moonbogg: Just ran cinebench 11.5 at my settings (4.2 Ghz all 8 cores)
CPU 6.89 pts
OpenGL 65.87fps
moonbogg: Just ran cinebench 11.5 at my settings (4.2 Ghz all 8 cores)
CPU 6.89 pts
OpenGL 65.87fps
Is it really 6.89 even at 4.2Ghz? Thank you for taking the time to do that. I won't be a jerk about this, but I can't resist the urge to express how totally shocked I am at how terrible that score is for an 8 core CPU with clocks like that. I mean, how can my intel chip get a score of 13 with 2 less cores? Something is really wrong here. Does cinebench favor Intel chips?
EDIT: To be fair, I am now at 4.3 Ghz so my score is 12.43
I am curious, how good is amd's fx branded liquid cooler when ocing ?
Are you new here?
I score in the 10 range on my rig.
And OP I thought this was a good real world experience and I enjoyed reading the thread so far.
moonbogg: I won't mince words. Your 3930k is far superior and much more expensive (@$500 vs $170 for the 8150). You have 6 core BUT Hyperthreading so you really have 12. Plus as evidenced by my SandyBridge 2500ks the Intels have much better IPC. In the Bulldozer case "more cores" does not mean more performance.Is it really 6.89 even at 4.2Ghz? Thank you for taking the time to do that. I won't be a jerk about this, but I can't resist the urge to express how totally shocked I am at how terrible that score is for an 8 core CPU with clocks like that. I mean, how can my intel chip get a score of 13 with 2 less cores? Something is really wrong here. Does cinebench favor Intel chips?
EDIT: To be fair, I am now at 4.3 Ghz so my score is 12.43
guskline, thanks the great read.
I still don't think the 8350 will solve AMD's problems but i'm keeping an open mind and i'm waitting for official benchmarks.
FX8xxx has 4 FP units,just like SB/IB QC models. It has 8 integer cores though. So the performance is roughly in line with intel SB 2600K(or slightly lower in case of Cinebench). Unless you expected that each AMD's FP unit has 2x the throughput of each SB's core,the performance is in line with what the uarchitecture was designed for (an integer cruncher).Is it really 6.89 even at 4.2Ghz? Thank you for taking the time to do that. I won't be a jerk about this, but I can't resist the urge to express how totally shocked I am at how terrible that score is for an 8 core CPU with clocks like that. I mean, how can my intel chip get a score of 13 with 2 less cores? Something is really wrong here. Does cinebench favor Intel chips?
EDIT: To be fair, I am now at 4.3 Ghz so my score is 12.43
No. I think to go higher stable I'll need liquid cooling. Don't get me wrong, it con boot into windows at 4.3 up to 4.5 but I use Intel Burn test and it freezes. Could be a weak PSU (Antec Green 750W) since I'm using 2 5850s but I doubt it. I think its the thermals. The Hyper212+ even with 2 fans can't take the heat off fast enough when this chip runs faster than 4.2 Ghz on all eight cores. Quite frankly, liquid cooling with a new case will cost @$150 and for what? A gain of perhaps .4 Mhz? Not worth it. I'm satisfied with a SOLID 4.2 Ghz Bulldozer. BTW some posters say "hey at stock it clocks up to 4200" True but only on 4 cores. I have this cpu running all 8 cores at 4200 24/7/365 and can run anything and its stable.Pretty good, i have OCed the FX8150 at 4.6GHz with 35c Ambient, 4.7-4.8GHz in winter.
@guskline
If you leave the NB at 200MHz, is the CPU stable at 4.4GHz with Vcore at 1.425v ??
inf64 thanks for the info. I'm now going to post my Passmark Performance 7 scores. I know some will scream "Passmark that's bogus" but I own a licensed copy so at least the scores can be used as a comparison. Here goes.
Overall score 2829.2
CPU Mark 9569.1
Expanded CPU results
Integer 1932
FP Math 6423.6
Find prime number 2002.7
SSE 36.7
Compression 13107.7
Encrytion 36.5
Physics 5268
String sorting 6922.7
2D Graphics 693.2
3D Graphysics 3048.6
Memory 1362
Disk 1464.9
CD 263.6
FX8xxx has 4 FP units,just like SB/IB QC models. It has 8 integer cores though. So the performance is roughly in line with intel SB 2600K(or slightly lower in case of Cinebench). Unless you expected that each AMD's FP unit has 2x the throughput of each SB's core,the performance is in line with what the uarchitecture was designed for (an integer cruncher).
People do get tangled up in "core numbers" without knowing what's behind the concept. Bulldozer does make some sacrifices/tradeoffs and one of them is the shared FP unit.
PS Before someone tells us that each FP unit can do two threads,yes it can but from throughput perspective it can do 2x128bit MULs or 2x128bit ADDs or combination of each(1+1).Same goes for 128bit SSE. On the other hand each K10 and SB core can do the same number of ops in legacy SSE,so we have 6 K10 cores vs 4 FX FP units vs 4 SB/IB cores. FMA/AVX changes things drastically in FX/SB favor but it's a different story.
Yes it can,each core's FP unit can do one 128bit MUL and one 128bit ADD (but doesn't have the flexibility to do same ops as BD).You're saying K10h's FPU can also do 2x128-bit MUL/ADDs?
jhu: Here's the result running the cpu benchmark for all cores.
CPU time used: kernel 0.17 seconds, user 1356.30 seconds, total 1356.48 seconds.
Elapsed time 174.83 seconds, CPU vs elapsed time ratio 7.76.
Render averaged 1499.43 PPS (193.25 PPS CPU time) over 262144 pixels.