Return of AMD FX: My OC'd AMD FX 8150 review with OC'd 6990 - Daily Results!!

[Idontcare]

I really do wish I could find 4.8 ghz 2600k comparisons for all my benchmarks, I am still looking for someone with a 6990 / 2600k / 2500k who can OC to compare with. It is a big misconception that I purposely am trying to skew results.

I have a 2600K that OC's to 4.8GHz. But I do not have a 6990. My GPU is a weak GTX460

Any CPU-bound benches you want me to run?

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Skyrim - Whiterun - Unmodded

LoL.

 

[Rvenger]

OP, is there a chance you can scale your overclock back a few notches, like 4.4 or 4.5ghz? Its hard to give a good comparison when your overclock is pretty rare to obtain on these chips, unless you are watercooling. 4.8ghz on my chip caused my chip to BSOD with some very high temps (70c in 30 seconds) and power consumption. 350w + from my Killawatt.

 

[formulav8]

Very good job! Thanks for taking the time!

 

[chimaxi83]

Your testing is definitely and obviously flawed and skewed, which is why there was so much negativity in your last thread, which this is a copy and paste of. You can't show all these numbers and charts with who knows how many different combinations of hardware, settings, and software, and expect to be taken as a serious, objective test.

We're on Anandtech, so let's look at Anand's CPU Bench showing that stock vs stock, 2600K beats 8150 at almost every single test run. The ones where FX beat out 2600K, we're literally by a hair.

About x264 benchmark,

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.

So, you're saying a single 4.8GHz core is faster than a single 3.7GHz core? Astounding. Notice how a slight overclock to 4GHz easily gives the edge back to the lowly 2500K.

FX 3dmark11 performance is meh. My 2500k@4.8 and 6950@1000/1525 is beaten by nearly double, in graphics, which is expected with 6990 v 6950. But that's GPU, and we're focusing on CPU, so lets look at that. In the Physics test, my lowly 2500K wins by a couple frames.

A 4C/8T 2600K destroys an 8C/8T FX at 3dmark11 physics at similar ~4.8GHz clocks.

Now, the all important (/sarcasm) performance of 7zip:

Intel's not ready for this one...

7-zip really shows Bulldozer's strength.

7-Zip Benchmarks!! FX is back!

I don't know about everyone else, but these quotes sound like they came straight off FX marketing slides. This is just my own opinion, but I can see why the last thread got derailed.

Anyway,

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!

Tremendous price difference between 2600K and FX 8150? $269 FX vs $329 2600K is by no means tremendous. And if you live near a Microcenter, 2600K is $279.

So, stock vs stock, FX 8150 beats a 2600K, not bad:

But, since you're comparing a 4.8GHz FX 8150, let's make the comparison fair, shall we? Let's not bother comparing to 3960X like you did, because THAT is a tremendous price difference, and was probably only done to say "look, FX nearly matches that $999 processor, beat that!".

Anyway, here's a benchmark (link) of a 2600K at 4.9GHz, winning by ~3% at compression, losing by ~2% at decompression:

Some Bulldozer strength... it matches an overclocked 2600K.

For Unigine Heaven 2.5,

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 another clear example of a skewed benchmark, and even more obvious. How do you compare a 3.6GHz Nehalem to a 4.8GHz Bulldozer, and act as if that's a fair comparison? This just goes to show that these "tests" of yours follow suit with Bulldozer marketing slides, nothing more.

If that Nehalem bottlenecked 6990 so much, why doesn't it bottleneck the 580 SLI? If Nehalem was a bottleneck, why is there a consistent rise in performance with higher performing GPU's? Or a rise in performance with GPU overclock? Pretty obvious this chart is testing GPU, not CPU:

Another chart that highlights GPU performance, showing spot on scaling with increasing GPU performance, which for some reason you are trying to pass off as CPU performance:

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.

Yes, obviously, because you are alleviating the GPU bottleneck by overclocking, increasing GPU performance, thereby increasing the score. GPU did that, not CPU. Overclock the 6990 for the i7 test and try again.

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.

7970 has been shown to be able to match or slightly exceed dual GPU 6990 in some testing, like it does in your chart where it nearly matches the stock 6990 when 7970 is overclocked. But it's not at all surprising to see 6990 beating 7970 at anything, really, it is dual GPU vs single after all.



