Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by ViperXtreme, Sep 24, 2011.
man i hope this ain't fake..now imagine what an 5ghz fx can do..
Umm, of course it will beat another processor in a specific benchmark if it has an instruction set the other one doesn't. What really matters is how it performs in gaming.
"AMD Benchmarks", you see wthat they did there?
Remember this :
Seems credible to me. Some of the benchmarks show it losing to the i7 2600k. I'm excited to see them anyway
Ah, so cut it by maybe half and call it good.
Only reason why im believing this is because they show that some or half the benchmarks, the i7 2600k beats it. So seems like they aiming for "Fair and realistic" benchmarks.
Uh no, notice it starts at 0.8... it's claiming a maximum of 25% over the 480, which I'm sure it can do.
All I'm hoping for is that when overclocks are taken into account that AMD can offer the same performance as Intel at an equal price. If they can offer the same performance at a lower price, then they might actually start a comeback.
Agreed, and if it is then competition in the cpu market is back!
First of all they should have pitted the gaming benchmarks against the 2600K but then it would have shown 8150 losing to a similar priced processor and they wouldn't have any comparison. Considering the FX 8150 has twice the integer cores of the 2600K and a decent clock speed advantage this bench shows BD being clock for clock slower. We will wait and see. Either way BD is going to be good for everyone when it comes to price cuts, cause I am sure intel is just waiting.
An 8 core CPU barely nudging past a quad core. I really don't see what there is to be impressed with?
a 6970 is on par with a 480/570 and sometimes a TINY bit faster...and sometimes vice versa...btw im an amd/ati fan...
these benchmarks look and feel like the one released a few years ago when they compared their weak outdated barton based athlon xp 3200+ with a 400fsb to intels then new 800fsb pentium 4 3.2 with 1mb cache and hyperthreading...
thats because you dont know how to interpret this.
first off, its facing a quad core with ht that isnt quite an 8 core but still has good advantages over no HT..benchmarks have proven this.
But the main thing you are missing is price/performance which is the biggest concern..if 2600k is selling for $300+ and 8150fx is $250 and slightly faster...then you have a win....and if your wanting to compare further, compare tdp/wattage used and see which one is what etc...but how many cores should NOT matter when it comes to raw performance...id take a single core cpu if it proved to be faster then a 10 core..
all these are BS for me..i need real benchmarks...professional job done...not some theories about what amd fx is capable of...:banana:uke2::biggun:
So how exactly are these benchmarks different than the ones released a couple days ago? They look pretty much the same.
The 2600K is selling for 300+ with no competition, now that there is Intel can easily just drop the price. Not to mention Ivybridge is just around the corner. AMD needed to come out with something game changing, not slightly better and cheaper.
It looses in every benchmark except in three. To be honest these PR slider tell nought. In any case competition is good.
intel has been over pricing the cpus for years, cause people buy it what ever prices it is. and it seem amd is starting to get there act together performance wise. while still keeping there prices low.
One would think intel would realize this and actual price similar considering intel is no longer much better then amd. a Quad core beating a 8 core. is not something intel should be happy about considering it costs less, and still beat the 8 core even if it a lil bit.
And this coming from a person that hate AMD CPU and would never build a computer with them