Found another one: Ukraine store accidentally ships FX-8120 and it gets tested!

[RussianSensation]

That's 93% not 48%.

2600k performs the task 48% quicker than FX-8150, or FX-8150 is 93% slower in this task than the 2600k.

From a perspective of the 2600k:

(New - Old) / Old * 100% - 1 = (10.64 seconds - 20.545) / 20.545 * 100 = - 48% or 48% faster than FX-8150

From a perspective of the FX-8150:

(20.545 - 10.64) / 10.64 * 100% = 93% slower than 2600k.

 

[aigomorla]

Gross, I would never want $1000 CPUs

Why is it that AMD has to bench against a 1000 dollar intel cpu?

Seriously... Why are u guys even ranking it with them?

Why?

OH its because its the ONLY thing it will win...


so yeah, my Parents AMG S65 is faster then Acura TL back when i was in college..

But the TL was 1/4th the price of the S65!!! so the TL is obviously a better car... because it was cheaper.. even tho the S65 has more HP, a Larger Engine.. More Room... and is 2x more loaded with luxury features.

So you really think comparing a TL against a S65 is smart?
This is the type of analogy u give us when you compare a 200 dollar AMD processor against a 1000 dollar intel processor.

YOU JUST LOOK STUPID TO ANYONE WHO KNOWS CPU's... AND NO YOUR NOT CONVINCING ANYONE AMD IS A BETTER PROCESSOR BY RANKING THEM WITH INTEL'S 1000 DOLLAR PROCESSOR.


This is what u guys are doing..

What next? why not just throw in the most expensive hexcore xeon on Intel side instead..

The X5680... its only $1499.

Compare that instead of the 990X...
AMD = WiN because u can get 7 Bulldozers for 1 X5680.. and 7 x 8 = 56 cores while that single intel is 12 cores... :O


Please....

<sigh>

 

[mosox]

AMD can't beat Intel in milking more from the current architecture, they HAD to come up with something new. If you can't beat them in steam locomotives, try diesel locomotives.

The thing is all this is new and it's hard to make it great the first time. But if they did (completely new architecture AND performance crown) that would have meant they have the most awesome engineers ever.

FX is a good name for what they've got. Experimental CPUs. We try, you buy. Or not.

 

[RussianSensation]

They already have a 32nm Thuban core- it's called Llano and we all know how good that CPU part works...

AMD can't beat Intel in milking more from the current architecture, they HAD to come up with something new. If you can't beat them in steam locomotives, try diesel locomotives.

Llano is not a full-fledged Phenom II core. It's just a slightly revised Athlon II X4 CPU. So it wouldn't perform as well as a 32nm Phenom II core. Also, a portion of Llano's die is dedicated to a GPU. Theoretically speaking, AMD engineers could have added more cache to Phenom II in that "GPU dedicated space space" or used that additional transistor space to improve the complexity of each original Phenom II core. Hindsight 20/20, but if they focused on improving IPC for Phenom II by 15-20&#37;, kept Phenom II at 4 and 6 cores and not pushed for 8 cores, and used 32nm to increase clocks to 4.2ghz, this chip would have been flying. Even with 0 changes to Phenom II and just increased clock speeds to say 4.0-4.2ghz (with 4.5-4.8ghz overclocking headroom), and the same 6% increase in IPC that Llano has over Athlon II X4, that BD would have been an awesome CPU.

Some user posted:

"My X6 1055T @3.6GHz at SuperPi 1M can hit 16.240s, but at that review, SuperPi 1M @5GHz only 17.019s
At Cinebench R11.5 64-bit, my X6 1055T @3.6GHz can hit 6.45 Pts, but at that review FX-8150 @default (3.6GHz) only 6.01 pts
And at wPrime v1.55, my X6 1055T @3.6GHz can hit 7.191s, and at that review only 8.845s with FX-8150 @default clock"

FX is a good name for what they've got. Experimental CPUs.

What do you mean? FX was better in:
- power consumption
- overclocking
- performance per clock and per core
- absolute overall performance
- Not a single Intel CPU could touch the FX

How is this CPU worthy of the FX brand?

Maybe BD will perform much better under Windows 8 if it shares resources more efficiently than Windows 7 does, per AMD slides.

 

[aigomorla]

Some user posted:

"My X6 1055T @3.6GHz at SuperPi 1M can hit 16.240s, but at that review, SuperPi 1M @5GHz only 17.019s
At Cinebench R11.5 64-bit, my X6 1055T @3.6GHz can hit 6.45 Pts, but at that review FX-8150 @default (3.6GHz) only 6.01 pts
And at wPrime v1.55, my X6 1055T @3.6GHz can hit 7.191s, and at that review only 8.845s with FX-8150 @default clock"

and how long have i been tooting the X6 on the forum during BD launch?

And how many people shot me down saying i was trolling?

Where are the trolls now?


Sorry every way i look at it.. the X6 is a more superior CPU... Hands down... if its performance ur after for a budget.

 

[Tuna-Fish]

2600k performs the task 48% quicker than FX-8150, or FX-8150 is 93% slower in this task than the 2600k.

From a perspective of the 2600k:

(New - Old) / Old * 100% - 1 = (10.64 seconds - 20.545) / 20.545 * 100 = - 48% or 48% faster than FX-8150

From a perspective of the FX-8150:

(20.545 - 10.64) / 10.64 * 100% = 93% slower than 2600k.

You are using time and speed interchangeably, this is wrong. Saying something is 93% slower than something else implies that it is moving at 7% of the speed of the faster thing. That is clearly not true. It is correct to say that FX-8130 is taking 93% more time than 2600K, or that 2600K only takes 48% of the time FX-8130 does.