So, what we can extrapolate from these numbers, is that you have to overclock the hell out of an 8150 for it start to be somewhat competitive. On the other hand, for the FX to require almost a 1GHz overclock to be considered competitive is most definitely not a win in any shape, form, or fashion.

I guess if I really need to 7zip the hell outta some files, FX is my chip, because,

7-Zip Benchmarks!! FX is back!

Well, alright.

 

[polyzp]

Good Work trying to derail my review, but everything you are saying I have done wrong I actually have not done at all. :thumbsdown: In my opinion I have every right to compare an AMD CPU at whatever frequency I like to an Intel CPU at some other frequency. It should already be a given that this comparison is between a 4.8 and a 3.6 (only one of my 18 benchmarks), so dont act like I am trying to lie about anything because I am not. My results are my results, I invite everyone to compare them with your own setups as well as what is found on other review sites. If you understand that I am using other people's data for the sake of comparison, then this wouldnt be an issue. Even if an intel cpu is clocked lower, it doesnt make it unfair for any reason.. Its obvious that a 2600k can overclock as well.

People need to stop accusing me of skeweing results, when all I did was benchmark my system and compare to anything.. it doesnt matter what I compare to because its just a comparison and nothing more than that.

 

[polyzp]

Ateast Chimaxi83 cares enough to be specific with his critique, i like it.

 

[polyzp]

And another thing, even though a gpu is being bottle necked because of lower cpu clocks, doesnt mean that every single gpu better than that one will perform equal. Performance doesnt plateau instantaneously.

 

[chimaxi83]

It's not about derailing, accusations, any of that. Just sharing my opinion, as you are.

it doesnt matter what I compare to because its just a comparison and nothing more than that.

Yes, it DOES matter what you compare it to. Compare your FX/6990 to my old Tualatin/TNT2. Does it matter then? Compare your system to my old P4/9700 Pro. Compare your system to last Phenom X4/9800GT. Does it matter then? Of course it does, because none of those are fair comparisons. Comparing for the sake of comparing, regardless of what you're comparing to, doesn't really show anything.

Again, not trying to derail or thread crap, just point out that very little of this has been fair, objective comparisons.

 

[Markfw]

Good Work trying to derail my review, but everything you are saying I have done wrong I actually have not done at all. :thumbsdown: In my opinion I have every right to compare an AMD CPU at whatever frequency I like to an Intel CPU at some other frequency. It should already be a given that this comparison is between a 4.8 and a 3.6 (only one of my 18 benchmarks), so dont act like I am trying to lie about anything because I am not. My results are my results, I invite everyone to compare them with your own setups as well as what is found on other review sites. If you understand that I am using other people's data for the sake of comparison, then this wouldnt be an issue. Even if an intel cpu is clocked lower, it doesnt make it unfair for any reason.. Its obvious that a 2600k can overclock as well.

People need to stop accusing me of skeweing results, when all I did was benchmark my system and compare to anything.. it doesnt matter what I compare to because its just a comparison and nothing more than that.

So he did the same thing as me, pointing out your skewed results, but he is derailing ? I guess you didn't accuse me, since I am a mod. I welcome people backing up my opinion with facts, since I don't have the time for all that posting (since I am too busy modding) , I just know your results are skewed, and now someone helps me prove it.

And yes, this all smells of marketing, when you start a thread with a logo ? And yes, you don't just compare 3.6 ghz to 4.8 or Nehalem to bulldozer, if there is no fairness, its crap skewed results, and does not belong here.

 

[Rvenger]

So he did the same thing as me, pointing out your skewed results, but he is derailing ? I guess you didn't accuse me, since I am a mod. I welcome people backing up my opinion with facts, since I don't have the time for all that posting (since I am too busy modding) , I just know your results are skewed, and now someone helps me prove it.

And yes, this all smells of marketing, when you start a thread with a logo ? And yes, you don't just compare 3.6 ghz to 4.8 or Nehalem to bulldozer, if there is no fairness, its crap skewed results, and does not belong here.

I also agree that these results are skewed due to the fact that its almost impossible to find a 4.8ghz 8 core chip that will run on AIR without a fire, not to mention that you can also hear your electric meter spinning on the other side of the wall.

