Results 1 to 25 of 90

Thread: Return of AMD FX: My OC'd AMD FX 8150 / 6990 review - Check in Daily for New Results!

Threaded View

  1. #1
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    50

    Cool Return of AMD FX: My OC'd AMD FX 8150 / 6990 review - Check in Daily for New Results!



    AMDFX.blogspot.com

    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
    Just Cause 2

    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) :




    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) :



    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




    Compared Results (with several 6990 OC's) :




    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




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




    Comparison (from Hexus.net) :


    - - - OC1/OC2 - - -





    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:




    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:



    link : http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pDWAJYpmph...0/OCfinal5.png

    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.


    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:




    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





    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:





    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



    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:





    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




    CPU: AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz

    RESULTS:



    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



    AIDA64 Benchmarks! Windows 7 FX patch preview!

    ROUND 9: AIDA64




    Does FX stand a chance?
    RESULTS:

    CPU AES :


    BEFORE - view @ blog

    AFTER



    CPU HASH :


    BEFORE - view @ blog


    AFTER



    CPU PHOTOWORX :


    BEFORE - view @ blog

    AFTER




    CPU QUEEN :


    BEFORE - view @ blog

    AFTER:



    CPU ZLIB :


    BEFORE - view @ blog


    AFTER



    FPU JULIA :


    BEFORE - view @ blog

    AFTER



    FPU SINJULIA :


    BEFORE - view @ blog

    AFTER



    FPU VP8 :


    BEFORE - view @ blog

    AFTER



    FPU MANDEL :


    BEFORE - view @ blog

    AFTER



    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.


    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!




    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!




    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!

    Link to Blog:
    http://AMDFX.blogspot.com


    If you have any questions feel free to ask!
    Last edited by polyzp; 02-06-2012 at 08:27 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •