-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Processor Comparison FX 8150 vs 6272
- Thread starter inwell
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2012
Minor changes between the two instruction set and revision wise perhaps, but the biggest differing factor is the cache. Note the 6212 has 2x the cache the 8350 does.
The 8350 is PILEDRIVER by the way, not BULLDOZER. Both architectures are basically built to be server processors, so I wouldn't be suprised if an 8350 outperformed a 6212 even in a server enviroment due to its much higher clock speed, efficiency, and improved IPC over Bulldozer.
An 8150 and 6212 are both BD based CPUs. Server CPUs are clocked lower for reliability reasons, and Opterons are no exception. Expect to pay more for less performance.
There are three main differences you'll see between the two.
1) Physical Package: The 8150 is Socket AM3+ and the 6212 is Socket G34
2) MCM: All socket G34 CPUs are built from two dies, so the Opteron is really comprised of two quad cores instead of a single 8 core. This means you get twice of everything else on the chip: quad channel memory, twice the cache, etc.
3) Frequency: Desktop chips tend to be clocked higher for a given price point. This is true of the 8150 vs 6212 as well.
Both can use ECC memory, though many desktop boards don't expose the option in the BIOS anymore. I don't think desktop boards ever support registered memory, however, unlike the server platform.
You mentioned both a 6212 and 6272. My comments are with regard to the 6212 since it is an 8C part. The 6272 is a 16C (dual 8C dies).
There are three main differences you'll see between the two.
1) Physical Package: The 8150 is Socket AM3+ and the 6212 is Socket G34
2) MCM: All socket G34 CPUs are built from two dies, so the Opteron is really comprised of two quad cores instead of a single 8 core. This means you get twice of everything else on the chip: quad channel memory, twice the cache, etc.
3) Frequency: Desktop chips tend to be clocked higher for a given price point. This is true of the 8150 vs 6212 as well.
Both can use ECC memory, though many desktop boards don't expose the option in the BIOS anymore. I don't think desktop boards ever support registered memory, however, unlike the server platform.
You mentioned both a 6212 and 6272. My comments are with regard to the 6212 since it is an 8C part. The 6272 is a 16C (dual 8C dies).
- Thread Starter
- #4
i was rendering some images(frames)in 3dsmax using backburner network rendering setup.
my 2 pcs in network are intel Xeon 5607 (2.6 GHz Quadcore x2) and i added 1 pc with FX 8150 (3.6GHz 8 Core) (with all other hardware identical ).
The xeon pcs rendered the frames in 7/8 mins per frame while FX 8150 took 20 mins for the same frame...
so i was thinking if i replaced the 8 core FX-8150 (Desktop processor) with 8 core server processor Opteron 6212, will it matchup with xeons ? or get very near..
regards
my 2 pcs in network are intel Xeon 5607 (2.6 GHz Quadcore x2) and i added 1 pc with FX 8150 (3.6GHz 8 Core) (with all other hardware identical ).
The xeon pcs rendered the frames in 7/8 mins per frame while FX 8150 took 20 mins for the same frame...
so i was thinking if i replaced the 8 core FX-8150 (Desktop processor) with 8 core server processor Opteron 6212, will it matchup with xeons ? or get very near..
regards
If that is your motivating factor, I'm sorry to say it won't be possible on AMD hardware. Intel cores are simply faster, and when software is optimized for Intel CPUs on top of that there simply is no catching up with the same core count.
If you need better performance, your best option for the money is going to be another Intel system.
If you need better performance, your best option for the money is going to be another Intel system.
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2002
If you go after the 16core Opteron im sure it will keep up with the dual xenons. I cant say about the 8 core though the clockspeed is just low. TBH you would be better swapping that 8150 for an 8350 and overclocking it.
In all my rendering tests even with my one slower gimpy 8 core PD my rendering times for CPU heavy well threaded work have gone way down. MY better 8 core Vishera at 4.8Ghz smokes my old 8120 @ 5.5ghz.