OP- In my previous post, I said to scale your overclock down to have a more realistic comparison to other chips because not everyone wants to take out a loan to run at 4.8ghz. I can run my 2500k @ 5.3ghz and post some benchmarks right next to yours and guess what, my CPU will be faster in most of them but who cares because you are now comparing an apple to an orange.

 

[Markfw]

I also agree that these results are skewed due to the fact that its almost impossible to find a 4.8ghz 8 core chip that will run on AIR without a fire, not to mention that you can also hear your electric meter spinning on the other side of the wall.

OP- In my previous post, I said to scale your overclock down to have a more realistic comparison to other chips because not everyone wants to take out a loan to run at 4.8ghz. I can run my 2500k @ 5.3ghz and post some benchmarks right next to yours and guess what, my CPU will be faster in most of them but who cares because you are now comparing an apple to an orange.

But wait, even Idontcare has a 2600k that does 4.8 If he just had a 6990 (U can't even find those on newegg). But the problem is, that for CPU only results, we all know the 2600k wins almost everything, and by a landslide, so the OP would not want them in this thread. He offered to run them for him, and the OP never even suggested a bench, that was CPU only.

It would be fair.

 

[Rvenger]

But wait, even Idontcare has a 2600k that does 4.8 If he just had a 6990 (U can't even find those on newegg). But the problem is, that for CPU only results, we all know the 2600k wins almost everything, and by a landslide, so the OP would not want them in this thread.

It would be fair.

I tried getting my FX6100 up to 4.8ghz. It spiked to 70c running cinebench and I just manned it up and left it running. Scored a 5.87, restarted the computer and the mobo wouldn't post unless I cleared the CMOS. Power consumption peaked at 348w with my sig below.

 

[Markfw]

I tried getting my FX6100 up to 4.8ghz. It spiked to 70c running cinebench and I just manned it up and left it running. Scored a 5.87, restarted the computer and the mobo wouldn't post unless I cleared the CMOS. Power consumption peaked at 348w with my sig below.

But he has no problem with his 8150@4.8 What I want to see is CPU benches against a 4.8 2600k (Idontaces). And if someone would loan Idontcare a 6990, then we could have a real showdown.

 

[Idontcare]

But he has no problem with his 8150@4.8 What I want to see is CPU benches against a 4.8 2600k (Idontaces). And if someone would loan Idontcare a 6990, then we could have a real showdown.

I've got the PSU for it, and my 2600K rig is available for benching. I'd totally be up for benching with a 6990 if someone wanted to loan it to me.

 

[chimaxi83]

I also agree that these results are skewed due to the fact that its almost impossible to find a 4.8ghz 8 core chip that will run on AIR without a fire, not to mention that you can also hear your electric meter spinning on the other side of the wall.

Yea, if any of this was fair, objective, or (in my opinion) honest intent to inform, there'd be information on a 4.8GHz 8150 consuming close to 600 watts:

 

[Markfw]

I've got the PSU for it, and my 2600K rig is available for benching. I'd totally be up for benching with a 6990 if someone wanted to loan it to me.

Perfect. The we would have a real thread !!!!!!!

 

[polyzp]

At the end of the day, i too would prefer benchmarks against a 2600k, but they are rare with a 6990 on the net. This is the only reason I posted some "skewed" results as you put it. Better what comparison is available then no comparison at all. I am still trying to find someone who has a 6990 and 2600k willing to bench and compare to!

 

[polyzp]

Just because the ghz value is not identical in every benchmark doesnt mean its skewed, and who says an i5 2500k at 5.33 wouldnt be a good comparison?? I think it would, because ghz values are all kept in mind behind all this.

And as much as my post screams marketing, I dont work for anyone or I am not receiving anything other than feedback from various communities.

 

[Markfw]

At the end of the day, i too would prefer benchmarks against a 2600k, but they are rare with a 6990 on the net. This is the only reason I posted some "skewed" results as you put it. Better what comparison is available then no comparison at all. I am still trying to find someone who has a 6990 and 2600k willing to bench and compare to!

Then do benchmarks for only the CPU. If you don't do that with Idontcare and his 4.8, then this is all crap, spam and marketing.

 

[polyzp]

haha just because i compare with a lower clocked intel in 1/18 of the benchmarks its spam and crap?

