View Single Post
  #9 (permalink)  
Old January 7, 2012, 04:02 AM
polyzp's Avatar
polyzp polyzp is offline
Top Prospect
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 56

Tomorrow im posting Passmark benchmarks

4.8 Ghz i5 2500k vs 4.8 ghz i7 2600k vs 4.8 ghz fx 8150 vs 4.2 ghz 1100t stay tuned!!

The whole point in this review is the do benchmarks at 4.8 ghz, there are too many stock clocked dozer benches out there. The point is really to see oc'd performance. Thanks for everyone who is following my review! :D


PCMARK 7 benchmarks!

Round 11 : PCMARK 7


Pre-Patch VS. Post-Patch

Before Patch installation

Patch installation


We can see that PCMARK 7 is very happy with the Windows 7 FX Patch. The only performance decrease is the system storage score which is probably due to the use of my SSD. Garbage Collection seems to be doing its job however. The most notable increase in performance is in the computation Score, where the patch shows a +16.6% increase in performance. An honourable mention to the entertainment score as well, which noticed a +4.4% increase in performance.

WinRar / Cinebench 11.5 Revisited with Patch!

Cinebench 11.5 - with Patch


When compared to without the patch we score +0.25% (from 7.90) higher in the CPU test, and +4.3% (from 72.95) in OpenGL score (6990 @ 990/1500 Mhz). The single core score does not show any increase in performance.

WinRar - with Patch


We can see here that at stock 3.6 Ghz, the FX 8150 manages to benefit from the patch by +3.4% when compared to without, and running at 4.8 Ghz performance increases by +3.9%. Opposite of what the initial preliminary patch released by Microsoft showed, where WinRar performance managed to decrease.

7-Zip Benchmarks Revisited **Updated with Patch results**

7-Zip Benchmarks - With Patch

We remember FX being a beast in 7-zip, how will it fair with the patch?


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

As we can see here, FX manages to marginally benefit from the patch in Decompression only. Compression shows little to no improvement. 7-zip really shows Bulldozer's strength.

DIRT 3 Benchmarks! FX King?

ROUND 12 : DIRT 3 Benchmarks


source: Tomshardware

As you can see DIRT 3 really takes advantage of FX architecture. The most notable comparison is with the 6990 @ stock settings 830/1250 Mhz. 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!

Also to be noted is the patch's modest improvement in FPS of 2.0%/3.6% for MIN/AVG FPS.

ROUND 13: TrueCrypt 7.1 Benchmark


CPU: AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz (SHOWN IN RED)

OS: Windows 7 x64 SP1

source: Pugetsystems

Intel vs. AMD

In the TrueCrypt 7.1 benchmark we can see that the AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz beats an i7 990x @ 3.6 Ghz Turbo in all tests, and just trails the i7 3930k. Note that this is using Windows 7 x64 SP1. Comparing to an i7 2600k @ 3.6 Ghz Turbo, across all tests FX wins by an average of over +54%. Bulldozer's architecture is seemingly taken advantage of with this specific benchmark, but now we will look at Ubuntu Linux Performance.

CPU: AMD FX 8150 @ 3.9 Ghz Turbo

OS: Ubuntu 11.10

source: PCimpact

Here we can see that the AMD FX 8150 performs much much better at stock settings when compared to with Windows 7. Linux seems to be taking much more advantage of Bulldozer's architecture, and this just comes to show that optimization for Windows is not near completion, and shows us just what could be in store for Piledriver when it comes out.

AMD FX 8150 @ 3.9 Ghz Turbo

In Linux, FX @ 3.9 Ghz Turbo , FX manages to even significantly beat overclocked (at 4.8 Ghz) performance on Windows 7, and comes much closer to performing on-par with a 3960x. It would be interesting to see overclocked performance in Linux, as I suspect its drastic.

Round 14 : Sandra SiSoftware Benchmark Results!

CPU 1: Intel i7 2600k @ 4.3 Ghz
CPU 2: Intel i7 2600k @ 4.6 Ghz, DDR3 @ 2133 CL11
CPU 3: AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz, Gskill DDR3 @ 2183 CL10


Here we see that the FX Patch brings a decent boost in performance, averaging +5.17% across all 12 tests. The largest performance increase comes in the .NET Arithmetic - Dhrystone test, where we see a +24.6% difference. This is the most significant increase in performance I have yet to see for the FX patch.

