• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD FX 8150 close to Core i7-980X and Core i7 2600K ?

xtremedetailz

xtremedetailz

xtremedetailz

Soldato
Joined
16 Jun 2010
Posts
3,462
Location
Manchester
New slides from AMD leaked by way of Donim haber.

In a press deck of AMD FX Processor series leaked AMD claims huge performance leads over Intel. AMD claims 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.

Check out the slides here:

fullimage3php.jpg


fullimage2php.jpg


fullimage1php.jpg


fullimagephp.jpg





What you guys think ??
 
fullimage3php.jpg


Being that a 980x and 8150 can use the same ram, how is the 8150s cheaper :confused: even using triple channel the difference isn't that much.

Also judging by a) the price compared to a 2600k and b) that iirc amds llano benchmerk scores were out from realworld tests by a small margin, i doubt an 8150 will beat a 2600k in a lot of realworld situations. Although in heavily multithreaded apps it probably would.

Hopefully im proved wrong and a 8150 is cheap and beats a 2600k in everything though :D
 
That's some good marketing by AMD targeting enthusiasts. Whilst we don't make up the lions share of the market are a very profitable part of the market and both company's recognise this and if they didn't Intel and AMD would bother wasting time developing and marketing 'extreme' 'K series', 'FX series' etc chips.
 
What the HELL are those graphs.

Especially the last one. 100% of WHAT?!

The only one which makes any sense is the core one where you would EXPECT AMD to pull ahead, and it does not. They picked a STUPID ££££ 980X 6 core system for the cost comparison then picked a 4 Core i7 for the More Cores = More Performance.

Cherry picked statistics on meaningless graphs. Who gives a rats arse if an AMD chip is 56x faster in some mathematical process nobody cares about?
 
100% = 2500K / 980X.

Yes, it's just marketing b****x. The 8150 should really be compared to a 2600K. What clocks used as well. I wouldn't put too much in what AMD says, and wait for independent reviews.
 
Once again proving that statistics can show anything you want then too.
I'll reserve judgement untill the benchmarks come out. If AMD come out on top then fair game, I would love to see them back on top, but I'm not going to run out and buy a new motherboard and processor for a minor performance increase.
 
Best to take these sort of thngs with more salt then i put on chips which is quite a bit. Until independent benchies are done i am not getting excited over BD anymore been going on for so long i have got hype burn out.
 
i think that we should keep everything in one thread , and they have to be fake as my 1090t gets over 7 pts on cinebench while bulldozer clocked to 4.8ghz gets 5.8 pts, so as gareth said it is fake
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom