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

Discussion in 'CPUs and Overclocking' started by polyzp, Jan 4, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. polyzp

    polyzp Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG]

    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) :

    [​IMG]


    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) :

    [​IMG]

    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

    [​IMG]


    Compared Results (with several 6990 OC's) :

    [​IMG]


    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

    [​IMG]


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

    [​IMG]


    Comparison (from Hexus.net) :


    - - - OC1/OC2 - - -


    [​IMG]


    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.


    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.




    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:


    [​IMG]

    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


    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:

    [​IMG]

    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

    --------------------------
     
    #1 polyzp, Jan 4, 2012
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2012
  2. Loading...

    Similar Threads - Return OC'd OC'd Forum Date
    FIVR Returning with Cannonlake CPUs and Overclocking Aug 21, 2016
    Where is the info returned by the CPUID opcode in x86 permanently stored? CPUs and Overclocking Jul 24, 2016
    Is there a IPC limit or a point of diminishing return? CPUs and Overclocking Oct 19, 2015
    Return of FX : GA-990FXA-UD7 - OC'd AMD FX 8150 / 6990 Performance Comparison Review CPUs and Overclocking May 2, 2012
    Return of AMD FX: My OC'd AMD FX 8150 review with OC'd 6990 - Daily Results!! CPUs and Overclocking Feb 11, 2012

  3. Don Karnage

    Don Karnage Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2011
    Messages:
    2,865
    Likes Received:
    0
    Very nice. Just for craps and giggles

    3930K @ 4.5Ghz

    Pass 1

    encoded 1442 frames, 205.12 fps, 3913.50 kb/s

    Pass 2

    encoded 1442 frames, 68.08 fps, 3955.34 kb/s
     
  4. lOl_lol_lOl

    lOl_lol_lOl Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    150
    Likes Received:
    0
    OP, why must you rub salt into the open wound? especially with such tenacity?

    Cmon man, use that 6990 and run BF3 or do handbrake or something...
     
    #3 lOl_lol_lOl, Jan 4, 2012
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2012
  5. LoneNinja

    LoneNinja Senior member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    827
    Likes Received:
    0
    4.15 Ghz Phenom II faster than 4.8 Ghz FX in single thread, that's worth knowing.
     
  6. polyzp

    polyzp Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    0
    Take those other benchmarks listed with a huge grain of salt because alot are repeated with different results. It shows that my rig both beats a 5.18 Ghz i7 2600k and loses to a 5.0 Ghz 2600k.. same with different phenoms around 4 ghz, scores fluctuate. My guess for the i7 is that the 5.18 ghz one doesnt have HT enabled.

    If you have any questions shoot! :D

    I will be doing more graphically demanding stuff SOON! Follow my Blog for Live Posts! Tomorrow is 3DMark11 scores!! Will bulldozer bottleneck? Wait and See!

    LINK : http://AMDFX.blogspot.com


    ------

    Im using the genesis exactly for the reason of cooling my ram. I forgot to post my ram, ill edit it in!! Its 2200 mhz cl7 Gskill. This ram NEEDS good cooling as it is the only high speed ram actually capable of fitting under the promlatech genesis properly. (54mm MAX) . Also, I am using Indigo Extreme instead of thermal paste, so removing the heatsink and ram is not recomended unless i want to be down 20 bucks :rolleyes:.



    -------
    NOTE: visit blog for source links

    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:

    [​IMG]


    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

    [​IMG]


    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:


    [​IMG]


    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

    [​IMG]

    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:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    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

    [​IMG]

    CPU: AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz

    RESULTS:

    [​IMG]

    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

    If you have any questions feel free to ask!

    Link to Blog:
    http://AMDFX.blogspot.com
     
    #5 polyzp, Jan 5, 2012
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2012
  7. Yukmouth

    Yukmouth Senior member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    0
    What's the story at 5ghz? Can you get there?
     
  8. polyzp

    polyzp Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can on less than 8 cores but i haven't done any benching on it. I might however. Right now im just focusing on all 8 cores being used. Only when all 4 modules are used, does bulldozer really shine.