In all my rendering tests even with my one slower gimpy 8 core PD my rendering times for CPU heavy well threaded work have gone way down. MY better 8 core Vishera at 4.8Ghz smokes my old 8120 @ 5.5ghz.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2004
- Location
- JAX, Mississauna
Well he asked the question like a lot of pollsters do and really did not get an accurate answer. If he had laid out the fact two Intel systems each with dual quad core processors were rendering frames on backburner faster than a single desktop FX-8150 processor and what could he do about that...well the answers might have been a little more realistic.
I cannot see a single desktop cpu rendering 'as fast' as most relatively fast server style systems with dual cpus.
I do believe as 'ssjwizard' said that an overclocked FX-8350 would do better than the FX-8150, if the OP did not want to actualy setup a server style Opteron system. All that said if the two intel systems are doing a frame in 7/8s minute then there is no reason to even link the desktop FX computer with backburner since it was said to render in 20 mins not 7/8s min.
RGone...
I cannot see a single desktop cpu rendering 'as fast' as most relatively fast server style systems with dual cpus.
I do believe as 'ssjwizard' said that an overclocked FX-8350 would do better than the FX-8150, if the OP did not want to actualy setup a server style Opteron system. All that said if the two intel systems are doing a frame in 7/8s minute then there is no reason to even link the desktop FX computer with backburner since it was said to render in 20 mins not 7/8s min.
RGone...
- Thread Starter
- #9
@ RGone,trents and ssjwizard...
thank you for your valuable inputs....
i m not planning to add any FX system (8150 or 8350) in my backburner setup. I added one FX 8150 in this setup just to test and compare the time they take.
I am definitely planning a server CPU but not sure which to select (6272 or 6234 or 6212 ) with SUpermicro MOBO or ASUS KGPE-D16
so can i say that server grade cpu (opteron) will matchup with the xeons . If not 8 core 6212 but 12 core 6234 or 16 core 6272...
if needed will add 2 cpus..as these MOBOs allow dual cpu mounting.
now what will work better ? 2x 6212 (8 core) or 1x 6272 (16 core)..
best wishes
thank you for your valuable inputs....
i m not planning to add any FX system (8150 or 8350) in my backburner setup. I added one FX 8150 in this setup just to test and compare the time they take.
I am definitely planning a server CPU but not sure which to select (6272 or 6234 or 6212 ) with SUpermicro MOBO or ASUS KGPE-D16
so can i say that server grade cpu (opteron) will matchup with the xeons . If not 8 core 6212 but 12 core 6234 or 16 core 6272...
if needed will add 2 cpus..as these MOBOs allow dual cpu mounting.
now what will work better ? 2x 6212 (8 core) or 1x 6272 (16 core)..
best wishes
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2004
- Location
- JAX, Mississauna
You will have quicker access to the ram with dual 6212 cpus. Don't know since I did not look what the speed difference of the cpus themselves between the 6212 and the 6272. If not much speed difference then I would actually believe the dual 6212's with separate memory controllers across two cpus would be a little quicker.
RGone...
RGone...
Dual 6212s would definitely be faster than a single 6272. 8 memory channels as RGone mentioned would be part of the reason, but more importantly you'll have higher clock speeds. +500 MHz base clock / +500 MHz half turbo / +200 MHz all turbo
That being said, you're better off with a Xeon. Yes, any current Xeon will nearly always outpace any current Opteron with the same core count and frequency. The core architecture in Xeon processors is more efficient. Opterons are still fine chips, but you should always do your own testing for your intended application. You have done some of that and have seen the result--in your particular app, the Intelagos (BD) architecture just isn't getting your work done as quickly as Westmere.
That being said, you're better off with a Xeon. Yes, any current Xeon will nearly always outpace any current Opteron with the same core count and frequency. The core architecture in Xeon processors is more efficient. Opterons are still fine chips, but you should always do your own testing for your intended application. You have done some of that and have seen the result--in your particular app, the Intelagos (BD) architecture just isn't getting your work done as quickly as Westmere.
