Softpedia
 

NEWS CATEGORIES:



NEWS ARCHIVE >>
SOFTPEDIA REVIEWS >>
MEET THE EDITORS >>
TRENDING TODAY
Home > News > Technology and Gadgets > CPU

September 15th, 2011, 20:51 GMT · By

AMD Benches FX-Series Bulldozer Against Intel CPUs

SHARE:

Adjust text size:

AMD FX CPU powered desktop vs Intel
Enlarge picture
At the same time with Intel's IDF, AMD is hosting its own press event meant to showcase the company's latest technologies and chips, and one of the most interesting demonstrations to take place over there is a comparison between a yet-unreleased FX-Series processor and some Intel Core CPUs.

AMD hasn't disclosed the specs of the Bulldozer processor that is used for this comparison, but two different scenarios are being shown to demonstrate the power of its chips.

The first one of these pits an eight-core AMD FX processor against an unspecified Intel Core i5 Sandy Bridge CPU, both systems running Handbrake to convert a 5-minute H.264 video in SD resolution.

According to Hardware Info, the Bulldozer chip performs this task with an average of 223 frames per second, while the Core i5 machine gets 188 fps.

Both systems will be comparable in price according to AMD, but one can't help but notice that Bulldozer requires twice the numbers of cores of Intel to surpass a Core i5 by just 20% in a multi-threaded benchmark like Handbrake.

The second scenario has the same FX-Series processor fighting against a Core i7 980X in Dirt 3 at a 2560x1600 resolution, both systems featuring two Radeon HD 6790 cards setup in CrossFire.

The Intel machine finishes this benchmark with an average frame rate of 80.9 fps, while the much cheaper AMD desktop averaged 82.8 fps.

Despite the good result achieved by AMD, the selection of the graphics cards, the high resolution and the small difference between the two systems cast a shadow of a doubt over AMD's win, as the 2fps gain could also be caused by other factors, such as better CrossFire scaling on the 990FX board.

AMD hasn't made any official statements over the launch date of the first FX-Series processors other than saying these will arrive in Q4 of 2011. However, most rumors seem to point out to an October release.


10,186 hits · 9 comments
Link to this article · Print article · Send to friend

MUST-READ RELATED ARTICLES:


AMD Demos Trinity Powered Notebook, Video Included

AMD Showcases Working 28nm Radeon HD 7000 Series GPU

AMD FX-Series Processors Now Available for Pre-Order

Intel Ivy Bridge Gets Improved Overclocking Features

Intel's 2013 Haswell CPU Gets Pictured at IDF 2011

READER COMMENTS:


Comment #1 by: RACISTsouthernPROUDwhiteGUY on 16 Sep 2011, 14:05 UTC reply to this comment

Awww go * your wining self in the bleeding * .... "the selection of the graphics cards, the high resolution and the small difference between the two systems cast a shadow of a doubt over AMD's win" Its a normal * card, its a test like any other that had intel on top in the past. whats the * prob. High resolution???? stupid * eyefinity and high res is becomming the * to have now. Im reading your "amd beat intel but it dont matter cuz" article from a 4320x900 Learn to man up and take life as it is or keep being a little pus, choice is yours, *

Comment #1.1 by: Devlin on 18 Sep 2011, 14:59 GMT

You r right on if they used nvdia cards and it was the other way that would not have even been writen seems they onll bring stuff like that up when amd wins one tired of these intelboy websites

Comment #1.2 by: PcGuy on 04 Dec 2011, 20:32 GMT

Price/dollar. Intel is nice AMD is nice. Difference is cost. Factor in cost and AMD always has and will win.


Comment #2 by: Devlin on 18 Sep 2011, 14:44 UTC reply to this comment

One thing i like to say about the stories is when u say amd 8 core against iintel 4 core really tired of hearing that when its 4 cores with 2 working threads intel does the same thing there is just done using software but both r hyper threading one is jusst is just better then the other.I just want to make it clear because peeps say well the os will show 8 cores wellone of my intel cpu saids there is 8 cores when hyper threading kicks in so stop the bs sayin amd needs 8 cores to beat intels 4 now if u cut off hyperthreading then yes u can say that but who cuts off hyper threading .

Comment #2.1 by: Mayford on 19 Sep 2011, 21:15 GMT

You are actually wrong. You need to look at the core layout. There are actually 8 physical cores but 4 modules. This means that two cores share resources. So don't post in anger when you don't know the facts. Get all the facts from the official layouts instead of the Intel sites where most people on there just click off when they see anything new in the amd side. I am not and Intel guy or AMD guy. I have bought from both companies and prefer to use what I need and not always the fastest. This has nothing to do with hyperthreading these are again 8 physical cores just they are housed two at a time in the same section. Check this out. http://techreport.com/articles.x/19514 it will help you a little.

Comment #2.2 by: Flying_Cat on 19 Sep 2011, 23:37 GMT

It's more than hyper-threading. Bulldozer has 2 physical "core" resources but it has more shared resources. The shared resources are the Fetch and Decode mechanisms as well as the floating point resources. http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/news/2009-11/amd_bulldozer_scheme.jpg

Comment #2.3 by: I am who I am on 30 Nov 2011, 22:12 GMT

Got some news for you. He tested it against an i5 which DOESNT have HT!!
And then a test of an Undisclosed CPU against a 6 core Intel with 12 threads but they didnt say what CPU it was! It could be a CPU not available for years. You never know.
honestly I hope AMD does beat intel because Its been awhile since AMD has been on Top.
And when they are once again, I will purchase AMD products. But what most dont understand is a GAMING Comparison means NOTHING. they all game the same. System performance to me is an overall thing. Snappy responsive system Ill take anyday over a sluggish one.


Comment #3 by: ryu on 19 Sep 2011, 13:33 UTC reply to this comment

like this


Comment #4 by: Vapor on 01 Oct 2011, 16:31 UTC reply to this comment

Yes it has 8 CORES, but 4 groups of resources instead of 8 so they could fit more cores, obviously. Intel uses Hyperthread, which waits for inefficiency to slip some code in. Anyone ever heard of relying on poor efficiency in order to have high performance, thats what hyperthread means. Gossip is each core will 80-90 percent effective versus having its own resources. The FPS on games tho has more to do with Videocards and RAM controller. if you added another module(2cores) to that AMD I bet it would have same FPS. Also lets not forget about intels Kill AMD code for their vendor biased compiler. That provide worst code possible for AMD cpu. Go clock ur Intel on code made before SSE instructions made back in 1999. It would run like crap which is good for hyper thread. altho intel would stutter even more. the effect of all the info it would have to store, waiting for all those gaps to fill. Intel lost lawsuit so get out of my code, I want to see how good my computer will run. I switched to AMD after realizing i paid for the team of tools who did that and for the lawsuit.

Copyright © 2001-2013 Softpedia. Contact/Tip us at

WindowsGamesDriversMacLinuxScriptsMobileHandheldNews

SUBMIT PROGRAM   |   ADVERTISE   |   GET HELP   |   SEND US FEEDBACK   |   RSS FEEDS   |   UPDATE YOUR SOFTWARE   |   ROMANIAN FORUM