Go Back   Computer Forums > General Computing > Hardware
Click Here to Login
Join Computer forums Today


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-03-2012, 02:16 AM   #11
Baseband Member
 
polyzp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 27
Default Re: Return of AMD FX: My OC'd AMD FX 8150 / 6990 review

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%.


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!
__________________

polyzp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 02:16 AM   #12
Baseband Member
 
polyzp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 27
Default Re: Return of AMD FX: My OC'd AMD FX 8150 / 6990 review

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)
__________________

polyzp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 02:17 AM   #13
Baseband Member
 
polyzp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 27
Default Re: Return of AMD FX: My OC'd AMD FX 8150 / 6990 review

Updated WEI



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


So far these patches look like a welcome boost in performance!

PCMARK 7 benchmarks!
Round 11 : PCMARK 7




RESULTS:


Pre-Patch VS. Post-Patch



Before Patch installation



After Patch installation



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.
polyzp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 02:17 AM   #14
Baseband Member
 
polyzp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 27
Default Re: Return of AMD FX: My OC'd AMD FX 8150 / 6990 review

WinRar / Cinebench 11.5 Revisited with Patch!




Cinebench 11.5 - with Patch


RESULTS:



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:



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



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


RESULTS:



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.
polyzp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 02:18 AM   #15
Baseband Member
 
polyzp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 27
Default Re: Return of AMD FX: My OC'd AMD FX 8150 / 6990 review

DIRT 3 Benchmarks! FX King?

ROUND 12 : DIRT 3 Benchmarks




RESULTS:



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.
polyzp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 02:19 AM   #16
Baseband Member
 
polyzp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 27
Default Re: Return of AMD FX: My OC'd AMD FX 8150 / 6990 review

ROUND 13: TrueCrypt 7.1 Benchmark


RESULTS:


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

OS: Windows 7 x64 SP1




source: Pugetsystems



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




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.




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.
polyzp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 02:19 AM   #17
Baseband Member
 
polyzp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 27
Default Re: Return of AMD FX: My OC'd AMD FX 8150 / 6990 review

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.
polyzp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 02:20 AM   #18
Baseband Member
 
polyzp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 27
Default Re: Return of AMD FX: My OC'd AMD FX 8150 / 6990 review

OCZ Revodrive 3 X2 240 Gb Benchmarks


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

If you guys have any questions or requests let me know! I would be more than glad to help!

AMDFX
polyzp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2012, 11:15 AM   #19
Baseband Member
 
polyzp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 27
Default Re: Return of AMD FX: My OC'd AMD FX 8150 / 6990 review

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.

---------- Post added at 04:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:10 PM ----------

DIRT 3 revisited ..AGAIN! FX @ 4.0 Ghz. Tomorrow Fritz Chess benchmark, then after Cinebench 10, then SpecviewPerf 11
polyzp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2012, 06:30 PM   #20
Baseband Member
 
polyzp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 27
Default Re: Return of AMD FX: My OC'd AMD FX 8150 / 6990 review

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).
__________________

polyzp is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0