FX-8150 Reviewed by Dutch Site

J

Jellyfishpudding

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 12, 2006
Messages
243
Dutch site reviews the FX-8150 with Turbo disabled by AMD. Running at stock 3.6GHz, the 8150 shows significant performance gains over Sandy Bridge in terms of raw computing. In games, however, the cpu barely surpasses the Phenom II X4 980 and fights to match the performance of the X6 1100T.

Benches here.

Forgive me if this was already posted.
 
I think it is actually a german site (.de) but I also would guess they are fake, how would it be possible for it to be worse in the AVP test?
Match the performance yes, but if the numbers are right, a 300Mhz clock advantage and bigger cache on the same motherboard, I would of thought it was impossible to be slower.
 
I don't think it's fake. The numbers seem pretty realistic for the multithreaded tests, and the gaming is about what I was expecting (less IPC in-exchange for more cores).

And I wouldn't worry about missing 3fps in AvP. It could be anything from a BIOS optimization issue to a slight platform-specific deviation (think the difference you might see with HT enabled versus disabled in some games). The difference is really lost in the noise.

The performance picture should change a bit when we get full benchmarks, as the turbo will make an impact on games and some benchmarks. But for a non-turbo core I think this looks possibly legit, and given the expected release date of Thursday, it's not hard to believe they have final silicon.
 
IF those numbers are real .. BD should be marketed as a 4C 8T cpu...period...as such was my instinct back before the beginning of this year, based on what we knew.
 
I'd like to think PCGH probably does/did have final silicon, but then that brings up the question of why they disabled turbo mode for this. But at this point I want to see actual people holding up actual, non-ES-branded, chips and actually saying "We're benching this, bitches."
 
Redshirt #24 said:
I'd like to think PCGH probably does/did have final silicon, but then that brings up the question of why they disabled turbo mode for this. But at this point I want to see actual people holding up actual, non-ES-branded, chips and actually saying "We're benching this, bitches."
Click to expand...

Well, Turbo doesn't run itself. For AMD and Intel, Turbo Boost is a software+hardware solution. Is it possible that the software isn't ready yet?
 
Flyinfinni said:
+1- clearly fake numbers- didn't OBR even publicly state that he made all that stuff up?
Click to expand...
He claimed the numbers he gave to donanimhaber were faked, though so far he's standing by the numbers on his blog. Some of the scores seem to match with Asian leaks.

It could be real, could be fake or could be from not fully operational ES.
 
defaultluser said:
Well, Turbo doesn't run itself. For AMD and Intel, Turbo Boost is a software+hardware solution. Is it possible that the software isn't ready yet?
Click to expand...
Fair enough, though that probably raises its own question (depending on how close that nyah-nyah-nyahnyah-nyah-we-won't-tell-you release date really is, if the software isn't ready...ouch?). Ultimately, the back half of my previous statement stands--I want someone to actually say they have final silicon right before benching the holy hell out of it. At 2560x1600. With an actual picture of the chip in someone's badly manicured hand.

(And I also want Jewel Staite naked on a pony, kthx.)
 
it stomps the life out of Intel, like Excel (who the fuck plays Excel?)
Click to expand...

I thought lower was better on the excel benchmark so that one was a slight loss for BD versus I7 2600 and a win versus i5 2500.
 
Redshirt #24 said:
Fair enough, though that probably raises its own question (depending on how close that nyah-nyah-nyahnyah-nyah-we-won't-tell-you release date really is, if the software isn't ready...ouch?). Ultimately, the back half of my previous statement stands--I want someone to actually say they have final silicon right before benching the holy hell out of it. At 2560x1600. With an actual picture of the chip in someone's badly manicured hand.

(And I also want Jewel Staite naked on a pony, kthx.)
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm also not going to be totally convinced until I see the same, but this is the most convincing set of benchmarks I've seen thus far.
 
Man I hope this isnt true....I mean maybe they can overclock to 5.5-6ghz they would be cool....but man

And the SB-E benchmarls didnt look to impressive to me....Maybe the 2600k is the way to go...

Specially with Ivy bridge only being 4-5% faster then SB.
 
hmmm I really hope bd isnt worse then phenom II - dont really feel like going intel
 
Looks quite realistic to me and mostly what you would expect from price points.

I guess my 1 year adventure with amd finishes on 15th november then ;)
 
AMD_Gamer said:
More benchmarks showing it being worse than current offerings. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Wouldn't be the first time it has happened. Intel made a similar major architecture change with the Pentium 4 and it was often outperformed by P3s and Athlons when it was released, depending on the benchmark used.
 
Forceman said:
Wouldn't be the first time it has happened. Intel made a similar major architecture change with the Pentium 4 and it was often outperformed by P3s and Athlons when it was released, depending on the benchmark used.
Click to expand...