 

[polyzp]

most people appreciate my review believe me you guys are a select few but i respect your opinion. None of you have put forward any valid points yet, I dont see the harm in comparing my cpu to an intel cpu , the ghs dont matter. I have said over and over, when you look at a review you keep in mind the test set ups before you make your conclusion.Just because I show a 4.8 ghz FX beating a 3.6 ghz in 1/18 of my benchmarks, doesn't mean that I am saying FX is better per ghz in that benchmark. Isnt it obvious? Thats why i label what clocks the cpu and gpu are so these can be put into consideration. .. This does not mean im skewing my results haha, any one half compitent can understand that.

 

[Abwx]

And yes, you don't just compare 3.6 ghz to 4.8 or Nehalem to bulldozer, if there is no fairness, its crap skewed results, and does not belong here.

Seems that you didnt understand my post saying that such
a comparison is not skewed....

It s not like we are unable to do a gross scaling...
Just add 8/10% to the 920 score to have a picture accurate enough
for its theorical score at 4ghz.

 

[Dadofamunky]

most people appreciate my review believe me you guys are a select few but i respect your opinion. None of you have put forward any valid points yet...

Nope. Wrong. You have your own set of facts. That might work at CPAC but it doesn't work here.

The 7Zip benchmark is extremely old news.

Also, since you don't take into consideration the horrendous power consumption, it's clear that your views are biased. Unnecessarily so, since the FX is still a fine chip - particularly under Linux. You have no personal investment. The chip is not who you are. I'm OK with publishing a huge slew of benchmarks, but you'd better be able to defend them without resorting to personal attacks or attempts to invalidate, without evidence, very clearly stated positions by very experienced people. Frankly, you're outgunned.

I vote this thread be closed and the OP banned simply because of his inability to accept criticism or rebuttals without resorting to patent logical fallacies.

 

[chimaxi83]

haha just because i compare with a lower clocked intel in 1/18 of the benchmarks its spam and crap?

most people appreciate my review believe me you guys are a select few but i respect your opinion. None of you have put forward any valid points yet, I dont see the harm in comparing my cpu to an intel cpu , the ghs dont matter. I have said over and over, when you look at a review you keep in mind the test set ups before you make your conclusion.Just because I show a 4.8 ghz FX beating a 3.6 ghz in 1/18 of my benchmarks, doesn't mean that I am saying FX is better per ghz in that benchmark. Isnt it obvious? Thats why i label what clocks the cpu and gpu are so these can be put into consideration. .. This does not mean im skewing my results haha, any one half compitent can understand that.

GHz don't matter, eh? If that was the case, why aren't we all still at 66MHz? You seriously need to get a clue and learn some kind of testing methodology. Quickly.

Just because you label the 9000 combinations of GPU/CPU/clocks doesn't mean any of this can be compared. There is no control set in your testing. Anywhere. Nothing stays the same. Hell, you even have different ram speed and cache latency in one of them.

Anyway, let's go back to

Just because I show a 4.8 ghz FX beating a 3.6 ghz in 1/18 of my benchmarks

Incorrect. You show lower overclocks and even stock speeds for Intel CPU's in:

1. 3dmark11
   You're comparing to a stock 980X. You say stuff like
   

   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.

   Your FX beat the 980X by a slim ~360 points because the 980X is stock, and this test is skewed. Clear example. Also, the video cards are different, so this comparison is now out of the window.
   
   
   
2. Aliens vs Predators
   You're comparing to a 980X at stock, again. Surprise.
   In addition to that, when you "revisit" AvP, you compare your setup to a 2500K at stock (again), and crossfired 7950's. Different hardware. Not only that, but
   

   It should be noted that this test is with 4xMSAA but also with 16xAF as well, which the above test with 4xMSAA lacks - in accordance to Tom's review. So take these results with a grain of salt!

   Completely different settings. Just a grain of salt? Probably going to need a 5lb bag for your thread.
   
   
   
3. Winrar
   No clock speeds are shown, so an assumption of stock yet again is probably safe.
   
   
   
4. 7zip
   A chart full of stock clock Intel CPU's. The only OC is the 3960X. This is another test you "revisit", and when you do,
   

   Over 100% more performance than i5 2500k @ 3.7 Ghz Turbo

   You say you're just sharing your numbers, being fair, not comparing to lower clocked CPU's in any but 1 of your tests... but you pick the stock clock 4 threaded CPU to compare against. Fail. Compared to the 4.9GHz 2600K, the FX gets barely any noticeable effect from the Bulldozer patch. Moving on.
   
