Even so, when we ran our encoding benchmarks, which focus on tests capable of using all eight cores, the FX-8150 didn’t exactly shine. The Core i5-2500K was slightly faster when using HandBrake, while it was worlds faster in TMPGEnc XPress, not to mention it blasted the FX-8150 in the x264 HD Benchmark. To think that the FX-8150 had twice as many cores to play with and it still came up short, really speaks volumes about the core efficiency of the Sandy Bridge processors.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
« OCZ RevoDrive 3 X2 480GB · AMD FX-8150, FX-8120, FX-6100 and FX-4170
· Synology DiskStation DS712+ and DX510 »
pages 1 2 3
|
Makaveli |
Posted on: 10/14/2011 09:41 PM
Lol the reason he seems delusion is because he is an AMD Fanboy who is cheap trying to defend his loyalty plain and simple. Who in their right mind would say the fx8150 is faster than the 2600k? do yourself a favor Save as just stop responding you're just making yourself look dumb and totally bias. |
|
ProX |
Posted on: 10/15/2011 01:44 AM
@ SaveA$ - What are you smoking? As Steve said the FX-8150 has a tough time competing with the cheaper 2500K. The 2600K is far superior so its a stupid comparison. The FX range might become more appealing in time but right now it makes no sense to buy into the platform. |
|
Steve Posts: 80 Joined: 2010-02-08 |
Posted on: 10/15/2011 01:48 AM
Posted by Makaveli on 10/14/2011 10:41 PM
While I agree with what you are saying about the FX / Core i7 comparison I have to say I was not going for dumb or totally bias. I was simply trying to back up my conclusion which happens to align with the other 20 – 30 made on launch day. I any case I have made my point regarding the comparison and I had no plans to peruse it further. |
|
Henryl |
Posted on: 10/15/2011 07:13 AM
By reading the reviews, I agree it's kinda disappointed or maybe we should blame the software developers. I found these products useful at least for video encoding/transcoding atm. Can't wait to see how they perform while running 2xGPUs in crossfire/SLI mode. |
|
SaveA$ |
Posted on: 10/18/2011 10:00 AM
While i already stated several times that 2600k is generally faster, and tried to make a point about a new product that is not FACTUALLY as much as failure as many people believe, You seem to be in some kind of panic and instead of making a conversation where you prove your sayings by facts (which I did, using your test results), you say unsuported statements while being insulting towards me. Well since i do not understand what your problem is, i come to the conclusion that you are simply rude and possibly suffer some mental handicap, which is fine, i wish you allways be like that!!! Well if i am delusional you must be as well. More importantly you must be absent of your own test. As i already mentioned several times i am refering to Maya and Solidworks, serious software!!! Your test your results!!! So unless you are also illiterate, which seems the case, then: “By the results of your test is clearly evident that 2600k is left behind FX-8150 by a cosiderable performance percentage, which combined with the higher price tag leaves intels processor even in a worse position, in some occasions of course and not in all.” IS A FACT not gibberish talking like yours!!!!!!! With regard to my previous comment, YOU state the following: """"The Maya benchmark delivered similar performance trends. Again the AMD FX-4170 delivered the best performance, while the FX-8150 was not far behind. When compared to the Phenom II X6 1100T the FX-8150 was 55% faster, while it was just 7% faster than the Core i7-2600K""" and then with regard to your other statement: """"I’m sorry but you seem delusional, there is not a single real-world test where the FX-8150 is faster than the 2600K"""" Well the answer is THOSE tests, YOURS!!!!!!!!!It is obvious that unfortunatelly i am reading your test and you are reading others! Good for you, you might learn a thing or two. Start reading again and when you manage to understand what you read, you might figure that 2500k is not faster in anything but in memory read/write index [you hopefully will learn in the future that the amount of data being transfered at a given time period (speed is generaly called) is not an indicator of absolute performance, which is actually measured by the amount of data that are actually being processed (computation is generally called) at that given time period], and a few good-for-nothing benchmarks that usually fill tests with unimportant statements. Plus when FX-8150 is faster, then it is REALLY faster and definitely BETTER no matter what your ignorance might state. About real world tests. Since YOUR test seems inaccurate, by your conflicting saying , you seem to be unable to make serious statements about anything. If you are so much energy sensitive as you seem to be then i suggest you carve a wood abacus out of a used wood plank, turn off and stop using your computer!!!! |
|
ProX |
Posted on: 10/18/2011 11:30 AM
Do you know what the title "Synthetic Performance" means? Those are SPEC tests, not real world tests. You are still delusional LOL |
|
Vapor |
Posted on: 10/19/2011 02:17 AM
The real reason that Bulldozer did not stack up in the benchmarks is the compiler used for for each of the benchmarks. All of these closed-source benchmarks are compiled on the standard Intel compiler with the Intel libraries. It is not optimized to support any instructions beyond SSE3 for any processor other than Intel chips. SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, and FMA4 significantly increase the floating point performance of AMD processors, but are not used by code compiled on an Intel compiler. Intel was sued for this and settled rather than fix it. If you look at the integer performance of the benchmarks, AMD almost always out-performs the intel chips and shows a 15-30% increase in performance over the Phenom II x6 processors. If the compiler used was completely optimized for both Intel and AMD, floating point performance would also show similar gains. Lastly, under full load where all of the threads are being used, the Intel chip is not physically capable of beating the AMD chip. 4 cores that complete one instruction each per cycle cannot physically beat 8 cores completing 1 instruction each per cycle, when threads are continually running. Lets compare My favorite to Intels best as it is easier to see the elephant in the room. AMD fx-4170 4.2ghz 1866mhz RAM 12mb Cache total. 1mb L2 per core Intel 2600K 3.6ghz 1333mhz RAM 9mb Cache total. 1mb L2 for all cores Intel Fanboys will say it supports 1600RAM but it will run at 1333 unless you overclock it and AMD can overclock RAM to 2500 easy so lets compare fairly. Also intels Hyperthread causes stuttering. It requires ineffiency in order to gain a boost, by having gaps in code it threads other processes in those gaps. Being ineffective makes hyperhthread run well, but since it only has 1mb L2 cache having to store any extra data to hyper-thread creates stuttering I would also like everyone to understand many of these benchmarks online are biased. Some were re-re-posted before final silicone was ever in existence. Some have obvious falsehoods like showing hyperthread on a 2500's CPU-Z readout. They usually fix them when you comment on this too |
|
leexgx Posts: 9 Joined: 2010-03-29 Location: UK |
Posted on: 10/31/2011 05:29 AM
@vapor really love that post trying to defend an CPU that is not meant to beat the 2600k (Stock clocked that is as well, as an small overclocked i7 second gen can beat it or the 2700k for example my i7 920 mite even be able to match it at 3.8ghz) not comparing it to an i7 SB, clock for clock the BD cpu is 5-20% slower in most cases then an Phenom II CPU (forget about the amount of 4/8 cores it has) only in rare cases is it faster then an 2500-2600k and that's under very special loads http://www.anandtech.com/print/4955 DDR3 bandwidth at best affect total system performance by less then 1%, an small overclock in CPU offers better performance increase the L2 and L3 cache is what is most likely making BD lose out its 2x as slow as intel L2 and L3 (the L2 Size is not every thing), other note BD its 2mb per module (cache does not stack) with 8mb L3 and intel its 256KB L2 per core with 8mb of L3 bulldozer just makes me think of intel P4 with HT, hot and bit under performing slower then last gen cpus (at least it was not 50% slower like P4 was), unless its doing certain loads (like 7zip or par2 and some other media stuff) sure that's not the ATI cards you got in CF that's making the stuttering happen? never had an issue with that on my i7-920 and other intel based systems, the issue tends to be sometimes in rare cases SLI setups and not so rare with ATI CF cards have an look at this http://www.anandtech.com/print/4955 or http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested (same thing just you need to press next page) as they tend to offer best overview of this stuff http://www.anandtech.com/print/4955 |
