Page 1 of 3 1 2 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 50
  1. #1
    Registered polyzp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012

    Return of AMD FX: My OC'd AMD FX 8150 with OC'd 6990 Review - First Results Up!



    AMDFX.blogspot.com

    Hi, first off I would like to introduce myself. My name is Panos, and I am a computer enthusiast who loves to benchmark. I am new to the blog scene, but I hope you guys like it here.

    My first goal is to finally get some AMD FX 8150 benchmarks at a decent overclock. I have noticed that many websites, except for overclockersclub.com, really have not pushed FX to its limits. On top of that, poor FX is always paired with a more lower end card! Remember how AMD recommended using a 6990 with the FX 8150 in their original FX promotional video?

    Enter Scorpius,

    My Gaming Rig - ON AIR!!

    AMD FX 8150 @ 4.81 Ghz 24/7 Stable (23.5 x 204)
    Promlatech Genesis - 3 x Scythe Sflex 135mm
    G.Skill 2200 Mhz Cl7 DDR3
    XFX 6990 stock (830/1250) > OC (990/1500) 2 Hr Stable (Ungine Heaven 2.5) Catalyst 12.1 Preview
    Arctic Twin Turbo 6990 Cooler
    OCZ Revodrive 3 X2 240 Gb
    HAF 932 - 10 x Additional Scythe Fans
    OCZ 1000w ZX Gold PSU

    Benchmarks:

    Ungine Heaven 2.5
    3DMark11 P/X
    AID64
    7Zip
    Winrar
    Passmark
    SiSoftware Sandra 2012
    PCMark 7
    Cinebench 11.5
    Cinebench 10

    Possibly more

    Games:

    Dirt 3
    Alien vs. Predator

    Possibly more

    Finally Bulldozer can Breath! Will FX shine? or will it fall short? Will an overclocked FX bottleneck a 6990 OC'd?

    Well,

    First results ARE IN!! Techarp H.264 first and second pass results are up.


    Tech ARP H.264 encoding benchmarks!! FX is back!

    ROUND1 :

    Tech ARP H.264 encoding First Pass / Second Pass Results


    TEST SYSTEM:

    AMD FX 8150 @ 4.81 Ghz 24/7 Stable (23.5 x 204)
    Promlatech Genesis - 3 x Scythe Sflex 135mm
    G.Skill 2200 Mhz Cl7 DDR3
    XFX 6990 stock (830/1250) > OC (990/1500) 2 Hr Stable (Ungine Heaven 2.5) Catalyst 12.1 Preview
    Arctic Twin Turbo 6990 Cooler
    OCZ Revodrive 3 X2 240 Gb
    HAF 932 - 10 x Additional Scythe Fans
    OCZ 1000w ZX Gold PSU



    THE RESULTS:


    First Pass Results (Single Core Performance) :




    In this benchmark, the single core performance of an overclocked AMD FX 8150 CPU @ 4.8 Ghz is better than a 3.7 Ghz (tubro) i5 2500k, but worse than a 4.0 Ghz i5 2500k.

    Second Pass Results (Multi-threaded Performance) :



    When all cores are used FX shines! Performance is well over a i7 2600k @ 4.5 Ghz, but less than 2 fps shy of a i7 2600k @ 5.0 Ghz. I am not sure about the low 5.18 ghz 2600k score =S... but its well over that aswell. It should also be notes that 3960x at 3.8 Ghz Turbo is not much faster than a 4.8 Ghz FX 8150.

    This benchmark is well designed to take advantage of Bulldozer's architecture, but what about others?


    Benchmarks source : http://www.techarp.com/

    3DMark11 Performance / Extreme Performance



    ROUND 2 : 3DMark11



    Finally a benchmark that utilizes GPU! We will see here whether FX bottlenecks or not while overclocked to 4.8 Ghz. The score to really look at is GPU score (as this directly relates to fps of the rendered scenes), but because the total score also heavily relies on GPU score (especially in the Extreme Preset) it is also a good measure.


    RESULTS:


    3DMark11 Performance Preset:

    AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz
    6990 OC @ 990/1500 Mhz




    Compared Results (with several 6990 OC's) :




    As you can see the graphics score of my OC'd 6990 does not fall systematically behind intel rigs with similar GPU OC's. My GPU Score of 12046 is a clear winner over the rest of the rigs tested., however with combined and physics scores also put into consideration FX falls behind with a total score of only 10318.

    The most noted comparison is that with the i5 2500k at 5.35 Ghz with a 6990 @ 1000/1420. Although it manages to squeeze out slightly higher combines/physics score, it still seems to bottleneck in GPU scores. The only intel cpu coming close to FX GPU score is the 3960x.

    It should be noted that the OC on the 6990 does play a role in GPU score, so take these results with a grain of salt. a 930 Mhz OC is still 7% below a 990 Mhz OC, but nevertheless we can determine that FX does not heavily bottleneck when it is overclocked to 4.8 Ghz. What about Extreme Preset?

