DIRT 3 - More Evidence that AMD is KING with a 6990

DIRT 3 - Revisited 

Check this Out!!

With intel's Flagship i7 3960x @ 4.2 Ghz
source: Tomshardware

Comparing stock GPU results to previous results  (link) with an i5 2500k @ 4.0 Ghz, we only see an FPS boost of around +6%. My AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz manages to beat the i5 2500k @ 4.0 Ghz by +26%!! (link) AMD's own 6990 seems to love FX with this specific benchmark. It should also note that drivers used in the above test are identical to those I used in mine. This is simply shocking to say the least.

TrueCrypt 7.1 Benchmark

ROUND 13: TrueCrypt 7.1 Benchmark

RESULTS:

CPU: AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz

OS: Windows 7 x64 SP1

 

AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz Shown in RED
source: Pugetsystems

EDIT: AES for the FX 8150 should be 4.2 Gb/s

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. 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, AMD FX @ 3.9 Ghz Turbo 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.

DIRT 3 Benchmarks! FX King?

ROUND 12 : DIRT 3 Benchmarks

RESULTS:

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. 

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?

RESULTS:

Over 100% more performance than i5 2500k @ 3.5 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.

WinRar / Cinebench 11.5 Revisited with Patch!

 Cinebench 11.5 - with Patch

RESULTS:

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

RESULTS:

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. 

PCMARK 7 benchmarks!

Round 11 : PCMARK 7

RESULTS: 

Pre-Patch VS. Post-Patch

 

 

Before Patch installation

After Patch installation

Comparison

 

 

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.

Memory Benchmarks!! With Updated WEI!

AMD FX 8150 Memory Benchmarks

CPU: AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz

Ram: 4GB G.Skill DDR3 PC3-17600 2200MHz RipjawsX CL7 (Running @ 2183 Mhz)

Motherboard: ASUS Crosshair V 990FX

RESULTS:

MaxxMEM

By Request!

AIDA64 - Write

AIDA64 - Read 

 AIDA64 - Latency

AIDA64 - Copy

As we can see, my Gskill Ram does pretty well overall in a 990FX board. Only Write scores benefit greatly from triple, or quad channel memory, and this is shown through the above comparisons. It should be noted that my ram's performance was maximized setting CL to 10, and decreasing the response time from 300ms to 110ms. This change of setting also manages to squeeze out the 7.9 memory rating in WEI! (I had 7.8 with Cl7 / 300ms)

Updated WEI

7.9 CPU only accomplished with 2600k/2700k @ ~5.7+ ghz, or dual/quad socket Xeon / Opteron systems.

 

 

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! 

AIDA64 Benchmarks! Windows 7 FX patch preview!

ROUND 9: AIDA64

Does FX stand a chance?

RESULTS:

CPU AES :

BEFORE

AFTER

CPU HASH :

BEFORE

AFTER

CPU PHOTOWORX :

BEFORE

AFTER

CPU QUEEN :     

BEFORE

AFTER

                                                             

CPU ZLIB :

BEFORE

AFTER

FPU JULIA :

BEFORE

AFTER

FPU SINJULIA :

BEFORE

AFTER

FPU VP8 :

BEFORE

AFTER

FPU MANDEL :

BEFORE

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.

Working Windows 7 FX/4200/6200 x86/x64 patches!

Windows 7 Scheduler and Core Parking Patch for AMD FX/Opteron4200/6200 Processors

x86 Patch 1

x86 Patch 2

---

x64 Patch 1

x64 Patch 2

Performance Benchmarks Soon! Stay Tuned!

WEI & CPU/GPU temps

WINDOWS EXPERIENCE INDEX

TEMPERATURES

CPU: 

GPU:

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