Drdeath Posted January 21, 2012 Posted January 21, 2012 I agree. There are increasingly fewer reasons why anyone would need more than a quad core CPU. Only in those few instances such as waco mentioned encryption and compression along with video editing, does the 8150 shine. Aside from that, SB, SB-E has it beat hands down. I know after saying this though, Computer Ed and Dr. Death will swoop in and cause trouble, and for that I apologize. I agree, but if ya have the $ blow the competition away! He who dies with the most toys and best toys wins! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
d6bmg Posted January 21, 2012 Posted January 21, 2012 I agree, but if ya have the $ blow the competition away! He who dies with the most toys and best toys wins! At least you are defining these components as toys. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
polyzp Posted January 22, 2012 Posted January 22, 2012 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%. So far these patches look like a welcome boost in performance! 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted January 23, 2012 Posted January 23, 2012 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. I almost feel bad laughing about this one...but has it really gotten so bad that it's "natural" for a 6 core CPU from Intel to beat the snot out of an "8 core" AMD CPU...at a 1 GHz clock speed deficiency? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
polyzp Posted January 23, 2012 Posted January 23, 2012 I almost feel bad laughing about this one...but has it really gotten so bad that it's "natural" for a 6 core CPU from Intel to beat the snot out of an "8 core" AMD CPU...at a 1 GHz clock speed deficiency? remember its a 4 Core 8 thread CPU vs a 6 core 12 thread CPU.. Even windows recognizes this now with the patch. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted January 23, 2012 Posted January 23, 2012 remember its a 4 Core 8 thread CPU vs a 6 core 12 thread CPU.. Even windows recognizes this now with the patch. Not according to AMD it's not (especially since it is actually an 8 core CPU for integer and 128 bit floating point operations...which is every benchmark you've shown so far). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drdeath Posted January 23, 2012 Posted January 23, 2012 (edited) I will say it again. Plugging your benchmarks into someone elses data base is very unaccurate and a waste of time. To accurately get proper benchies, you need to have same hardware and CPU( switch COU and motherboard). Run memory at same frequency and timings and CPU's at same core speed. The windows experience is a laughing joke too. Edited January 23, 2012 by Drdeath Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
El_Capitan Posted January 23, 2012 Posted January 23, 2012 I will say it again. Plugging your benchmarks into someone elses data base is very unaccurate and a waste of time. To accurately get proper benchies, you need to have same hardware and CPU( switch COU and motherboard). Run memory at same frequency and timings and CPU's at same core speed. The windows experience is a laughing joke too. True, but I'll take it one step further. Using the same memory, you'll end up with different frequency and timings. I know this is true from swapping out the same memory from a LGA 1366 (i7 920/i7 930/i7 950), LGA 1155 (i5 2500k/i7 2600K/i7 2700k), and AM3 (1090T). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drdeath Posted January 23, 2012 Posted January 23, 2012 True, but I'll take it one step further. Using the same memory, you'll end up with different frequency and timings. I know this is true from swapping out the same memory from a LGA 1366 (i7 920/i7 930/i7 950), LGA 1155 (i5 2500k/i7 2600K/i7 2700k), and AM3 (1090T). Neg, run em all at 1600MHz. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
El_Capitan Posted January 23, 2012 Posted January 23, 2012 Neg, run em all at 1600MHz. You can do one review of them at matched frequencies, but another is definitely needed with maxed overclocks (to a degree). For instance, Sandy Bridge systems you really won't get to overclock the frequencies all too much, and getting 1600MHz memory to the next speed bump at 1866MHz is a rarity (Corsair Vengeance can do it at looser timings). On a 1055T or 1090T, you can maximize your frequency overclock. On the i7 950, you can get higher stable CPU overclocks with lower frequencies by using higher multi's over the i7 920/930/940's, but that allows for tighter timings. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drdeath Posted January 23, 2012 Posted January 23, 2012 (edited) You can do one review of them at matched frequencies, but another is definitely needed with maxed overclocks (to a degree). For instance, Sandy Bridge systems you really won't get to overclock the frequencies all too much, and getting 1600MHz memory to the next speed bump at 1866MHz is a rarity (Corsair Vengeance can do it at looser timings). On a 1055T or 1090T, you can maximize your frequency overclock. On the i7 950, you can get higher stable CPU overclocks with lower frequencies by using higher multi's over the i7 920/930/940's, but that allows for tighter timings. Comparing them core for core is best. If you pull 4.6GHz on each the rest is worthless. Both overclock very close. I feel more is not needed. I hava 3930K coming soon so I can pull 2500K,2600K FX-8150 and 3930K on Benchies. nake a list(not too big) of benchnmarks ad i will pull it off. Stock 4GHz 4.6Ghz All at 1600MHZ 9-9-9-1T 2 x Radeon 6970's All these nonsense graphs are worthless they are all over the board. An Excel spread sheet will do. I will start the 2600K tonite Edited January 23, 2012 by Drdeath Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
polyzp Posted January 23, 2012 Posted January 23, 2012 (edited) Comparing them core for core is best. If you pull 4.6GHz on each the rest is worthless. Both overclock very close. I feel more is not needed. I hava 3930K coming soon so I can pull 2500K,2600K FX-8150 and 3930K on Benchies. nake a list(not too big) of benchnmarks ad i will pull it off. Stock 4GHz 4.6Ghz All at 1600MHZ 9-9-9-1T 2 x Radeon 6970's All these nonsense graphs are worthless they are all over the board. An Excel spread sheet will do. I will start the 2600K tonite You say theyre nonsense graphs, but i am simply testing my rig and comparing to what reviewers got. Whats wrong with that? I already stated that drivers could be different. And ram differences could make the difference but i doubt it : / . Ram speeds will not affect benchmark scores by more than 5% , unless they are directly related to memory read/write/copy speeds such as in Maxx Mem scores. Edited January 25, 2012 by polyzp Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now