    3DMark11 Extreme Preset:

    AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz
    6990 OC1 @ 880/1250Mhz
    6990 OC2 @ 990/1500 Mhz

    - - - OC1 - - - 6990 @ 880/1250Mhz




    - - - OC2- - - 6990 @ 990/1500 Mhz




    Comparison (from Hexus.net) :


    - - - OC1/OC2 - - -





    The most noteable comparison is between my stock 6990 @ 880/1250 paired with my AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz, and their stock 6990 with the exact same clocks paired with a 980x @ 3.6 Ghz Turbo. The difference in score is mostly due to a difference in Graphics Score, as the 980x generally destroys the FX in physics and combined results even at stock.


    This tells us alot about where FX bottlenecks or not, and the answer seems to be NO, atleast when comparing to a 980x @ 3.6 Ghz. The difference in score is roughly 5%, where the FX is slightly favoured.


    When my 6990 is pushed to its stable limits @ 990/1500 Mhz, my score jumps an additional 13%. That is, for a 12/20% (clock/memory) overclock on my 6990. It is clear that an AMD FX 8150 does not bottleneck on Extreme Preset.


    Look here : http://amdfx.blogspot.com/2012/01/look-at-this.html for comparisons to 1100t @ 4.2 Ghz and i7 2600k Stock @ 3.8 Turbo.






    These are examples where their GPUS are being bottlenecked. My Stock OC1 (880/1250) Graphics score actually manages to beat a 6990 @ 950/1450 on an 1100t @ 4.2 Ghz. (meaning higher fps). Here is an example where OCing a 6990 will not result in much benefit. (ie. the bottleneck is around that CPU frequency)


    It is also interesting to see that OC'd my 6990 is the clear winner against the 980x @ 3.6 Ghz 580 SLI @ stock in the Extreme Preset.


    It should be noted that the drivers I used were Catalyst 12.1 beta drivers, and those used in the HEXUS test were 11.4. The difference in 3DMark 11 scores should be negligible however. Also the 3DMark11 version used for my Performance Preset Results is 1.03, while that of the Extreme Preset Results is 1.02.



    ROUND 3: Alien vs. Predator



    Comparison is between an intel i7 980x @ 4.0 Ghz and my AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz.


    Check and Mate!


    Graphics Settings:


    A) (top) - High Quality Settings, SSAO, No AA / 16xAF, vsync off

    B) (bottom) - Ultra Quality Settings, 4x MSAA / No AF, SSAO, vsync off



    These are the stated settings in the testing methodology section, however above the actual graph Tom's claims both are set to ultra. Based on the amount of detail given in the given above settings when compared to that given above the plot, I took this to be the settings they used. (but its still not clear :S)


    RESULTS:




    Source: Tomshardware.com GTX 590 Review



    This seems to be one of the few games AMD actually beats intel in with higher end graphics cards. The most notable comparison is when the 6990 GPU is @ 880/1250 between processors. FX truly shines in DX11 games that are more graphically demanding.


    Overclocking the 6990 from 850/1250 to 990/1500 ( a clock/mem - 12/20% OC) results in an AVG fps increase of about 15% for both settings (A) and (B). Scaling between a single 6970, and two (in a 6990) is also very good, roughly 95-110% depending on settings.


    Allow some error as the drivers are different between comparisons, however this game is sufficiently old enough to have negligible gain between catalysts.

    PassMark Performance Test Benchmarks!

    Round 4: PassMark CPU Score




    Lets just get to the nitty-gritty shall we?

    Competitors :

    First Corner - intel i5 2500k @ 4.8 Ghz, ASUS P4P67 Pro, 8 Gb DDR3

    Second Corner - intel i7 2600k @ 4.8 Ghz, Gigabyte GA-P67A-UD4-B3, 8 Gb DDR3

    Third Corner - AMD 1100t @ 4.2 Ghz 8 Gb DDR3

    Fourth Corner - AMD 8150 FX @ 4.8 Ghz, ASUS Crosshair V, 4 Gb DDR3

    RESULTS:



    WINNERS:

    First Place - intel i7 2600k @ 4.8 Ghz - 107.5 % Performance

    Second Place - AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz - 100.0% Performance

    Third Place - intel i5 2500k@ 4.8 Ghz - 81.4% Performance

    Fourth Place -AMD 1100t @ 4.2 Ghz - 73.2% Performance

    Intels monstrous leap over AMD in CPU Integer Math seems to be the game changer, with 63.4% gain on the FX 8150. But FX manages to beat its older phenom II brother by a whopping 74%. The OC'd AMD FX 8150 beats its intel i7 2600k rival in five out of eight tests, however narrowly loses in the final score. In FPU Score its a dead tie between the 2600k and FX, with the 1100t and i5 2500k lagging behind.

    Comparing FX to the i5 2500k in this benchmark, AMD wins in seven out of the possible eight tests, and only loses in the CPU integer math test.

    We can really see Bulldozer shine in this benchmark when compared to the older 1100t, and it manages to be right at intels door with performance significantly higher than its intel counterpart, the i5 2500k.




    If you have any questions feel free to ask!

    --------------------------

    Link to Blog:

    ask me for link ^^
    --------------------------
    Last edited by polyzp; 02-06-12 at 10:26 AM.