    ---


    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


    Does FX stand a chance?
    RESULTS:

    CPU AES :


    BEFORE - view @ blog

    AFTER

    [​IMG]

    CPU HASH :


    BEFORE - view @ blog


    AFTER

    [​IMG]

    CPU PHOTOWORX :


    BEFORE - view @ blog

    AFTER

    [​IMG]


    CPU QUEEN :


    BEFORE - view @ blog

    AFTER:

    [​IMG]

    CPU ZLIB :


    BEFORE - view @ blog


    AFTER

    [​IMG]

    FPU JULIA :


    BEFORE - view @ blog

    AFTER

    [​IMG]

    FPU SINJULIA :


    BEFORE - view @ blog

    AFTER

    [​IMG]

    FPU VP8 :


    BEFORE - view @ blog

    AFTER

    [​IMG]

    FPU MANDEL :


    BEFORE - view @ blog

    AFTER

    [​IMG]

    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.


    SCROLL DOWN FOR CONTINUED RESULTS!
     
    #7 polyzp, Jan 5, 2012
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2012
  9. T_Yamamoto

    T_Yamamoto Lifer

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2011
    Messages:
    13,860
    Likes Received:
    9
    I don't really care about the whole FX series because its a let down. And the i5 is better in real life. Imho
     
  10. tulx

    tulx Senior member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2011
    Messages:
    256
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yet you care enough to tell people that you don't care. :D

    But yes - great results! What I also would very much like to see are real world benchmarks and comparisons of demanding games like BF3 (graphically demanding) and ArmA 2 (CPU demanding - this one is f2p, so you don't have to buy it to run the benchmark). And maybe some MMOs, which are usually also CPU demanding, like SWTOR or WoW.

    Thanks you for all the work and the inforamative post, OP!
     
  11. Gikaseixas

    Gikaseixas Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    Messages:
    2,708
    Likes Received:
    63
    OP very good info. Thx for all the time spent and for sharing with us.
    Performance wise i think BD is ok, if price went down a bit and then it would appeal to a broader audience i guess.

    @T_Yamamoto, you care enough to post on a thread about it i guess. Really kid, do you need to poop on it.
     
    #10 Gikaseixas, Jan 5, 2012
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2012
  12. sm625

    sm625 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2011
    Messages:
    7,929
    Likes Received:
    83
    Owned by an i5-750 at 3.9GHz, which can be found on ebay pretty regularly for $150. Sad...
     
  13. Gikaseixas

    Gikaseixas Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    Messages:
    2,708
    Likes Received:
    63
    Owns a i7 2600 at 4.5Ghz, which can be found everywhere for more than $300. What's your point.
    We know it could have been better but someone just spent a lot of time gathering useful data for the community and this is how you contribute? Childish and SAD.
     
    #12 Gikaseixas, Jan 5, 2012
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2012
  14. BallaTheFeared

    BallaTheFeared Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    8,128
    Likes Received:
    0
    Something is wrong with the i5-2500k results, mine gets almost 10k physics at 5.2GHz.

    Also the tests are separating the two components, I'd rather see what they do together than alone.

    Combined is the only test within the suite that really shows gpu+cpu performance, and even there with a 800MHz higher OC and two more cores the 8150 only scores a few points higher than the x6 Phenom II.
     
  15. exar333

    exar333 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Messages:
    8,513
    Likes Received:
    3
    Read this link and then think to yourself if throwing 16% performance out the window is worth it, and that's just for games. I do not buy the argument that BD allows high-end GPUs to function at their 'potential'. Results appear to show otherwise.

    http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2216956
     
  16. ctk1981

    ctk1981 Golden Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2001
    Messages:
    1,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Sigh...first off, thanks to the OP for taking the time to do all this work. Unfortunately I dont think you are going to convince many people around here that the 8150 is a better buy.

    Consider the price of the 8150 in relation to the 2500K and right off the bat we have a problem. The 2500K is well praised around here, the 8150 has been hammered into the ground since day one and before. The 2500K is cheaper, especially for those with a micro center near them.

    Both are overclocking beasts in their own right. However, bulldozer exhibits a huge problem with power scaling.....clocks go up and so does the power draw. I think we have seen a few tests floating around where it is almost double the power draw when overclocked.

    Those two things are what drove me to stay away from bulldozer this time around. I recently sold my X4 Phenom II and bought an X6 to tie me over. If I hadn't just invested so much (err, well it was a sale/budget build actually) into an AMD system I would have been going with intel all the way. Oh well, this rig still does everything I need it to do.

    If AMD can manage a stepping revision that does even a small amount of tweaking in the power draw dept, IPC, and maybe L3 latency that would be good enough for me to jump in. I'm not expecting them to beat intel at this point or even with a stepping revision. But it would be nice to see a decisive victory over their previous generation processors, ie Phenom II X6.
     
