Guru3D.com Forums

Go Back   Guru3D.com Forums > Hardware > Processors and motherboards AMD
Processors and motherboards AMD Got a Phenom based system or the means to buy one? You can discuss it in here!


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Return of AMD FX: My OC'd AMD FX 8150 review with OC'd 6990 - First Results UP!
Old
  (#1)
polyzp
Member Guru
 
Videocard: XFX 6990
Processor: AMD FX 8150
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU: OCZ ZX Gold 1000w
Cool Return of AMD FX: My OC'd AMD FX 8150 review with OC'd 6990 - First Results UP! - 01-06-2012, 17:38 | posts: 142



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 one website, 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.

If you have any questions feel free to ask!

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

Link to Blog:

http://AMDFX.blogspot.com

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

Last edited by polyzp; 02-06-2012 at 17:36.
   
Reply With Quote
 
Old
  (#2)
Scorch666
Maha Guru
 
Scorch666's Avatar
 
Videocard: NVIDIA GT555M/880M
Processor: INTEL i7 2760QM/4810MQ
Mainboard: PEGATRON CORP. A25/
Memory: 8 GB DDR3/16GB
Soundcard: REALTEK/SUPREME AUDIO HD
PSU: 8 CELL/9CELL
Default 01-08-2012, 23:42 | posts: 2,175 | Location: Didcot, England.

I like what you've done. ............... But it seems one has to overclock it's balls off to achive anything note worthy.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#3)
---TK---
Ancient Guru
 
---TK---'s Avatar
 
Videocard: 780Ti SC SLI/Qnix 2710
Processor: 2600k 4.6Ghz
Mainboard: Asus P8P67 Deluxe
Memory: RipJaws X 2x8GB 2133Mhz
Soundcard: Phoebus + DT880 Pro 250
PSU: Corsair AX 1200
Default 01-09-2012, 00:38 | posts: 18,736 | Location: New Jersey, USA

you really should not be comparing a 980x @3.6ghz vs a fx at 4.8ghz, not a fair fight in the least
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#4)
polyzp
Member Guru
 
Videocard: XFX 6990
Processor: AMD FX 8150
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU: OCZ ZX Gold 1000w
Default 01-09-2012, 01:42 | posts: 142

haha compare a OC'd 1100t to a 3.6 980x and it doesnt come close in 95% of benchmarks. not to mention a 980x was and still is 1000 usd. ^^ Passmark benches are up!
   
Reply With Quote
 
Old
  (#5)
---TK---
Ancient Guru
 
---TK---'s Avatar
 
Videocard: 780Ti SC SLI/Qnix 2710
Processor: 2600k 4.6Ghz
Mainboard: Asus P8P67 Deluxe
Memory: RipJaws X 2x8GB 2133Mhz
Soundcard: Phoebus + DT880 Pro 250
PSU: Corsair AX 1200
Default 01-09-2012, 02:08 | posts: 18,736 | Location: New Jersey, USA

well the 3930k on sk 2011 is $599. perhaps it would be better to compare BD with that as its currently intels latest offering as BD is amd`s latest offering. and you have to oc the hell out of that BD to be on par in some tests with an old sk 1366 hexacore at a measly 3.6ghz. just some observations on my part. its not really fair to skew benchmarks to favor 1 cpu because it cant hold its own in a fair fight
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#6)
polyzp
Member Guru
 
Videocard: XFX 6990
Processor: AMD FX 8150
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU: OCZ ZX Gold 1000w
Default 01-09-2012, 02:22 | posts: 142



Thanks for the sticker OCZ!


So with the money I made from selling my Sapphire 6970 (which I used to have in crossfire with my 6990) and my old OCZ revodrive 120gb I decided to buy OCZ's consumer flagship PCI-X SSD the Revodrive 3 X2 240 Gb.


Just how fast is this thing compared to other SATA 6 SSDs?





RESULTS:


ATTO Disk Benchmark:



OCZ Vertex 3 Max IOPS

[img]http://******************com/images/reviews/storage/VTX3MI-25SAT3/ATTO-QD10-OCZ-Vertex-Max-IOPS-SSD.png[/img]

OCZ Revodrive 3 X2



Only up until 16Kb read/write , the Rovodrive 3 X2 actually trails its much cheaper brother the OCZ Vertex 3 Max IOPS, however as soon as it hits 32Kb read/write it leaves it in the dust!


Kind of like this Video:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXqSedWSu2k



PassMark Disk Mark:





That's more like it!
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#7)
hallryu
Don Altobello
 
hallryu's Avatar
 
Videocard: 2x HD7970 - QNIX/U2711
Processor: 3770k delid@4.6GHz - H320
Mainboard: GA-Z77X-UP7 (F5)
Memory: Dominator GT 2133 2x4GB
Soundcard: Asus Xonar D2X + SP2500
PSU: BeQuiet! DP Pro 1200W
Default 01-09-2012, 02:42 | posts: 11,377 | Location: England

So is this thread about BD or is it about the RevoDrive?
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#8)
polyzp
Member Guru
 
Videocard: XFX 6990
Processor: AMD FX 8150
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU: OCZ ZX Gold 1000w
Default 01-09-2012, 17:04 | posts: 142

Quote:
Originally Posted by hallryu View Post
So is this thread about BD or is it about the RevoDrive?
haha that was just a side thing, tomorrow the review benchmarks continue with winrar!
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#9)
vbetts
Don Vincenzo
 
vbetts's Avatar
 
Videocard: Geforce 760
Processor: Intel Xeon W3680
Mainboard: Mac Pro 5.1
Memory: 6gb ddr3 1333
Soundcard: onboard
PSU: Mac PRO PSU
Default 01-09-2012, 17:53 | posts: 10,442 | Location: Toledo Ohio

I said it before, performance of Bulldozer isn't bad when it's overclocked, and it's so easy to overclock Bulldozer. But then when you look at power usage compared to even say an i5 2500k, it's not worth it really.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#10)
Loophole35
Ancient Guru
 
Loophole35's Avatar
 
Videocard: 670 FTW Sli H2O/780 TFIV
Processor: 2600k@4.8 H2O/2500k@4.5
Mainboard: P8Z68-V PRO/P8Z77-V
Memory: corsair ddr3 8GB@1866
Soundcard: ASUS Phoebus/onboard
PSU: Corsair HX850w/TX850w
Default 01-10-2012, 01:17 | posts: 5,421 | Location: FLA,USA

Just gonna say my current setup is about $450 less than yours and this is what I got on 3dmark11
http://3dmark.com/3dm11/2515347
   
Reply With Quote
 
Old
  (#11)
Scorch666
Maha Guru
 
Scorch666's Avatar
 
Videocard: NVIDIA GT555M/880M
Processor: INTEL i7 2760QM/4810MQ
Mainboard: PEGATRON CORP. A25/
Memory: 8 GB DDR3/16GB
Soundcard: REALTEK/SUPREME AUDIO HD
PSU: 8 CELL/9CELL
Default 01-10-2012, 07:45 | posts: 2,175 | Location: Didcot, England.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loophole35 View Post
Just gonna say my current setup is about $450 less than yours and this is what I got on 3dmark11
http://3dmark.com/3dm11/2515347
The link dossent seem to be showing anything.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#12)
Loophole35
Ancient Guru
 
Loophole35's Avatar
 
Videocard: 670 FTW Sli H2O/780 TFIV
Processor: 2600k@4.8 H2O/2500k@4.5
Mainboard: P8Z68-V PRO/P8Z77-V
Memory: corsair ddr3 8GB@1866
Soundcard: ASUS Phoebus/onboard
PSU: Corsair HX850w/TX850w
Default 01-10-2012, 16:37 | posts: 5,421 | Location: FLA,USA

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scorch666 View Post
The link dossent seem to be showing anything.
The link is working on my end even on my iPhone it was X3463 and my i5 is only clocked at 4.5
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#13)
p1stov
Newbie
 
Videocard: nvidia palit 560 2GB
Processor: FX-8150 4.2GHz air
Mainboard: GA-990FXA-UD7
Memory: Vengeance 2x4GB 1600MHz
Soundcard:
PSU: CM GX 750W APFC
Default 01-12-2012, 11:40 | posts: 13

Ur running 1000W psu , do you think mine 750 is fine ? im not planing to get soon second video card

http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2194295
thats cpu-z

Last edited by p1stov; 01-12-2012 at 11:47.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#14)
mR Yellow
Maha Guru
 
mR Yellow's Avatar
 
Videocard: Sapphire R9 290 Acel XIII
Processor: Intel i7 2600K @ 4.5Ghz
Mainboard: ASUS P8Z68-V Pro
Memory: 8GB DDR3 1600MHZ CL8
Soundcard: ASUS Xonar DX
PSU: Corsair TX 850W
Default 01-12-2012, 12:51 | posts: 807 | Location: South Africa

Thanx Polyzp, i know a lot of time and work went into this.

I say again, BD isn't as bad as what ppl make it out to be. Power usage is only high when running all core @ 100%.

BD arch was design for high clocks. BD first gen silicon didn't achieve all that AMD had in mind. BD was supposed to launch at higher clocks.

Come share your BD experience with us @
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...lay.php?58-AMD
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#15)
polyzp
Member Guru
 
Videocard: XFX 6990
Processor: AMD FX 8150
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU: OCZ ZX Gold 1000w
Default 01-13-2012, 00:56 | posts: 142

Thanks for all the respect guys! And yes i could have gotten two 6950s aswell for much cheaper but didnt in the end. Also I am 100% sure an 850W would be sufficient for my system, 750w might be pushing it but at a good overclock i would say it would be.

Since the official windows 7 patch is out i will redo all my benchmarks and post them together with comparison soon! Stay Tuned!

Heaven 2.5 Benchmarks Tomorrow! Will Bulldozer bottleneck? Wait to find out.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#16)
polyzp
Member Guru
 
Videocard: XFX 6990
Processor: AMD FX 8150
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU: OCZ ZX Gold 1000w
Default 01-13-2012, 01:00 | posts: 142

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:



link : http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pDWAJYpmph...0/OCfinal5.png

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.


Im using the genesis exactly for the reason of cooling my ram. I forgot to post my ram, ill edit it in!! Its 2200 mhz cl7 Gskill. This ram NEEDS good cooling as it is the only high speed ram actually capable of fitting under the promlatech genesis properly. (54mm MAX) . Also, I am using Indigo Extreme instead of thermal paste, so removing the heatsink and ram is not recomended unless i want to be down 20 bucks .



-------


thanks. We'll see how it fairs at the rest of the benchmarks each day. Tomorrow 3DMark11 X / P results!

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!

Link to Blog:
http://AMDFX.blogspot.com

If you have any questions feel free to ask!
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#17)
polyzp
Member Guru
 
Videocard: XFX 6990
Processor: AMD FX 8150
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU: OCZ ZX Gold 1000w
Default 01-13-2012, 19:17 | posts: 142

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: *********************


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.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#18)
mR Yellow
Maha Guru
 
mR Yellow's Avatar
 
Videocard: Sapphire R9 290 Acel XIII
Processor: Intel i7 2600K @ 4.5Ghz
Mainboard: ASUS P8Z68-V Pro
Memory: 8GB DDR3 1600MHZ CL8
Soundcard: ASUS Xonar DX
PSU: Corsair TX 850W
Default 01-14-2012, 09:15 | posts: 807 | Location: South Africa

Awesome work. looking forward to some more results.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#19)
polyzp
Member Guru
 
Videocard: XFX 6990
Processor: AMD FX 8150
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU: OCZ ZX Gold 1000w
Default 01-15-2012, 01:40 | posts: 142

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
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#20)
Loophole35
Ancient Guru
 