  2. #2
    Grammer, its my favoriate thing

    Mario1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Pleven, Bulgaria
    Benching Profile

  3. Thanks!

    ShadowPho (02-06-12)

  4. #3
    Registered polyzp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario1 View Post
    My blog is non profit. I simply just want to help people understand how exactly the FX 8150 performs with a 6990 where both cpu and gpu are oc'd. Not a single review online goes ahead and does this thoroughly. I simply want to get feedback and perhaps more suggestions on how i should test. I am new to the blogosphere, but am willing to answer and questions people may have.

  5. #4
    Registered polyzp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    ROUND 5: WinRar Benchmark


    So when bulldozer was officially released Winrar was one of the benchmarks where FX raced ahead of the 2600k. (Example1)(Example2)

    But due to a newly discovered bug where Windows disables HT for intel processors, CORE Parking must be enabled to get the full potential out of compressing and decompressing with Winrar.

    RESULTS:




    Bulldozer only barley beats a stock i7 870k with core parking turned off.
    Before the bug was discovered AMD FX 8150 appeared to have beat even a 3960x.


    source : http://www.xtremehardware.it/
    7-Zip Benchmarks!! FX is back!




    ROUND SIX: 7-Zip Benchmark








    Intel's not ready for this one...



    CPU : AMD OC FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz
    CPU : intel OC i7 3960x @ 4.65 Ghz
    MAX SCORES : Max rate over 5 tests
    AVERAGE RATE : Average rate over 5 tests
    Source : neoseeker.com




















    RESULTS:












    We can see here that the AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz easily trades blows with Intel's flagship model the i7 3960x. Even a stock FX 8150 @ 3.6 Ghz manages to beat the 2600k @ 3.4 Ghz (both with Turbo enabled). Again this is just further proof that when all threads are used AMD shines. This is notable given the tremendous price difference. Good Work AMD!*

    If you have any questions feel free to ask!


    ROUND 7: Ungine Heaven 2.5 Benchmark


    Will FX bottleneck?
    RESULTS:

    CPU 1: AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz
    CPU 2: Intel i7 920 @ 3.6 Ghz

    Settings:

    4x AA
    16x AF
    Shaders = High
    Tesselation = Moderate
    Measurement = FPS



    source: overclockersclub.com


    We can see here that Nahelem bottlenecks heavily when compared to an Overclocked AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz. Comparing at with a 6990 @ 830/1250 Mhz we notice a 24% increase in FPS, and when we overclock the 6990 we notice a 28% increase in FPS. This just comes to show that overclocking a 6990 with an i7 920 pushes it near its bottleneck. This is very impressive for AMD, but how will FX fair against the big guns?



    PICK ON SOMEONE YOUR OWN SIZE FX!



    CPU 1: AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz
    CPU 2: Intel i7 3960x @ 4.7 Ghz

    Settings:





    source: Vrzone.com

    We can see here that an overclocked FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz barely trails an OC'd 3960x @ 4.7 Ghz, but when the GPU is overclocked this difference is easily overcome. It is also interesting to see that an overclocked 6990 easily beats an overclocked 7970, which is interesting given Heaven 2.5 is one of the benchmarks where the 7970 is supposed to shine most.


    Cinebench 11.5 Benchmarks!

    Round Eight : Cinebench 11.5



    CPU: AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz

    RESULTS:



    CPU Performance :

    intel i5 2500k @ 4.8 Ghz - - 7.57 (link)


    AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz - - 7.90

    intel i7 2600k @ 4.8 Ghz - - 9.28 (link)


    intel i7 3930x @ 4.8 Ghz - - 13.79 (link)

    We can see here that FX easily beats the i5 2500k, but then gets trumped by an equally clocked i7 2600k. We can really notice the difference due to HT.

    Single Core Performance :


    intel i5 2500k @ 3.7 Ghz - - 1.48 (link)


    AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz - - 1.19

    intel i7 970 @ 3.46 Ghz - - 1.17 (link)


    AMD Phenom II X4 980 @ 3.7 Ghz - - 1.10 (link)


    AMD Phenom II X4 955 @ 3.92 Ghz - - 1.18


    AMD Phenom II X6 1100t @ 4.2 Ghz - - 1.26


    AMD Athlon II X4 @ 4.11 Ghz - - 1.15

    This benchmarks shows the weakness of Bulldozer's single core performance more than Techarp's h.264 benchmark, but it still manages to beat Nahelem i7 at ~3.5 Ghz.

    The scaling of 6.66 implies that per core there is roughly ~0.83 scaling.

    Open GL performance:

    Gaming Rig vs. Workstation

    AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz with 6990 @ 990/1500 - - 72.85

    intel Xeon X5677 @ 3.47 Ghz (Turbo 3.73Ghz) - - 69.07 (link)
    with AMD V9800 4 Gb

    If you have any questions feel free to ask!


    http://AMDFX.blogspot.com
    Last edited by polyzp; 01-14-12 at 07:32 PM.

  6. #5
    Water Cooled Moderator
    Overclockers.com Lead
    Editor (Retired)
    hokiealumnus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Author Profile Benching Profile Heatware Profile
    Hi polyzp, welcome to OCF!

    We welcome sharing of your results but you may not use our forum to advertise your blog. Feel free to post all the results you want here, just don't link to your blog in a blatant attempt at getting more eyes (which is blatant if you look at that google search by mario1). Thanks for understanding.

