Friday, October 14, 2011

AMD FX does frag Sandy Bridge after all

Real tests show that the FX 8150 is actually about 20% faster than i7 2600k.

Using the Cineform Neoscene professional transcoder, the AMD FX8510 took 692 seconds to encode a 30GB AVCHD video, Intel i7 2600k took 867 seconds. AMD FX 8150 is 25.2% faster.

Using the Cinema 4D (11) render, the AMD FX 8150 is 19.8% faster than i7 2600k.

Check the benchmarks here (


Anonymous Anonymous said...

So somewhere around thirty sites got it wrong, along with several dozen threads on the likes of, and even the founder of the Linux operating system got it wrong too?

And your savior, this messiah of true things AMD, is a guy who is hocking pictures of Bigfoot? Who is 100% sure that Facebook is a shadow company that is based in BOTH China and Russia simultaneously? He is also telling just about everyone that WW3 is imminent, and that we should give up electronics and consumerism... A funny thing to say from a guy who is a regular user of "high performance" hardware and who just happens to have an i7-2600k sitting around at his house to test against his newest AMD rig.

He also thinks web bots predicted Bin Ladens death and also are now predicting nuclear war.


I guess we've finally found someone's blog who posts MORE idiocy than you! Who thought such a thing was possible? No wonder you don't hesitate to use him as a reference...

1:08 AM, October 15, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Asus Crosshair V formula board may have hampered Bulldozer
And hampered it bad :

It turns out that the fx testing kits amd sent to every site, had asus crosshair v formula boards. apparently asus had an agreement with amd in order to make asus board the 'default' board for reviews. and all sites reviewed the chip by shoving it in that board.

when some sites benched the cpu not with that board, but other boards, results came up more in favor of the amd cpu :

9:19 AM, October 15, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Cherry picking benchmarks when the overwhelming number of reviews which used AMD supplied kits including golden motherboards, processors, BIOS show it to be completely owned?


One more time


Dumb ass.

11:59 AM, October 15, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Reaching for stuff?

AMD's "new" CPU can barely, if at all, keep up with Intels two year old designs.

And Ivy Bridge is just around the corner.

You are such a phenomenal idiot. If you were'nt a lying shitbag I'd almost feel sorry for you. But since you are - full speed ahead fucktard....

12:34 PM, October 15, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Which part of "barely competitive but has 2x the transistor count" do you not get?


To win a handful of tests and tie or lose most everything else is a disaster. Not catching up to Intel's current gen is an enormous problem.

2:10 PM, October 15, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Someone needs to tell the "ph.d" what the word "frag" really means...

And I know several Ph.d's none of which use the word frag. Also know sevearl journalists - frag isn't in their published works anywhere either.

Your journalistic ability is that of a middle school child - your writing is sub-par. Your technical "analysis" (if that's what you call it) is so nonsensical anyone with an ounce of ability knows it.

You are nothing but an inept liar. An incompetent dimwit who has no real understanding of the technology on which you "report", no writing skills.


8:37 AM, October 17, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Stop AMD-fanboy idiocy: Mention the Intel Timna processor

Intel Timna, a processor with an integrated memory controller, were rolling off Intel assembly lines back in the year 2000 before it was cancelled. It also had integrated graphics incorporated, far before AMD had any plans about "Fusion".

It's funny the first few times reading moronic comments like "Intel copied AMD" and "AMD is the one that innovates" but I think enough is enough.

9:54 PM, October 18, 2011  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home