AMD FX-8130P against Core i5-2500K, both at 4,0GHz

Evenly clocked Sandy Bridge and Bulldozer processor comparison

Comments: 5

Followed by video-review of AMD FX-8130P processor, same user sunnykfc has published a comparative test of AMD FX-8130P and Intel Core i5-2500K, both clocked at 4,0Ghz.

In spite of using the latest beta version, AIDA64 cache and memory tests does not seem to work correctly with latest AMD processors, therefore, such results are for informational purposes only.

AIDA64 cache and memory tests results for FX-8130P
AIDA64 cache and memory tests results for i5-2500K

Comments are useless, valid FX-8130P results can be seen only after adding full support for the processors in AIDA64 software suite.

On the other hand, SuperPi can demonstrate true performance of a single processor core.

FX-8130P@4.0 results in SuperPi
Core i5-2500K@4.0 results in SuperPi

As you see, there is nothing for AMD to boast of — 9,345 second (Core i5-2500K) versus 21,465 seconds (FX-8130P) indicate a significant performance loss for Bulldozer cores.

Off course, eight cores of FX-8130P can change the picture with multi-threaded tasks, but it is not that simple.

FX-8130P@4.0 results in Cinebench
Core i5-2500K@4.0 results in Cinebench

Quad-core Core i5-2500K has outdone its rival in CineBench 11.5 video coding test with the score of 5.79 versus 5.66 of FX-8130P.

Considering the findings, thoughts on AMD Bulldozer delay due to insufficient performance look quite plausible.

Ads by Google

Discussion

Leave a Reply

Sakeox, June 15, 2011 at 10:27 pm

Sakeox,

Only I say one word… DRM

Martin, July 11, 2011 at 3:23 pm

Martin,

What the hell is this for comparsion? A TOTL 8 Core AMD against a mid-end quad core 2500K. Please AMD, don’t be funny and stop making CPU’s. I bet a C2D E8400 will trash the bulldozer in single core apps.

Benz, August 2, 2011 at 8:59 am

Benz,

This is obviously fake. Anyone who believe this crap is an idiot…

Andrew, September 5, 2011 at 5:26 pm

Andrew,

This is 100% fake my 1055T @ 3.5GHz scores 6.04 in Cinebench.

dz, September 14, 2011 at 4:46 pm

dz,

Perhaps not a fake, but a cripled early engineering sample. Hence the very slow L1 Write and 0 MB/s for L2 and L3 Write… (Not because no support in AIDA64.)