    EDIT - Please also note you may not link to your blog from your signature, just to prevent another, similar message in the future. Our signature guidelines can be found here.

    Enjoy benchmarks? Join the benching team!
    New to water cooling? Read the Beginner's Guide to Water Cooling Your PC.
    I.M.O.G. - "Night benching is the answer. Start sleeping every other day. Other than an occassional narcoleptic episode, its been wor"
    \m/ OverClockers mATX L33T Club \m/ - Join Now! - My mITX Build

  7. Thanks!

    ShadowPho (02-06-12)

  8. #6
    Registered polyzp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Sounds good, i never meant this to be strictly for advertising. I am just posting to inform the community of FX's performance with a 6990 as it hasn't been tested or review before.

  9. #7
    Water Cooled Moderator
    Overclockers.com Lead
    Editor (Retired)
    hokiealumnus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Author Profile Benching Profile Heatware Profile
    We're happy to see them too, thank you for understanding.

  10. #8
    Registered polyzp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    AVP benchmarks are up!

  11. #9
    Registered polyzp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    new benchmarks up!

  12. #10
    KING OF PROCRASTINATION Member Aldakoopa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    North Carolina
    Heatware Profile
    I hate how biased some people can be, and look at those scores and say that Bulldozer is a failure, essentially because it's not ranking at the top in every single benchmark. Looks like it competes fairly well to me. I didn't even go for the 81xx, all I got was the 4100, and I'm entirely happy with its performance. It's definitely not the best, but it's still a very good quad-core for ~$110.

  13. #11
    Registered polyzp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    cinebench results up!

  14. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    UK
    Its the usual from the FX that i see with my own 6 core Thuban.

    When ever the software uses all available threads similar priced Intel's have no answer against my x6, even if that Intel has 4 cores and 8 threads against 6 cores and 6 threads.

    Yet core for core the Intel has all the answers, against my Thuban the difference is not to significant, but against BD its a bit more pronounced.

    It will be interesting to see if the future holds more multi threaded applications and games, its what AMD predicted would happen some years ago now, hence all that work producing CPU's with so many cores. it has not happened yet. but it might start creeping in now.
    “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.” -Winston Churchill

  15. #13
    Registered polyzp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    AIDA64 Benchmarks! Windows 7 FX patch preview!

    ROUND 9: AIDA64



    Does FX stand a chance?
    RESULTS:

    CPU AES :


    BEFORE

    AFTER



    CPU HASH :


    BEFORE


    AFTER



    CPU PHOTOWORX :


    BEFORE

    AFTER




    CPU QUEEN :


    BEFORE

    AFTER:



    CPU ZLIB :


    BEFORE


    AFTER



    FPU JULIA :


    BEFORE

    AFTER



    FPU SINJULIA :


    BEFORE

    AFTER



    FPU VP8 :


    BEFORE

    AFTER



    FPU MANDEL :


    BEFORE

    AFTER



    SUMMARY OF RESULTS (Patch vs. No-Patch)

    CPU Tests -

    AES : +7.3% performance
    Hash : +0.2% performance
    Photoworx : +3.3% performance
    Queen : +0.1% performance
    ZLib : +0.1% performance

    FPU Tests -

    Julia : +0.3% performance
    SinJulia : +0.0% performance
    VP8 : +1.4% performance
    Mandel : +0.3% performance

    We can see here that the patch gives a decent boost in performance with AIDA64 across the board with none of the benchmarks showing worse performance than with pre-patched Windows 7. Overall FX fairs fairly well, but the only benchmark where it pulls ahead of all the other CPUs is in CPU Hash. The AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 ghz manages a top 2 spot when compared to the other CPUs in 4/8 tests and a top 3 spot in 5/8 tests. Naturally the 3960x @ 3.8 ghz Turbo manages to beat FX in most tests, but not nearly as singificantly as one would expect.

    TechArp H.264 Benchmarks! **Updated with Windows 7 Patch**

    Round 1 Revisited!

    CPU: AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz

    With Patch vs. Without Patch


    RESULTS:

    First Pass - Single Core Performance!




    Single core Performance increases by +2.3% with both Windows 7 Patches installed. This isn't grossly significant, but still welcome! At 4.8 Ghz the AMD FX 8150 manages to beat an i7-875k @ 4.0 Ghz by about +4%.



    Second Pass - Multi-Core Performance!




    When all cores are active, the windows 7 patch actually manages to bring improvement of +2.4%. This pushes the performance of the AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz above the i5 2500k @ 5.0 Ghz by a whopping +21% and below that of an i7 2600k @ 5.0 Ghz by only -1%.

    So far these patches look like a welcome boost in performance!

    Memory Benchmarks!! With Updated WEI!



    AMD FX 8150 Memory Benchmarks

    CPU: AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz
    Ram: 4GB G.Skill DDR3 PC3-17600 2200MHz RipjawsX CL7 (Running @ 2183 Mhz)
    Motherboard: ASUS Crosshair V 990FX


    RESULTS:

    MaxxMEM



    By Request!

