Compare 1090T and FX-8150

I was curious of how my old processor would compete against the new one, so I tested them both and well, here are the results.

Here's a lil info on the system. The system is mounted on a custom built aluminum test bench. The CPU cooling is done by a single Feser 120.3 radiator with three Scythe 120mm x 25mm fans running at 1500rpm. The pump is a Laing D5 Vario at max speed. The water block is a Swiftech GTZ with custom 0.25" aluminum back plate and tension springs.

I wanted to see what the difference in performance would be between these two chips as I would run them 24/7. So I OC'ed them both to there maximum semi-stable frequencies and off we went. Basically if they passed Cinebench and 3Dmark CPU tests, I considered it stable. The 1090T is at 4.3GHz Core @ 1.55v, 2.6GHz CPU-NB @ 1.25v and 2.6GHz HT Link @ 1.20v. The FX-8150 is at 4.8GHz Core @ 1.45v, 2.6GHz CPU-NB @ 1.25v and 2.6GHz HT Link @ 1.20v. Both CPU's were run with the same RAM, 2x4GB DDR3-1600MHz running at 1600MHz. The video cards are 3x XFX 6970's running at stock frequencies and voltages (880MHz core, 1375MHz RAM). I forgot to add a GPU-Z shot in the screenies, so forgive me. Also, I used a different CPU-Z from the 1090T to the FX-8150 because the 1.58 version didn't show the correct information of the FX, like the 1.58.7 version does.

The test system:

http://i1092.photobucket.com/albums/...corpius001.jpg
http://i1092.photobucket.com/albums/...corpius002.jpg
http://i1092.photobucket.com/albums/...corpius003.jpg
http://i1092.photobucket.com/albums/...corpius004.jpg

SuperPi - 1090T (first), FX-8150 (second)
http://i1092.photobucket.com/albums/...0T-SuperPi.png
http://i1092.photobucket.com/albums/...50-SuperPi.png

wPrime - 1090T (first), FX-8150 (second)
http://i1092.photobucket.com/albums/...90T-wPrime.png
http://i1092.photobucket.com/albums/...150-wPrime.png

Cinebench - 1090T (first), FX-8150 (second)
http://i1092.photobucket.com/albums/...-Cinebench.png
http://i1092.photobucket.com/albums/...-Cinebench.png

Unigine Heaven (1920x1200, DX11, Shaders = High, Tess. = Normal, Anisotropy = 16x, AA = Off) - 1090T (first), FX-8150 (second)
http://i1092.photobucket.com/albums/...gineHeaven.png
http://i1092.photobucket.com/albums/...gineHeaven.png

3Dmark 06 - 1090T (first), FX-8150 (second)
http://i1092.photobucket.com/albums/...T-3dmark06.png
http://i1092.photobucket.com/albums/...0-3dmark06.png

3Dmark 11 - 1090T (first), FX-8150 (second)
http://i1092.photobucket.com/albums/...T-3dmark11.png
http://i1092.photobucket.com/albums/...0-3dmark11.png

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-EDIT-
BELOW ARE MORE GAME BENCHES AS OF 10-23-11

I did a lil more testing with the FX-8150 at 4.8GHz CPU, 2.6GHz NB and HT Link, and 1600MHz RAM. After that I put the 1090T back in and for some stupid reason I couldn't boot at 2.6GHz on the NB and HT Link, so I upped the frequencies to 4.35GHz CPU (was 4.3GHz), 3.0GHz NB and HT Link (was 2.6GHz), and 1600MHz RAM. I used the same entire setup as before, with 3x 6970's in Tri-Fire running at stock frequencies of 880MHz core and 1375MHz memory, ASUS Crosshair V mobo running the beta 9911 BIOS, water cooled CPU with a single 360 RAD and fans at 1500RPM.

