Return of AMD FX: My OC'd AMD FX 8150 with OC'd 6990 Review -

[Drdeath]

This review is not good IMO...The clock speeds are over the board.... You cannot compare a FX-8150 at 4.8GHz compared to a 2500k at stock. If your going to comment, comment at stock speeds or core fore core. I got lost on the first benchmark.

[ccokeman]

With power usage probably twice as much as the Sandy Bridge. This processor is great, more power wasted and less performance!

 

 

First to the OP Welcome to OCC and taking the time to post up your test results!

 

Here is my take on power consumption. For a large corporation with hundreds of these things it may be a major concern but for the majority of users that run their computers for 5 -7 hours a day the long term costs are just not really enough to worry about the increase in current usage. By the time you would recoup any savings from one chip to the next the product cycle would change and put you back to square 1. its a great thing to talk about but unless you are hammering it at 4.7 to 4.9+GHz 24/7 365 there is not going to be a really major impact to the electricity bill.

[Black64]

Still why use more energy for less performance? There is no excuse.

[ccokeman]

Still why use more energy for less performance? There is no excuse.

 

My point is do not buy hardware based on power consumption. buy it on the performance it will deliver. Take single threaded performance out of the equation and compare only heavily multi threaded applications and the 8150 does well. 8 threads will always be faster than 6 at comparable clock speeds.

 

It does use more but when you look at the overall long term power picture it does not pay out one way or the other when run at stock speeds. You will spend more on an extra cup of coffee a month than you will save in that time frame based on normal usage.

[Krieg1337]

My point is do not buy hardware based on power consumption. buy it on the performance it will deliver. Take single threaded performance out of the equation and compare only heavily multi threaded applications and the 8150 does well. 8 threads will always be faster than 6 at comparable clock speeds.

 

It does use more but when you look at the overall long term power picture it does not pay out one way or the other when run at stock speeds. You will spend more on an extra cup of coffee a month than you will save in that time frame based on normal usage.

 

 

There really is no great area for Bulldozer. In heavily multithreaded stuff(If you only use multi threaded apps) you can just get a socket 2011 CPU(I think the i7 3820 is gonna be like $300 or something like that) and knock the socks off the Bulldozer CPU.

Here is the review of the i7 3820

 

If you only care about games/mostly games you would just go with Sandy Bridge since it offers better performance.

 

I don't care about power consumption either, when it brings performance with it, but Bulldozer doesn't have much performance behind its power usage.

[Waco]

First to the OP Welcome to OCC and taking the time to post up your test results!

 

Here is my take on power consumption. For a large corporation with hundreds of these things it may be a major concern but for the majority of users that run their computers for 5 -7 hours a day the long term costs are just not really enough to worry about the increase in current usage. By the time you would recoup any savings from one chip to the next the product cycle would change and put you back to square 1. its a great thing to talk about but unless you are hammering it at 4.7 to 4.9+GHz 24/7 365 there is not going to be a really major impact to the electricity bill.

My power draw at 4.8 GHz with my i7 fully loaded is lower than the IDLE power draw of my old 8120 at 4.5 GHz. I saw a nearly 200 watt difference at the wall when both were loaded. That adds up pretty quickly especially considering the performance differences.

[polyzp]

passmark benches up!

 

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

 

Round 14 : Sandra SiSoftware Benchmark Results!

 

 

 

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:

 

 

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:

 

 

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).

 

 

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.

 

 

 

source: legitreviews

 

 

 

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

 

 

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:

 

 

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

 

 

RESULTS:

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

How will FX fair in this 5 year old benchmark?

 

RESULTS:

 

 

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:

 

(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

 

 

RESULTS:

 

 

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).

 

SPECviewperf 11 Benchmarks!

 

 

ROUND19: SPECviewperf 11

 

 

 

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

 

 

source: spec.org

 

 

RESULTS:

 

 

 

 

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:

 

 

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!**

 

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:

 

 

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!

 

http://AMDFX.blogspot.com

Edited February 17, 2012 by polyzp

[Tjj226_Angel]

Can some one explain why an i5 2500K at 5ghz is slower than the same i5 at 4.5 ghz? That does not make any logical sense at all.

[ccokeman]

Can some one explain why an i5 2500K at 5ghz is slower than the same i5 at 4.5 ghz? That does not make any logical sense at all.

 

Throttling would be the only thing I can see. It could be memory subtimings or memory speed impacting it but most likely throttling or bugged benches.

[d6bmg]

Can some one explain why an i5 2500K at 5ghz is slower than the same i5 at 4.5 ghz? That does not make any logical sense at all.

 

May be the RAM modules which you are using is holding that processor back.

[polyzp]

There really is no great area for Bulldozer. In heavily multithreaded stuff(If you only use multi threaded apps) you can just get a socket 2011 CPU(I think the i7 3820 is gonna be like $300 or something like that) and knock the socks off the Bulldozer CPU.

Here is the review of the i7 3820

 

If you only care about games/mostly games you would just go with Sandy Bridge since it offers better performance.

 

I don't care about power consumption either, when it brings performance with it, but Bulldozer doesn't have much performance behind its power usage.

 

I am pretty sure the 3820 only oc's to 4.2 Ghz.. In which case an FX 8150 would stomp it while OC'd. You really need to hit 4.6 or higher Ghz 2600/2700k to beat a max OC'd 8150 in highly threaded apps.

 

SSD benches up ^^

[polyzp]

 

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

 

 

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:

 

 

 

 

 

PassMark Disk Mark:

 

 

 

 

That's more like it!