    AIDA64 - Write



    AIDA64 - Read



    AIDA64 - Latency



    AIDA64 - Copy



    As we can see, my Gskill Ram does pretty well overall in a 990FX board. Only Write scores benefit greatly from triple, or quad channel memory, and this is shown through the above comparisons. It should be noted that my ram's performance was maximized setting CL to 10, and decreasing the response time from 300ms to 110ms. This change of setting also manages to squeeze out the 7.9 memory rating in WEI! (I had 7.8 with Cl7 / 300ms)


    Updated WEI



    7.9 CPU only accomplished with 2600k/2700k @ ~5.7+ ghz, or dual/quad socket Xeon / Opteron systems.

    WinRar / Cinebench 11.5 Revisited with Patch!




    Cinebench 11.5 - with Patch


    RESULTS:



    When compared to without the patch we score +0.25% (from 7.90) higher in the CPU test, and +4.3% (from 72.95) in OpenGL score (6990 @ 990/1500 Mhz). The single core score does not show any increase in performance.


    WinRar - with Patch


    RESULTS:



    We can see here that at stock 3.6 Ghz, the FX 8150 manages to benefit from the patch by +3.4% when compared to without, and running at 4.8 Ghz performance increases by +3.9%. Opposite of what the initial preliminary patch released by Microsoft showed, where WinRar performance managed to decrease.


    PCMARK 7 benchmarks!
    Round 11 : PCMARK 7




    RESULTS:


    Pre-Patch VS. Post-Patch



    Before Patch installation



    After Patch installation



    Comparison

    We can see that PCMARK 7 is very happy with the Windows 7 FX Patch. The only performance decrease is the system storage score which is probably due to the use of my SSD. Garbage Collection seems to be doing its job however. The most notable increase in performance is in the computation Score, where the patch shows a +16.6% increase in performance. An honourable mention to the entertainment score as well, which noticed a +4.4% increase in performance.




    7-Zip Benchmarks Revisited **Updated with Patch results**

    7-Zip Benchmarks - With Patch



    We remember FX being a beast in 7-zip, how will it fair with the patch?


    RESULTS:



    Over 100% more performance than i5 2500k @ 3.7 Ghz Turbo


    As we can see here, FX manages to marginally benefit from the patch in Decompression only. Compression shows little to no improvement. 7-zip really shows Bulldozer's strength.


    DIRT 3 Benchmarks! FX King?

    ROUND 12 : DIRT 3 Benchmarks




    RESULTS:



    source: Tomshardware

    As you can see DIRT 3 really takes advantage of FX architecture. The most notable comparison is with the 6990 @ stock settings 830/1250 Mhz. The AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz manages to squeeze out 131.4 AVG FPS and 118.2 MIN FPS, while the intel i5 2500k @ 4.0 Ghz manages to only get 104.3 AVG FPS and 97.0 MIN FPS. Thats 26%/22% MORE FPS. I was even shocked to see this! Good Job AMD!

    Also to be noted is the patch's modest improvement in FPS of 2.0%/3.6% for MIN/AVG FPS.



    ROUND 13: TrueCrypt 7.1 Benchmark



    RESULTS:


    CPU: AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz (SHOWN IN RED)

    OS: Windows 7 x64 SP1



    source: Pugetsystems



    Intel vs. AMD


    In the TrueCrypt 7.1 benchmark we can see that the AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz beats an i7 990x @ 3.6 Ghz Turbo in all tests, and just trails the i7 3930k. Note that this is using Windows 7 x64 SP1. Comparing to an i7 2600k @ 3.6 Ghz Turbo, across all tests FX wins by an average of over +54%. Bulldozer's architecture is seemingly taken advantage of with this specific benchmark, but now we will look at Ubuntu Linux Performance.




    CPU: AMD FX 8150 @ 3.9 Ghz Turbo

    OS: Ubuntu 11.10




    source: PCimpact


    Here we can see that the AMD FX 8150 performs much much better at stock settings when compared to with Windows 7. Linux seems to be taking much more advantage of Bulldozer's architecture, and this just comes to show that optimization for Windows is not near completion, and shows us just what could be in store for Piledriver when it comes out.




    AMD FX 8150 @ 3.9 Ghz Turbo



    In Linux, FX @ 3.9 Ghz Turbo , FX manages to even significantly beat overclocked (at 4.8 Ghz) performance on Windows 7, and comes much closer to performing on-par with a 3960x. It would be interesting to see overclocked performance in Linux, as I suspect its drastic.

    Round 14 : Sandra SiSoftware Benchmark Results!




    CPU 1: Intel i7 2600k @ 4.3 Ghz
    CPU 2: Intel i7 2600k @ 4.6 Ghz, DDR3 @ 2133 CL11
    CPU 3: AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz, Gskill DDR3 @ 2183 CL10

    RESULTS:



    Here we see that the FX Patch brings a decent boost in performance, averaging +5.17% across all 12 tests. The largest performance increase comes in the .NET Arithmetic - Dhrystone test, where we see a +24.6% difference. This is the most significant increase in performance I have yet to see for the FX patch.

