By theory, if an FX-8150 is slower than an Intel Core i5 2500K in gaming, then the lower end processors would probably be worse. While the FX processors are pretty good overclockers, the price is what sets them back. By referring to lingloong's price list, something like the FX-6100 already costs RM639. I would gladly pay an extra RM20 ( following Viewnet's price ) for an Intel Core i5 2500K for the promise of being able to overclock to over 4.5GHz as well as the promise of having a better gaming performance at stock speed.

Add-on : The above applies only if the leaked results are true. Otherwise take my statement with a grain of salt until it is really confirmed.

I'm not trying to deny the possibility that the Bulldozer processors may actually beat the current Sandy Bridge processors available by a big margin, but judging by the way the person wrote his findings I am forced to take his findings with a pinch of salt as I sense that his testing is bias / certain level of fanboyism included in the testing :




This post has been edited by TDUEnthusiast: Oct 11 2011, 03:45 PM

Hmmm....the price between the FX-8120 and 8150 is a lot as well >_>"

Starting from this earlier post, note the sentence "Continued..." in my post. Those benchmarks have also been posted here: Legit Reviews: Legit News - AMD Bulldozer FX-8120 Retail CPU Bought and Benchmarked...

That BattleField 3 BETA results are a little bit odd (Phenom II X4 is faster than Phenom II X6), just like Dirt 3 results which is also published by TechSpot. Furthermore this game supports multi-threading. Otherwise most of them looks to be somewhat GPU limited. Would also be more interesting when using SLI or CrossFireX where CPU limitations will show up.

The Core i7 2600K is around 25% to 31% faster than Core i5 2500K in x264 benchmarks, references from HardwareCanucks, AnandTech and TechRadar.

This post has been edited by lex: Oct 11 2011, 04:34 PM

^ image fomr the overclocker net bd bench,

my x264 bench with my 1055t oc-ed to 3.6GHz.


For some reason i tried to run the bench with GCC4.6.1 compiled x264, it was much slower than the techarp version
Techarp version is R1913 while mine own compile is R2085M (bigger numbers means newer revision)

This post has been edited by 1024kbps: Oct 11 2011, 06:40 PM

Intel keeps its mouth shut over Bulldozer killer, 2700K rumoured

if intel just announce pricec drop of 10%, will totally estroy the BD launch.

Why should there be a price drop by Intel when their current lineup has yet to be affected by BD? Unless there is a major drop in Intel's sales there will not be a price drop and an unnecessary price drop means that Intel is earning 10% less which is not what they want. What is more likely to happen is to release a refresh like the Core i7 2700K.

10% drop in price I'd say, is rather ambitious .

Stock baru sampai lor, later take picta lah

I dun wanna test it la, later open who wanna buy?


Increase price ada lah, compare retail price TODAY & 2 weeks ago, you get the price increase how much

This post has been edited by lingloong: Oct 11 2011, 09:07 PM

that price increase is bcoz of exchange rate.

They(Intel) sure capable if they want to lolz

Non-official benches FX-8120 @ 4.0GHz





Same person and similar stuff to what lex posted a while ago but this is the same test done with the FX-8120 at 4.0GHz.

The first pass still slower than 3.6GHz 1055t though
the bd x264 first past 120~ fps looks like quad core cpu performance only
http://forum.lowyat.net/index.php?showtopi...post&p=45934379
but second pass is very close.

Some other benchies on XS
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showth...Some-benchmarks

AMD FX-8150 overclocked to 8030.15MHz, On Gigabyte 990FXA-UD7 motherboard

2V.......=_=

not something it can live it daily also...
i'm more interested wit max OC wit safe voltage range wit standard easily available air cooler.

This post has been edited by tech3910: Oct 12 2011, 09:22 AM

i think i more worry my electric bill than other with that setup.

They could spoil AMD launch if they really wanted to cut the price down, dont forget SB can officially run 3.6Ghz @ stock volt. 2700K is just 3.5GHz.

If I were Intel shareholder, I would personally love to take this chances to kill AMD down to VIA size. There is absolutely no reason to have a competitor keep messing with you. Monopoly is most if not all businessman ultimate goal.

The big question is how much!

http://www.fudzilla.com/images/stories/201..._FX8150oc_1.jpg

er? why 2cores 2 threads?

It is because with lesser cores, the better the chances of getting higher clocks

It is about the clockspeeds, not the amount of cores