More leaks .Not me :D
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/4625903
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/4625681
More leaks .Not me :D
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/4625903
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/4625681
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/4476049
i7 3770k at 4ghz scores 8000. Considering Charlie at SA is hinting strongly at the fact that the *mark benchmarks are all compiled with ICC, this is really good. All it takes is a hex editor and some poking around to see what something is compiled with.
itd be cool then to change the vendor id and see the score after. even if there are differences, it wont change much in the real world.Quote:
Originally Posted by sdlvx
"Automatically view results at 3DMark.com" is a nice feature..Quote:
Originally Posted by SUPERKAMES
I am probably the record holder of "time required to delete an accidentally uploaded score from 3DMark.com" :p:
Yep,results are gone. Anyone did a quick(er) screengrab ? :D
Now, you can pre-order FX Vishera in Spain:
FX-8350: 199€ | FX-8320: 159€ | FX-6300: 137€ | FX-4300: 128€
http://www.pccomponentes.com/amd_fx_...4_0ghz_8x.html
http://www.pccomponentes.com/amd_fx_...3_5ghz_8x.html
http://www.pccomponentes.com/amd_fx_...3_5ghz_6x.html
http://www.pccomponentes.com/amd_fx_...3_8ghz_4x.html
And in USA: FX-8350 @ $228, and FX-8320 @ $198
http://www.pcconnection.com/IPA/Shop...199&cac=Result
http://www.pcconnection.com/IPA/Shop...201&cac=Result
http://imageshack.us/a/img195/4618/piledozer.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by informal
i never close my tabs :rofl:
4.4ghz? i thought it only turbo'd to 4.2?
I wonder when the 95 watt FX-8320's will be available?Quote:
Originally Posted by cezar
It's overclocked.Quote:
Originally Posted by tbone8ty
The other result said 4.1GHz and was barely any lower. ~P5830? I swear the physics score was higher too.
no one wants to see links from that site, that site is a JOKE :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by radier
I bet if under this link there was a news about Piledriver is super pr0 improvement over BD and kick Ivy Bridge ass no one would tell bad word on OBR. :rofl:
It would still be against the forum rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by radier
Vishera on water hits 5+ GHz: http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/29...-hits-5%20-ghz
More, you can grab this FX-8350/LCS kit right now on ebay:Quote:
We have learned from well informed industry sources that with the right motherboard you can expect Vishera to be a great overclocker.
... AMD Liquid CPU cooler by Asetek is something that can get you to 5+ GHz speed with new Vishera FX cores
http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2012/2...d_on_eBay.html
As always, Im sure, multithread will be good (from 2500K performance up to 3770K level), but x87 or FP stressed single core benchmarks will be not much better than FX-8150.
Feels like it's getting close to a launch :)
The chip has all the same codes as orb's....Quote:
Originally Posted by leo5111
I'm still questioning how he keeps getting a hold them.
New, lower pre-order prices at BLT's:
FX-8350: $208.90, FX-8320: $181.30, FX-6300: $142.66, FX-4300: $131.62
http://www.shopblt.com/cgi-bin/s.cgi...=1&s_all=HKBOX
Nice
208 bucks for the 8350? looks like amd learned thier lesson, what did the 8150 launch at like 280?
He applied Microsoft patches... I thought with pile driver scheduling was fixed? Or is that with steamroller?
6.82 for the 8350... Not bad what did 8150 get for 11.5 at that clock?
