Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: fastpathguru who wrote (268515)	10/12/2011 12:29:41 AM
From: Elmer Phud	Respond to of 275872

Looks like the NDA has been lifted. techspot.com Final Thoughts Breaking down our benchmark results we find that the AMD FX-8150 offers huge performance improvements over the Phenom II range when testing with Excel 2010, while it matched the Core i5-2500K and Core i7 920 processors. Our custom WinRAR benchmark also heavily favored the FX-8150 over the Phenom II, matched the Core i7 920 and trailed behind Sandy Bridge processors in this test. The Adobe Photoshop CS5 benchmark also saw the FX processors provide decent performance gains over the Phenom II. Although the six-core FX-6100 was only slightly faster than the Phenom II X6 1100T, the eight core FX-8150 and FX-8120 processors provided significant gains and were able to match the Core i5-2500K. The encoding performance was far less impressive as we found that clock for clock the FX processors were slower than the current Phenom II processors. The FX-6100 for example was slower than the Phenom II X6 1100T in our HandBrake and x264 HD Benchmark 4.0 tests. The FX-6100 did pull ahead by a decent margin when testing with TMPGEnc 4.0 XPress however. For the most part the FX-8150 was still considerably slower than the Core i5-2500K in our encoding benchmarks. Finally, when it came time to play games the FX range was really no better than the Phenom II. To be completely honest, gaming on these high-end processors is so similar it's hardly worth worrying about. The FX-8150 was never more than a few frames per second slower than the Core i7-2600K at 1920x1200. Given that today’s latest game releases are only starting to adopt quad-core processors, having six or even eight threads available is of little consequence. As for performance vs. power efficiency, the AMD FX processors are really not much better than the Phenom II range either, which is disappointing. When compared to Sandy Bridge CPUs, such as the Core i7-2600K and Core i5-2500K, the new FX processors stack up very poorly. Despite the unlocked nature of the FX processors, overclocking is not fantastic. We were able to push the FX-8150 to just 4.4GHz on air (from the stock 3.6GHz). Compared to the 4.1GHz of our Phenom II X6 1100T it’s not bad, but if you consider the 5.2GHz possible with a Core i5-2500K or Core i7-2600K it’s definitely not great. Granted we were only able to achieve this extreme overclock using the Asus Maximus IV Extreme-Z, but all other P67 and Z68 motherboards reach at least 4.7 - 4.8GHz. Then there is the question of value. At $245 the FX-8150 is pretty good, as is the FX-8120 at $205, and the FX-6100 at $165. The FX-8150 is 22% cheaper than the Core i7-2600K and this works to AMD’s favor as the FX-8150 was often less than 20% slower. However, is the FX-8150 a better buy than the Core i5-2500K? In terms of performance the AMD CPU was more often than not slower, if only by a small margin, while it does consume considerably more power and will not provide the same overclocking results. No wonder who wins this round. Considering that the FX-8120 is essentially the same processor as the FX-8150, we will look to it for the FX vs. Core i5 comparison. The FX-8120 costs $205 and it's unlocked -- all FX processors are -- so it can be easily modified to match or exceed the operating specifications of the FX-8150. Therefore we feel the cheaper FX-8120 gives the Core i5-2500K a serious run for its money and it’s a worthy alternative. Meanwhile the FX-6100 is also great value at $165, as it undercuts both the Phenom II X6s but it wasn't always faster. We won't deny it, we really were hoping for a lot more from Bulldozer and AMD's eight-core processors. It's disappointing to find these newly launched processors do little to improve AMD’s situation. The FX processors come short of competing hand to hand with the now 9-months old Sandy Bridge processors, and in certain instances surpass their own Phenom II range. Still, this is just the start for Bulldozer, and there's much more to be seen from the FX range, or so AMD says.

To: fastpathguru who wrote (268515)	10/12/2011 12:32:04 AM
From: Elmer Phud	Respond to of 275872

AMD FX-8150 – why so bad? bit-tech.net Apart from the idle power draw of the FX-8150 – which we’ll point once again is an excellent achievement by AMD considering that the FX-8150 is a high-performance desktop part and its rival Core i5-2500K and Core i7-2600K are both essentially power-efficient laptop processors that have been beefed up a little for desktop PCs – the results show AMD’s latest CPU to be awful at everyday, consumer applications. It’s a lack of single-threaded performance that holds the FX-8150 back – its efforts in our single-threaded image editing test were dire compared to every other processor on test. Even worse, this supposedly 8-core CPU running at 3.6GHz was hardly much faster than a six-core Phenom II X6 1100T running at 3.3GHz in heavily multi-threaded applications that saturate all available execution cores. In Cinebench R11.5 and WPrime – applications where a 8-core CPU should dominate a 6-core (let alone a quad-core) – we saw a lack of performance. The answer, we think, comes from Bulldozer’s history. We started this review with a brief history lesson for a reason: we really believe that Bulldozer was intended for servers and workstations, not desktop PC running consumer applications. The lack of grunt-per-core doesn’t matter too much in a server or workstation, as most professional applications are n-threaded and balance that load evenly to saturate every core available. Furthermore, it’s widely assumed that there will be an Opteron based on the Bulldozer design that incorporates eight modules, for 16 execution cores. Bulldozer, we believe, is built for massive parallelism.

To: fastpathguru who wrote (268515)	10/12/2011 12:35:35 AM
From: Elmer Phud	Respond to of 275872

The Upshot maximumpc.com To be fair, we don’t think the FX-8150 should be compared to the 990X as that chip costs four times as much. But what about the 2600K? Even there, the FX-8150 has a difficult time and gets beaten up pretty badly by Intel’s top clocked Sandy Bridge. Nope, to be competitive, AMD actually thinks the 8-core FX-8150 is a better match Intel’s Core i5-2500K parts. How good that is really depends on how you look at it the glass though. In some ways, it’s great that AMD has a part that is at least competitive with some of Intel’s higher tier Sandy Bridge CPUs. Looked at in differently though, How good is it that after all this time and a major redesign that the best AMD can do with an octo-core CPU is compete with a cheaper Intel quad-core chip? But that’s really how some will see it. We know that for people who only pay attention to core counts (like they did to megahertz) the sound of eight cores is really good. But perhaps that’s how we should start looking at it. With GPU and CPU cores starting to blur, does it really matter how many “cores” you have? Just as we once had to keep in mind that a 2.13GHz Athlon XP could kick the crap out of a Pentium 4 clocked up 1GHz faster, perhaps we have to stop looking at CPUs in pure core counts but instead look at, well, the model number. It’s not all downer news for AMD though, we saw several signs of great performance with the new chip. Up against the Phenom II X6, the FX-8150 offers serious boost in performance in several encoding tests. In fact, in many encoding tests where the Phenom II X6 is road kill against Intel parts, the FX-8150 offers, umm, Sandy Bridge-like performance. In fact, in our MainConcept light test where we only do one pass rendering, the FX-8150 mangles the vaunted 2600K. In other tests, such as POV Ray, Bibble and HandBrake, the FX-8150 pulls pretty damn close too. As sad as some AMD fans will be that Bulldozer doesn’t run over Sandy Bridge, it’s probably as close as AMD has been in some years.