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. The reason that two of the tests were not carried out @ 4.6 Ghz in the .NET Arithmetic scores , but instead @ 4.3 Ghz , is because scores @ 4.6 Ghz were not included in the internal comparison benchmarks listed. Of course this will play into the averaged difference, so I suspect that the 2600k @ 4.8 Ghz should beat the FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz by an average of 5% give or take. I might re visit this later on with my own testing to confirm this.

We can really see that intel and AMD have different strengths and weaknesses across the 12 tests in this benchmark.

Also notice how memory scores for G.Skill Ram @ 2183 Mhz CL10 only trail the intel's score with Ram @ 2133 Mhz CL11 by -4.8%/-4.6%.

Alien Vs. Predator Revisited **With Patch**


source: Tomshardware

We can see here that the FX Windows 7 Patch brings about +1% in performance when compared to without it. This pushes AVP performance with a stock 6990 above that of with an intel 980x @ 4.0 Ghz by +4.3% without AA, and by +23.5% with 4xMSAA. I used Catalyst 12.1b for the pre-Patch scores, and 12.1 Final Build for post-Patch scores.

For Comparison's sake we may also examine results from with Two 7950's @ 900/1250 in Crossfire and catalyst 12.1 Final Build (which is also what I used in my updated Patch FPS). This test is with a Stock i5 2500k @ 3.6 Ghz Turbo. 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! (Although AF affects fps minimally in this game, while AA affects it significantly).

source: HEXUS

As we can see, Two 7950's OCd @ 900/1250 in crossfire only score a measly 114.0 FPS with an i5 2500k @ 3.6 Ghz Turbo. Despite the fact that this test has AF enabled, the other settings and identical. My Patched FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz with 6990 @ 990/1500 scores 124.5 FPS , which is +9.2% higher FPS than the intel rig with 2 x 7950 OC @ 900/1250 in Crossfire. We can also see that FX with a 6990 @ 990/1500 scores +37.1% more fps than the i5 2500k @ 3.6 ghz with Two GTX 580's in SLI OC @ 797/1594.

POV Ray 3.7 RC3 Benchmarks!

ROUND 15: POV Ray 3.7 RC3 Benchmarks!

source: wikipedia

OK, now for some real world testing. Let's see how FX fairs in a POV Ray render. My results are from testing the internal benchmark, where PPS is pixels per second.

source: legitreviews

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

source: overclockersclub
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.

DIRT 3 Revisited ... Again! (By Request)

DIRT 3: Revisited for a third time!

So I had some requests to re bench my FX rig @ 4.0 ghz in the DIRT 3 benchmark to see how well bulldozer fairs against intel's i5 2500k @ 4.0 Ghz.


source: Tomshardware

Here we see my AMD FX 8150 @ 4.0 Ghz still manages to keep a lead over intel's i5 2500k also at 4.0 Ghz when my 6990 is running at stock settings (830/1250). FX has a +8.6% lead in minimum FPS, and a +20% lead in average FPS. It is interesting to note that when the 6990 is stock, overclocking my AMD FX 8150 and additional 800 Mhz to 4.8 Ghz brings a benefit of +12.3% benefit to minimum FPS, and a +5.0% benefit to AVG fps.

Fritz Chess 4.3 Benchmark!

ROUND 16: Frtiz Chess 4.3 benchmark


Scaling with this benchmark is awful compared to cinebench 11.5. Fritz single core to multi core performance scales as ~5.44, while Cinebench 11.5 scales as ~6.66. However, single core performance of my overclocked FX 8150 manages to beat an ivy bridge i7 part @ 3.9 Ghz by +5.7%. Single core performance of my FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz falls behind that of an i5 2500k @ 4.8 Ghz by about ~30%.The other results have been gathered from what I have seen with a few quick google searches.

Cinebench 10 benchmarks!

ROUND 17 : Cinebench 10

How will FX fair in this 5 year old benchmark?