results are within 1% of orbs, so I guess he was right similar to with his old BD benchs, quite frankly though I really have to question what the hell AMD have been upto seeing as in CB 11.5 I was getting around 7.4 points with my 1090T @ 4ghz and that thing is going on 2.5+ years old now.Quote:
Originally Posted by slaveondope
Lol they didn't do sheet! Hence they r firing 30% of their workforce
The Hardocp results are quite good for x264. The poster is using a 32bit build which is around 16% slower in pass1 versus x64 build. 2nd pass is not affected that much(if at all). So here are 4.3Ghz Bulldozer x64bit results:
FX8350:Quote:
Results for x264.exe r2200
x264 Benchmark: 64-bit
==========================
Pass 1
------
encoded 11812 frames, 47.11 fps, 7754.23 kb/s
encoded 11812 frames, 45.39 fps, 7754.43 kb/s
encoded 11812 frames, 46.00 fps, 7754.17 kb/s
encoded 11812 frames, 45.79 fps, 7754.20 kb/s
Pass 2
------
encoded 11812 frames, 11.04 fps, 8002.11 kb/s
encoded 11812 frames, 10.92 fps, 8002.10 kb/s
encoded 11812 frames, 10.91 fps, 8002.12 kb/s
encoded 11812 frames, 11.06 fps, 8002.12 kb/s
System Details
--------------
Name AMD FX-8120
Codename Zambezi
Specification AMD FX(tm)-8120 Eight-Core Processor
Core Stepping OR-B2
Technology 32 nm
Stock frequency 4100 MHz
Core Speed 4305.3 MHz
Northbridge AMD 770 rev. 00
Southbridge AMD SB700 rev. 00
CAS# latency (CL) 7.0
RAS# to CAS# delay (tRCD) 7
RAS# Precharge (tRP) 7
Cycle Time (tRAS) 20
Memory Frequency 420.0 MHz (1:2)
Memory Type DDR3
Memory Size 4096 MBytes
Channels Dual
Windows Version Microsoft Windows 7 (6.1) Ultimate Edition 64-bit Service Pack 1 (Build 7601)
In pass 1 , 4Ghz 8350 in 32bit build (~16% less efficient than x64) matches 4.3Ghz FX8120 in x64 build. Pretty good result which means PD's IPC in this particular test is more than 7% higher than Bulldozer's (closer to 10%). User will upload x64 results soon so we will know the exact improvement.Quote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Results for x264.exe r2200
x264 Benchmark: 32-bit
==========================
Pass 1
------
encoded 5906 frames, 47.22 fps, 7779.53 kb/s
encoded 5906 frames, 47.78 fps, 7779.53 kb/s
encoded 5906 frames, 47.15 fps, 7779.53 kb/s
encoded 5906 frames, 47.91 fps, 7779.53 kb/s
Pass 2
------
encoded 5906 frames, 15.36 fps, 8002.11 kb/s
encoded 5906 frames, 15.38 fps, 8002.11 kb/s
encoded 5906 frames, 15.37 fps, 8002.11 kb/s
encoded 5906 frames, 15.34 fps, 8002.11 kb/s
Is there a way to change the frames? I just ran it and hoped for the best. I also got the x64 version working and will try that next
In pass2 the improvement is massive even if PD uses 32bit binaries. PD @ 4Ghz scores 15.35pts while BD @ 4.3Ghz scores 11.05pts. I rechecked the BD numbers since another user on techarp forum posted a QC BD results and they are roughly 2x lower then FX8120@4.3Ghz,corelating well with 2x less modules/cores. So in summary pass2 is massively better on PD for whatever reason.
edit:
For comparison with 1090T,here is what it scores in same benchmark( as response that they didn't do "sheet" :) )
FX8350 vs 1090T,both stock and running same binaries in x264 test. Pass 1 is 49% faster on FX8350 while pass 2 is 40% faster on FX8350. Massive improvement.Quote:
Results for x264.exe r2200
x264 Benchmark: 32-bit
==========================
Pass 1
------
encoded 5906 frames, 26.34 fps, 7779.70 kb/s
encoded 5906 frames, 26.39 fps, 7779.70 kb/s
encoded 5906 frames, 26.35 fps, 7779.70 kb/s
encoded 5906 frames, 26.29 fps, 7779.70 kb/s
Pass 2
------
encoded 5906 frames, 11.24 fps, 8003.26 kb/s
encoded 5906 frames, 11.22 fps, 8003.26 kb/s
encoded 5906 frames, 11.19 fps, 8003.26 kb/s
encoded 5906 frames, 11.24 fps, 8003.26 kb/s
Results for x264.exe r2200
x264 Benchmark: 64-bit
==========================
Pass 1
------
encoded 11812 frames, 31.58 fps, 7754.14 kb/s
encoded 11812 frames, 31.69 fps, 7754.05 kb/s
encoded 11812 frames, 31.63 fps, 7754.11 kb/s
encoded 11812 frames, 31.84 fps, 7754.16 kb/s
Pass 2
------
encoded 11812 frames, 10.94 fps, 8001.97 kb/s
encoded 11812 frames, 10.91 fps, 8002.01 kb/s
encoded 11812 frames, 10.97 fps, 8001.98 kb/s
encoded 11812 frames, 10.95 fps, 8001.96 kb/s
System Details
--------------
Windows Version Microsoft Windows 8 (6.2) 64-bit (Build 8250)
DirectX Version 11.0
Number of processors 1
Number of threads 6 (max 6)
Name AMD Phenom II X6 1090T
Codename Thuban
Specification AMD Phenom(tm) II X6 1090T Processor
Package Socket AM3 (938)
HT Link speed 1995.8 MHz
Stock frequency 3200 MHz
Ya I know. Won't be getting rid of the best AM3 chip any time soon myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowized
Their stock is showing it too. Waiting to hear of a buyout in the coming months.Quote:
Originally Posted by tbone8ty
if you compare both at stock yeah I can see that 40% figure, however this is xtremesystems and a lot of people would be ashamed to leave a gem such as the 1090T at stock speeds, most are all within the 3.6 - 4.4ghz range judging by that old Thuban thread we've got kicking around.Quote:
For comparison with 1090T,here is what it scores in same benchmark
Then you apply the same logic to FX8350,right? It can OC to ~5Ghz on water cooling as reports tell us,so in that case we have an avg 4Ghz(from your 3.6-4.4 range) for X6 vs 5Ghz on FX8350. Both OCs are 25% above the stock for both CPUs. This won't change the advantage of 40-50% that 8350 sees in stock vs stock case (since we OC both CPUs by same % amount).
