Return of AMD FX: My OC'd AMD FX 8150 with OC'd 6990 Review - First Results Up!

polyzp

n00b
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
48
amd_artwork_amd_fx_processor.jpg


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


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 2500k@ 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

--------------------------
 
Last edited:

buttons

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 12, 2011
Messages
2,080
I am really surprized how close it comes to the overclocked 2600k. Nice rig
 

polyzp

n00b
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
48
thanks. We'll see how it fairs at the rest of the benchmarks each day. Tomorrow 3DMark11 X / P results!

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!

If you have any questions feel free to ask!


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

It should also be noted that i do NOT have the incomplete Windows 7 Patch installed for bulldozer. I will re bench everything when the official patch is out! I suspect a 5-15% performance increase in gaming. :thumb:\


----



AIDA64 Benchmarks! Windows 7 FX patch preview!

ROUND 9: AIDA64

A64theme_logo.jpg


Does FX stand a chance?
RESULTS:

CPU AES :


BEFORE - view @ blog

AFTER

CPU-AES.png


CPU HASH :


BEFORE - view @ blog


AFTER

CPU-hash.png


CPU PHOTOWORX :


BEFORE - view @ blog

AFTER

CPU-photoworx.png



CPU QUEEN :


BEFORE - view @ blog

AFTER:

CPU-queen.png


CPU ZLIB :


BEFORE - view @ blog


AFTER

CPU-Zlib.png


FPU JULIA :


BEFORE - view @ blog

AFTER

FPU-julia2.png


FPU SINJULIA :


BEFORE - view @ blog

AFTER

FPU-Sinjulia.png


FPU VP8 :


BEFORE - view @ blog

AFTER

FPU-vp8.png


FPU MANDEL :


BEFORE - view @ blog

AFTER

FPU-mandel.png


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!


h264-PASS1.png


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!

h264-PASS2.png



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!

Link to Blog:
http://AMDFX.blogspot.com
 
Last edited:

Vegasr

Gawd
Joined
Aug 9, 2006
Messages
972
Nice write up and look forward to seeing more results.

Is this OC to 4.8 be considered the "norm" with the FX 8150, as 4.5 seems very easy with the 2600K? And by norm I mean vcore and temps not high and most settings in BIOS are still set to auto?
 
D

Deleted whining member 223597

Guest
More power usage and less performance than a Sandy Bridge, I love this CPU!
 

polyzp

n00b
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
48
4.8 Ghz stable is only attainable with a top end air cooler or liquid cooling (h80 and up). With midrange 4.6 Ghz should be attainable, but 4.5 Ghz is much more propbable. The difference between 2600/2700k overclockability and the FX 8150 is within error or delta, so there is no clear cut winner in this sense. This of course is without performance considerations, just sheer ghz overclock.

The delta of my chip is somewhere smack in the middle. I bet with my indigo-extreme and promlatech genesis i could find an FX 8150 cpu that hits 5 Ghz stable. I am speaking only with ALL 8 cores activated. I haven't tried tampering with deactivated cores.

I will post screen-shots of my temps before and after 20 minutes of Hyperpi 32M calculation soon!


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



Memory Benchmarks!! With Updated WEI!

logo.jpg


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

MaxxMem.png


By Request!

AIDA64 - Write

AIDMemory-Write.png


AIDA64 - Read

AIDMemory-Read.png


AIDA64 - Latency

AIDMemory-Latency.png


AIDA64 - Copy

AIDMemory-Copy.png


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

WEI.png


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

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.


If anyone has any questions feel free to ask!

[link]http://AMDFX.blogspot.com[/link]


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

truecrypt_icon_by_rgm3.png


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.

Round 14 : Sandra SiSoftware Benchmark Results!

logo2.png



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:

sandra.bmp


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%.

Link to Blog:
http://AMDFX.blogspot.com
 
Last edited:

polyzp

n00b
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
48
If I cared about power I wouldn't have gotten a 6990 :p and a 1000w PSU.

--------


Alien Vs. Predator Revisited **With Patch**


Results:

avp.png


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).

graph-02.jpg


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.


povray.jpg


source: legitreviews



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

POV-final.png


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:

DIRT3-PATCH.png


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

grandmaster_chess_setl600.jpg


RESULTS:

fritz-final.png


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

cinebench.jpg


How will FX fair in this 5 year old benchmark?

RESULTS:

cinebench10-final.png


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:

cinebench10-final11.png

(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

x264.bmp


RESULTS:

x2641.PNG


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

perf.bmp



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


perf11.bmp

source: spec.org


RESULTS:


viewperf.bmp



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:

cine10.bmp


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!**

zdnet-intel-logo.jpg

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:

7-Zip%282%29.png


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!

Link to Blog:
http://AMDFX.blogspot.com
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted whining member 223597

Guest
If I cared about power I wouldn't have gotten a 6990 :p and a 1000w PSU.

It loses in basically everything other than a few multi threaded apps, for which you could just get an Socket 2011 CPU and completely demolish it there.

I just don't see the point of getting a CPU that uses like twice the amount of power of a 2600K while losing in almost everything to it :confused:
 

brycejones

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 29, 2002
Messages
4,372
If I cared about power I wouldn't have gotten a 6990 :p and a 1000w PSU.

But it is an important point for most folks, especially for rigs that run 24x7. Power cost represents an important part of the overall total cost of ownership. If you want to be taken seriously look at all aspects of system performance and not just benchmark results.
 