As we found with Fritz Chess benchmark, scaling with this older benchmark is not nearly as good as it should be and as it is found to be with newer and more optimized software, such as Cinebench 11.5. In Cinebench 10, my AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz scales as ~5.53, while in Cinebench 11.5 it scales as ~6.66.

Comparing our score:

(from various online sources)

Single Core performance of my FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz manages to beat a Phenom II core @ 4.0 Ghz by +12.1%. Scaling in this older benchmark (2007) is not so pretty. Even for intel's 12 threaded processors, scaling is lower than FX. A hypothetical AMD FX 8150 with ~6.66 scaling would score **32527** , a hypothetical i7 3960x with ~6.49 scaling would score **39219**. (Scaling taken from Cinebench 11.5) Single core performance of an AMD FX @ 4.8 Ghz with compared to an i7 2600k also @ 4.8 Ghz is worse by -37.7% , but multihtreaded performance is behind by only -15%. A hypothetical 2600k @ 4.8 Ghz with ~4.49 scaling would score **35210**. (Scalings taken from cinebench 11.5)

As we can see, scaling seems to be a big issue with older benchmarks. This could be one of the many reasons FX shows many weaknesses in older benchmarks.

x264 FHD Benchmarks

Round 18: x264 FHD benchmarks


In this benchmark, we can see that my AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz slightly beats the performance of a 12 threaded 980x @ 3.57 Ghz. . Performance per Ghz of the FX 8150 (5.40) is higher than the intel i7 2600k. (5.33).

SPECviewperf 11 Benchmarks!

ROUND19: SPECviewperf 11

Comparison Systems:

AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz - 4.7 Ghz
XFX 6990 @ 990/1500 -Mhz 930/1300 Mhz + Accelero Twin Turbo
ASUS Crosshair V 990FX
4Gb 2200 G.Skill DDR3

Intel i7 3960x - 4.7 Ghz
MSI AMD 6990 @ 930/1300 Mhz + Accelero Twin Turbo
ASUS Sabertooth X79
16Gb 1866 G.Skill DDR3



Its interesting to see stremghts and weaknesses in both CPUs across various tests. Most noteably, in the ensight-04 test the i7 3960x @ 4.7 Ghz manages to perform -34.5% worse when compared to my AMD FX 8150 also @ 4.7 with a 6990 at the exact same clock. However, in the proe-05 test, the i7 3960x scores +40.5% better than my AMD FX 8150 rig at the same clocks.

Overall, my AMD FX 8150 only lags behind the i7 3960x rig by -4.4% at the same CPU/GPU clocks on average. Overclocking back up to 4.8 Ghz, and increasing my GPU clocks to 990/1500 Mhz results in only a +2.7% increase in performance when compared to the lower clocked FX.

A Special Thanks to alexmaia_br from the community for sharing his results to compare with.

**Cinebench 10 Revisited**

Intel Compiler Patcher scans your hard drive for executable files compiled with the Intel C++ Compiler making it possible to disable the CPU dispatcher in detected files, thus, increasing performance of the software that uses these files with CPUs other than Intel. Give Intel Compiler Patcher a try to see what it's really capable of!

source - Softpedia

Without further ado,


Here we see a welcome gain of 0.7% in both single core and multi-threaded performance. Also note that scaling has dropped -0.2% down to 5.52 from 5.53.

**7-Zip Revisited - Sandy's Back!**

This time let's see if FX can stand up to its intel counterpart the 2600k.

Comparison Rigs:

AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz
XFX 6990 + Accelero Twin Turbo
ASUS Crosshair V 990FX
4Gb 2200 Mhz G.Skill DDR3
OCZ Revodrive 3 X2 240Gb

Intel i7 2600k - 4.8 Ghz
2 x GTX 560 Ti SLI
8Gb 2200 Mhz G.Skill DDR3
Corsair Force GT 120 Gb


source: neoseeker

As we expect, the intel i7 2600k @ 4.8 Ghz trades blows with the AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz.

A Special Thanks to grkM3 from the Anandtech community for sharing his results to compare with!

Link to Blog:

Last edited by polyzp; February 17, 2012 at 10:31 AM.
Reply With Quote