   
   
5. Unigine
   Another skewed test against a Nehalem i7 920 at 3.6GHz. You then change it into a GPU, not CPU, test when you throw up a chart with a bunch of different video cards. Fail.
   
   
   
6. Cinebench 11.5
   In the single threaded test, not only are all the other CPU's clocked lower, but they still beat Bulldozer, thoroughly. You did manage to compare to equally clocked Sandy Bridge though, with FX squeaking by a 2500K and being pummeled by 2600K and destroyed by 3930X. But hey,
   

   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.

   Another example of your "winning" against lower clocked CPU's, a generation behind at that. Weak.
   
   
   
7. AIDA64
   This is truly laughable, you flaunt these AIDA charts like as if they mean something, but each and EVERY CPU you compare against is at stock. F.A.I.L.
   
   
   
8. Dirt 3
   You compared to a 2500K at 4.0GHz. But wait,
   

   The AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz manages to squeeze out 131.4 AVG FPS and 118.2 MIN FPS, while the intel i5 2500k @ 4.0 Ghz manages to only get 104.3 AVG FPS and 97.0 MIN FPS. Thats 26%/22% MORE FPS. I was even shocked to see this! Good Job AMD!

   You can seriously, with a straight face, make statements like this, and claim to not be skewed and biased? You were shocked to see a performance difference when one system is at a higher overclock than the other? Not sure you have any credibility left dude.
   
   
   
9. Truecrypt
   You have chart here showing no clock speeds, stock again? Probably, because you then show your FX compared to 990X and 2600K at stock.
   
   
   
10. Sanda SiSoftware
    Here you compare to a 2600K at both 4.3GHz and 4.6GHz, but in addition to that, you have different RAM speeds and latencies. You CANNOT make direct comparisons like that. What's hard to understand about that?
    

    Comparing my AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz to an intel 2600k @ 4.6 Ghz for 10 of the 12 tests, and a 2600k @ 4.3 Ghz for 2 of the 12 tests, we see an average performance difference of -0.07% , implying that AMD is still not so behind in this notoriously Intel favoured benchmark.

    Comparing in 10 of the 12, and 2 of the 12? From that you derive an "average performance difference of -0.07%". Plain definition of arbitrary, good job.
    
    
    
11. POV Ray
    Yet another test, you compare your overclocked FX to a bunch of stock Intel CPU's, and say bs like
    

    My 8 threaded AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz casually beats a twelve threaded intel i7 990x @ 3.6 Ghz Turbo

    Not sure if serious? Highly overclocked CPU beats stock CPU, hold the presses. Then you show a chart with a bunch of "overclocked" 2600K results, with your FX matching, yet the overclock of the 2600K is not shown. What a surprise. Your comment to that chart was
    

    Here we can see that my AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz manages to keep up with an overclocked intel i7 2600k at different maximum overclocks on several different Z68 boards. The performance per Ghz of an 8 core FX is roughly that of a 2600k/2700k, and if not only a hair better. Overall, Good Job on this one AMD.

    How do you know clock for clock performance is "roughly that of a 2600k/2700k, and if not only a hair better", when you don't show the clock speed? Failure. But good job on this one AMD, right? /facepalm
    
    
    
12. Fritz Chess
    And last, Fritz Chess, where you have mixed overclock and stock results, yet no stock FX results, strangely Anyway, your comparison here is a mess and incomplete, but FX still only beats an overclocked 2500k (barely), and of course the stock QX9775 (lol really, a 4 year old quad?), 980X, Xeon X5365, and theoretical IB 3770K performance, which you got from an unreliable leak but still included it. Seriously dude? Anyway, even if those numbers are accurate, that's yet another STOCK cpu you compare against

So, just 1 out of 18 tests where you compared to stock, right? Let's try friggin 12 out of 18.

I think the only thing that can really be taken from all this skewed and biased and inconsistent testing is that

7-zip really shows Bulldozer's strength.

Seems that you didnt understand my post saying that such
a comparison is not skewed....

It s not like we are unable to do a gross scaling...
Just add 8/10% to the 920 score to have a picture accurate enough
for its theorical score at 4ghz.

Don't join your bud there, for logic and reasoning will destroy your "argument". Let's have real FX numbers and testing, but lets add 8-10% to i7 920's scores to make accurate comparisons, eh? Laughable.