Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
polyzp

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

Recommended Posts

amd_artwork_amd_fx_processor.jpg

 

http://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 overclockersclub.com, 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) :

 

h264-1pass2.png

 

 

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) :

 

h264-2pass2%25282%2529.png

 

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

 

3dm11-4.png

 

 

Compared Results (with several 6990 OC's) :

 

3dmark11total.png

 

 

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

 

3dm11extstock4.png

 

 

- - - OC2- - - 6990 @ 990/1500 Mhz

 

3dmextreme11.png

 

 

Comparison (from Hexus.net) :

 

 

- - - OC1/OC2 - - -

 

 

3dm11-main.png

 

 

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.

 

627096.jpg

 

598194.jpg

 

 

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.

 

avp-chess.jpg

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:

 

 

avp.png

 

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.

 

PassMark Performance Test Benchmarks!

 

Round 4: PassMark CPU Score

 

 

312862-bigthumbnail.jpg

 

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:

 

OCfinal5.png

 

link : http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pDWAJYpmphk/TwgspChYLYI/AAAAAAAAACw/w7WADIkHJn0/s1600/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 [email protected] 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.

 

 

 

 

If you have any questions feel free to ask!

 

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

 

Link to Blog:

 

http://AMDFX.blogspot.com

 

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

Edited by polyzp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does an i7 2600k at 5.18GHz perform worse than an i7 2600k at 4.43GHz in multi-threaded performance? I also take it that this was with Virtu not enabled?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The X6 still beat it in single core, nice step backward AMD.

At a nearly 700 MHz speed disadvantage too...:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

No way! I have to get one now! :no::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The X6 still beat it in single core, nice step backward AMD.

 

Exactly. And this fact is being shared by everyone since the release of BD by AMD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does an i7 2600k at 5.18GHz perform worse than an i7 2600k at 4.43GHz in multi-threaded performance? I also take it that this was with Virtu not enabled?

 

I guess so. Or could it be some kind of bottleneck? :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 4.8 ghz FX core matches a 4.1 Ghz Phenom II X2 core, so a 5 Ghz FX will roughly match a 4.2 Ghz Phenom II core. FX scales as ~ 6.8 , while Phenom II x6 roughly as ~5.6. Overall a 5 Ghz FX 8150 still beats a 4.2 Ghz 1100t.

 

In cinebench 1 core of FX @ 4.81 Ghz scores 1.20, which is higher than my athlon II @ 4.2 which was 1.15. Athlon II is still slightly behind phenom II however.

 

 

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:

 

winrarcomp.png

 

 

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

 

104.jpg

 

 

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:

 

 

7-Zip.png

 

 

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!

 

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

 

heavenfinal.png

 

source: overclockersclub.com

 

 

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:

 

unigine-settings.jpg

 

heaven2.5.png

 

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.

 

 

Cinebench 11.5 Benchmarks!

 

Round Eight : Cinebench 11.5

 

cine_logo.jpg

 

CPU: AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz

 

RESULTS:

 

cin4.png

 

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

 

PCMARK 7 benchmarks!

Round 11 : PCMARK 7

 

 

 

 

RESULTS:

 

 

Pre-Patch VS. Post-Patch

 

 

 

Before Patch installation

 

PCMARK7-pre.png

 

After Patch installation

 

PCmark7-2.png

 

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.

 

 

WinRar / Cinebench 11.5 Revisited with Patch!

 

 

 

 

Cinebench 11.5 - with Patch

 

 

RESULTS:

 

cinebench1.PNG

 

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:

 

winrar-post.png

 

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

 

166a.jpg

 

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

 

 

RESULTS:

 

7-Zip%282%29.png

 

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.

 

 

DIRT 3 Benchmarks! FX King?

 

ROUND 12 : DIRT 3 Benchmarks

 

 

1672-Dirt3_00.jpg

 

RESULTS:

 

DIRT3-PATCH.png

 

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

 

pic_disp.jpg

 

source: Pugetsystems

 

truecrypt-comparison.png

 

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

 

 

106039-sandy-bridge-e-core-i7-3960x-benchs-linux.png

 

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.

 

 

linux.JPG

 

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

 

 

If you have any questions feel free to ask!

Edited by polyzp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...