True if the pipeline is much deeper then IPC would suffer. Of course there's also question how high it scales.
If it can oc to 5 Ghz it would be better than 4 Ghz Thuban.
 
I didn't look at the numbers yet.. but they are probably fake as well.

The only thing that doesn't make sense to me is why did the decide to lower the amount on L1 cache? AMD has been running a 64k + 64k L1 for forever... now they drop it to a 16k + 64k L1? Why.. and who made the decision to gimp the L1 cache.

Maybe the "revised" Bulldozer will have the full 64k + 64k L1 cache... or maybe they got their prediction working a whole lot better.
 
cyclone3d said:
I didn't look at the numbers yet.. but they are probably fake as well.

The only thing that doesn't make sense to me is why did the decide to lower the amount on L1 cache? AMD has been running a 64k + 64k L1 for forever... now they drop it to a 16k + 64k L1? Why.. and who made the decision to gimp the L1 cache.

Maybe the "revised" Bulldozer will have the full 64k + 64k L1 cache... or maybe they got their prediction working a whole lot better.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's not needed with long pipeline architecture ?

Pentium 4 had 8 or 16 kB L1 cache
 
Just looked at the numbers... something looks not right. Smells of serious fake to me.

Anybody else notice on a few of the pics.. one or two of the results had pretty clear numbers for the score ... and all the others were kinda blurry?

In any case. why even post horrible quality pics i the first place... harder to tell if they were manipulated?
 
Michaelius said:
Maybe it's not needed with long pipeline architecture ?

Pentium 4 had 8 or 16 kB L1 cache
Click to expand...

Intel has been doing the whole 16k L1 cache thing for quite some time.

As for the Bulldozer.. I am coming up with at least 3 sets of info as far as the L1 cache.

1 and 2. 16k instruction(not shared) and 64k data (shared.. or maybe not shared between integer cores).

3. 64k instruction(not shared) and 16k data (not shared between integer cores).

So which is it?

Or is it none of the above?
 
Was interested until I saw the name "OBR".........Whelp, back to waiting for an eternity.
 
Could it be that you folks simply WANT it to be fake? I think those numbers match whatever sample they were given. Maybe it'll take a BIOS revision to fully straighten it out, but there's no reason AMD should be handing out skewed samples while the finished products are piling up in the storage houses.

I think what's being tested is pretty close to final. And when the BIOS revisions are applied, it's not gonna be a whole lot better. The FX is gonna rule over SB in raw computing but be totally lacking anything noteworthy in the gaming realm.

My opinion, of course. But I don't think I'm far off track.
 
Jellyfishpudding said:
Could it be that you folks simply WANT it to be fake? I think those numbers match whatever sample they were given. Maybe it'll take a BIOS revision to fully straighten it out, but there's no reason AMD should be handing out skewed samples while the finished products are piling up in the storage houses.

I think what's being tested is pretty close to final. And when the BIOS revisions are applied, it's not gonna be a whole lot better. The FX is gonna rule over SB in raw computing but be totally lacking anything noteworthy in the gaming realm.

My opinion, of course. But I don't think I'm far off track.
Click to expand...
Could it be that you WANT it to be real? We wont know until the NDA lifts, until then i will prefer to take anything with a grain of salt....


Michaelius said:
Looks quite realistic to me and mostly what you would expect from price points.

I guess my 1 year adventure with amd finishes on 15th november then ;)
Click to expand...

From the price points, i expect dam near 2600k levels, slightly below it since the price point is slightly below.....this "review" shows the 8150 at ~Phenom II levels or below...
 
surely we already have a good idea about the FX processors performance given that Interlagos is already out?
 
fake or not, i expect multithread performance to increase........ we're talking about 8 cores here, dammit.
and the multithread benches here show it keeping up with the core i5 and i7.

but i don't expect any improvement in single thread.

a lot of those games are only optimized for dual core cpu, and being that bulldozer has slow cores, the gaming results are believable, since each bulldozer core can do less work than an intel core.


so, those of you screaming Fake......... you think bulldozer can keep up in work per core ?
 
I'll reserve my judgement until the 22nd (or whenever the hell AMD decides to release BD). There have been too many conflicting and unreliable numbers/benchmarks.
 
Yeah, until we see real benchmarks of retail sale chips I wouldn't believe anything being posted right now. So much speculation and misinformation is being bandied about on the net. Best to wait for actual reliable reviews.
 
W.Feather said:
Could it be that you WANT it to be real?
Click to expand...

Hell no. I want BD to rock. Got a new build just waiting for an 8150. I simply feel a bit discouraged that no one has pulled out anything positive in these tests for gamers to have confidence in. Calling them fake is a cop-out. There's no reason to believe everyone who's received a test unit are staunch Intel supporters who are photoshopping their findings. I'm simply not in denial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top