The test games I chose are ones that I play or have played. Two of which have in game benchmarks, the other two I had to run a FRAPS 60 second capture for min-max-avg frames per second. The games are Battlefield: Bad Company 2, Crysis, Dirt 3, and Left 4 Dead 2. I did two runs of each game, one at 1920x1200 and the other at 5760x1200. All games were run at their maximum in game graphic settings with either 8xAA, 4xAA, or no AA (crysis only).

I had originally intended to do some encoding with handbrake, but for the life of me I couldn't get the FX-8150 to stay stable for a whole minute under load, so only game benches here.

Battlefield: Bad company 2 - All settings on High, 4xAA, 16xAF, HBAO: On - Captured during a multi-player match on the map Laguna Presa.

X6 1090T - 1920x1200:
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
6764, 60000, 74, 201, 112.733

X6 1090T - 5760x1200:
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
3049, 60000, 37, 84, 50.817

FX-8150 - 1920x1200:
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
5424, 60000, 70, 114, 90.400

FX-8150 - 5760x1200:
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
2942, 60000, 37, 72, 49.033

Crysis - All settings on Very High, 0xAA - Used the Crysis Benchmark Tool v1.05

X6 1090T - 1920x1200:
http://i1092.photobucket.com/albums/...tings-NoAA.png

X6 1090T - 5760x1200:
http://i1092.photobucket.com/albums/...tings-NoAA.png

FX-8150 - 1920x1200:
http://i1092.photobucket.com/albums/...tting-NoAA.png

FX-8150 - 5760x1200:
http://i1092.photobucket.com/albums/...tting-NoAA.png

Dirt 3 - All settings on Ultra, 4xAA - Used the in game benchmark tool set to the Aspen map.

X6 1090T - 1920x1200:
http://i1092.photobucket.com/albums/...ngs-4xMSAA.png

X6 1090T - 5760x1200:
http://i1092.photobucket.com/albums/...ngs-4xMSAA.png

FX-8150 - 1920x1200:
http://i1092.photobucket.com/albums/...ngs-4xMSAA.png

FX-8150 - 5760x1200:
http://i1092.photobucket.com/albums/...ngs-4xMSAA.png

Left 4 Dead 2 - All settings maxed out, 8xAA - Played single player campaign on the map "The Sacrfice: 1. Docks", started capture from when I was first able to move the character.

X6 1090T - 1920x1200:
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
12215, 60000, 138, 285, 203.583

X6 1090T - 5760x1200:
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
7530, 60000, 99, 160, 125.500

FX-8150 - 1920x1200:
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
14312, 60000, 159, 293, 238.533

FX-8150 - 5760x1200:
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
7171, 60000, 91, 143, 119.517

This is pretty awful.
Are you able to bench at 5 Ghz?

...add two "cores", add 500 Mhz, 32nm process, get lower or much less efficient results.

Not very effectively. The chip gets really hot cuz I need 1.55v to run it at 5GHz and do multiple 100% load benches. Plus it's just randomly crashing and rebooting at the strangest times, like looking at web pages, browsing files on my drives, and just idling while I sit here and think of stuff to type. It's quite aggravating.

Yeah, it's pretty sad that it can't even out gun it's own previous generation chip. But there is a bright side, if you make the GPU's do all the calculations, the CPU looks really good at 4.8GHz.

*edit*
Oh, and it's gotta be draining power off the grid, at idle with the 1090T, I would see about a 1-2° delta between air and water temps. With the FX-8150, I'm now seeing a 6° delta.

i dont consider 1.55v on thuban 24/7 for most people. most dont push it past 1.5v because air cooling just cannot keep it stable around there (unless you have a fan that makes you deaf)

also the crashing in idle ive seen before, and its because my idle voltage was too low. i would turn that up a few notches or just turn off CnQ and see if that fixes it.

can you test power consumption with the 2 different chips? it would be great to see identical load wattage and see how different the temps are, since that can give a very clear indication if the cpus are set with different calibrated sensors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

i dont consider 1.55v on thuban 24/7 for most people. most dont push it past 1.5v because air cooling just cannot keep it stable around there (unless you have a fan that makes you deaf)

also the crashing in idle ive seen before, and its because my idle voltage was too low. i would turn that up a few notches or just turn off CnQ and see if that fixes it.

can you test power consumption with the 2 different chips? it would be great to see identical load wattage and see how different the temps are, since that can give a very clear indication if the cpus are set with different calibrated sensors.

