Passmark AMD FX-8150

ummm why does the 2600K score higher than the 2600? are they not identical other than the K having an unlocked multiplier?
 
Slufa111 said:
I gotta admit, I am not impressed!
Click to expand...

This would be a great result actually. It comes really close to 2600k and beats the 2500k by a good bit. I am sure it trades blows with SB in different benchmarks. It's faster in some and slower in others.

This benchmark is useless though since passmark includes disk performance, which can skew the numbers in favor or against any system.
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
ummm why does the 2600K score higher than the 2600? are they not identical other than the K having an unlocked multiplier?
Click to expand...

I found that a little troubling. These should be very close.

This benchmark is useless though since passmark includes disk performance, which can skew the numbers in favor or against any system.
Click to expand...

Maybe that is the reason why the i7 2600 is so much slower than the i7 2600K at the same frequency.
 
sirmo said:
This would be a great result actually. It comes really close to 2600k and beats the 2500k by a good bit. I am sure it trades blows with SB in different benchmarks. It's faster in some and slower in others.

This benchmark is useless though since passmark includes disk performance, which can skew the numbers in favor or against any system.
Click to expand...

+1
if in fact real & testing methodology aside, this result isn't half bad.
 
Memory Latency etc etc mitigating circumstances etc.

Its not a bad result at all. It looks like a 2500 with hyper threading.
 
drescherjm said:
I found that a little troubling. These should be very close.

Maybe that is the reason why the i7 2600 is so much slower than the i7 2600K at the same frequency.
Click to expand...

Quoting myself to add a comment I thought about. Perhaps the a second reason would be that i7 2600K folks on average use more overclocked ram so that the 2600K and 2600 could be running at the same frequency but with faster clocked or lower latency ram that shows up on benchmarks.
 
BD is a substantial upgrade over Phenoms and such, so it's doing what it meant to do. Not everything has to be taken as a competition. Maybe they're not competing with SB?
 
Although not bad, this score is a little lower than I expected. However its just a single score. We do not know if this is a true result or what settings were used. Was this final silicon? Was turbo used?
 
Last edited:
passmark is a shitty benchmark in terms of composite score.
the score doesn't tell you any useful info.

for example, it puts the llano A8-3500m neck n neck with the core i5-2410m.

we all know the core i5 SB completely destroys the A8.
 
Why are you guys expecting BD to obliterate SB? It's $70 cheaper. You will get a cpu with more cores, probably lower IPC, and even in some benches. A upgrade over Phenom.
 
passmark takes into account video performance when available so the reason a 2600k is faster than a 2600 is the better hd3000 gpu on the 2600k
 
Passmark CPU benchmark
--Integer Maths Test
--Compression Test
--Prime Number Test
--Encryption Test
--Floating Point Math Test
--String Sorting Test
--Physics Test
--Multimedia Instructions

The Multimedia Instructions measures the SSE capabilities of a CPU. SSE is a set of CPU instructions that have been introduced into CPUs to enable blocks of data to be processed at higher speeds. SSE allows 128bit floating point mathematical and logical operations. This tests uses memory buffers totaling less than a kilobyte per core.

SSE stands for Streaming SIMD extensions.

According to Bulldozer CPUZ screenshot, SSE(1,2,3,3S,4.1,4.2,4A) now implemented.
 
Looks decent to me! It out performs the old Nehalem i7's but is slower than SandyBridge i7's. About what I was expecting.
 
I get 3739.8 with my current CPU so this FX8 CPU will be a NICE upgrade if I get it. :)

X3= 3739.8 x double the score = 7479.6

FX8 8150 = 8681.0 (hopefully stock clocks) WOW!
 
Just another bullshit fake test.

There are no real test until this website and Anand and others have official sanctioned and approved benchmarks authorized by the vendors just like every other fucking product you read about on these hardware websites.
 
Hmm like those early SB benches which showed 20% improvement in Starcraft 2 everyone thought to be fake? ;)

Anyway this benchmark has X6 nearly at i7 950 levels so it's a waste of bandwidth to even discuss it.
 
I ran Passmark CPU benchmark on an OEM stock-clock Q8400 Windows 7 machine. The score is very close to published score for passmark Q8400 stock-clock.
 
I just hate when people are blant assholes for no reason. A lot of people dont have much tact.
 
Looks like x58/i7 is still a competative setup. If BD is between SB and
I7 950 then x58 is gonna be around awhile and be in the hunt.
 
I just stated I wasn't very impressed with the over-hyped processor (bulldozer) compared to the current market...

I didn't call anyone names, nor did try and start any drama.
 
sirmo said:
Really? I guess you must have not been reading these forums much. They are filled with posts of people describing it as a huge failure.
Click to expand...

Not too sure what your trying to say...are you semi-agreeing with me?
 
Passmark scores take into account the entire system.

For example, my Skymont 10nm system only scores 36,432 but that's because my sys[REMOVED BY INTEL TEMPORAL INVESTIGATIONS DEPARTMENT]
 
Dear all,

To give a reference point,

1. The original result published on 2009-4-16 for e5300 is Passmark CPU only 1735 published on year 2009-4-16

2. CPU Mark only local test:
2.1 64-bit : somewhat noticeable better score than 32-bit version
2.2 32-bit : close to published score.
 
Last edited:
erf said:
*you're
Click to expand...

8Yq3l.jpg
 
hmm my 1075 score 7700ish on passmark cpu score alone which is what that is showing,.. on newest passmark you can run a single test without running through the entire system benchys.. not sure if i will upgrade when BD comes out now..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top