still waiting on power consumption numbers....
anandtech said piledriver is more about power efficiency than anything else.
though still wondering if u really need to use microsofts patches for bulldozer on piledriver for win7?
<--informal
You know your nitpicking here right ?
From these early data it seems its still going to be WORSE in MOST lightly threaded scenarios than X6.
Dont get me wrong, i would be real happy to have a reason to upgrade my ancient X6, im almost hating myself now for not being able to cope with blue in my system.
And X6 was a weak competition to blue when it got out already.
I'm just comparing X6 to FX8350. One chip was not frequency oriented while the other one is. The fact that you could actually push X6 to 4Ghz was a great thing ,but why should we ignore the OC potential of BD/PD? It offers great OC at the expense of high(er) power draw. You still get the increased performance versus X6, 25+% in MT area and not lower performance in ST tests(25% higher clock on PD should be more than enough to cover the IPC deficit it could have versus Thuban). No matter how you look at it, FX8350 is more than worthy successor to X6 ,much better than FX8150 was when it launched(it was not that bad either).
Oh ,let's not forget the complete ISA support PD core offers,even more than IB does (FMA3/BMI+ XOP on top of AVX and previous SSx). For 208 bucks this is a great deal IMO ,especially when you consider the fact that it is still AM3+ compatible and that the board will likely take in the SR based FX core next year.
Of course new instructions are great, AES and some others that might even be useful.
However after all this time, PD should be better all round cpu.From these early results im just not seeing this.
X 6 overclocks to 4.0 4.3 (stable) and NB overclocks mostly in the 3.0ghz area (and NB clocks in thuban give it some great boost in some applications like games).All this at a MUCH lower power consumption than BD at ~4.7 which seems to be a stable clock for BD`s so im pretty sure that BD wasnt "not all that bad" .And it looks like PD wont clock higher or much higher, 5.0ghz on water looks like ~4.7-4.8 on air so maybe a small bump,maybe even not that.
What im hoping for is a LOT better power consumption figures,but if its going to chew up ~300W at its highest air OC, how its better than thuban ?Its unusable for day to day operation at this specs.
Attachment 130602
This kind of situations SHOULD NOT HAPPEN,and adding insult to injury, in this test x6 did not have NB overclocked,and 8150 was consuming 50 watts more.Maybe PD will at worst match X6 and at best move long past it.
Phenom II architecture was introduced such long ago,that now AMD REALLY should be able to put something thats just better.In every regard.
an X6 can easily pull more then 300 watts.Quote:
Originally Posted by vario
Thuban heavily OCed (4+Ghz) draw A LOT of power. Power draw practically skyrockets,just like it does with BD. So no ,power draw is not an excuse. Also I doubt that highly OCed Thuban ,even with OCed NB, could be faster overall chip than PD @ 5Ghz .The IPC deficit is not uniform and varies a lot. In some very important workloads Bulldozer just destroys Thuban. Let me illustrate with some real world application workloads (numbers from techspot's i7-3770K review):
Attachment 130608
8150 is 36% faster than 1100T.
Attachment 130609
8150 is 28%/20% faster than 1100T.
Attachment 130610
8150 is 30% faster than 1100T.
Attachment 130611
8150 is 30% faster than 1100T.
Attachment 130612
8150 is 31%/8.5% faster than 1100T (MTed pass and low threaded pass)
Attachment 130613
8150 is 22% faster than 1100T.
I don't want to link the gaming results since FX8150 is at least on par with 1100T or faster in every game they tested.
Informal,
I disagree.
