Return of FX : GA-990FXA-UD7 - OC'd AMD FX 8150 / 6990 Performance Comparison Review

[polyzp]

PART I of V : Return of AMD FX, Enter Gigabyte

My System:

AMD FX 8150 @ 4.90 Ghz
Promilatech Genesis Cooler - 3 x 135mm Scythe Kama Flex 100CFM fans
Maingear T1000 TIM
8 Gb DDR3 Team Xtreem 2400 cl9 @ @ 1987 Mhz / CL9
Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD7
XFX HD 6990 + Accelero Twin Turbo Cooler @ 990/1500 Mhz
RevoDrive 3 x2 - 240 Gb​

The first thing that came to mind when I first laid eyes on my new Gigabyte 990FX UD7 board was that it was quite the beautiful board. Much respect for the simple PCIE 16x slot latches, the Crosshair V uses a more traditional type, and sleek heatsink design.

EDIT: It should be noted that I received a revision 1.1 board from Newegg Canada, and that it does have Load Line Calibration (LLC) controls in the bios.

The new Team Xtreem DDR3 ram has a cheap but cool looking reflecting sticker, but what is most appealing are the stats: 2400 Mhz @ Cl9, which is only surpassed by Corsair's grossly overpriced and discontinued Dominator GT dual channel flagship memory.

The memory height is not found online, and could be helpful to potential buyers.

Team Xtreem memory height : 52mm

Promlatech Genesis allowed height: 54mm

So this is awfully close to the tallest ram you could use with this cooler. I have seen Dominator GT ram at a height of 54mm barley fitting underneath the heat sink, found here, and a 53 mm Corsair Vengeance stick here.

Comparison Systems :
​

AMD FX 8150 @ 4.81 Ghz
Promilatech Genesis Cooler - 3 x 135mm Scythe Kama Flex 100CFM fans
Indigo Xtreme TIM
G. Skill 2200 cl7 @ x 2190 Mhz / CL10
ASUS Crosshair V
XFX HD 6990 + Accelero Twin Turbo Cooler @ 990/1500 Mhz​

Intel Rig


Intel i7 3770k @ 4.7-4.9Ghz
Various 8 Gb DDR3
Various Z77 Motherboards
Various GPUs


Results:

Sources:


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26


Discussion:

We see that for the benchmarks used in Part I of my review, FX only falls signficantly behind when only a single thread is used. When only one core is being used we see a 25-40% benefit per Ghz for the 3770k over the FX 8150.

When all threads can be used, Bulldozer does a good job of making up for the lost single threaded performance. Scaling for FX outshines the i7 3770k by a significant margin. Most notably with techarp's x264 HD, where my FX 8150 @ 4.9 Ghz beats a 5.0 Ghz 2600k, and narrowly loses to a 4.9 Ghz 3770k. (Check source 19)

In TrueCrypt 7.1a we see a 4.9 Ghz FX 8150 performing slightly better than its 22nm 3770k intel counterpart at 4.7 Ghz.

In 7-Zip we see the FX 8150 jumping 2.7 % percent ahead of its 3770k counterpart at the same 4.9 Ghz clock for Compression, but falling behind 2.7% with decompression.

The temperature of a 3770k is also seen to sky-rocket up to 78C during a SuperPi 32m test, while my FX 8150 doest hit above 59C.

Next week well see how my GPU handles graphically intensive workloads on my new Gigabyte board.

Stay Tuned! I am free to answer any questions and also am willing to take any requests you guys might have!

 

[polyzp]

Part II

 

[polyzp]

Part III

 

[polyzp]

Part IV

 

[polyzp]

Part V

 

[tulx]

I have no idea how you get this done, but it's really useful work. I often find that initial reviews by tech sites are somewhat short and draw a conclusion too quickly (not that I blame them - they have to).

I personaly am waiting for the Vishera revision of Piledriver (the 8350?) to relieve my 960T, but I'm still very interested in how the current generation of FX CPUs perform in different configurations.
Keep up the good work!

 

[Denithor]

So in one of the multi-threaded apps where the 8150 virtually matches the performance of the 3770K (at lower temperature no less), what are the watts used by the respective systems?

I'm not being sarcastic or thread crapping here, really am curious how many watts an OC Bulldozer pulls versus an OC 3770K.

 

[Maximilian]

So in one of the multi-threaded apps where the 8150 virtually matches the performance of the 3770K (at lower temperature no less), what are the watts used by the respective systems?

I'm not being sarcastic or thread crapping here, really am curious how many watts an OC Bulldozer pulls versus an OC 3770K.

 

[ShintaiDK]

In the spirit of the thread. I got a 486DX4 100Mhz I can run some benches on too. Its about as equalent relevant today

 

[tulx]

In the spirit of the thread. I got a 486DX4 100Mhz I can run some benches on too. Its about as equalent relevant today

The 8150 eats about as much power as a small town. It's the GTX 480 among CPU's.
Good thing I don't give a damn about power. I spend X times more money heating my house than powering it.
Come to think of it, with a 8150 in my PC, I probably won't have to heat the house anymore...

PS - according to bit-tech, almost 600W at 4,8 GHz

 

[Edgemeal]

The temperature of a 3770k is also seen to sky-rocket up to 78C during a SuperPi 32m test, while my FX 8150 doest hit above 59C.