Speed is the inverse of time, so to get speed numbers you need to first take inverses of the time values:

2600K "speed" = 1/10.64 = 0.094
FX-8130 "speed" 1/20.545 = 0.049
So FX-8130 is 48% slower than 2600K, or 2600K is 93% faster than 2600K.

 

[996GT2]

Gross, I would never want $1000 CPUs

Please refrain from saying that until you can actually come close to affording a $1000 CPU.

 

[mosox]

2600k performs the task 48&#37; quicker than FX-8150, or FX-8150 is 93% slower in this task than the 2600k.

From a perspective of the 2600k:

(New - Old) / Old * 100% - 1 = (10.64 seconds - 20.545) / 20.545 * 100 = - 48% or 48% faster than FX-8150

From a perspective of the FX-8150:

(20.545 - 10.64) / 10.64 * 100% = 93% slower than 2600k.

Not really.

Old car 100 mph

New car 200 mph

New car twice as fast (100% faster), not 50% faster (as in 100 = 50% of 200 mph).

 

[hasu]

AMD can't expect us to be satisfied with anything less than this:
http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/13/amd-gets-guiness-world-record-for-fastest-cpu-with-overclocked-o/

 

[mosox]

What do you mean? FX was better in:
- power consumption
- overclocking
- performance per clock and per core
- absolute overall performance
- Not a single Intel CPU could touch the FX

How is this CPU worthy of the FX brand?

Just a joke, "X" means experimental in planes, cars, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_X-planes

 

[StrangerGuy]

Seriously, is there a ban for threadcrapping?

 

[lOl_lol_lOl]

I guess this explains why D. Meyer was fired...

 

[RussianSensation]

You are using time and speed interchangeably, this is wrong.

If Person 1 runs 100 meter dash in 10 seconds and Person 2 run it in 20 seconds, then:

1) Person 1 runs 100 meter dash in half the time, or completes the task 50&#37; faster than Person 2 (i.e., (10-20)/20*100 = 50% faster).

2) Person 2 runs 100 meter dash in double the time, or completes the same task 100% slower than Person 1 (i.e., (20-10)/10*100% = 100% slower).

No?

 

[TuxDave]

Oh cool

XOP should technically replace x87 as it can do trignometry and exponential in 128bit and 256bit(I think might be just AVX)

Although those are probably packed FP format so unless you really wanted all X-bits of precision offered by the x87 internal format, you're kind of screwed.

 

[RussianSensation]

AMD can't expect us to be satisfied with anything less than this:
http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/13/amd-gets-guiness-world-record-for-fastest-cpu-with-overclocked-o/

LN2 will come in special edition $350 FX-8150 kits.

 

[Troll Trolling]

If Person 1 runs 100 meter dash in 10 seconds and Person 2 run it in 20 seconds, then:

1) Person 1 runs 100 meter dash in half the time, or completes the task 50% faster than Person 2 (i.e., (10-20)/20*100 = 50% faster).

2) Person 2 runs 100 meter dash in double the time, or completes the same task 100% slower than Person 1 (i.e., (20-10)/10*100% = 100% slower).

No?

No.

100% slower means not moving at all.

Person one runs twice as fast, takes half the time. (100% faster, or 2X, or 200% of the speed of the second)

 

[StrangerGuy]

LN2 will come in special edition $350 FX-8150 kits.

"Warning - do not use in unventilated areas. Death may occur."

Fixed.

 

[aigomorla]

LN2 will come in special edition $350 FX-8150 kits.

TWKR!!!!

 

[Crap Daddy]

Since the only strong point AMD is advertising is the OC capability of these chips I'll try and transalte from the same preview what to expect:

5066MHz with 1.475v was the max freq obtained with a minimum of stability.
The scary part is that when running Cinebench at 4.8 GHZ the Ampermeter showed
22.4 A ~268W. Just imagine what 1.55v means at over 5 GHz...

 

[aigomorla]

5066MHz with 1.475v was the max freq obtained with a minimum of stability.
The scary part is that when running Cinebench at 4.8 GHZ the Ampermeter showed
22.4 A ~268W. Just imagine what 1.55v means at over 5 GHz...

your going to get a perfect semi conductor that spins around a center magnet at near light speeds, able to bend break physics and create antigravity from your desk top machine.

 

[lOl_lol_lOl]

No.

100% slower means not moving at all.

Person one runs twice as fast, takes half the time. (100% faster, or 2X, or 200% of the speed of the second)

It depends on the scale you choose, that is, you can assign 100% to the slower one, and the other will be 200%. or you can assign 100% to the faster one and the other will be 50%. Elementary.

 

[Despoiler]

LN2 will come in special edition $350 FX-8150 kits.

"Warning - do not use in unventilated areas. Death may occur."
Fixed.

Umm you realize the N2 is what you breath in atmosphere?

 

[aigomorla]

Umm you realize the N2 is what you breath in atmosphere?

i breathe water....

Im a fish...

Well im the watercooling diety of the forum... :whiste:

 

[Despoiler]

i breathe water....

Im a fish...

Well im the watercooling diety of the forum... :whiste:

Whooosh....Right over your head.....

 

[StrangerGuy]

Umm you realize the N2 is what you breath in atmosphere?

LN2 expands 700 times when in turns into gas, and easily displaces and lowers O2 concentration in air to the point which is lethal in an enclosed space. Liquified gases are no joke, even if the gas in question in non-toxic or non-flammable.