Joined
Dec 30, 2011
Messages
52
But it is an important point for most folks, especially for rigs that run 24x7. Power cost represents an important part of the overall total cost of ownership. If you want to be taken seriously look at all aspects of system performance and not just benchmark results.

I thought this site was the bench mark capital of all web tech web sites........:p
 

sirmonkey1985

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
22,230
nice write up, and i agree it should be interesting to see if the 6990 actually gets bottlenecks since there really aren't any reviews that actually show crossfire on the 8150.
 

DejaWiz

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
21,221
Thanks for the benchmarks. No Bulldozer results at stock clocks?
 

jreinlie4

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
321
nice write up, and i agree it should be interesting to see if the 6990 actually gets bottlenecks since there really aren't any reviews that actually show crossfire on the 8150.

I'm workin on benching my 8150 @4.5ghz (easily attainable) with my CFX 6970's using FRAPS in several games, i'm going to complete write-up with the results by tomorrow morning.
 
Last edited:

polyzp

n00b
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
48
haha Im only testing dozer at 4.8 Ghz for now. I will re-do testing after the OFFICIAL Microsoft Patch comes out, and see how things change!

Follow my Blog to watch for live updates! I will be doing more graphically demanding stuff SOON! Tomorrow is 3DMark11 scores!! Will bulldozer bottleneck at 4.8 Ghz? Wait and See!
 

bwang

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Messages
1,043
Nice writeup! Its nice to finally see comprehensive benches of the ultra-high-end stuff (dual hexes, dual quads, highly OC'ed 2600K's, FX's and i7's) in one place :)
 

SonDa5

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Messages
7,425
Nice write up. Good effort.

Tough crowd here but its expected considering how bad the BD has been hammered.

You posted that your DDR3 is rated for 2200mhz yet you are only running it at 1600mhz.

Are you able to run the memory at 2200mhz with CL7 with your CPU overclocked?
 

DejaWiz

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
21,221
Planning on doing a stock and overclock comparison for before and after the Microsoft patch?
 

jreinlie4

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
321
Keep up the review man, I'd like to see some numbers @ 4.8ghz in gaming.

Now a word from our sponsers:

Alright partner...keep on trollin' baby
You know what time it is
(Throw yo hands up)

(Ladies and gentlemen)
Chocolate Starfish
Keep on trollin' baby

Move in now move out
Hands up now hands down
Back up back up
Tell me what you're gonna do now

Breath in now breath out
Hands up now hands down
Back up back up
Tell me what you're gonna do now

Keep trollin' trollin' trollin' trollin' (x4)
Now I know ya'll be lovin this **** right here
L.I.M.P Bizkit is right here
People in the house with them hands in the air
Cause if you don't care then we don't care
One two three times two to the sixth
Jonesin for you picks of the Limp Bizkit mix
So where the **** you at punk?
Shut the **** up
And back the **** up
Before we **** this track up
(Throw yo hands up)

 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
32,639
I'd be interested in seeing your frame rates from Red Orchestra 2 on a large server. (40+ people online)

My Phenom II X6@4.0 performed pretty poorly in that game, and it was my fears that BD would do no better that made me go with Intel this time around.
 

Mr. Pedantic

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 19, 2009
Messages
1,707
Nice.

Just a point to note, though, in terms of the 3DMark benchmarking. When you do an experiment (and this is an experiment) the idea is to change one variable (in this case processor/clock) and keep all others constant. This means that because you had different clocks for your 6990 with different processors and clocks, the results aren't directly comparable - unless those clocks are the higherst that the card will go with each of the processors and clocks, in which case you should say. Otherwise, as you point out, the results are all but meaningless.
 

polyzp

n00b
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
48
Thats what i tried to do by setting my gpu to 880/1250 in extreme setting, and comparing to scores from a 980x at stock turbo, as well as at 4.53 Ghz.

I couldnt find many 3dmark11 scores with a 6990 @ exactly 990/1500 hehe
 

teletran8

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
2,220
This thread is informative, I wish more threads in the AMD subforum were this well written.

It's very interesting seeing what BD can do with a high OC and very good graphics card setup. I look forward to future posts!
 

polyzp

n00b
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
48
my memory clocks are not at 1600, those numbers are way off. My GPU clock isnt 250 Mhz either heh. Im running at 2175 Mhz.
 

teletran8

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
2,220
Every video I watch on youtube of the 8120 or 8150 running BF3 multiplayer is 100 percent smooth, no spikes in performance, but when I watch 2500k BF3 multiplayer I notice lots of spikes and lags. And I mean EVERY video. 2500k and BF3 makes for quite a BF3 lag machine lol.
 

Mr Spocko

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 30, 2011
Messages
339
The power consumption is pretty heavy when overclocked a lot. It's not that you can't get the FX processors to do well (if you OC them hard) that's the problem from my perspective maybe AMD can address that with newer versions.
 

polyzp

n00b
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
48
Yah unfortunately power consumption does skyrocket while overclocked. But nothing a half decent psu cant supply.
 

mzs_biteme

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 7, 2001
Messages
1,595
Every video I watch on youtube of the 8120 or 8150 running BF3 multiplayer is 100 percent smooth, no spikes in performance, but when I watch 2500k BF3 multiplayer I notice lots of spikes and lags. And I mean EVERY video. 2500k and BF3 makes for quite a BF3 lag machine lol.

Comparison links or STFU!!!!!!!!!!
 
Top