Comparing CPU temps of two totally different chips doesn't tell me anything, a better representation would be to take each CPUs max temp rating and subtract it by the chips temp under load so I'd know how close each chip was to hitting their throttle point, And unless the ambient temps were the same, both systems were in the same case model using the exact same cooling, etc, the temps are totally meaningless to me.

$0.02

 

[Ferzerp]

How many times are you going to post this thread promoting your blog?

Seriously, this is at least the third time. If people were interested, the other thread would still be alive.

I'm sure you'll be back every day for another three weeks bumping this thing so that it can't die it's natural death just like the other times though.

 

[Rvenger]

The temperature of a 3770k is also seen to sky-rocket up to 78C during a SuperPi 32m test, while my FX 8150 doest hit above 59C.

Two different types of die readings thats why. Bulldozer or any AMD for that matter doesn't read actual core temperature.

Intel Rig


Intel i7 3770k @ 4.7-4.9Ghz
Various 8 Gb DDR3
Various Z77 Motherboards
Various GPUs

I think I just broke my nose when I facepalmed. You cannot get an accurate justification using various parts, you need apples to apples when running benchmarks. I am sorry but with the way AMD dropped pricing, I can guarantee that the 3770k handily beats it on 95% of applications. The other 5% could be a wash. Me being an owner of a BD, I know for a fact that my overclocked FX6100 CPU is marginally slower than a stock 2500k. If you want me to start running numbers up against yours, I will surely be glad to.

You might as well sell that 6990 and get 2 7970s because that GPU is irrelavent now. I mean, nobody is planning on upgrading to a 6990 at this point anymore.

 

[T_Yamamoto]

How many times are you going to post this thread promoting your blog?

Seriously, this is at least the third time. If people were interested, the other thread would still be alive.

I'm sure you'll be back every day for another three weeks bumping this thing so that it can't die it's natural death just like the other times though.

+1!!!!

 

[Denithor]

Here we go.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/04/23/intel-core-i7-3770k-review/8

So the Bulldozer consumes 2.4 times the energy that the Ivy Bridge chip does, under load and overclocked to the same speed.

Even though the Bulldozer is apparently more efficiently cooled that extra heat has to go somewhere - your AC is going to be working overtime to keep your house cool in the summer. Going to be a lot more expensive to operate over time!

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Wow, 244w for the i7, and 586w for bulldozer at the same speed?

And it's considerably faster in multithreading/gaming/everything, what does this all mean?

 

[T_Yamamoto]

wow, 244w for the i7, and 586w for bulldozer at the same speed?

And it's considerably faster in multithreading/gaming/everything, what does this all mean?

getmorecorez

 

[Rvenger]

Wow, 244w for the i7, and 586w for bulldozer at the same speed?

And it's considerably faster in multithreading/gaming/everything, what does this all mean?

Makes me wonder where all that wattage is going if its not being transferred solely to heat. If I were to jack my clocks up to 4.8 my FX6100 would hit 70c immediately so hes gotta have a million fans directed to that CPU. 4.9ghz isn't an everyday OC for that CPU.

I mean cmon, 586w on bulldozer is not even worth running at that point. Thats 14w away from overloading my UPS.

 

[grkM3]

you need to compare them with same ram and timings also and get rid of the scaling % as ivy will out scale it all day if you go core for core,you are comparing 8 cores to 4 cores so ofcorse its going to scale better.

next time compare it to an 8 core I7 and see how the scaling goes lol

 

[Don Karnage]

 

[Chiropteran]

Wow, 244w for the i7, and 586w for bulldozer at the same speed?

And it's considerably faster in multithreading/gaming/everything, what does this all mean?

Don't your SLI 470s use about 600W or more at full load? Nobody else sees the irony?

 

[Don Karnage]

Don't your SLI 470s use about 600W or more at full load? Nobody else sees the irony?

Apples to Oranges comparo

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Don't your SLI 470s use about 600W or more at full load? Nobody else sees the irony?

Overclocked I'm sure they're getting close to overclocked/volted 6970 CF power draw. Though they cost $150 when the 6970s cost $370, and provide comparable performance.

Can you point out the irony here? A $220 i5 draws 311w, compared to the near 600w of a 8150, which was what, $280 at release?

Overall the i5-2500k @ 5GHz is faster in MT than the 8150 @ 4.8GHz, please point out the "irony".

 

[jacktesterson]

I honestly don't care about Power Consumption. Just my 2 cents

 

[Chiropteran]

Overclocked I'm sure they're getting close to overclocked/volted 6970 CF power draw. Though they cost $150 when the 6970s cost $370, and provide comparable performance.

Can you point out the irony here? A $220 i5 draws 311w, compared to the near 600w of a 8150, which was what, $280 at release?

Overall the i5-2500k @ 5GHz is faster in MT than the 8150 @ 4.8GHz, please point out the "irony".

The irony is you talking about power usage while you are using some of the biggest possible power hogs for video cards.

And where the hell do you get "600w of a 8150"? It uses about 240W max stock. I was quoting stock power usage for your GTX 470, not OC. I just find it ironic that you seem to find the power usage of an OCed CPU so incredibly noteworthy while your video card setup alone uses more power at stock.

Funny you bring up price though, it's not like Microcenter is offering any incredible bundle pricing deals on FX CPU...