  17. TakeNoPrisoners

    TakeNoPrisoners Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2011
    Messages:
    2,600
    Likes Received:
    1
    The 8150 will not somehow "unlock" the potential of high end GPUs. Games are all about IPC and performance per core, something bulldozer fails at.
     
  18. Rvenger

    Rvenger Elite Member <br> Super Moderator <br> Video Cards
    Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2004
    Messages:
    6,293
    Likes Received:
    4

    Well said ctk1981.

    I think what is keeping me away from Bulldozer is the lack of consistancy on the performance. I see too many variables where it wins by a small margin and then gets slammed in other benches.
     
  19. Flipped Gazelle

    Flipped Gazelle Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,666
    Likes Received:
    3
    Pretty much choosing benchmarks that show FX in a positive light. Viral marketing, or just an AMD apologist? Note the phrase, "On top of that, poor FX is always paired with a more lower end card!"

    "I have noticed that many websites, except for overclockersclub.com, really have not pushed FX to its limits." Have you? Not a good showing if you have. My brother's FX-8120 is 4.9ghz stable 24/7 with a Corsair H80, and still hasn't hit the ceiling. http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2170274
     
    nsavop likes this.
  20. polyzp

    polyzp Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for all the feedback guys! I am not trying to market the 8150, simply just posting some benchmarks of mine with a 6990 OCd because it simply has not been done before in a review. I do agree that 3dmark11 scores can be fishy sometimes, if you look at the charts there are scores within error of each other (1 6990 vs 2 6990s) ... and other such results that make you think. But from generally looking around i found that the benefit in score from the 6990 OC is roughly equivalent to the % OC itself, just showing that bulldozer hasnt hit a noticeable ceiling while overclocked to 4.8.

    Furthermore, more results are coming so this isnt everything :p if you guys have any requests for benchmarks im always here to listen! thanks for the critique guys!

    PS: How is IPC of dozer low when it beats a 3.9 Ghz i7 920 in IPC.. haha. last time i checked thats pretty good, especially given dozer scaled roughly like ~6.8, while i7 920 scaled roughly at ~ 5.5. I know this is still not enough to compete with 2700k or 3960x when ocd past 4.8 ghz, but its not atrocious like people make it out to seem, or like older benchmarks make it out to be.


    ----


    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!

    [​IMG]


    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!

    [​IMG]


    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!

    [​IMG]

    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

    [​IMG]

    By Request!

    AIDA64 - Write

    [​IMG]

    AIDA64 - Read

    [​IMG]

    AIDA64 - Latency

    [​IMG]

    AIDA64 - Copy

    [​IMG]

    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

    [​IMG]

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



    Link to Blog:
    http://AMDFX.blogspot.com
     
    #19 polyzp, Jan 5, 2012
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2012
  21. Maximilian

    Maximilian Lifer

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2004
    Messages:
    12,592
    Likes Received:
    5
    It dosent beat the 920. Nehalem squashes bulldozer in IPC, a stock nehalem is similar in performance to a stock 8150 but clock them the same and nehalem wins every time.
     
  22. Flipped Gazelle

    Flipped Gazelle Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,666
    Likes Received:
    3
    Seriously? Do you know the definition of IPC, and how to measure it?
     
  23. Don Karnage

    Don Karnage Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2011
    Messages:
    2,865
    Likes Received:
    0
    A 3.9ghz 8150 beats a 2.66ghz 920? Wow... Im impressed
     
  24. T_Yamamoto

    T_Yamamoto Lifer

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2011
    Messages:
    13,860
    Likes Received:
    9
    Yes I do. :)
     
  25. Idontcare

    Idontcare Elite Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 1999
    Messages:
    21,130
    Likes Received:
    4
    <- puts mod-hat on...

    You should apprise yourself of what constitutes so-called thread-crapping, whilst equally becoming aware of the fact it is not allowed here in these forums.

    You are strongly encouraged to voluntarily refrain from thread-crapping, failure to do so runs you the risk of inviting assistance from those entrusted with moderating these forums ;)

    Administrator Idontcare
     
  26. T_Yamamoto

    T_Yamamoto Lifer

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2011
    Messages:
    13,860
    Likes Received:
    9
    sorry mod, spent too much time @ATOT :p
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.