X6 had outliers, CPUs that would do 4 GHz+ at less than 1.35v, or CPUs like Infrareds that did 4.2+ with 1.44v or less...lol
These CPUs did not draw ridiculous amounts of power, there's no way.
Then we had the middle, or average, 4-4.1 GHz at ~1.45v
Then some really bad, needing 1.5v+ for 4 GHz.
So far with FX, the outliers are CPUs doing about 4.8 with 1.45v, average doing 4.6 with 1.45v, and worse doing ~4.4 with that voltage.
Nobody is pushing the voltage higher because power consumption, temperature, current draw (ESPECIALLY for a 32nm process) is already out of hand at that point, and temperatures are often completely unmanageable, in 70c range for those with good CPUs and $300+ water setups (at least 3x120 rad).
With Thuban, some of those guys had that 4 GHz+ overclock with manageable temps, and I know for one, with an average CPU, 1.44v load 4 GHz I could push 1.62v load without worrying about temperatures all that much. That was .3v over stock before power consumption went crazy, on FX that can be as little as .1v...
It isn't the same, and on top of all these behaviors of these different CPUs, I don't feel safe pushing XXXa amount of current and Y.Y voltage into a 32nm transistor vs XXXa current and same Y.Y voltage into the 45nm part.
And again you clutter a thread with handpicked charts that show the 8 core matching at least, a last gen 6 core on worse manufacturing process, or beating the 6 core by less than the 33% needed to say they really "match".
I've bought 4 Phenom II X4 955/965 over the last few months and all of them did 4 GHz with <1.45v too, where how does FX stack up in single thread and gaming?
When you shrink a node and change the uarch, you expect to see gains like Core 2 > i7, not i7 > Core 2 with more cores/threads glued on...
btw, in CS6 Photoshop is FX better than in CS5.x :) (more close with 2600k).
beep:every chip is different, in OC, in temperatures. My FXs (now 5x FX-8150, 2x FX-8120) are all different, some are cold, some hotter with similar OC. The same in power consumption, between the best and worse chip is about 30W difference in load in stock!
I know, that goes for every CPU generation ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
But once again informal tries to shed only good light on FX and hide all it's problems.
This time I take a neutral stance instead of being upset about AMD taking a step backward...like I was at release, someone hoping AMD would close the MT (power) efficiency gap with intel and also partially close the already visible single thread gap they had with intel...(I was mad because while they improved MT performance 50% of the time, power consumption was so bad, efficiency got worse for what they had compared to 45nm, ST got worse, etc)
The problem now though is:
The process matured...
Overclocks got worse in general.
Power consumption is still hit or miss, not sure if generally better than older uarch, but this process is mature now so lets wait for 8350 reviews
In many single thread apps, this architecture does not cut it.
In many MT apps, it beats the old architecture by less than 33% - each thread giving less performance than older uarch...
Informal claims it beats or at least matches Phenom II overall gaming, but I see people getting 4.3+ Phenom II stable and highest I've seen across the net with BD was 4.8 air up until now, in which case Phenom II wins 1/2 the time and Informal's claims go from "beat or match" to "match or lose".
Look, they are fun to have and a lot of us don't care about power consumption but are just enthusiasts who want new toys so it is ok...
But anyone wanting to get work done efficiently chooses the 8-thread intel product, which pays itself off in a few months of electricity and beats the AMD product up to 80% in single thread, or power efficiency multi-thread. :)
I don't like the way OBR used his english sometimes, and the kind of things he writes about, his :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana: blog where he attacks people personally and uses vulgar language about those people or subject of his articles...
But he does make points once in a while and personally I am tired of Informal's relentless AMD fanboyism
I clutter the thread with cherry picked charts?For real? The workloads are real world and FX beats old Thuban by huge margins. It does that with less resources per core which is a feat by itself. In games it's not worse. Yes,it has a very high power draw when clocks/Vcore is pushed but that doesn't mean it "sucks". The process is very leaky and we have to see if Piledriver will change much in that regard. But claiming it's a fail CPU just because it has lower IPC in some cases or because it cannot beat X6 uniformly and across the board in all benchmarks (usually crap benchmarks like super pi or wprime) is ridiculous.
Also notice I haven't mention any intel 8 thread product since FX cannot beat those.It's a fact and nobody is denying that.
PS I'm tired of ignorant people ,I just don't say it flat out ;).
To be honest, I hyped up Bulldozer a bit myself. I saw it perform better for certain software that does string comparisons. I also found that Matlab performs poorly on it, along with certain python functions. It is hit and miss, and I don't think Informal is being unreasonable. Nobody is arguing that Bulldozer is without it's flaws, and no one in this thread will be fooled into thinking they should buy an FX 8150 instead of a Xeon E5-2690.
Exactly. And AMD knows that and they adjusted the price according to performance. We can see that pre-order price for FX8350 is 208$ on shopblt (unless they changed again). For this price it is a compelling product . Sure it will have higher power draw than most of the CPUs in its price range but it will have certain strong points and for people that need that kind of performance in their workloads it will do just fine. In games it will certainly not be as competitive as in some other stuff so gamers will go intel route . It all depends on how much one is willing to pay and what he uses his computer for.Quote:
Originally Posted by xVeinx
If you don't like it don't buy it. FX is designed for heavily threaded work loads and (non-gaming) work loads are becoming heavily threaded.
haha your joking right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Plywood99
Did I do something wrong here?
Informal came in, grabbed all the charts where FX won against Phenom II from a review, did not link the ones where it lost/only matched, and furthermore we've all seen them five-hundred times and the CPU was released a year ago.
This is a thread about Piledriver, it is 11 months after Bulldozer's and he's still trying to prove to people day after day how great Bulldozer is. Then his latest retort to me includes reasonable thoughts, however he says things such as -
But that was not the reason I think Bulldozer sucks?Quote:
Yes,it has a very high power draw when clocks/Vcore is pushed but that doesn't mean it "sucks".
Maybe it sucks because it often can not beat Intel's 45nm 4 core 8T parts?
Maybe because you often need a water cooling setup worth more than the processor to cool it satisfactorily, even when barely above stock turbo voltage? (1.4v-1.475v)
Maybe it sucks because it loses to 32nm Intel 4 core 8T parts 80% of the time, and when it wins it is by a small margin?
Maybe because in gaming, if you want to upgrade from your Phenom II X4 CPU for several real-world applications, you MUST buy the 8 "core"?
...
Why throw SuperPi or wPrime into this? Just because I bench at HWBOT does not mean I am too stupid to realize that x87 (SuperPi) is antiquated.Quote:
But claiming it's a fail CPU just because it has lower IPC in some cases or because it cannot beat X6 uniformly and across the board in all benchmarks (usually crap benchmarks like super pi or wprime) is ridiculous.
wPrime is a threaded benchmark, too, that calculates sqr roots, but is useless outside competitive overclocking.
You say it doesn't lose in gaming, which isn't always true, but if you average everything out and make sure to include BF3, I guess you're right. I just don't know what you are comparing here, stock for stock or overclocked?
Also, I thought we stopped arguing about this 10 months ago?
I don't get it...you are always on this crusade to advertise all the great things about BD, and there certainly good things about it, but it just isn't the "total package" that it needs to be for a high-end/upper midrange desktop CPU...it belongs in a workstation with the Opteron name and AM3+ socket, not "FX". For all the hype AMD and its fans put on it's release, it was pathetic...
On top of all that, no matter how much you talk about the upsides of the multi-threaded performance, as soon as you look at the power consumption it gets thrown out the window...
8150 launched at $270, at the time 2600Ks were $280...I would have chosen the 2600K 5/5 times...when FX won by 10% in benches, it was using 70% more power.
Cool story bro? What are you getting at here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Plywood99
What am I trolling, what am I flaming, and how am I hiding, more specifically behind an elitist asswipe's mask?
AMD FX-8150 vs Intel 4C 8T = "sucks all the time"
AMD FX-8150 vs AMD X6 1100T = "why is it not better, they had 2 years and a node shrink, sometimes takes 8 threads to match 6, and sometimes more power consumption"
AMD FX-6100 vs AMD X4 9x5 = "This is not an upgrade"...
I don't know if you realized, but I bought an 8150, and also did decent testing of the Windows 7 patches and explained how they help the performance of FX...and FX is a lot of fun to overclock.
That's about it...
Bit tech, first hit I had on google...Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Overclock settings:
FX-8150 - 4818 MHz, 1.45v, 1.2v CPU-NB, unknown CPU-NB clock, due to voltage, assume CPU-NB = <2400, HT Ref 205
1100T - 4212 MHz, 1.51v, 1.xv CPU-NB, but HT Ref 301, and HT Link 2107, so assume CPU-NB = >2100
Attachment 130621
The FX-8150 and 1100T run similar stock voltages...the power consumption goes up to ~600w with just 1.45v, at this point is already blowing up VRMs...the 1100T is horrid too, but has .06v more and draws 100w less...meanwhile 2500K/2600K are drawing 300w less than the FX-8150, about half the consumption...
