chew* I think games with only two threads may run best in 2CU/2C mode, instead of 2CU/4C, where sharing is present but not needed, as there are only two demanding threads. And with two cores disabled, there should be a little more room for OC, as well.
I think you'd want a game with three threads game where the first thread is 100% set to a single CUQuote:
Originally Posted by dess
and the other two that are around 50-60% for the other threads both on the same CU.
set threw taskmanager or over drive.
Possibly but I'm using the other threads to offload other tasks.Quote:
Originally Posted by dess
Hi Chew,
It's a little bit OFF topic but have you been able to run four modules at 1866 MHz on BD?
@ 6.6.6.18? :dQuote:
Originally Posted by oliverda
Is this exclusive to the CHV, or does it work on the Sabertooth and M5A99X-EVO?
I haven't tried with this set since it's mismatched, honestly high speed 16g sets are not as fast as a set that can do 7-8-7 1600....if i went 9-11-9 i'm sure 1866 would be fine though,Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliverda
How's this for almost apples to apples :)
Sandybridge ( The only diff is this system has a 120gig boot/OS SSD higher ram but a tad looser)
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...5&d=1318888545
BullDozer optimized NB and ram clocks now.
Attachment 121415
Nice, would be great once you have done testing to share your optimal bios setup :)
Wow nice comparison there Chew. So close between BD and SB. Keep it going
Brian
that is crazy!!!
I have a question:
when BD is running 1 thread per module, would the shared Fetch/Decoder works 4 instruction per cycle without switching in every clock cycle??
IMO, if BD still switching every clock cycle even one of the core is idle/disable, then the 20%~35% performance gain while BD is running on 1C/1M configuration is very impressive.
Imagine, if a BD design with full time Fetch/Decoder feeding to only 1 core like conventional design.
hehe here comes the sandy killer finally lol
turbo involved?
@haylui: I think the shared Frontend will now work fully for only 1 core. I guess its the frontend rather then the FPU thats limiting BD by sharing ressources...
No turbo, full clocks on both rigs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oese
Is it possible to post a benchmark and settings for a lower oc at around 4 GHz?
Does the core deactivating is a Crosshair V Formula only feature, or is there a chance to find it on a cheaper board???
I would like to start my own tests, but i dont know.
To be an alternative for i5 or i3, it is not very cool, to take a >200 $ board and pair it with a 100 $ FX-4 CPU and oc it so much. The bill from the energy supplier is part of the package too.
So your smart nb oc and 4 GHz on 3C/3T or 2M/2T, could be an alternative in dirt 3 for example. A test would be very helpful against i7 with resolution and quality specs and with simulated FX-4 @ stock. The results would be very, very helpful to compare it to other reviews, with more games testet.
Thanks for the great testing.
Here some results from rage3d => FX@nb oc:
Battlefield
Min fps Avg fps
109,50% 108,9 %
Civilization 5
175% 110%
Crysis 2
100% 106%
Medal of Honor
114% 117%
Add the 3CU/3C performance gain of 10-20 % and in the end, FX IS a gamer CPU.
aha coolQuote:
Originally Posted by chew*
What graphics card are you using? And what settings?
Asrock boards have the "core leveling" feature available too atleast (dunno if it is enabled thou).
Other manufacturers can easily add it too, if they only want to.
1920x1080 maxxed out settings with a 6990 in each rig.Quote:
Originally Posted by boxleitnerb
Low quality settings might change things but why test at settings I won't use in real world ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oese
do you think the frontend has very less effect on the performance difference?
but I think FPU really affected much since most of the desktop apps are FPU intensive
Is this 2cu/4core or 4cu/4core for the bulldozer test?Quote:
Originally Posted by chew*
Thats sandy bridge with HT disabled so 4 core.........Quote:
Originally Posted by EniGmA1987
What graphics card did you use and what resolution, AA/AF was applied? You know you are most likely GPU-limited unless you have a CF-rig.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chew*
6990 is 2 6970's crossfire last I checked :)Quote:
Originally Posted by boxleitnerb
Not to mention if you look further back in thread you can see that I posted results from same game with diff settings and the total system results are improving as I optimize the system :) AKA i'm cpu bottlenecked
You sir are correct!Quote:
Originally Posted by chew*
So is the general consensus 4 cores disabled to get better single thread IPC performance? But with 4 cores disabled you less overclocking headway?
Sorry for my ignorance but I'm not very good when it comes to all the CPU technical jargon.