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. polyzp

    polyzp Member Guru

    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    XFX 6990
    Memory Benchmarks!! With Updated WEI!

    [​IMG]

    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

    [​IMG]

    By Request!

    AIDA64 - Write

    [​IMG]

    AIDA64 - Read

    [​IMG]

    AIDA64 - Latency

    [​IMG]

    AIDA64 - Copy

    [​IMG]

    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

    [​IMG]

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

    polyzp Member Guru

    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    XFX 6990
    AIDA64 Benchmarks! Windows 7 FX patch preview!

    ROUND 9: AIDA64

    [​IMG]

    Does FX stand a chance?
    RESULTS:

    CPU AES :


    BEFORE - view @ blog

    AFTER

    [​IMG]

    CPU HASH :


    BEFORE - view @ blog


    AFTER

    [​IMG]

    CPU PHOTOWORX :


    BEFORE - view @ blog

    AFTER

    [​IMG]


    CPU QUEEN :


    BEFORE - view @ blog

    AFTER:

    [​IMG]

    CPU ZLIB :


    BEFORE - view @ blog


    AFTER

    [​IMG]

    FPU JULIA :


    BEFORE - view @ blog

    AFTER

    [​IMG]

    FPU SINJULIA :


    BEFORE - view @ blog

    AFTER

    [​IMG]

    FPU VP8 :


    BEFORE - view @ blog

    AFTER

    [​IMG]

    FPU MANDEL :


    BEFORE - view @ blog

    AFTER

    [​IMG]

    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!


    [​IMG]

    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!

    [​IMG]


    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

    [​IMG]

    After Patch installation

    [​IMG]

    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: Jan 25, 2012
  3. Anarion

    Anarion Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    13,573
    Likes Received:
    337
    GPU:
    GeForce GTX 1070
    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.
     
  4. polyzp

    polyzp Member Guru

    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    XFX 6990
    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:

    [​IMG]

    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:

    [​IMG]

    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

    [​IMG]

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


    RESULTS:

    [​IMG]

    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: Jan 27, 2012

  5. polyzp

    polyzp Member Guru

    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    XFX 6990
    DIRT 3 Benchmarks! FX King?

    ROUND 12 : DIRT 3 Benchmarks


    RESULTS:

    [​IMG]

    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

    [​IMG]

    RESULTS:


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

    OS: Windows 7 x64 SP1

    [​IMG]


    source: Pugetsystems

    [​IMG]

    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


    [​IMG]

    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.


    [​IMG]

    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: Jan 30, 2012
  6. ---TK---

    ---TK--- Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    22,112
    Likes Received:
    2
    GPU:
    2x 980Ti Gaming 1430/7296
    why are you comparing an fx oc to 4.8ghz vs a 2500k at a measly 4ghz?? try the 2500k at the same speed as the BD chip and post up those results?
     
  7. k3vst3r

    k3vst3r Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,351
    Likes Received:
    16
    GPU:
    Zotac 1070 Amp
    viral marketing mate, type his name into google followed with bulldozer all big sites he's posted on, seems anandtech totally removed his thread when you click google link :banana:
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2012
  8. ---TK---

    ---TK--- Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    22,112
    Likes Received:
    2
    GPU:
    2x 980Ti Gaming 1430/7296
    ugg never heard of viral marketing until just recently. I am chucking this thread in with the hardocp review of bulldozer and flushing the toilet
     
  9. polyzp

    polyzp Member Guru

    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    XFX 6990
    The whole point of my review is to benchmark AMD FX at 4.8 Ghz, and i simply used tomshardwares scores for comparisons sake. By request i will re bench @ 4.0 Ghz to get a clearer picture.

    I would love feedback so i can do more tests according to what you guys want! I am not here to simply promote something, and i do not work for AMD if you are wondering.

    And my anandtech forum post is not down, here is a link

    http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2217355&page=2
     
  10. polyzp

    polyzp Member Guru

    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    XFX 6990
    TrueCrypt benchmarks up!
     

  11. Noisiv

    Noisiv Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,664
    Likes Received:
    504
    GPU:
    2070 Super
    u serious?

    u would love feedback

    would you like us to blog about AMD, like your 6990 and tweet FX8150?
     
  12. polyzp

    polyzp Member Guru

    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    XFX 6990
    Round 14 : Sandra SiSoftware Benchmark Results!

    [​IMG]


    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:

    [​IMG]

    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:

    [​IMG]

    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).

    [​IMG]

    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/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Povray_logo_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.


    [​IMG]

    source: legitreviews



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

    [​IMG]

    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:

    [​IMG]

    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

    [​IMG]

    RESULTS:


    [​IMG]


    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

    [​IMG]

    How will FX fair in this 5 year old benchmark?

    RESULTS:

    [​IMG]

    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:

    [​IMG]
    (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

    [​IMG]

    RESULTS:

    [​IMG]

    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).

    Link to Blog:
    http://AMDFX.blogspot.com
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2012
  13. polyzp

    polyzp Member Guru

    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    XFX 6990
    SPECviewperf 11 Benchmarks!


    ROUND19: SPECviewperf 11

    [​IMG]


    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


    [​IMG]
    source: spec.org


    RESULTS:


    [​IMG]


    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:

    [​IMG]

    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!**

    [​IMG]
    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:

    [​IMG]

    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!
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2012
  14. polyzp

    polyzp Member Guru

    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    XFX 6990
    haha good one!
     
  15. Corbus

    Corbus Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,363
    Likes Received:
    48
    GPU:
    1080 Ti FTW3
    I consider this thread pointless.
     

  16. polyzp

    polyzp Member Guru

    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    XFX 6990
    thanks for the constructive criticism? If you dont appreciate my work and effort you might as well let me know why, and how I could change that.
     
  17. Corbus

    Corbus Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,363
    Likes Received:
    48
    GPU:
    1080 Ti FTW3
    fair enough...indeed i see you've put alot of time in this and i respect that ,but not sure if it was you or someone else who made other similar threads..there was a guy who put some cats in his pics,anyway it was proven before that the patch doesnt bring much performance on the table and it's really not worth to go with an FX CPU over a sandy bridge one unless you have tight pockets AND already own a bulldozer capable mobo.

    Sandy bridge is generally better at everything...bulldozer shines...actually no it doesnt shine its slightly better in some not all...heavy threaded applications(most being synthetic tests) Bulldozer is not that tempting for the general population..thats why you don't see many bulldozer users. Where i live for example the FX 8xxx costs more than the i5 2500k and that price isn't justified by any means. Anyway sorry for this long reply. To sum it all up.

    You are telling us what we already know.Only that you seem to favor bulldozer but i don't know why..
     
  18. Kohlendioxidus

    Kohlendioxidus Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,398
    Likes Received:
    12
    GPU:
    Sapphire Vega 56 Pu
    pointless for you VERY USEFULL FOR ME. Jeeeezz, wtf is wrong with this guy :3eyes:?? Do you really HAVE to post something??
     
  19. Kohlendioxidus

    Kohlendioxidus Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,398
    Likes Received:
    12
    GPU:
    Sapphire Vega 56 Pu

    now actually I know why Spain is in financial crysis, thanks for the head up. Next time try harder and finally get some sense in your comments.
     
  20. Corbus

    Corbus Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,363
    Likes Received:
    48
    GPU:
    1080 Ti FTW3
    I see you try very hard...just like you commented on my premature reply above so did i on his thread ..that doesn't make you better than me,he asked for feedback.. I admit i should have elaborated more from the start, i will do that next time.
     

Share This Page