Efficiency at stock vs what was competing intel solution, before power consumption blows up with voltage increase/OC, 2500K was 100% better through Gimp (Single thread), Handbrake, and 7-Zip...
Attachment 130622
Nope, doesn't suck...
I also doubt that highly OC'ed Thuban would be faster overall than PD at @ 5 GHz. Aren't you making this number a little safe for yourself, so no one can attack it?
I thought we figured that overall, BD needs to be 600 MHz higher than Phenom II to be faster overall? (Get close in ST, win noticeably in MT?)
So if PD is even 5% faster IPC vs BD, then obviously 5 GHz PD, a Thuban at 4.3-4.4 even could not be faster overall...
Again, this is not so simply (black or white). In some reviews (I dont know, if half of reviews or less or more) was 8150 power consumption lower than 1100T at stock. Of course, theris big difference in OC load. 8150 after is near SB-E CPUs. If u saw graphs voltage/power consumption, every chip is horrible in power consumption from some point, depens at voltages. Man must find some compromise between OC and voltage. IB has great power cons., but from some voltage is worse than SB with high voltage.
Don't worry,Beep saw the "light",now he is here to teach us a few things ;). It doesn't matter that I don't even use intel for comparison and that I already said it cannot compete with intel.
Beep,why don't you just take your 2500K/2600K and play with it and leave this section to "deluded fanboys" .
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
I wasn't saying it was black or white at stock, but at load it is...
I agree completely with that observation :up:
Thanks man, youre the sane one with whola lotta objectivity and you were always right.Quote:
PS I'm tired of ignorant people ,I just don't say it flat out
Thats true, nobodys debating that,but BD draws EVEN MORE.Quote:
Thuban heavily OCed (4+Ghz) draw A LOT of power.
Well from what you said earlier you should KNOW not "doubt".Quote:
Also I doubt that highly OCed Thuban ,even with OCed NB, could be faster overall chip than PD @ 5Ghz.
Also 5ghz figure is with water cooling setup,so you should know its probably lower for air.
And finishing ,NOBODY said phenom was OVERALL better,but IN SOME NOT SOME RARE CASES.So youre answering a question nobody asked.
Then you showed us a bunch of stock picked benchmarks.Great,again not the question i was asking...But i hope you do feel fulfilled :).
thenThats just not true, i gave you a link,here they come again.Quote:
I don't want to link the gaming results since FX8150 is at least on par with 1100T or faster in every game they tested.
http://www.purepc.pl/files/Image/art.../wykres_20.png
Again, thats Witcher 2 med details, HD res,X6 is overclocked lightly,no NB clocking.In this test BD consumes 50W more.
And yes, thats a nitpicked benchmark.However there are those out there.When someone competent overclock X6 its mostly tieing and being better than FX
So FX for such a person is a weak upgrade in best.
Thats impossibru ?
Ok, another site, another weakly oced thuban vs pretty much MAX air BD
http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/cha...kyrim_1920.png
http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/cha.../dirt_1920.png
http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/cha...assin_1920.png
http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/cha.../gta4_1920.png
Thats the OMG part that PD needs to fix, and it looks like it might not.
Even stock
http://techreport.com/r.x/cpu-gaming...skyrim-fps.gif
An excerpt from the review "But no.FX are no worse than phenom.Never.In real scenarios.Quote:
The "tail" of the curve for the AMD processors is telling. Although the FX chips keep pace with the Phenom II X6 1100T in the first 95% or so of frames rendered, their frame times spike upward to meet the slower A8-3850 budget APU and Phenom II X4 850 in the last ~5% of frames. In the most crucial function of gaming performance, latency avoidance, the more expensive FX processors essentially perform like low-end CPUs. "
If someone has a link to 8150 vs 1100T both overclocked to they best.I would be grateful.
Why would I do that? I'm too busy with AMD hardware atm.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Currently playing with FX-8150...got some Phenom II to OC too for the team...
Fresh from facebook through phone:
Attachment 130631
FACT:
people who care about efficiency of their cpu should NOT push it to the MAX.
all chips have a great middle point where they can do so much with so little power
IB was able to do 4.0ghz or a little more at 1.1v
thuban can do ~3.7ghz on all cores at like 1.2v
SB can do ~4.4ghz at 1.25v
past those points the scaling starts to require ALOT of voltage and thus efficiency goes down the drain. BD i didnt play with or watch too closely so i cant tell you its sweet spot. to do a test, simply lock in the voltage, and OC as high it will go, and track its perf and its wattage, then increase volts a step and repeat. it will become clear that to reach +5ghz probably need nearly twice the power as 4.5ghz
What chips do you guys think are going to be better binned? The slower 95w FX 8320 or the faster 125w FX 8350?
