Passmark has Bulldozer Benchmark Results for AMD FX-8150

Discussion in 'Processors and motherboards AMD' started by Hayden202, Oct 6, 2011.

  1. deltatux

    deltatux Guest

    Messages:
    19,040
    Likes Received:
    13
    GPU:
    GIGABYTE Radeon R9 280
    More cores does not mean better performance, there are other factors which determines the success of an application performing on a new CPU:
    • How it's threaded
    • Is it multithreaded?
    • Is the CPU architecture efficient (measured in instructions per cycle)?
    • How does the CPU handle memory?
    • How many stages is in the processor architecture pipeline?
    • What is the CPU clock speed?

    Most applications are still single core applications in that they do not take advantage of extra cores. In this case, having more cores don't necessarily translate to performance increases but will help the operating system to offload it to the free cores in its thread management.

    deltatux
     
  2. The_Fool

    The_Fool Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,015
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    2xGIGABYTE Windforce 7950
    It's not looking good if eight cores barely does better than the i5 with four cores.
     
  3. AceTK

    AceTK Member Guru

    Messages:
    153
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    NVIDIA GTX-560TI @ 1Ghz
    Agreed. The IPC speed of bulldozer may be no better than +10% over phenomII but the core count is double so throughput is a tad below comparable to stock 2600.

    When wanting to buy you must choose

    AMD, higher wattage, similar total performance but half IPC speed of intel sandy and over more cores, slower memory, friendly price

    or

    Intel, lower wattage, can be expensive, screaming IPC, less cores, hyperthreading, extreme benchmarking, faster memory
     
  4. Psychlone

    Psychlone Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,686
    Likes Received:
    2
    GPU:
    Radeon HD5970 Engineering
    This here, gentlemen, is a civilized discussion - as opposed to the multitude of threads that somehow got approved for the "news" forum that ALWAYS ended up in flames and eventually the reason that I stepped out and decided that I was pretty much done with these forums altogether.

    After some careful consideration, and because of YOU, the people with level heads that have posted in this very thread, I've decided to stick around, but at a very limited capacity...


    So, just for conjecture sake, what IF this FX-8150 happens to fall in between the performance of the 2600K and the 2500K?? For instance, how many of YOU will immediately jump to Intel because AMD has failed to take the performance crown?
    Alternately, if the FX-8150 were priced like "they" say it's going to be, I have to ask who in their right minds - or ANY mind at all - would prefer paying 5 times as much for little to no gain?

    This is not flamebait, I'm just asking a simple question to those that have already proven themselves to be of sound mind.


    Here's my little inside take on the matter: IF people have it in their heads that AMD was going for the performance crown all along, they need look no further than AMD's own updated business model set out a couple years ago to stand corrected.
    I, for one, appreciate the performance that some of the *actual* benchmarks have shown compared to their Intel counterparts... because of the price per performance ratio.

    IMO, anyone that drops AMD based solely on them not achieving a crown for performance on one chip or another has more money than brains.

    However, IF it's actually proven that AMD's new architecture is on par or even better for specific tasks, and does it for significantly cheaper, then what about all those guys that jumped ship for Intel, laughing at AMD all the way?? Do we get to hunt them down and make them apologize or rub it in their faces?

    LOL. Just a quiet little discussion to make people think. Intellectual stimulation is always nice... but damn those threads in the "news" section bring out the worst in people - and the worst people.


    Psychlone
     

  5. sykozis

    sykozis Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    22,492
    Likes Received:
    1,537
    GPU:
    Asus RX6700XT
    AMD previously stated that they had no intention of trying to compete against Intel in the "High-End" market. Also, what does it really matter who produces the fastest processor? As long as the processor does what it's designed to do....what difference does it make if it's the fastest consumer processor available this week?
     
  6. mercenary223

    mercenary223 Guest

    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    gfg 8800gt 512mb
    I love the advances AMD is making. Did anyone else notice that the amd 8150 doesn't show the clock speed. I am going on a limb and saying it is factory clocked. I believe the 2600k is faster then the regular 2600 because the k is unlocked multiplier and might be in a better setup for overclocking. . Either way if the
    amd 8150 is $250.00 or less I am upgrading.
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2011
  7. Erro

    Erro Guest

    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    GTX780, +140MHz
    Really looking forward to Hilbert's proper review, I must say!

    A dutch website had featured a review of the 8150 with some benchmarks. The page has been taken off line, but here a cache link or the google translate version. Looks like it fits in between 2500 and 2600.
     
  8. Psychlone

    Psychlone Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,686
    Likes Received:
    2
    GPU:
    Radeon HD5970 Engineering
    Erro, doesn't surprise me a *bit* that the page was taken offline... breaking NDA is a serious offense, and I guarantee you someone lost their job over that one.