---

You know what the bad thing about FX is?
You should get a 30% performance/watt increase with the move to 32nm vs 45.

If you produced an FX-6100 (33% less cores than FX-8150) on 45nm it would have the same power consumption as X6 1100T and lose to it in EVERY benchmark AND real-world task. Even overclocked, it would lose in EVERY benchmark. ...that is, excluding benchmarks that take advantage of the new instructions which are little to none currently.

Thanks for this comparison....this is really getting worse and worse. I thought the difference between the old and new was a little, but IPC seems to be really really bad on this new chip. As a request, could you try the same tests with 4c/4cu...?

Can you do some gaming comparisons please, as i am looking getting the BD for gaming.

Thank i wait for FX hit retail in Thailand

is the asus bios still nerffing the chip when compared to the asrock?

Il show sometihng more diferent with OC Thuban vs OC FX...Maybe, u will be suprised....give me some weeks (2-3), this week Im busy and I have no much time for HW.

@Flanker_ are you happy with your chip?

Thanks for this nice compare, this gives us a good insight in how superior FX really is. :rolleyes:

One thing though, did you use the same mobo w/ same bios for the tests? I assume it was the Asus Crosshair V? What happens if you put the Thuban in a Crosshair IV w/ Thuban optimised bios, the difference could be even more.

Oh that 3d mark06 result really shocked me btw!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

i dont consider 1.55v on thuban 24/7 for most people. most dont push it past 1.5v because air cooling just cannot keep it stable around there (unless you have a fan that makes you deaf)

also the crashing in idle ive seen before, and its because my idle voltage was too low. i would turn that up a few notches or just turn off CnQ and see if that fixes it.

can you test power consumption with the 2 different chips? it would be great to see identical load wattage and see how different the temps are, since that can give a very clear indication if the cpus are set with different calibrated sensors.

---

You'll notice after I said "24/7", I clarified by saying "... maximum semi-stable frequencies... if they passed Cinebench and 3Dmark CPU tests, I considered it stable." For me, if the rig can stay stable w/o crashing for a 10-hour game session, I call it 24/7 stable.

I think I forgot to mention that I had all power saving options disabled in the BIOS. I also had the HPC (High Performance Computing) option turned off, but I really have no idea what the hell that does. Anybody have a clue?

I'd love to test power consumption, but the last Kill-o-watt I had melted to the receptacle and I haven't got one since. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mav2000

Thanks for this comparison....this is really getting worse and worse. I thought the difference between the old and new was a little, but IPC seems to be really really bad on this new chip. As a request, could you try the same tests with 4c/4cu...?

---

I was planning on testing that out, too. Right now I'm working on the random crashing, but I'll get to it soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swanie

Can you do some gaming comparisons please, as i am looking getting the BD for gaming.

---

Give me some games that I can easily bench. I usually play Bad Company 2, but I don't think there's any pre-configured benchmark runs. I suppose I could capture the frames with Fraps and try to make the same run twice. :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zanzabar

is the asus bios still nerffing the chip when compared to the asrock?

---

Oh, I'm also running the 9911 BIOS, since I didn't mention it before. But as far as this board being better/worse than another, I couldn't tell ya. I've seen the same benches as everyone else, but I find it hard to accept that the flagship ASUS mobo is going to suck by that much, compared to other boards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zeus

Thanks for this nice compare, this gives us a good insight in how superior FX really is. :rolleyes:

One thing though, did you use the same mobo w/ same bios for the tests? I assume it was the Asus Crosshair V? What happens if you put the Thuban in a Crosshair IV w/ Thuban optimised bios, the difference could be even more.

Oh that 3d mark06 result really shocked me btw!