From what I've read, most chips are binned by the slowest core.Quote:
Originally Posted by sdlvx
seeing as the later is high clock speed I would go for the 8350 over the 8320.
I've seen plenty of FX 8150 out clock most FX 8120.
TDP can't really tell you what will clock higher, TDP is really about the amount of heat out power.
it should depends of what kind of cooler you will use..I guess 95w for air and WC and maybe 125W it's better for ln2Quote:
Originally Posted by sdlvx
@Manicdan
Thats half true.You just have to know performance/voltage points of your cpu.
There are times when i need max performance i can get, there are times when i need no more than 3ghz/1.1v (i have 1055T)
Idling i set 2ghz with 0.9v .I just manage my own P states.All i needed is a day for testing.
And from MAX tests you can more or less extrapolate the less demanding tests power wise.
Although yea ,i would gladly see a new type of tests normalized to some power consumption number.
thats what i do too.
with my x6 i had .85v for 800mhz, and 1.45v for 4.2ghz
FX-8150 1.45V over 4800 MHz :-)...Not bad too.
overclocking - is it like you're getting a v12 engine and hope it has efficiency of hybrid car?
If it is a 2L V12, quite possibly. But the comparison wouldn't be against a hybrid car, more a V6...Quote:
Originally Posted by haylui
But thing is, for the most part, high hp/displacement is typically a result of a very efficient engine. So while the ferrari's total fuel consumption isn't stellar, its brake specific fuel consumption is phenomenal. Basically, performance/watt in engine speak. A hybrid cheats, but if you live where your electricity comes from coal, theres a good chance you're doing worse then a modern car burning gas.Quote:
Originally Posted by haylui
I'm really hoping, at the very least, that PD can resolve all of BD's issues outside of the IPC deficit compared to SNB/Ivy/Thuban. I've already accepted the fact that there's no way that's going to happen. 5800K performance on average seems to only be about 5% higher and even with the FX variants added cache I don't see it getting much better. It absolutely needs to offer better power consumption at idle and especially load. I realize that they are still on 32nm but BD's power consumption was absolutely terrible and made it hard to even recommend to those who could actually put it to use for its strengths.
If the FX-8350 can improve on BD's OC capability, increase single-thread IPC a tad and provide much improved power figures at a decent price they could have a good product on their hands. If it's just as power hungry and/or doesn't oc as well it's basically going to be dead in the water. It saddens me that BD turned out the way it did, and it'll sadden me even further if PD is a dud after having time to tweak and improve things. In my opinion the FX-8150 never even competed with the 2500/2600K. I would feel guilty recommending them to people, even if they could run @ 5ghz.
When the battle was Phenom 2 X4/X6 vs. Core i5/i7 I had no problems recommending AMD to people as long as they were willing to overclock. Once you started pushing your CPU to the 3.8-4.2ghz range + 2.8/3.0ghz CPU-NB and optimized your RAM they became pretty competitive when it came to gaming and general system performance. When I moved from 1090T @ 4.2ghz/3.0ghz CPU-NB to a 2500K I was actually underwhelmed by it's performance considering all the positive buzz SNB was generating. It wasn't until I moved to a 2600K that I actually felt I upgraded. In my opinion the 2500K/1090T are interchangeable depending on what you need to use your system for.
idle power consumption is at FX good, no problem with this. SOmetimes dpends at testing board. You can not compare example i7-2600k+P8Z77-V LX and FX-8150+Crosshair V Formula-Z (example), because this highend boards has +20W more than lowend boards (special chips at board, added chips for sata,etc etc).
Ussualy is FX-8150 still average 15-18% up to x6 1100T in performance and ussually average chip has at stock lower power consumption than 1100T. Of course, after high OC is different story.
http://chinese.vr-zone.com/38117/amd...9-us-10172012/Quote:
Pointed out that according to our news, FX-8350 price will be less than $ 200, about $ 199; FX-8320 is about $ 175; FX-6300 is about $ 135; FX-4300 is about $ 125.
$199 I'm sold!
an FX-6300 OCed on a mid range/budget board would be great for gamers. just enough cores and just enough mhz at a great price point.
very nice price I think!
Olivon where do you find all those links man :),good job!
