• Home
  • /News
  • /AMD Bulldozer FX-81X0 Official Benchmarks vs Intel Core i7-980X, i5-2500

AMD Bulldozer FX-81X0 Official Benchmarks vs Intel Core i7-980X, i5-2500

Finally AMD Bulldozer Official Benchmarks Released

We all have been waiting so long to know the real performance of AMD Bulldozer FX 8-Core processors, not so long from its Bulldozer overclock demonstration and now AMD has released the official benchmarks of its Bulldozer processor. AMD has offered us with the real performance that we can expect from Zambezi based Bulldozer processors.

AMD FX-81x0 vs Intel Core i5 2400/2500 and i7 980X

Intel Core i5 2500 vs AMD bulldozer FX 8120

AMD has compared Bulldozer benchmarks with Intel Core i7 980X extreme edition and Core i5 2500/2400. So Bulldozer is not meant to compete with neither Core i7 second generation Sandy Bridge processors nor the upcoming Sandy Bridge-E processors.

AMD hasn’t lost its uniqueness

AMD as usual targets the price / performance segment. Currently when we consider $200 segment the best pick is second generation Core i5 processors and second generation Core i7 processors occupies $300 segment. So AMD is attempting to dominate in $250 and $200 segment. The scenario makes us to remember the time when Phenom II X4 series occupied the best price / performance in $200 segment (before Sandy Bridge was released). Now let us get to the present scenario.

AMD Bulldozer vs Intel Core i5 Processor – Handbrake Benchmark

We have already discussed 6 AMD Bulldozer FX Processor’s Specifications Revealed by Gigabyte

The first comparator compared a AMD FX microprocessor, whose model number was not disclosed, but presumably it is the FX-8100 or FX-8120, against an Intel Core i5, which is presumably the 2400 or 2500/K. For this comparison AMD has used the Handbrake application running a conversion of a short video of 5 minutes in standard definition. Microprocessor AMD FX made the conversion up to 223 frames per second, while the Intel Core i5 did only up to 188 frames per second. So AMD FX CPU showed 19% higher performance than Intel Core i5 processors, although it is noteworthy that Handbrake does not make use of the processor as intensive as other multi-core applications such as Cinebench benchmark.

AMD Bulldozer vs Intel Core i7 – Dirt 3 Benchmark

The second comparison was made between the same CPU, AMD FX vs Intel Core i7 980X, both systems were equipped with 2 video cards based on AMD Radeon HD 6970 GPU configured in 2-Way CrossFireX mode, running a game Dirt 3 in a resolution of 2560 × 1600. The system with AMD FX CPU was running the test up to 82.8 frames per second, while the system with Intel Core i7 980X executed up to 80.9 frames per second.

AMD Bulldozer Benchmark result doesn’t seem to be much Impressive!

So here too the system based on the AMD FX CPU achieved a 2.3 % higher performance, which although does not sound so good, because Hardware Info presumes that the optimizations presented in CrossFireX 990FX AMD chipset might have influenced that result. So we have to wait a little bit to see the complete performance of AMD bulldozer processors.

Updated AMD Bulldozer Release Date with Added Details

Source: AMD FX Benchmarks (Hardware info)

About Arun N

You can get in touch with me at My Google Profile+ I’m the Admin of Lenzfire. I do look after the designing works, publishing news, reviews of processors and graphic cards. After completing Electrical & Electronics Engineering under Anna University, India, I started this blog. My hobbies are designing electronic circuits and simulating them, photography and spending time in Facebook, Google+, Google Currents etc,.

14 thoughts on “AMD Bulldozer FX-81X0 Official Benchmarks vs Intel Core i7-980X, i5-2500

  1. Judging a processor by FPS? Automatically bullshit. Obviously an AMD CPU is going to work better with a video card made by the same company, they’re going to work better together. I’m pretty sure if it were NVidea (not owned by Intel) things would be different. CPU tests should be done with loading times. This author obviously knows nothing about computer hardware.

  2. I dont know about that. I have a friend who enjoyed the core i7 920 preformance for a long time.
    AMD didnt compete for a very very long time. And its still really fast his i7 920. I think you have to overclock an AMD to get close preformance.

