Return of AMD FX: My OC'd AMD FX 8150 review with OC'd 6990 - First Results UP! - Page 14

polyzp · 04-11-2012, 23:52 | posts: 142

Quote:

Originally Posted by ---TK---

yeah your bd at 4.8 vs an old school quad at 4ghz.
people on here like me and several others post in this thread because we know what BD is truthfully and do not want any newbie pc builders looking at these "tests" you have posted in 15 threads mind you, and buying into your hoopla and actually buying that cpu.

Your the one that originally brought up this comparison, not me. I have yet to see anyone prove that my tests are some how flawed in any way, maybe FX isnt so bad after all and you still wont accept it haha.

---TK--- · 04-11-2012, 23:55 | posts: 14,939 | Location: New Jersey, USA

I never said post up a 4.8ghz bd vs a n old quad at 4ghz, I wanted a comparison clock for clock at 4ghz. and you cannot turn off turbo on bd?

polyzp · 04-11-2012, 23:59 | posts: 142

Quote:

Originally Posted by ---TK---

I never said post up a 4.8ghz bd vs a n old quad at 4ghz, I wanted a comparison clock for clock at 4ghz. and you cannot turn off turbo on bd?

Again, i cant do anything now without a rig, but as soon as i do i will test at 4.0 ghz across some tests we can agree on, if you also agree to do the same with your qx9650, so we can have some first hand comparisons. Wouldnt you agree this would be generally a good thing for the community?

---TK--- · *Last edited by ---TK---; 04-12-2012 at 00:05.*

dude I do not have a qx9775 or whatever its called. never claimed too. ninja edit, paying attention now. I already told you why I am not benching for your. look forward to seeing if that 8150 at 4ghz can keep up with a 5 socket old intel cpu at 4ghz though

polyzp · 04-12-2012, 00:27 | posts: 142

Quote:

Originally Posted by ---TK---

I have a qx9650 at 4ghz

I dont see why you wont benchmark this to compare with me.

IcE · 04-12-2012, 01:42 | posts: 7,097 | Location: Toledo, Ohio

Quote:

Originally Posted by polyzp

I dont see why you wont benchmark this to compare with me.

Because it's pointless. A more than four year old CPU practically tying with bulldozer is sad as hell.

GhostXL · 04-12-2012, 01:44 | posts: 4,935 | Location: PA, USA

Quote:

Originally Posted by polyzp

I dont see why you wont benchmark this to compare with me.

Cuz he will be proven wrong.

Look BD isn't anything like the i7 2600K for example.

But it has been proven to exchange blows with the i5 2500K. I didn't say it was faster all around, I said "EXCHANGE BLOWS" just to make that clear before people start "EXCHANGING BLOWS" with me over me saying "EXCHANGING BLOWS" making it seem as if I meant it was faster in everything. Man....that got me tongue tied.

Guys really stop arguing with polyzp, if you can't take the time to compare benches with the hardware you claim you have, then you have no right to talk.

---TK--- · 04-12-2012, 01:48 | posts: 14,939 | Location: New Jersey, USA

the proof is right here bud. thuban vs bd at 4.2ghz. yorkfield is a little faster than P2 clocked the same.
http://3.bp.*************/-DtQdLhcMny...s1600/obr9.jpg

GhostXL · 04-12-2012, 02:19 | posts: 4,935 | Location: PA, USA

Quote:

Originally Posted by ---TK---

the proof is right here bud. thuban vs bd at 4.2ghz. yorkfield is a little faster than P2 clocked the same.
http://3.bp.*************/-DtQdLhcMny...s1600/obr9.jpg

Pretty sure he was talking about your Intel Core 2 Quad.

---TK--- · *Last edited by ---TK---; 04-12-2012 at 02:40.*

Quote:

Originally Posted by GhostXL

Pretty sure he was talking about your Intel Core 2 Quad.