:-) wow excellent price!Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
Inviato dal mio GT-I9300 con Tapatalk 2
On Wccftech :DQuote:
Originally Posted by informal
Another one :
http://tof.canardpc.com/preview2/637...6843e3a45e.jpg
http://wccftech.com/amd-fx-8350-over...z-ln2-cooling/
Fx-8120 is on sale at the egg for $139.99
same for MicroCenter
What are they basing that on? Are there legitimate reports of 24/7 overclocks floating around or are they just assuming it's better than BD?Quote:
with a nice air cooler and water cooling setup, enthusiasts can easily break the 5 – 5.5 GHz barrier with the new FX-Vishera processors.
No reports as far as I know,they are just assuming better OCing...
It is probably based on the new clock mesh info, people are just extrapolating current average overclocks and then adding an extra 15% clock speed on because the clock mesh is supposed to either allow 10-20% lower power consumption at the same clock speed, or 10-20% higher core speed with the same power consumption as before. Since average OC used to be about 4.6GHz, if we take that and add 10-20% then we get a range of 5-5.5GHz. The problem is that this has no basis on actual truth at all and we dont know if the clock mesh system even lives up to its promise. We also dont know if those speeds increases/power decreases are at any frequency or just a certain range.
Only thing we know is that AMD demoed a 4.8GHz 1.45v specimen during IDF :
http://tof.canardpc.com/preview2/3db...2c248143a2.jpg
http://www.hardware.fr/news/12617/id...o-vishera.html
yah but 4.8ghz at looks like 1.475 cpu volts depending on LLC
i dunno
we will see next week
regardless i think a majority of people here who have a 8150/8120 bulldozer r going to upgrade to the 8350/8320 vishera
and judging by the rumored prices leaks $199 for the 8350 seems pretty good
and besides this will probably be the last enthusiast 8-core chips from Amd for awhile now.
so pick one up for the nostalgia of it all lol;)
Well, if not cherry, then good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
If cherry, no better than BD...they could have easily set up a demo running wPrime 1024/Cinebench all day on a PC that wasn't Prime stable, or stable enough for say a folding/crunching program...
C0 stepping, but this has higher (Piledriver) IPC, right?
The one thing that I still haven't seen anywhere is power draw, I know the voltage is still close to BD, but the overall power usage is supposed to be less. Anyone seen anything on this??Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
On that CO stepping, CPUZ is still reporting this chip to be a Zambezi, rather than a Vishera so it looks like CPUZ isn't reporting everything accurately yet, even though it shows it as a FX-8350.
EDIT: or would that even affect the stepping report?
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1722207
this guy said his whole system was 160w using kill-a-watt
nice if true, not saying its not, but bulldozers numbers were way higher wernt they? so amd would realy have had to reduce power consumption to get it that low :)Quote:
Originally Posted by tbone8ty
Dig deeper in that thread. It pulls like 240 to 290w I believe, I forget the exact number, under load. It's when he plays xcom. 160w is idle.
but it's not overclocked or under load :PQuote:
Originally Posted by tbone8ty
so still a mystery
The countdown has begun :D
http://www.overclock.net/content/typ...350/height/700
Source
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=...&postcount=104
Found it. 295w stock, at load while playing a game. Unknown graphics card, but assuming he just threw the FX 8350 in his FX 8150 rig and is using an overclocked GTX 570 fermi. If that is the case, Piledriver might be not too bad.
test system with i7 965 EE quad and GTX 570:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/201...1-3gb-review/4
Power usage on test system with stock i7 965 EE quad and GTX 570:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/201...1-3gb-review/9
i7 Nehalem quad pulls 330w from the wall with that card and Piledriver 4 module pulls 295w, unless the difference in load between 3dmark06 canyon run and xcom is big, Piledriver looks good.
But all of this is with the assumption that he's still using the GTX 570. If he's not, I'm totally off.
well his sig lists the 8350 with it, so hopefully thats what he is using
after reading the thread i think so 99,99%
Less than 13 hours beforce NDA lift....
Price as we know is true. And performance is improved too. It will beat Core i5 at the same price
Can't wait power and overclocking tests :)
I wouldn't expect any miracles in power draw department. Maybe a bit better or on par with 8150. You still get better performance out of the box,even at the same clock, so it's an improvement.
now if only my vendor would let me buy one
i asked "is there any way to preorder one"
and they were like
Attachment 130759
:p :D
AMD to present Piledriver Opterons at SC12 conference:
http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2012/2...onference.html
so whens official launch date?
So, tomorrow at 7 AM ???Quote:
Originally Posted by hiepgia
No leaks till now....except obr but that doesnt count.
Are you replying to me? If yes, then look that hiepgia explicitly says it will be tomorrow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex-Ro
But AMD in Japan says that the premiere is scheduled to October 23 - see my post #1087.
That's why I asked (him) :)