I’ve highlighted FX-8150’s performance because the delta between lowest and highest is much greater.
Intel’s Sandy Bridge-based chips take the top two spots at all three resolutions—and not by a small margin. Bloomfield scores third place up and down the spectrum. Meanwhile, FX-8150 takes second-to-last in the three resolutions.
Now, we had some serious issues with AMD processors in F1 2010. Those performance limitations seem to carry over here, too. In essence, we’re seeing them run into CPU-bound ceiling at 1680x1050 and, even at 2560x1600, the graphics load isn’t great enough to shift the bottleneck.
The two Sandy Bridge-based chips show us why: easily achieving greater than 80 frames per second at 1680x1050 and 1920x1080, it takes 2560x1600 with 8xAA and Ultra quality settings to knock performance down to the 60ish FPS mark. That’s still higher than what Zambezi manages, though, causing the AMD processor to hold up the show.
- AMD Sets The Stage For FX’s Performance
- Platform Support For FX: Make Sure It’s AM3+
- The Idea Behind AMD’s Bulldozer
- A Shared Front-End And Dual Integer Cores
- Single Floating-Point Unit, AVX Performance, And L2
- Per-Core Performance
- Power Management
- Enabling Turbo Core
- AMD’s Roadmap Through 2014
- Meet AMD Zambezi, Valencia, And Interlagos
- Hardware Setup And Benchmarks
- Benchmark Results: PCMark 7
- Benchmark Results: 3DMark 11
- Benchmark Results: Sandra 2011
- Benchmark Results: Content Creation
- Benchmark Results: Productivity
- Benchmark Results: Media Encoding
- Benchmark Results: Crysis 2
- Benchmark Results: F1 2011
- Benchmark Results: World of Warcraft: Cataclysm
- Overclocking FX-8150 (On Air)
- Power Consumption
- Sneak Peek: AMD’s Bulldozer Architecture On Windows 8
- AMD FX-8150: The Bottom Line