    Comparing my AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz to an intel 2600k @ 4.6 Ghz for 10 of the 12 tests, and a 2600k @ 4.3 Ghz for 2 of the 12 tests, we see an average performance difference of -0.07% , implying that AMD is still not so behind in this notoriously Intel favoured benchmark. The reason that two of the tests were not carried out @ 4.6 Ghz in the .NET Arithmetic scores , but instead @ 4.3 Ghz , is because scores @ 4.6 Ghz were not included in the internal comparison benchmarks listed. Of course this will play into the averaged difference, so I suspect that the 2600k @ 4.8 Ghz should beat the FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz by an average of 5% give or take. I might re visit this later on with my own testing to confirm this.

    We can really see that intel and AMD have different strengths and weaknesses across the 12 tests in this benchmark.

    Also notice how memory scores for G.Skill Ram @ 2183 Mhz CL10 only trail the intel's score with Ram @ 2133 Mhz CL11 by -4.8%/-4.6%.


    Alien Vs. Predator Revisited **With Patch**


    Results:



    source: Tomshardware



    We can see here that the FX Windows 7 Patch brings about +1% in performance when compared to without it. This pushes AVP performance with a stock 6990 above that of with an intel 980x @ 4.0 Ghz by +4.3% without AA, and by +23.5% with 4xMSAA. I used Catalyst 12.1b for the pre-Patch scores, and 12.1 Final Build for post-Patch scores.


    For Comparison's sake we may also examine results from HEXUS.net with Two 7950's @ 900/1250 in Crossfire and catalyst 12.1 Final Build (which is also what I used in my updated Patch FPS). This test is with a Stock i5 2500k @ 3.6 Ghz Turbo. It should be noted that this test is with 4xMSAA but also with 16xAF as well, which the above test with 4xMSAA lacks - in accordance to Tom's review. So take these results with a grain of salt! (Although AF affects fps minimally in this game, while AA affects it significantly).



    source: HEXUS


    As we can see, Two 7950's OCd @ 900/1250 in crossfire only score a measly 114.0 FPS with an i5 2500k @ 3.6 Ghz Turbo. Despite the fact that this test has AF enabled, the other settings and identical. My Patched FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz with 6990 @ 990/1500 scores 124.5 FPS , which is +9.2% higher FPS than the intel rig with 2 x 7950 OC @ 900/1250 in Crossfire. We can also see that FX with a 6990 @ 990/1500 scores +37.1% more fps than the i5 2500k @ 3.6 ghz with Two GTX 580's in SLI OC @ 797/1594.

    POV Ray 3.7 RC3 Benchmarks!

    ROUND 15: POV Ray 3.7 RC3 Benchmarks!

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ogo_sphere.png
    source: wikipedia

    RESULTS:

    OK, now for some real world testing. Let's see how FX fairs in a POV Ray render. My results are from testing the internal benchmark, where PPS is pixels per second.




    source: legitreviews



    My 8 threaded AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz casually beats a twelve threaded intel i7 990x @ 3.6 Ghz Turbo, and



    source: overclockersclub

    Here we can see that my AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz manages to keep up with an overclocked intel i7 2600k at different maximum overclocks on several different Z68 boards. The performance per Ghz of an 8 core FX is roughly that of a 2600k/2700k, and if not only a hair better. Overall, Good Job on this one AMD.


    DIRT 3 Revisited ... Again! (By Request)

    DIRT 3: Revisited for a third time!


    So I had some requests to re bench my FX rig @ 4.0 ghz in the DIRT 3 benchmark to see how well bulldozer fairs against intel's i5 2500k @ 4.0 Ghz.

    RESULTS:



    source: Tomshardware



    Here we see my AMD FX 8150 @ 4.0 Ghz still manages to keep a lead over intel's i5 2500k also at 4.0 Ghz when my 6990 is running at stock settings (830/1250). FX has a +8.6% lead in minimum FPS, and a +20% lead in average FPS. It is interesting to note that when the 6990 is stock, overclocking my AMD FX 8150 and additional 800 Mhz to 4.8 Ghz brings a benefit of +12.3% benefit to minimum FPS, and a +5.0% benefit to AVG fps.

    Fritz Chess 4.3 Benchmark!

    ROUND 16: Frtiz Chess 4.3 benchmark



    RESULTS:






    Scaling with this benchmark is awful compared to cinebench 11.5. Fritz single core to multi core performance scales as ~5.44, while Cinebench 11.5 scales as ~6.66. However, single core performance of my overclocked FX 8150 manages to beat an ivy bridge i7 part @ 3.9 Ghz by +5.7%. Single core performance of my FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz falls behind that of an i5 2500k @ 4.8 Ghz by about ~30%.The other results have been gathered from what I have seen with a few quick google searches.


    Cinebench 10 benchmarks!

    ROUND 17 : Cinebench 10



    How will FX fair in this 5 year old benchmark?

    RESULTS:



    As we found with Fritz Chess benchmark, scaling with this older benchmark is not nearly as good as it should be and as it is found to be with newer and more optimized software, such as Cinebench 11.5. In Cinebench 10, my AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz scales as ~5.53, while in Cinebench 11.5 it scales as ~6.66.