---

Same mobo, same 9911 Beta BIOS. Oops, I guess I forgot to mention the board I was running, heh. It is the ASUS Crosshair V. The difference between the CHV and CHIV is negligible. The 3dmark scores are near identical to those I've posted on the ORB with the CHIV. Same with the Cinebench.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swanie

@Flanker_ are you happy with your chip?

---

yes, after OC is it really better than OC Thuban in practice. Interesting is some as megatasking, FX is more quickly better than Thuban chip (perhaps because FX has more better IMC). Il test for comparsion max stable OC Thuban vs FX in practice compression, decompression, videoencoding, practice 3DsMax rendering, Cinebenchs, practice Photoshop, CAD apliactions etc. Think, it will be interesting :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eRazorzEDGE

Same mobo, same 9911 Beta BIOS. Oops, I guess I forgot to mention the board I was running, heh. It is the ASUS Crosshair V. The difference between the CHV and CHIV is negligible. The 3dmark scores are near identical to those I've posted on the ORB with the CHIV. Same with the Cinebench.

---

Wouldn't it have been better even to test the 1090T with an older bios, not for BD optimised one ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zeus

Thanks for this nice compare, this gives us a good insight in how superior FX really is. :rolleyes:

One thing though, did you use the same mobo w/ same bios for the tests? I assume it was the Asus Crosshair V? What happens if you put the Thuban in a Crosshair IV w/ Thuban optimised bios, the difference could be even more.

Oh that 3d mark06 result really shocked me btw!

---

On 0051 this board loses about 15 seconds in 32M with Thuban @ 4.5, and BIOSes after that were more BD optimized... so lets just call that a 3.5% hit.

The difference in score is pretty rediculous. I assume Thuban is losing score in wPrime + Cinebench as well, if it's less or more than 3.5% I don't know but 3.5% is the equivilent of 150 Mhz loss in efficiency at 4.5.

@ eRazorzEDGE: Thanks for your testing and feedback, highly appreciated. I also play BFBC 2 , so any average FRAPS feedback will do,then also how does the gameplay feel in comparison to the 2 chips: any big drops in FPS that impacts on gameplay as i see you playing on eyefinity also.
@FlanK3r: Thank you also. It is truly nice to see day to usage reports from guys actually who owns these chips.

I took the plunge placed my order for mobo and chip. sold my I7 as per sig.

Looking forward to more feedback and inputs from all

Word on the street is the Asus BIOS for BD isn't helping. Some tests over on the ASRock boards show BD improve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeepBeep2

On 0051 this board loses about 15 seconds in 32M with Thuban @ 4.5, and BIOSes after that were more BD optimized... so lets just call that a 3.5% hit.

The difference in score is pretty rediculous. I assume Thuban is losing score in wPrime + Cinebench as well, if it's less or more than 3.5% I don't know but 3.5% is the equivilent of 150 Mhz loss in efficiency at 4.5.

---

The good news is that we can keep our money in our pockets. I think i'm gonna invest in a nice SSD instead. ;) It would have been nice if i could just have dropped a BD cpu in this Crosshair IV F but i have a gut feeling it ain't gonna happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RCG_Bex

Word on the street is the Asus BIOS for BD isn't helping. Some tests over on the ASRock boards show BD improve.

---

Can you believe AMD choose this CVF as a reference board if this is true?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeepBeep2

You know what the bad thing about FX is?
You should get a 30% performance/watt increase with the move to 32nm vs 45.

---

thuban is the end of 45nm and this is sorta the beginning of 32nm
i would compare efficiency of the PII 940 to FX 8150 and see how much that changed.

Thanks for your Bench!

I think i'll keep my 1090T... This FX 8150 doesn't give enough for the money...

Do you know if we can run it (FX 8150) on crosshair IV formula? I have seen on asus website a bios update to support AM3+ cpu but I have also read that the socket is different including "bigger" holes for pins...