    At the time he upgraded a year before i was scrambling to find a CPU that was dual core for my Socket 939 cause i was too cheap to upgrade motherboards and ram (the DDR2 upgrade). I ended up finding one ebay. (they were out of production when i started looking for them but someone had some)

    I guess AMD motherboards last a long time as they keep sinking newer cpu’s into them. My friend has a AM3 motherboard and he knows he can put the new Bulldozer into it at just a small preformance hit.

    The only benefit I have with AM3+ and Bulldozer is the rumor that Bulldozer enhanced will sink into my motherboard as well (currently an owner of an AM3+ Mobo). I’ll make sure I upgrade before they go out of production though… (thats if all rumors are true)

    Im not an AMD fan… i think im just cheap, I kept evaluating the cost of a new mobo and ram… and cpu…
    Instead i’ll just sink something new into that socket and get something that plays a bit more. But im screwed if Bulldozer first gen is all they have for AM3+

  3. give us some links with pictures/video(s) or it didn’t happen

    intel fanboys r just mad that they spent $1300 on an i7 990x where a new $250 AMD cpu makes it qq in a corner

    • Aren’t you aware of the fact that even Intel Core i7 2600K (315$) can beat 990X (999$) in most of the benchmarks. Are Intel fanboys who purchased 990X mad? That’s not the case. Technological advancements come everyday. We should be ready to accept that we might have spent huge $$$ earlier, alternatives may come much cheaper than them in the forthcoming days. Likewise, 990X was released a long days back. So now it may be AMD Bulldozer, even upcoming Core i7 2700K or Sandy Bridge-E will outperform Bulldozer. So it always happens.

      Presently we did not get any videos related to that benchmark, once we get, we will publish it immediately.

  4. So what am I missing here…
    A new, soon to be available AMD FX chip (1st generation) beats intel’s second best 6C-12T $600 desktop chip (second generation) by 2.3%….sweet, couldn’t do it with Phenom II. We can be sure this single benchmark does NOT show AMD FX at is worst, but we have no indication whether this is the single most favorable FX benchmark or perhaps middle of the road. Ok..its using an AMD chipset and graphic card. AMD bought and built it, they should use it. Besides in what case does it benefit AMD to cripple i7 with chipset/gpu hurdles with Nvidia looking for any opportunity to best AMD at any turn. Finally, Deneb and Thuban were leaps beyond Agena in both IPC and 1Ghz clock increase over about 13 months. This may be all for zambezi, but make no mistake, just like Nahalem, Bulldozer has legs.

  5. Sadly this is the best that the bulldozer has to offer at stock speeds. It’s become obvious over the past couple weeks that the bulldozer is no longer being rumored to out perform the i7 sandy bridges, but to just offer a competitive price at the mid level CPU market with Intel.

    The fact that you see no benchmarks against the i7 sandy bridge would only indicate it can not compete with it probably at any level. Sadly, with the i7 sandy bridge extreme editions awaiting to be released in the coming months, Intel will indeed hold the crown for fastest desktop CPUs. Leaving consumers like use forced to pay whatever Intel wants to charge as their is nothing to compete with it. Oh joy…

  6. It says ‘Both systems will be comparable in price’, not the processor price. If you take the difference between the most expensive AMD mobo from Asus and a top of the line Intel mobo from Asus or Gigabyte, there’s around $30 to $70 difference. Its likely to be the top FX-8150 processor compared against the Core i5, probably a 2500K although I could be wrong on both counts (just guessing at this point). Think of it this way, if you are going to show some good numbers why not take your top processor and a lesser processor from your competitor.

    • Of course there are chances for it to be FX-8150, as you justified the reason, but from our point of view, having pre-order prices into account, we thought that AMD certainly won’t over price their processors than Intel, so with the present situation, where Core i5 2400 / 2500 K sits firmly in 200-2230$ segment, AMD might have thought of taking Intel in that segment.

      While we see into past, AMD has never came up with a fastest processor than Intel at any point of time. But soon after (may be 6 to 10 months time), AMD releases much cheaper products than Intel’s similarly priced products in terms of performance.

      So we expect that AMD’s plan is to clear Intel’s accommodation in 200$ segment. But from 300$, Intel has a state of monopoly.

        • It’s likely not the FX-8150. Interpreting the results, I guess it’s the FX-8120. By the way, also a Llano demo system wasn’t compared against Intel with the top model. ;)

Have something to say?