• 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.

New passmark benchmarks for FX-8150

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...

If you read further down it seems to be worked out that the 2600K isnt at stock and is clocked , and Passmark isnt picking it up due to some multiplier bug,

Supposedly these are the ones at clock for clock.

http://www.overclock.net/amd-cpus/791495-bulldozer-blog-live-687.html#post15137769
 
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.

you don't care what's fair? o rly? surely only a fair comparison allows you to determine which is the best value? the ONLY reason you would choose to compare an overclocked phenom II against a stock i7 is because you've already made up your mind which one you think is "better" and are trying to justify it to yourself.

since you're pretty new to the forums i'll apologise on the behalf of everyone here if it seems we are putting you down. your opinion is as valid as the next guys however, we are simply trying to avoid you basing your purchasing decisions on incorrect/incomparable data. in these forums the best prices to quote are ones directly from ocuk itself. they are usually the cheapest or near-cheapest trustworthy retailer on the net.

2600k - £234 passmark at stock = 9967
1090t - £130 passmark at stock = 6051
FX-6100 - £110-£140 passmark at stock = 6372

source: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html (i assume that "AMD Six-core" is the FX-6100)
prices from ocuk. i had to guess the price for the FX as we don't know yet, so i just did a range.

so let's do a value calculation...

9967/234 = 42.6 for the 2600k
6051/130 = 45.5 for th 1090t
6372/140 & 6372/110 = between 45.5 % 57.9 for the FX-6100

as you can see even at the most expensive price it might be at (i would bet money it won't be more than £140) the FX-6100 is the same value at stock as the 1090t. bearing in mind it will overclock significantly better, it is hence quite a bit better value.

comparing the 1090t and the 2600k, you are correct in that the 1090t offers marginally better value at stock. however the 2600k overclocks significantly further, and absolutely destroys the 1090t in applications which use less than 6 threads. therefore imho the 2600k is in fact also better value than the 1090t.

taking motherboards into account, my conclusions still stand as the cheapest decent boards available for each chip are around the same price. maybe a bit cheaper for the 1090t but not enough to swing the balance.

hopefully you can follow my reasoning and see why people were criticising the way you had it in your OP. we're only trying to help you
 
Last edited:
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.

95% of us are in no way associated with OcUK. if you don't like us, that's no reason not to shop with them. they are highly regarded for a reason.
 
Damn !

Just had a look at the passmark score and it's very poor indeed. At the moment general apps are not SMP optimized so I would rather have a faster per core cpu like a 2500k

Disappointing, disappointing, disappointing.
 
Damn !

Just had a look at the passmark score and it's very poor indeed. At the moment general apps are not SMP optimized so I would rather have a faster per core cpu like a 2500k

Disappointing, disappointing, disappointing.

Eh? Did you see the other bit about how that passmark cant differentiate between stock and clocked and thus lumps all the scores into one score?
How many people you think are running stock in the 4881 samples of 2600k runs or are no 2600k able to get above stock speeds when running a passmark bench?, compared to the 1 sample of the 8150 run?
More notice should be taken against the 2600 score, which is pretty close to the 8150, but even so the 2600 could still be averaging overclocked, we dont know if the 8150 was clocked or not and if Passmark can pick that up, but to me it seems to be pretty close to the 2600 on that one benchmark.
 
Last edited:
Eh? Did you see the other bit about how that passmark cant differentiate between stock and clocked and thus lumps all the scores into one score?
How many people you think are running stock in the 4881 samples of 2600k runs or are no 2600k able to get above stock speeds when running a passmark bench?, compared to the 1 sample of the 8150 run?

Fair point, I didn't noticed the sample depth. However I thought passmark only recorded samples at stock anyway ?
 
Fair point, I didn't noticed the sample depth. However I thought passmark only recorded samples at stock anyway ?

Obviously not or the 2600K and 2600 would be near enough the same score wouldnt they?
Or is the difference in the integrated GPU that much and would it effect the benches that much?
 
Last edited:
OP i am a bit surprised that you had hoped that BD would be significantly faster than a 1100T, it looks to be 30% faster on the figures you quote, at stock.
Thats amazingly fast in comparison.
Still behind SB but by now everyone thought it would be anyway.
 
Still doesn't detract from comparing 8 physical cores vs 4 and for that reason alone it's a very poor score

Or if you look at it its kind of 8C/8T vs 4C/8T look at the price and performance in what you want it to do and if it works out a duffer leave well alone. As there is some contention on whether a module is 2 cores or what being as there own patent states a module as a single core.
But were not gonna know of these results until there in peoples hands using them for regular day to day use and get the results, not effected by peoples bias and inability to run the right settings to get the best out of their CPUs.
 
Back
Top Bottom