Thuban 64Kbytes x6 vs 64Kbytes x4 Bulldozer (128Kbytes less) instruction cache.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zanzabar

is the asus bios still nerffing the chip when compared to the asrock?

---

I'm really interested in where this BIOS fiasco I'm reading about on multiple sites leads us. Are there any more tests with the Asrock?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RCG_Bex

Word on the street is the Asus BIOS for BD isn't helping. Some tests over on the ASRock boards show BD improve.

---

Ye i read that the ASRock performs much better with the BD, pity here in South Africa we cant get this mobo so i am stuck with MSI, Asus or Giga and going for the UD7

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zeus

Can you believe AMD choose this CVF as a reference board if this is true?

---

Yes. I believe that AMD approached ASUS to partner with them for the launch, that is ASUS provides motherboards for reviewers and AMD the chips. Once you have an agreement, it is hard to back out of it. Also most of if not all motherboard manufacturers came up with latest bioses days before launch, so even if AMD had wanted to back out and go with different mobo, it would have been too late. This is my opinion and maybe I am wrong and AMD indeed wanted to screw themselves even more.

@Swanie, MSI also performs better than ASUS. I think Toms hardware tested with MSI and results weren't that catastrophic as the ones from 1st reviews with ASUS boards ;)

@Manicdan comparing PII940 with FX would be good just to show how 32nm early process compares with early 45nm process. It wouldn't show us why FX still fails in other stuff. It would be interesting from technical point of view, but for those of us who would want to buy and use fx 24/7, process immaturity is really really bad excuse for underperforming CPU ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eRazorzEDGE

Oh, I'm also running the 9911 BIOS, since I didn't mention it before. But as far as this board being better/worse than another, I couldn't tell ya. I've seen the same benches as everyone else, but I find it hard to accept that the flagship ASUS mobo is going to suck by that much, compared to other boards.

---

its supposed to be a bios problem were asus changed or is on an older AGESA platform, in the reviews the ones with asrock boards were the only ones to show a gain over the 1100/1090, most reviews used the asus as thats what amd said to use and some used gigabyte but it showed worse than the asus.

and since pegatron and asus split there is no reason that asrock is bad as they are no longer the low end brand, they are now allowed to build higher end stuff and are just as good as any1 else on the bios and quality now.

It would have been interesting to bench them at the same clock even if OC.

The FX 8150 results are pretty bad, don't know how AMD possibly messed this CPU up, hopefully there will be an optimization patch to fix this, like some people have stated but things aren't looking too good right now.

just cant see how they can keep bulldozer at current prices...


its more expensive than the i5-2500k and it performs equal or worse than a phenom II 1100t which is at $190

i guess once Phenom II is EOL then maybe they will drop down.

$280 is just to expensive for FX-8150 if you can get one.

i hope it drops to $200

I'm still trying to figure out this random crashing bs, but once I do, I'll be sure to run some more tests. I'll try some stock clock tests, same OC tests, I'll see what programs I can use that will give me some quantifiable results. However, I like to game, so most benches will be about FPS.

Thanks eRazorzEDGE for all your efforts, hope you get your BD stable. For me personally all i want is a stable OC and good performance in gaming. I also hope this possible patch or BIOS updates gives a performance boost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eRazorzEDGE

I'm still trying to figure out this random crashing bs, but once I do, I'll be sure to run some more tests. I'll try some stock clock tests, same OC tests, I'll see what programs I can use that will give me some quantifiable results. However, I like to game, so most benches will be about FPS.

---

Just make 100% sure your RAM isn't acting up on you. Pretty obvious but often overlooked. Good luck. ;)

Nobody around here has that Am3+ Asrock mobo to test with it?
Would be interesting to see the results.

thank you for the awesome work! :D could i possibly bother you by asking you to try out:

http://img.tomshardware.com/us/2004/...taskassign.zip

this allows setting up profiles to run programs in specified cores, so maybe it would make up some interesting results by running 3dmark06 + gaming benches with affinity set to only one core in each module?
since games and 3dmark06 don't usually use up more than 4 threads maybe by doing this you could lower impact from resource sharing? because that 3dmark06 result is a real nasty drop in performance comparing with the thuban!

