

davieg said:
The worrying thing is though from what I gather that should really be one of the benchmarks that BD excels in as its heavily threaded?
Maybe I've got that wrong but am sure I read that Passmark was one that suited more cores etc?

It very much will be.

gurusan · 2 Oct 2011 at 03:11

techpops said:
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.

100 more expensive? Needs a more expensive motherboard? You are 1 crazy mofo.

Here is my 2500K at 4.6GHz running cinebench with a bunch of crap running int he background. The Phenom 2 gets 7.3 with 6 cores and doesn't exactly "smoke" my 2500K with a score of 7.21

pmc25 · 2 Oct 2011 at 09:18

You guys do realise that the Intel system had an SSD & 16GB of RAM, the AMD one had 4GB and a conventional HDD.

I doubt if it's even genuine or representative of actual performance. But even if it is, I dunno what people are complaining about:

The 8 core Bulldozer at stock clocks annihalates a 2600k at 4.6ghz in Floating Point dependent operations (just the thing people were sceptical about due to the shared FPUs). It's significantly behind in integer, but you'd expect that with that kind of clockspeed differential ... the memory scores, well, the Intel system has 4x more and the BD system may well not be running at the reference 1866, plus all the memory bandwidth scores have looked very funky suggesting BIOS or microcode issues.

lollyhayes · 2 Oct 2011 at 09:24

pmc25 said:
You guys do realise that the Intel system had an SSD & 16GB of RAM, the AMD one had 4GB and a conventional HDD.

I doubt if it's even genuine or representative of actual performance. But even if it is, I dunno what people are complaining about:

The 8 core Bulldozer at stock clocks annihalates a 2600k at 4.6ghz in Floating Point dependent operations (just the thing people were sceptical about due to the shared FPUs). It's significantly behind in integer, but you'd expect that with that kind of clockspeed differential ... the memory scores, well, the Intel system has 4x more and the BD system may well not be running at the reference 1866, plus all the memory bandwidth scores have looked very funky suggesting BIOS or microcode issues.

This source: http://www.overclock.net/15136591-post6839.html

shows the 2600k at stock. More importantly the HDD and Ram won't have a huge effect on the tests in that post...
There may be some difference but the main point is that the 2600k is running stock...

DragonQ · 2 Oct 2011 at 10:27

That integer math result is shocking. Double the number cores, higher clock speed and half as powerful? :s