    Comparing our score:


    (from various online sources)

    Single Core performance of my FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz manages to beat a Phenom II core @ 4.0 Ghz by +12.1%. Scaling in this older benchmark (2007) is not so pretty. Even for intel's 12 threaded processors, scaling is lower than FX. A hypothetical AMD FX 8150 with ~6.66 scaling would score **32527** , a hypothetical i7 3960x with ~6.49 scaling would score **39219**. (Scaling taken from Cinebench 11.5) Single core performance of an AMD FX @ 4.8 Ghz with compared to an i7 2600k also @ 4.8 Ghz is worse by -37.7% , but multihtreaded performance is behind by only -15%. A hypothetical 2600k @ 4.8 Ghz with ~4.49 scaling would score **35210**. (Scalings taken from cinebench 11.5)

    As we can see, scaling seems to be a big issue with older benchmarks. This could be one of the many reasons FX shows many weaknesses in older benchmarks.

    x264 FHD Benchmarks

    Round 18: x264 FHD benchmarks



    RESULTS:



    In this benchmark, we can see that my AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz slightly beats the performance of a 12 threaded 980x @ 3.57 Ghz. . Performance per Ghz of the FX 8150 (5.40) is higher than the intel i7 2600k. (5.33).

    SPECviewperf 11 Benchmarks!


    ROUND19: SPECviewperf 11




    Comparison Systems:

    AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz - 4.7 Ghz
    XFX 6990 @ 990/1500 -Mhz 930/1300 Mhz + Accelero Twin Turbo
    ASUS Crosshair V 990FX
    4Gb 2200 G.Skill DDR3

    Intel i7 3960x - 4.7 Ghz
    MSI AMD 6990 @ 930/1300 Mhz + Accelero Twin Turbo
    ASUS Sabertooth X79
    16Gb 1866 G.Skill DDR3



    source: spec.org


    RESULTS:





    Its interesting to see stremghts and weaknesses in both CPUs across various tests. Most noteably, in the ensight-04 test the i7 3960x @ 4.7 Ghz manages to perform -34.5% worse when compared to my AMD FX 8150 also @ 4.7 with a 6990 at the exact same clock. However, in the proe-05 test, the i7 3960x scores +40.5% better than my AMD FX 8150 rig at the same clocks.

    Overall, my AMD FX 8150 only lags behind the i7 3960x rig by -4.4% at the same CPU/GPU clocks on average. Overclocking back up to 4.8 Ghz, and increasing my GPU clocks to 990/1500 Mhz results in only a +2.7% increase in performance when compared to the lower clocked FX.

    A Special Thanks to alexmaia_br from the overclock.net community for sharing his results to compare with.


    **Cinebench 10 Revisited**


    Intel Compiler Patcher scans your hard drive for executable files compiled with the Intel C++ Compiler making it possible to disable the CPU dispatcher in detected files, thus, increasing performance of the software that uses these files with CPUs other than Intel. Give Intel Compiler Patcher a try to see what it's really capable of!

    source - Softpedia


    Without further ado,

    RESULTS:



    Here we see a welcome gain of 0.7% in both single core and multi-threaded performance. Also note that scaling has dropped -0.2% down to 5.52 from 5.53.


    **7-Zip Revisited - Sandy's Back!**


    This time let's see if FX can stand up to its intel counterpart the 2600k.


    Comparison Rigs:

    AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz
    XFX 6990 + Accelero Twin Turbo
    ASUS Crosshair V 990FX
    4Gb 2200 Mhz G.Skill DDR3
    OCZ Revodrive 3 X2 240Gb

    Intel i7 2600k - 4.8 Ghz
    2 x GTX 560 Ti SLI
    ASUS P67 MIVE
    8Gb 2200 Mhz G.Skill DDR3
    Corsair Force GT 120 Gb

    RESULTS:



    source: neoseeker


    As we expect, the intel i7 2600k @ 4.8 Ghz trades blows with the AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz.

    A Special Thanks to grkM3 from the Anandtech community for sharing his results to compare with!

    Link to Blog:
    http://AMDFX.blogspot.com
    Last edited by polyzp; 02-17-12 at 11:32 AM. Reason: removed blog links

  16. #14
    mjw21a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Australia, Brisbane
    Rather interesting. Tp me this shows AMD to not be as far behind as I'd previously thought.... I may upgrade when Piledriver comes out after all.
    CPU & HSF: AMD Ryzen 1800X & Corsair H110i
    Mobo: Asus Prime X370-PRO
    RAM: Corsair 16GB (2x8GB) CMU16GX4M2C3200C16 DDR4 3200MHz
    Storage: 1x Crucial 1TB M.2 SSD, 1x 500GB Samsung EVO SSD, 1x 1.5TB Samsung Silencer Series HDD
    GFX: 6GB Asus GeForce GTX1060 Turbo + Yamakasi Catleap Q270 SE 27" IPS LED LCD
    Audio: SMSL M3 DAC, SMSL SA50 T Amp, Polk Audio TSi100 Bookshelf Speakers, AKG K121 Headphones + Rode M1 Microphone
    Case & PSU: Fractal Define R5 & 650W Seasonic G-650W

  17. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    UK
    Its OC'ed, whats the memory performance @ stock, its hard to gauge it against its main rivals OC'ed like that.
    “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.” -Winston Churchill