@omninmo... The beta BIOS 9911 has the same function at the hardware level, where I can disable 7 out of 8 cores. But yes, I will be trying some 4cu/4c and 2cu/4c benches as well as the stock 4cu/8c.

@zeus... I think it was my RAM. I had a set of G.Skill Snipers, 2x4GB DDR3-1600MHz 7-8-7-24 2T @ 1.6v, in there and it was crashing at random, even at stock clocks. I tried upping the volts to 1.625v to no avail. I then swapped the set for some G.Skill Flares, 2x2GB DDR3-2000MHZ 7-9-7-24 1T @ 1.65v, and I've only gotten 1 random crash last night while screwing with it. Nice to know it's probably not gonna screw up anymore, but still not sure why the Snipers were messing up, they're brand new. I tested 'em on the old CHIV a month ago with Memtest86+ with no errors on each stick. So I dunno.

Anyone else notice the DRAM Voltage dips a bit below BIOS specified even at idle (on the CHV)?

Good thing you figured it out. Random crashes and BSOD are often RAM related.

Maybe Crosshair IV sets subtimings different than Crosshair V by default?

Actually, it wasn't the RAM, as the random crashing kept on occurring. I did, however, finally narrow it down to the Intel drivers for the NIC. Apparently ASUS knows about this issue and still only offers up the drivers that cause BSOD's when using the NIC, like anytime I access a file on my server or browse a web site. I went to the ASUS ROG forum and was lucky enough to see a post by someone else with the same issue and Raja was happy to offer up another version of the drivers which seems to have cured the random crashing bs.

Ok, so since I was able to cure the crashes, I went on with some tests. I added them to the first post, below the "-EDIT-" line.

My conclusion is that there is no real clear conclusion. I tested four games in both 1920x1200 and 5760x1200 with 3x 6970's in Tri-fire. Two of the games are showing that it's better to use the FX-8150 for Eyefinity and the other two Show that it's better to use the 1090T for Eyefinity, meaning that the CPU can allow the GPU's to provide more FPS.

One thing is clear to me, however, and that is the FX-8150 is $275 (or was, who knows now) plus another $200 for the ASUS Crosshair V (since ASUS doesn't yet want people to use BD on the CH IV, like they said they would) and all I get is about the same performance at a significantly higher clock, faster encoding (according to others) that does nothing for a person who sets a queue and walks away for a day, and (for me) a relatively unstable overclocked chip @ even 4.5GHz. Plus it draws a ton of power and makes a lot of heat. All in all I have to say, as a person who really wants AMD to do well and bring some competition to Intel, as well as owning only AMD chips since 2007, I can't consciously continue to buy things that just are not worth it. For the same or even less money, you can have an Intel i7-2500k and motherboard that will beat Bulldozer in any game perspective and rival it (and PH II's) in most other programs.

I definitely don't recommend the Bulldozer platform for any gamer. If you do work on anything where this platform excels, then it might work for you.

Very well put mate... the platform is quite okay when GPUs are maxed out, yet the heart of it all needs an added pacemaker to get it beating correctly...

Not good news , eRazorzEDGE. I was buying into BD for purely gaming purposes. Well to late now as got the mobo and ordered the chip.

I only tested with 3 GPU's. It might fare a bit better against the 1090T with only a single GPU, however, we've all seen benches of single cards on Intel platforms that still show a significant FPS increase over an AMD platform.

Now I'm sure some might say, "oh you should switch it to 4cu/4c mode, it'll fare better". Well I say how many are going to know their way around a BIOS well enough to do this or even want to do this? The advertisement clearly touts the "8 cores" of the chip and if you need to restart the computer between gaming sessions and encoding video sessions just to see a performance increase, then it's definitely not a chip for me.

Speaking of which, I need to chuck this thing off a cliff or put it on ebay... decisions, decisions.