Return of FX : GA-990FXA-UD7 - OC'd AMD FX 8150 / 6990 Performance Comparison Review

[Maximilian]

lol ^

[soccerballtux]

Originally Posted by lau808

i wanna see the 8150 ran as a 4m/4t at max oc (maybe it clocks higher than 4.8/4.9) vs a phenom x4 at max oc. maybe someone else could provide the phenom benches to compare...

+1. I can do Phenom2 x4 at 4ghz. When you limit to 4 threads it shouldn't be any worse than Phenom2.

[lau808]

Originally Posted by soccerballtux

+1. I can do Phenom2 x4 at 4ghz. When you limit to 4 threads it shouldn't be any worse than Phenom2.

thank you

[polyzp]

Originally Posted by soccerballtux

+1. I can do Phenom2 x4 at 4ghz. When you limit to 4 threads it shouldn't be any worse than Phenom2.

Awesome man! I have a few requests for you then!

CPUMark99
Fritz Chess 4.3 - 1 core performance
Cinebench 10 - 1 core performance
Cinebench 11.5 - 1 core performance
TechARP x264 HD - first pass

would love to see how a single 4.9 ghz FX thread goes up against a 4.0 Ghz phenom II thread!

Thanks again man! Ill use your results in my next post! ^^

[Ferzerp]

And there is the daily bump to make sure it never falls off the first page, just like clockwork!

[boxleitnerb]

Paid by AMD, for sure. But hey, this way we will never forget what a lame duck bulldozer is.

[Maximilian]

Ye this guys been a joke since day 1.

[ShintaiDK]

I wonder what cost him more by now. His faildozer or the powerbill it creates

[Hatisherrif]

Originally Posted by ShintaiDK

I wonder what cost him more by now. His faildozer or the powerbill it creates

Well, at least he can always count on his heart being warmed by the heat of your Ivy

[lau808]

polyzp: maybe u can run 4m/4t at max oc and at 4ghz to compare vs the phenom x4?

[polyzp]

Originally Posted by lau808

polyzp: maybe u can run 4m/4t at max oc and at 4ghz to compare vs the phenom x4?

Yes Im open to this idea. Im mostly interested in comparing single thread performance for this comparison.

[lau808]

thx

[Revolution 11]

Originally Posted by Rvenger

Put Balla, Chiropteran, and Axel in a room. Who will come out alive?

It would take an act of God to make it happen in the first place.

[nyker96]

the single core ipc for BD v Ivy in cinebench is at a 40% deficit running at about same speed. That's crazy poor.

[Chiropteran]

Originally Posted by nyker96

the single core ipc for BD v Ivy in cinebench is at a 40% deficit running at about same speed. That's crazy poor.

But Ivy is at a 50% deficit on number of cores, so BD is actually faster when 8 threads are used. See how useless "ipc per core" is as a number?

[Phynaz]

Originally Posted by Chiropteran

But Ivy is at a 50% deficit on number of cores, so BD is actually faster when 8 threads are used.

BS.

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by Phynaz

BS.

x2

[Chiropteran]

Originally Posted by Phynaz

BS.

Which part? Do you dispute that bulldozer is 8 cores, or do you dispute that 4 is 50% of 8? Or do you disagree that bulldozer is 40% slower for a single core IPC?

[Dkcode]

That is one sexy board

[polyzp]

Originally Posted by Chiropteran

Which part? Do you dispute that bulldozer is 8 cores, or do you dispute that 4 is 50% of 8? Or do you disagree that bulldozer is 40% slower for a single core IPC?

Scaling for bulldozer isnt double the 2600k, but neither is IPC of ivy over FX (although in some cases it might be, generally it is not). When all threads are used it just about makes up for lost IPC per thread. FX is seen to fail most when all 8 threads arent taken advantage of.

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Originally Posted by Chiropteran

But Ivy is at a 50% deficit on number of cores, so BD is actually faster when 8 threads are used. See how useless "ipc per core" is as a number?

Incorrect. I guess you suddenly forgot that Hyper-Threading is a 20% improvement in MT.

And Cinebench is mostly floating-point code, and Bulldozer has four FPUs.

[soccerballtux]

Originally Posted by polyzp

Awesome man! I have a few requests for you then!

CPUMark99
Fritz Chess 4.3 - 1 core performance
Cinebench 10 - 1 core performance
Cinebench 11.5 - 1 core performance
TechARP x264 HD - first pass

would love to see how a single 4.9 ghz FX thread goes up against a 4.0 Ghz phenom II thread!

Thanks again man! Ill use your results in my next post! ^^

cb10-- 4275 1 core
4 core 15704

cb11.5-- 4.50

Results for x264.exe v0.58.747
encoded 1442 frames, 76.16 fps, 3904.67 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 75.59 fps, 3904.67 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 76.79 fps, 3904.67 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 77.39 fps, 3904.67 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 20.90 fps, 3952.97 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 20.71 fps, 3952.97 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 20.76 fps, 3952.97 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 20.94 fps, 3952.97 kb/s

Results for x264.exe v0.59.819M
encoded 1442 frames, 77.99 fps, 3889.34 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 78.29 fps, 3889.34 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 78.15 fps, 3889.34 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 78.14 fps, 3889.34 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 22.41 fps, 3962.75 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 22.11 fps, 3962.75 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 22.14 fps, 3962.75 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 22.06 fps, 3962.74 kb/s

Winrar-1855KB/s

I'm running 15.5x260 = 4,030mhz

[Yuriman]

Power is only of no concern when money is not an object, and I would not get a bulldozer chip if money were not an object, unless it was to do a very specific workload that bulldozer excels in.

Unfortunately money typically is an object for most people, and even if BD is faster in a particular workload, it might be more cost effective over time to pony up for a dual Intel system.

I dislike the thought of Intel being able to sell their server chips at a much higher price despite having smaller dies, because companies will still save money over the product's lifetime compared with AMD chips.

[polyzp]

Originally Posted by soccerballtux

cb10-- 4275 1 core
4 core 15704

cb11.5-- 4.50

Results for x264.exe v0.58.747
encoded 1442 frames, 76.16 fps, 3904.67 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 75.59 fps, 3904.67 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 76.79 fps, 3904.67 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 77.39 fps, 3904.67 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 20.90 fps, 3952.97 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 20.71 fps, 3952.97 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 20.76 fps, 3952.97 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 20.94 fps, 3952.97 kb/s

Results for x264.exe v0.59.819M
encoded 1442 frames, 77.99 fps, 3889.34 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 78.29 fps, 3889.34 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 78.15 fps, 3889.34 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 78.14 fps, 3889.34 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 22.41 fps, 3962.75 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 22.11 fps, 3962.75 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 22.14 fps, 3962.75 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 22.06 fps, 3962.74 kb/s

Winrar-1855KB/s

I'm running 15.5x260 = 4,030mhz

Thanks man, is that tech arp x264 HD? the scores seem off

heres a link

http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=520

and whats your single core performance in cb11.5?

[soccerballtux]

apparently not redownloaded and ran--

Pass 1
------
encoded 1442 frames, 103.23 fps, 3912.32 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 105.09 fps, 3912.32 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 105.57 fps, 3912.32 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 105.02 fps, 3912.32 kb/s

Pass 2
------
encoded 1442 frames, 25.10 fps, 3961.76 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 25.14 fps, 3961.07 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 25.22 fps, 3961.36 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 25.16 fps, 3961.01 kb/s