  18. #16
    Benching Team Leader
    Senior Memory Guru
    Premium Member #19



    10 Year Badge
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Poznan, Poland
    Author Profile Benching Profile Folding Profile SETI Profile Rosetta Profile
    @polyzp , Nice work there, you made lot of tests and seems that you like FX

    I would play with tighter timings on this memory. 2200 CL7 ( if I'm right then 7-10-10 kit ) can probably go up to 2300-2400 on air with 7-10-7 or 7-11-7 timings and up to 1.7V ( that is under specification for any 2133+ IC ). Also try higher CPU-NB ( if your cpu let you ) like 2600-2800MHz as above ~1866 memory you almost won't see any difference in performance without higher IMC bandwidth. Not that memory is making big difference in overall performance. It's just that CL10 is making me sad for PSC or any Elpida IC

  19. #17
    Water Cooled Moderator
    Overclockers.com Lead
    Editor (Retired)
    hokiealumnus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Author Profile Benching Profile Heatware Profile
    Quote Originally Posted by Woomack View Post
    @polyzp , Nice work there, you made lot of tests and seems that you like FX

    I would play with tighter timings on this memory. 2200 CL7 ( if I'm right then 7-10-10 kit ) can probably go up to 2300-2400 on air with 7-10-7 or 7-11-7 timings and up to 1.7V ( that is under specification for any 2133+ IC ). Also try higher CPU-NB ( if your cpu let you ) like 2600-2800MHz as above ~1866 memory you almost won't see any difference in performance without higher IMC bandwidth. Not that memory is making big difference in overall performance. It's just that CL10 is making me sad for PSC or any Elpida IC
    FWIW, much past 2133 is unstable with ambient temps on Bulldozer (at least in my experience). The IMC scales with cold and you can get 3000+ with the right sticks when frozen with LN2, but on ambient it's nowhere near as strong. Not that 2133 isn't strong -it's plenty for 99% of people, and 100% for 24/7 use-, it's just not 3000 strong.

    Enjoy benchmarks? Join the benching team!
    New to water cooling? Read the Beginner's Guide to Water Cooling Your PC.
    I.M.O.G. - "Night benching is the answer. Start sleeping every other day. Other than an occassional narcoleptic episode, its been wor"
    \m/ OverClockers mATX L33T Club \m/ - Join Now! - My mITX Build

  20. #18
    mjw21a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Australia, Brisbane
    Lol, 3000 strong sounds totally awesome. I'm sure it'll be standard within another 5 years or so though only time will tell ;o)
    CPU & HSF: AMD Ryzen 1800X & Corsair H110i
    Mobo: Asus Prime X370-PRO
    RAM: Corsair 16GB (2x8GB) CMU16GX4M2C3200C16 DDR4 3200MHz
    Storage: 1x Crucial 1TB M.2 SSD, 1x 500GB Samsung EVO SSD, 1x 1.5TB Samsung Silencer Series HDD
    GFX: 6GB Asus GeForce GTX1060 Turbo + Yamakasi Catleap Q270 SE 27" IPS LED LCD
    Audio: SMSL M3 DAC, SMSL SA50 T Amp, Polk Audio TSi100 Bookshelf Speakers, AKG K121 Headphones + Rode M1 Microphone
    Case & PSU: Fractal Define R5 & 650W Seasonic G-650W

  21. #19
    Benching Team Leader
    Senior Memory Guru
    Premium Member #19



    10 Year Badge
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Poznan, Poland
    Author Profile Benching Profile Folding Profile SETI Profile Rosetta Profile
    Quote Originally Posted by hokiealumnus View Post
    FWIW, much past 2133 is unstable with ambient temps on Bulldozer (at least in my experience). The IMC scales with cold and you can get 3000+ with the right sticks when frozen with LN2, but on ambient it's nowhere near as strong. Not that 2133 isn't strong -it's plenty for 99% of people, and 100% for 24/7 use-, it's just not 3000 strong.
    It's stable till about 2300-2350 with all my PSC on water ( and I have 10 sticks ... probably today will be 2 more ). Anything higher only when I use sub 0 on cpu. Max so far with memory on air was ~2850 and quite stable 2500 CL7 like here :

    Name:  maxx2.jpg
Views: 461
Size:  335.9 KB

    Max stable with 4 sticks ( cpu/water , memory/air without fan ) was ~2200 and I didn't try higher.

    I didn't say that there have to be 3000 on memory for 24/7 ... but 2200 7-10-10 sticks are just asking for something more than 2183 10-12-11

    I can even say that there is no point to use higher memory than 1866 24/7 because IMC is too limited ...

  22. #20
    Water Cooled Moderator
    Overclockers.com Lead
    Editor (Retired)
    hokiealumnus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Author Profile Benching Profile Heatware Profile
    Very nice! Your IMC is a bit stronger than the one I had.

    Enjoy benchmarks? Join the benching team!
    New to water cooling? Read the Beginner's Guide to Water Cooling Your PC.
    I.M.O.G. - "Night benching is the answer. Start sleeping every other day. Other than an occassional narcoleptic episode, its been wor"
    \m/ OverClockers mATX L33T Club \m/ - Join Now! - My mITX Build

Page 1 of 3 1 2 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •