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

Discussion in 'Processors and motherboards AMD' started by polyzp, Jan 6, 2012.

  1. Chillin

    Chillin Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,813
    Likes Received:
    1
    GPU:
    -
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2012
  2. polyzp

    polyzp Member Guru

    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    XFX 6990
    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?
     
  3. Chillin

    Chillin Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,813
    Likes Received:
    1
    GPU:
    -
    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.
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2012
  4. polyzp

    polyzp Member Guru

    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    XFX 6990
    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
     

  5. polyzp

    polyzp Member Guru

    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    XFX 6990
    Cinebench 10 Single core performance score :

    [​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%.

    [​IMG]


    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


    [​IMG]
     
  6. DarthElvis

    DarthElvis Master Guru

    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gigabyte gtx980 g1
    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.
     
  7. polyzp

    polyzp Member Guru

    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    XFX 6990
    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.
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2012
  8. Pill Monster

    Pill Monster Banned

    Messages:
    25,234
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    7950 Vapor-X 1100/1500
    Winrar 4.10 64bit multithreaded: 1,991

    [​IMG][​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2012
  9. Enizax

    Enizax Master Guru

    Messages:
    239
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Windforce R9-280X
    I wish I could get my clocks up that high *stable* :cry:
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2012
  10. ---TK---

    ---TK--- Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    22,135
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    2x 980Ti Gaming 1430/7296
    Pretty pathetic performance vs a 2500k at 4ghz. is not the 3960 only at 3.9ghz and 4ghz?
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2012

  11. polyzp

    polyzp Member Guru

    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    XFX 6990
    It is comparably low vs a sandy bridge @ 4.0 Ghz, even at 4.8 ghz, in this specific benchmark only ~10% lower, but the scaling is significantly higher than a 2500k or 2600k, so its made up for somewhat.
     
  12. ---TK---

    ---TK--- Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    22,135
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    2x 980Ti Gaming 1430/7296
    Your putting make up on a pig and expecting it to be queen of the prom. Problem with that is when you look carefully enough, you just got a pig. I admire you with your tenacity though.
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2012
  13. polyzp

    polyzp Member Guru

    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    XFX 6990
    Some people actually appreciate multithreading performance more than single threaded performance, so you could argue that the i5 2500k is the "pig" at a "multithreaded prom". Each chip has strengths and weaknesses, neither is definitely better in every single test, so classifying a chip as a "pig" its relative and not definite.
     
  14. ---TK---

    ---TK--- Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    22,135
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    2x 980Ti Gaming 1430/7296
  15. polyzp

    polyzp Member Guru

    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    XFX 6990
    Stop continuously attempting to veer the thread off topic with your nonsensical accusations which I have already refuted. Stay on topic or don't bother posting here at all.
     

  16. Psychlone

    Psychlone Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,688
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Radeon HD5970 Engineering
    Why is everyone bickering over benchmarks that can't even be compared? 4.8GHz here, 2.93GHz there, 4.4 elsewhere... this isn't how we're supposed to compare...unless we're not trying to do a faithful, unbiased comparison.


    For one, I haven't seen screenshots of ANY bench on 2 separate systems... heresay is heresay until pix prove otherwise. And for the record, I'm NOT on a side, I'd just like to see REAL PEOPLE benchmark and compare their systems using a standardized set of values.

    So, here's MY input:

    In order to have a NON-BIASED benchmark comparison here, ALL systems that participate will need to have the same exact clock speed, and ALL benchmarks will need to be run using the same exact settings -- OR -- all processors could also be run at their stock speeds, with the benchmarks being the same settings.
    Without a standardized set of numbers and a baseline to compare anything to, all this is -is a bunch of flamebait and plenty of people just flaming and nothing else is getting accomplished.
    In fact, I'm surprised that this thread hasn't been closed down yet because of some of the reactions in here.


    Any of you that have ANY processor that are willing to join, here's what we do:
    1) Decide on 5 benchmarks and the settings for each and POST THE SETTINGS
    2) Run the tests, post screenshots of your scores.

    It really shouldn't be harder than this.
    We ALL know that some processors are going to be better at some things than other things, while other processors will fill those positions and fail at others.
    We ALL also know that ANY processor at a higher clockspeed than stock will deliver higher performance numbers than the same processor at stock clocks. IMO, this is where this entire thread is failing and perhaps why so many people have so much angst against what's being done here.


    So far, we've seen FX running at 4.8 compared to everything else running at every speed BUT 4.8. This is clearly not a decent comparison... So, if a certain processor isn't capable of running at 4.8, then the FX needs to be downclocked. I personally would just like to see a STOCK CLOCK comparison between all of the Intel guys and the new FX... stock clocks vs. stock clocks, regardless of what those clocks are. And I'd also like to see some of the last generation AMD (PhenomII/AthlonII) do the same since there is plenty of doubt that the new FX is even close to the performance of the older generation - let's just see REAL PEOPLE doing REAL BENCHMARKS with a standardized set of instructions, ok?

    Any of you that have an Intel or AMD processor that would like to see how they stack up against the new FX, PLEASE chime in with benchmarks at stock speed, and polyzp, PLEASE match their benchmarks at stock speed... this is a really simple task guys, but it seems that everything is getting lost in semantics. I personally don't have an agenda other than to help everyone (including myself) understand any differences in the real world rather than the media benchmarks that we're all used to (I don't trust them anymore anyway - too many people in too many manufacturer's pockets to give *truly* unbiased benchmarks).


    Good luck guys, and don't let this thread get closed - it does have so much potential to teach us quite alot.



    Psychlone
     
  17. GhostXL

    GhostXL Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,983
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    GTX 1080 SLI @2.025
    I agree, we need actual users of the FX chips to chime in and show some benches. I mean people like TK will non-sensibly bash them all but that can be ignored.
     
  18. ---TK---

    ---TK--- Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    22,135
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    2x 980Ti Gaming 1430/7296
    I call em like I see em. and Psych is right this non sense benching at different clocks has to stop, which has always been my argument. clock for clock comparisons from now on. any real amd BD owners out there? come on in
    edit real as in no hidden agenda:)
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2012
  19. IcE

    IcE Don Snow Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,654
    Likes Received:
    11
    GPU:
    Gigabyte 970 G1
    Tommy was never nonsensically bashing BD, he was just bashing the poor comparisons the OP has made throughout his testing. You simply cannot clock an FX at 4.8Ghz and then reasonably compare to lightly overclocked or stock Intel chips.

    The whole thread has been a "look what I can do at maximum clocks" thread and it really hasn't been very impressive considering the power being drawn.
     
  20. Redawgc187

    Redawgc187 Master Guru

    Messages:
    662
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX 470 X3
    Out of everything you posted here Polyzp. I think your reply to his comment would in fact either vindicate you or show you are if in fact who many think you are because it would show AMD's new flagship in a bad light and a AMD rep would be unable to do this. So I really think you cannot or should not ignore this. And post this benchmark it really needs to be your benchmark and not one found on the internet. :3eyes:
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2012

Share This Page