|
Mike T. |
Posted on: 11/01/2011 06:01 PM
Test were performed using AMD's new instruction code smoked intel where intel couldn't even run it |
|
dodger |
Posted on: 11/01/2011 11:04 PM
I LOL at you Mike T, very loudly! |
|
MENA |
Posted on: 11/27/2011 02:55 PM
like vapor says, the compiler impact the performance results. i was assembler programmer for one of these software. |
|
ProX |
Posted on: 11/27/2011 10:12 PM
But its a stupid point. So all the software that you want to use it optimized for Intel processors. That alone would make it hard to invest in an AMD processor. Your point seems to be that the fight is over before it even starts. |
|
Alpha |
Posted on: 12/03/2011 07:01 AM
Heh, interesting thing happened on thanksgiving. While building a price-efficient unit for a friend during the week of thanksgiving, I purchased a bulldozer fx-6100 from frys (I know, I should've got the 1100t for $169 (or intel), but read the rest first). I originally intended to buy a 955BE AMD at the value of $119, but this cpu(fx-6100) caught my eye at a value of $99 so I decided to "try it". Currently it's not too bad, and although people talk about how bad this product(FX) or amd's chain has fallen, I personally think it was "good" for its sales-value/performance of $99/3.3ghz-6core. It certainly outclocked my 5 years old 2.2ghz 9550 phenom 1; with the fx-6100 being 3.7ghz overclocked on air with oc-genie(stock settings, yeah..yeah..bios ftw, not software, but it was pretty easy for this newbie). Anyway, I say: if the bulldozer's fx-6100 offically become stocked at the price of $99 dollars, it would be an awesome sale. Don't you agree? It may not win in performance but it feels good spending less than $200 on a decent rig(3ghz-6cores). My BlackFriday PriceStalking: $99 -> fx-6100; $119 -> phenom 955BE; $139 -> Sandy Bridge 2130k; $169 -> phenom 1090t; $189 -> phenom 1100t; $239 -> Sandy Bridge 2500k; $339 -> Sandy Bridge 2600k; So in my situation, the affordable price was: $99 fx-6100 or $119 955BE. I the fx-6100 was both cheaper, higher clock performance, and more cores... I think this might be going somewhere... Affordable Prices == More Favorable by the PEOPLE (thats what I believe AMD has always been good at). But, hopefully they up next generations performance(another 5years..) Other than that, if the price drops enough, this product might become famous with the price-watching amd-fans who want to try out 6-cores and 8-cores. And hopefully you can pick one up for under $100 dollars. *Though they arent true 6-8 cores, apparently they are accepted by the mass as 6-8 cores* |
|
OldTechy |
Posted on: 12/06/2011 06:40 AM
thanks Alpha I also took advantage of FRYS 'BF' specials ... i.e. the $99 special on AMD FX1600. but, Alpha forgot to mention the added bonus from FRYS for buying an AMD processor ... ... 20% OFF ANY Mother Board... too cool. I bought the GB 880ga-ud3h ($95 less 20%) to match-up to the FX-1600 I can honestly say, ... super price for the mobo/CPU bundle ... but, ... I DO NOT reccomend either item to anyone . AMD FX-1600 is a dog ... G.B. : 880-ga-ud3h 1) needs BIOS update ( w/AM3 CPU) to work with the (AM3+) processors ( false advertising ) 2) primitive BIOS relative to ASUS 3) poor FAN speed control options. O.T. |
|
elingeniero |
Posted on: 12/27/2011 05:52 PM
First of all compare apples it apples. By your logic pentium 4 has higher clock speeds 3.4 ghz lower power consumption and that 3 gens ago not one. All you guys are not rich but intel fan boys. The fx 8150 is real octacore the 2500 k is quad core. You should compare the 4100 with the 2500k . the 4100 is $70 cheaper it has a faster base clock speed 3.6 faster turbo 4 x as much L2 cache 30% more L3 cache and supports faster RAM and the same power consumption compareed to the 2500k I would say that is a good deal. Now its true most software can't use 8 cores. You basicly give up performance for more cores but if you software uses it then it is far better than the 2500k |
pages 1 2 3