Truth in Numbers
Over the years, we’ve always been among the first to call out our competitors when they have made mistakes in their benchmark data or reporting. When that has happened, we expect swift action to fix the situation. At AMD, we hold ourselves to that same standard if we have provided inaccurate data.
Recently AMD posted a video comparing the performance of the AMD FX processor to both the Intel Core i5 and Core i7 processors. Unfortunately, during the production of this video, the graphics were not correctly labeled. Some of you noticed this error and pointed it out to us. As a result, we immediately took down the video, corrected the mislabeled graphics, and we’ve reposted the updated video here.
We apologize for the error and for any inconvenience or confusion caused, and we stand by our claim that the AMD FX processor performs exceedingly well and provides a great experience and great value for both consumers and professional users.
And those numbers are only going to improve over time, as the ‘Bulldozer’ core becomes more mature, and more multi-threaded applications, such as Windows 8, take advantage of the AMD FX processor’s eight-core architecture. As analyst Rob Enderle pointed out in a recent article on TG Daily, “the more cores you have, the faster the chip will perform on a variety of applications.” PC World’s Bruce Gain said it perfectly: “the FX with its eight cores could very well be ahead of its time.”
But the numbers themselves don’t always tell the truth, especially when it comes to the AMD FX processor’s gaming experience. Enthusiast community leader Kyle Bennett noted in his AMD FX Gameplay Performance Review that there were “absolutely no differences in gameplay experience” (in games such as F1) between the AMD FX processor and competing Intel processors, despite their higher benchmark scores.
Honesty, integrity and transparency are at the foundation of what we do here at AMD. We’d like to thank the watchers who showed us the error of our ways. Keep up the good work.
Phil Hughes is a Senior PR Manager at AMD. His postings are his own opinions and may not represent AMD’s positions, strategies or opinions. Links to third party sites, and references to third party trademarks, are provided for convenience and illustrative purposes only. Unless explicitly stated, AMD is not responsible for the contents of such links, and no third party endorsement of AMD or any of its products is implied.
Should we wait for B3 Stepping FX chips or if we buy now, will a patch/driver bring the B2 stepping chips up to par with the B3 stepping procs?
the bulldozer will be successful cpu.
I am about to buy this product, can i expect improved perfromance over the i7 chip (you promised 50% performance increase).
I just want a powerful proccessor, I’m loyal to you amd, I have bought your proccessors in the past, and had great past experiences.
I know that the bulldozer has so much potencial but your not letting it out… Is this a software problem that you are fixing?
I really want to buy this product, i want a product that offers a surprising level of performance.
Yeah, I know it will be successful but what I want to know is if I should wait till the B3 stepping procs come out over these B2. I currently have the top of the line Phenom not Phenom II so I know I’ll see a gain, but I don’t want to buy the new ones yet if B3 is going to gain performance and the B2 doesn’t get a patch/drives to bring it up to par is my concern.
tests speak for themselves
http://www.comptoir-hardware.com/articles/cpu-mobo-ram/15695-test-amd-fx-a-am3.html?start=0
the bulldozer a huge mistake I3 a backside!
“We apologize for the error and for any inconvenience or confusion caused, and we stand by our claim that the AMD FX processor performs exceedingly well and provides a great experience and great value for both consumers and professional users”
Bulldozer does NOT perform well. No better than older FX models in some Benchmarks. Come on guys why do you insist on causing your investors so much pain???
AMD stated many times that Bulldozer would be more %30 faster than Intel’s best. And Bulldozer is essentially NOT faster in all respects.
I am thoroughly disgusted with your hype.
i think its about their software, if they fix it im sure im glad i bought fx-6100 insted of i5 2500k
Yes, the truth in numbers is the following:
From your test alone we can seethe following CINEBENCH results:
Performance per core:
5,98/8=0,7475
5,41/4=1,3525
which means a i5 core is 80.93% [(1,3525-0,7475)*100/0,7475]
Now my question is how do you dare to call FX a processor which has 80% lower per core performance than a mid range intel?
The truth is that if you crank up the settings to a point where the GFX is the main bottleneck … all processors with produce the same performance, even the 1 core sempron.
Also if there is a new game which can make use of a higher number of cores it doesn’t mean you have good performance in games. In most of the 1000 games that run on PC your CPU is slower, and this is what it maters.
Did anyone else notice the intel platform had slower ram clocks?
I just upgraded my mobo to the 990 fx chipset, still waiting on a cpu worth replacing the old phenom ii 965be though.