OP already stated the qx9650 clocked the same would have better single threaded performance than a similarily clocked 8150, and trade blows with it in other things like the benches linked earlier. if you want to see some qx9650 benches use the search button here in the benchmarking section and search tommyk2005 at hwbot, think I have some old benches there. I already stated why I will not bench already, read the thread if you want. another reason is the chip is quite old and I have 0 interest benchmarking it

polyzp · 04-12-2012, 03:20 | posts: 142

Quote:

Originally Posted by ---TK---

OP already stated the qx9650 clocked the same would have better single threaded performance than a similarily clocked 8150, and trade blows with it in other things like the benches linked earlier. if you want to see some qx9650 benches use the search button here in the benchmarking section and search tommyk2005 at hwbot, think I have some old benches there. I already stated why I will not bench already, read the thread if you want. another reason is the chip is quite old and I have 0 interest benchmarking it

I never said at the same clock an fx 8150 beats a qx9650 at the same clock because that is obviously wrong. Don't put words in my mouth. I said a max oc fx processor will generally have higher single core performance than a max oc qx9650 but not by much, the scaling is nearly double however, more like 90 percent higher.

sykozis · 04-12-2012, 04:23 | posts: 13,636 | Location: US East Coast

Quote:

Originally Posted by polyzp

I never said at the same clock an fx 8150 beats a qx9650 at the same clock because that is obviously wrong. Don't put words in my mouth. I said a max oc fx processor will generally have higher single core performance than a max oc qx9650 but not by much, the scaling is nearly double however, more like 90 percent higher.

So, it takes almost a 1ghz difference for Bulldozer to compete?

Psychlone · 04-12-2012, 04:48 | posts: 3,715 | Location: Searching for more light...

I, for one, would LOVE to see some side-by-side benchmarks from our members and compare them to the same exact benchmarks from polyzp.

What's the harm? Decide on 5 benchmarks, decide on any specific settings, decide on a single clock speed and run the tests.
Bring the 2500k, 2600k and any other Intel offering to the "battle" and at least see what our brethren come up with - THAT'S unbiased and doesn't require much effort at all.

I've seen some of what polyzp has mentioned and shown in my business, but I also agree that when comparing, you HAVE to compare oranges to oranges (i.e. identical benchmarks on systems with identical clock speeds) - only this way can one clearly see what's going on...

So what's the harm in getting a few local brothers to offer up their own personal benchmarks to compare to polyzp's on some new, pre-determined benchmarks? Honestly, I'm completely SICK of "professional media" benchmarks from most sites anyway and would love to see some raw data from real people.

Psychlone

polyzp · 04-12-2012, 08:58 | posts: 142

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psychlone

I, for one, would LOVE to see some side-by-side benchmarks from our members and compare them to the same exact benchmarks from polyzp.

What's the harm? Decide on 5 benchmarks, decide on any specific settings, decide on a single clock speed and run the tests.
Bring the 2500k, 2600k and any other Intel offering to the "battle" and at least see what our brethren come up with - THAT'S unbiased and doesn't require much effort at all.

I've seen some of what polyzp has mentioned and shown in my business, but I also agree that when comparing, you HAVE to compare oranges to oranges (i.e. identical benchmarks on systems with identical clock speeds) - only this way can one clearly see what's going on...

So what's the harm in getting a few local brothers to offer up their own personal benchmarks to compare to polyzp's on some new, pre-determined benchmarks? Honestly, I'm completely SICK of "professional media" benchmarks from most sites anyway and would love to see some raw data from real people.

Psychlone

I would like this as well, and encourage anyone to benchmark their rigs to compare with mine! This would be deeply appreciated.

Pill Monster · 04-12-2012, 09:08 | posts: 20,852 | Location: NZ

I will @4Ghz. Name the apps.

Chillin · *Last edited by Chillin; 04-12-2012 at 17:19.*

My system is at 4GHz as well, I'll join in.

How about the following apps:

-Cinebench 11.5 (single and multi) (http://www.softpedia.com/progDownloa...oad-33754.html)

-Super PI (http://www.superpi.net/Download)

- WinRar 4.01 (64bit) Test (single and multi):

My results:

WinRAR -
---Single: 1,307
---Multi: 3,891

Super PI:

Cinebench:

polyzp · 04-12-2012, 23:50 | posts: 142

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chillin

My system is at 4GHz as well, I'll join in.

