Benchmark Results: Audio And Video Encoding

Sigh* I was expecting to see small gains of maybe ~8% optimistically, but instead I see microscopic improvements.

It is simply embarrassing for an eight core processor to be beaten by a quad core, even considering some apps don't support more then two or four cores.

There it is. That's all you need to know. AMD made a processor that was too ahead of software to be viable. Forward thinking is good, but the software just wasn't ready for it. I have a feeling they'll be ahead though when it comes to the next architectural design. They are after all, pioneering the way.

Like putting lipstick on a pig. I don't understand the method behind AMD's madness with these chips. They're basically relying on software to take advantage of optimization instead of developing a truly fast and efficient architecture. More cores may be the way of the future, but AMD can't compete with intel if it's using twice as much silicon (or more) to achieve similar results. They're reputation as a value alternative can only hang around so long before consumers wake up. I sure hope their next chip takes a large step forward, if for no other reason than to keep intel CPUs affordable.

I still cant get past that the 8 core 8150 is slower then a quad core no hyper threading 2500k doing a 3DS Max Render. 248 frames, 8 at once on the 8150, 4 at once on the 2500k, but the 2500k actually finishes rendering each frames in under half the time it takes the 8150 to render a frame.

That is just pathetic for an 8 core to fail at rendering.

Sigh... The change is so insignificant that they don't even need to exist...
My God, AMD... the 2500K just shhhh all over your face again... Why would you do such thing!

Is rendering a floating point operation or integer operation? The 8150 is not truly an 8 core processor. Although it may perform like one in some aspects, it does not have 8 full cores.

Lets hope the new stepping brings about larger improvements...

great read. too bad the patches didn't improve performance. hopefully win 8 will change it. by then, piledriver and trinity might become available.
it was funny to see stock 2500k's superior capability (especially at 1080p) as a gaming cpu. i recently read in some thread - one guy claiming that 8150's 8 cores (2500k has only 4 cores) improve performance in cpu bound scenarios.
power consumption is still bad. if amd gets at least 10% better with win 8, that will mean 23 watts less! there's still hope there....i hope...
i wonder what will happen in multiplayer games e.g. bf3 where cpu is important. from starcraft figures, looks like stock 8150 won't be able to keep up with stock 2500k.

hmm well if there are "8" cores divided in 4 modules . Then why not do multitasking on both AMD "Octa" and Intel quadcore "Hyper treaded CPU's" with multiple programs and see what numbers/time are droped out. Is think my idea could probably show something different.. let's keep giving a try to AMD's new architecture....

ZOOMMGGG SOO MUCH UNLEASSHEED POTENTIAL!!!!!!!!1!1

The biggest mistake of AMD was that they sayd the FX 8150 is an 8 core CPU. They simply could say, "hey its a quad infact", many Intel fans even say that its a quad core not an full 8 core CPU. The FX 6100 should be called a triple core. Then, we the critics, would have better benchmarks. If we consider the 8150 as a quad core we have to admit that AMD made a big step on catching up the 3 year gap to Intel. I did not expect that AMD could beat intel with BD, the gap to them was to big.

WTF?
AMD, ur a bucket of fail....
Come back after u pulled ur head out of ur a$$

You know what's sad?

They asked microsoft to help fix their fail................

... except it's not a quad-core. It falls far closer to an 8-core processor in terms of parallel hardware, power consumption, and transistor count, especially in comparison to Sandy Bridge. If you absolutely have to define it by core count, it's more accurate to call a 4-module Bulldozer an octa-core as opposed to a quad-core processor. Bulldozer has some issues, and shifting its classification to make the performance results feel better on the surface isn't the solution. It needs a series of hardware revisions to reduce its power consumption, increase its performance, and decrease its transistor count. We'll see what Pile Driver can do later this year. Only then can AMD compete with Intel in the $200 - $300 market.

Solid work crash.

This is something we have been waiting to hear about.

4 Modules with 2 cores each ... for once stop comparing Intel with AMD directly .. now they are really different architectures. Intel goes with 4 cores and 2 logical threads per core , AMD is a total different story that at the moment it is clear that the current software has absolutely no clue about it. And seriously TOM ... start pushing multicore CPU to their intended use ... multi tasking .. i`ve read a lot of user reviews from the ones who actually bought this CPU and they were delighted on how it handles multitasking compared to intel, put 2 -3 workloads on the CPU and get some scores ...there are many ppl out there that are actually interested in this kind of performance.

Waited for the second update since the first one actually showed the same thing. After going through this twice it was time to publish something

Yup , a multitasking Benchmark could provide us more info. Stress the CPUs to the max. A few seconds or FPS difference between CPUs is insignificant IMO.

I hope it would turn out like phenom: first was a bit disappointing ,the second solid performer with low price. What test fail to show us is multitasking, witch this processor is made for.I know not many people would do 2 heavy things at the same time , but not many people need an 8 core processor.