More Gaming Benchmarks Soon!

Stay Tuned

Coming Soon!

Diablo 3

Microsoft Flight simulator X

Battlefield 3

Street Fighter 4

and More....

7-Zip Revisited - Sandy's Back!

7-Zip Revisited 

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

ASUS P67 MIVE

8Gb 2200 Mhz G.Skill DDR3

Corsair Force GT 120 Gb

RESULTS:

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!

Cinebench 10 Revisited - By Request

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,

RESULTS:

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.

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

source: spec.org

RESULTS:

 

Its interesting to see strenghts 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 @ 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 overclock.net community for sharing his results to compare with.

x264 FHD Benchmarks

Round 18: x264 FHD benchmarks

RESULTS:

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).

Cinebench 10 benchmarks!

ROUND 17 : Cinebench 10 

How will FX fair in this 5 year old benchmark?

RESULTS:

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:

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.

Fritz Chess 4.3 Benchmark! **Updated**

ROUND 16: Frtiz Chess 4.3 benchmark

RESULTS:

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. 

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.

RESULTS:

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.

POV Ray 3.7 RC3 Benchmarks!

ROUND 15: POV Ray 3.7 RC3 Benchmarks!

source: wikipedia

RESULTS:

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.

AVP - Revisited, More Evidence that AMD is KING with a 6990

Alien Vs. Predator Revisited **With Patch**

Results:

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 HEXUS.net 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. 

Sandra SiSoftware 2012 Benchmark Results!

Round 14 : Sandra SiSoftware 2012 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

RESULTS:

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%.