How about the following apps:

-Cinebench 11.5 (single and multi) (http://www.softpedia.com/progDownloa...oad-33754.html)

-Super PI (http://www.superpi.net/Download)

- WinRar 4.01 (64bit) Test (single and multi):

My results:

WinRAR -
---Single: 1,307
---Multi: 3,891

Super PI:

Cinebench:

Thanks for this!! I will definitly use this info in my upcoming benchmarks! Could you also test with fritz chess single and multi threaded at 4 ghz?

Chillin · *Last edited by Chillin; 04-13-2012 at 00:33.*

Quote:

Originally Posted by polyzp

Thanks for this!! I will definitly use this info in my upcoming benchmarks! Could you also test with fritz chess single and multi threaded at 4 ghz?

Fritz version 12:

Single:
---Relative: 6.37
---Kilo nodes: 3056

Multi:
---Relative: 24.88
---Kilo nodes: 11942

Keep in mind that my computer is not a fresh install and has some programs working in the background, so it is a bit slower than a benchmark system would be.

polyzp · 04-13-2012, 10:31 | posts: 142

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chillin

Fritz version 12:

Single:
---Relative: 6.37
---Kilo nodes: 3056

Multi:
---Relative: 24.88
---Kilo nodes: 11942

Keep in mind that my computer is not a fresh install and has some programs working in the background, so it is a bit slower than a benchmark system would be.

Single threaded performance comparison:

AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz

Fritz single core : 2794

In this test your i5 2500k @ 4.0 ghz is only ~9% better in single core performance

polyzp · 04-13-2012, 10:54 | posts: 142

Cinebench 10 Single core performance score :

[IMG]http://2.bp.*************/-Uz7-HknbyVM/Tz52jUtPNrI/AAAAAAAAAPg/E_PGZ-a7ELU/s400/cine10.bmp[/IMG]

Comparing my Cinebench 10 results to there you can see one single thread out of a total of 8 threads on my FX 8150 at 4.8 Ghz is behind a stock i3 2100t @ 3.1 Ghz by ~10%, but ahead of a Phenom II X6 1100t core @ 4.0 Ghz by ~7%, and also ahead of an i7 875k @ 3.6 Ghz Turbo by ~20%.

In this benchmark, the AMD FX is only 12% behind in performance per ghz for a single core, as seen comparing the FX 8150 @ 4.0 Ghz with the phenom II X4 also @ 4.0 Ghz

DarthElvis · 04-14-2012, 04:54 | posts: 171

Quote:

Originally Posted by polyzp

Single threaded performance comparison:

AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz

Fritz single core : 2794

In this test your i5 2500k @ 4.0 ghz is only ~9% better in single core performance

Only? Only you can't see how that is a total and miserable failure for BD. The FX is clocked 800Mhz higher, 800Mhz, and is still beaten. Laughable.

polyzp · 04-14-2012, 08:41 | posts: 142

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarthElvis

Only? Only you can't see how that is a total and miserable failure for BD. The FX is clocked 800Mhz higher, 800Mhz, and is still beaten. Laughable.

Still gives you an estimate for single core performance of an ocd AMD FX 8150. A 4 ghz i5 2500k still has higher single core performance than any previous gen i7s.

Also notice how my AMD FX 8150 scales even more than a 12 threaded 3960x in cinebench 10.

Pill Monster · 04-14-2012, 09:15 | posts: 20,852 | Location: NZ

Winrar 4.10 64bit multithreaded: 1,991

Enizax · *Last edited by Enizax; 04-14-2012 at 17:14.*

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pill Monster

Winrar 4.10 64bit multithreaded: 1,991

I wish I could get my clocks up that high *stable*

---TK--- · *Last edited by ---TK---; 04-14-2012 at 20:52.*

Quote:

Originally Posted by polyzp

Still gives you an estimate for single core performance of an ocd AMD FX 8150. A 4 ghz i5 2500k still has higher single core performance than any previous gen i7s.

Also notice how my AMD FX 8150 scales even more than a 12 threaded 3960x in cinebench 10.

Pretty pathetic performance vs a 2500k at 4ghz. is not the 3960 only at 3.9ghz and 4ghz?