Loophole35's Avatar
 
Videocard: 670 FTW Sli H2O/780 TFIV
Processor: 2600k@4.8 H2O/2500k@4.5
Mainboard: P8Z68-V PRO/P8Z77-V
Memory: corsair ddr3 8GB@1866
Soundcard: ASUS Phoebus/onboard
PSU: Corsair HX850w/TX850w
Default 01-19-2012, 23:38 | posts: 5,421 | Location: FLA,USA

Quote:
Originally Posted by polyzp View Post
Thanks for all the respect guys! And yes i could have gotten two 6950s aswell for much cheaper but didnt in the end. Also I am 100% sure an 850W would be sufficient for my system, 750w might be pushing it but at a good overclock i would say it would be.

Since the official windows 7 patch is out i will redo all my benchmarks and post them together with comparison soon! Stay Tuned!

Heaven 2.5 Benchmarks Tomorrow! Will Bulldozer bottleneck? Wait to find out.
Yes 850W should be more than enough that's what I'm using and I used the same PSU back when I had my PII with the CFX 6950's never starved for watts. OT I am liking what I'm seeing but why in the heaven bm are you comparing to a 920 at 3.6? Everything else is looking really solid.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#21)
polyzp
Member Guru
 
Videocard: XFX 6990
Processor: AMD FX 8150
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU: OCZ ZX Gold 1000w
Default 01-23-2012, 00:46 | posts: 142

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.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#22)
polyzp
Member Guru
 
Videocard: XFX 6990
Processor: AMD FX 8150
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU: OCZ ZX Gold 1000w
Default 01-23-2012, 00:46 | posts: 142

AIDA64 Benchmarks! Windows 7 FX patch preview!

ROUND 9: AIDA64



Does FX stand a chance?
RESULTS:

CPU AES :


BEFORE - view @ blog

AFTER



CPU HASH :


BEFORE - view @ blog


AFTER



CPU PHOTOWORX :


BEFORE - view @ blog

AFTER




CPU QUEEN :


BEFORE - view @ blog

AFTER:



CPU ZLIB :


BEFORE - view @ blog


AFTER



FPU JULIA :


BEFORE - view @ blog

AFTER



FPU SINJULIA :


BEFORE - view @ blog

AFTER



FPU VP8 :


BEFORE - view @ blog

AFTER



FPU MANDEL :


BEFORE - view @ blog

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%.

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.

[link]http://AMDFX.blogspot.com[/link]

Last edited by polyzp; 01-25-2012 at 03:30.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#23)
Anarion
Ancient Guru
 
Anarion's Avatar
 
Videocard: Gigabyte GeForce GTX 970
Processor: Intel Core i7 3770K
Mainboard: ASUS P8Z77-V
Memory: G.SKILL RipjawsX 16 GB
Soundcard: Sound Blaster Zx + HD 595
PSU: Corsair AX760
Default 01-23-2012, 01:12 | posts: 10,988 | Location: Finland

Isn't 7.9 WEI for memory supposed to be easy to get? My system gets that with ram @ 1600MHz and 9-9-9-24 1T timings.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#24)
polyzp
Member Guru
 
Videocard: XFX 6990
Processor: AMD FX 8150
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU: OCZ ZX Gold 1000w
Default 01-23-2012, 06:57 | posts: 142

I dont think its easily obtainable with an AMD processor. But I could be mistaken.

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

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.



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.

Last edited by polyzp; 01-27-2012 at 17:59.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#25)
polyzp
Member Guru
 
Videocard: XFX 6990
Processor: AMD FX 8150
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU: OCZ ZX Gold 1000w
Default 01-29-2012, 22:58 | posts: 142

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.

Link to Blog:
http://AMDFX.blogspot.com

Last edited by polyzp; 01-30-2012 at 17:38.
   
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com
Copyright (c) 1995-2014, All Rights Reserved. The Guru of 3D, the Hardware Guru, and 3D Guru are trademarks owned by Hilbert Hagedoorn.