    @everyone else in this thread: I *COMMEND* you all for being polite and not going off on "Intel pwns" rants.
    FWIW, I'm extremely excited for the NDA to lift and for information to finally shut some people up (none of you guys, of course, deserve to be "shut up")


    Psychlone
     
  9. EffKay

    EffKay Guest

    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Sapphire HD4870 512MB
    Yes it's always amusing, in some macabre way, to witness the firmness of conviction that can be formed out the merest scraps of data and little information available.

    So many many people are so sure and confident and firm in their convictions that the new AMD CPU will be terrible, horrific, smell like old socks and will steal your lunch etc etc...

    For the record I have one of the so-called "inferior" Phenom CPUs. That's one of the first Phenoms, more specifically the x4 9850 Black Edition (B3 of course) and after a good few years it's still going strong.
    Alright I admit to having to need to moderately overclock it to ~3GHz but it wasn't too much of a stretch and with the tweak or two, it remains one the fastest and most responsive machines I've worked on and I've worked on all other permutations. AMD and Intel for the record.
    In comparison to (for example) an i7 2630 equipped Dell XPS 15, the "slow" Phenom makes even this high-end PC tardy in comparison.

    Which of course speaks of the principle that the fastest possible speed is limited by the component with the highest frictional drag (or latency in Geek speak)

    I just want to add a wish onto yours and wish that, at least some of the people who decry the new CPU, first get one and see for themselves and do their own measurements and hopefully form their own opinions about it before writing it off.
     
  10. Erro

    Erro Guest

    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    GTX780, +140MHz
    Agree.

    Like all other benchmark threads, I still take anything I see with a grain of salt. From wednesday onwards, I'll be anxiously monitoring the hardware review section of this site.
     

  11. Scorch666

    Scorch666 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,874
    Likes Received:
    23
    GPU:
    RTX 4060 laptop
    I agree.
    Swings and roundabouts.
    @ the end of the day it aint much in it.
     
  12. ---TK---

    ---TK--- Guest

    Messages:
    22,104
    Likes Received:
    3
    GPU:
    2x 980Ti Gaming 1430/7296
    if it does turn out the flagship amd is between a 25k, 26k. thats a win in my book. whats the price on this chip? I would not see the other chips as a viable option though imo. the 4-6 cores might not be able to catch an i5, i7. wait and see though when the nda is lifted
     
  13. burebista

    burebista Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,740
    Likes Received:
    36
    GPU:
    MSI GTX1060GAMING X
    Our guys from lab501 did a preview for FX-8150.
    Enjoy. Or not. :(
     
  14. thatguy91

    thatguy91 Guest

    Engineering sample?
     
  15. Indigo

    Indigo Guest

    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    XFX Radeon HD 5870 x 2
    I know others have commented on threading and such, but I feel it's important to touch again on the subject of the Bulldozer core. I'm sure you guys have all heard this before, but something very important to realize here with Bulldozer is that each "core" is actually a module of two cores, each module has a full ALU, but they share an FPU unit. Bulldozer has been likened to "un-hyperthreading" in some of the material I've seen.

    So in actuality, an 8 core BD is comparing favorably with a 4 core Intel means pretty good stuff for me.

    I own one of those Acer Aspire One netbooks with the C-50 in it, and even at 1GHz it spanks my Intel Atom 1.66 GHz netbook at work. There's going to be (as is usually the case, and I'm sure you guys know this) more than meets the eye. and yes, I realize the Atom is not Intel's "big boy" processor, but the C-50 sure performs like one.

    I for one welcome our new Bulldozer overlords. But I am waiting to see official results before I pull the trigger on a new AM3+ mobo. ;)

    I am not going to jump ship to Intel as long as AMD provides the most value for my dollar, and they've not strayed from that in my eyes for a long, long time.
     

  16. burebista

    burebista Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,740
    Likes Received:
    36
    GPU:
    MSI GTX1060GAMING X
    Dunno.
     
  17. king-dubs

    king-dubs Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    2
    GPU:
    3090 FE
  18. The_Fool

    The_Fool Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,015
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    2xGIGABYTE Windforce 7950
    In that case I hope that the scheduler is doing things as efficiently as possible. If a program is running that needs at most 3 cores, then it should be assigned to run on 3 different modules without sharing resources between cores on the same module. That way it has the performance needed for lightly threaded applications.
     
  19. TheHunter

    TheHunter Banned

    Messages:
    13,404
    Likes Received:
    1
    GPU:
    MSi N570GTX TFIII [OC|PE]
    Well it doesn't look so good, still..

    But yea lest wait 2-3 more days and all will be clear :nerd:
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2011
  20. ---TK---

    ---TK--- Guest

    Messages:
    22,104
    Likes Received:
    3
    GPU:
    2x 980Ti Gaming 1430/7296
    if its true the 8 core is the only viable option for amd users. no word on the 4-6 core performance?
     

Share This Page