Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD FX-8150 Bulldozer On Ubuntu Linux

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Overall, the CPU is very well balanced. Means, it does not loose much (except in openmp test) and it manages to compete with gulftown on any tests(where sandybridge is straight outsmoked).
    Sandy looks more like singlethread optimized, approach that may outdate this cpu very soon.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
      Oh noe! Water c00l1ng :/ I hate watercooling en masse. :/

      Its great stuff all and all, if you aim for overclocking straight, forgetting purchase costs (but then, real overclockers would use custom llang ddc-based watercooling with 3x120 or 6x6x120 anyway!), or even head for refrigerators/liquid nitrogen.
      Real overclockers in Canada just open the window during the winter. ;D

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
        custom llang ddc-based watercooling
        Its "laing ddc", typo.

        Originally posted by deanjo View Post
        Real overclockers in Canada just open the window during the winter. ;D
        Harsh Canada overclockers are so harsh

        Comment


        • #19
          Yeah Michael, can you throw in the i7 2600k and Phenom II 1100T into your tests? And, it might be worth updating the Crosshair V to the latest Asus Bios, as opposed to the one included with the AMD test kit.

          And I agree with others that suggest that the 8150 is a waste of money. If you want a Zambezi chip, buy the 8120 for much cheaper, and just adjust the multiplier. It will have much higher price/performance ratio than the 8150.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by devguy View Post
            And, it might be worth updating the Crosshair V to the latest Asus Bios, as opposed to the one included with the AMD test kit.
            In order to have BD on that board he would already have to be running the latest BIOS. The BD's were not supported until the 0813 release.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by devguy View Post
              Yeah Michael, can you throw in the i7 2600k and Phenom II 1100T into your tests?
              Don't have either chip, or otherwise I obviously would have included them... As said in the article, the comparisons were limited to the hardware I have.
              Michael Larabel
              http://www.michaellarabel.com/

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                In order to have BD on that board he would already have to be running the latest BIOS. The BD's were not supported until the 0813 release.
                True, but there's been newer BIOSes since then. However, I didn't realize they were betas, so try at your own risk. 9913 is the most recent. Has to be named 9913.rom for it to work in EZflash.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Michael View Post
                  Don't have either chip, or otherwise I obviously would have included them... As said in the article, the comparisons were limited to the hardware I have.
                  the 1090T should be cheap to buy if you buy it used on ebay.

                  on the first view it sounds stupid to buy outdated hardware but it will lift up your benchmarks and more people are happy.

                  the 2600K is another story its expensive.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    It will be interesting once the Linux kernel has proper support for BD's scheduler, and once GCC has all of the goodies for this CPU.

                    As i own an ASUS AM3+ motherboard ~ one of these BD CPUs is likely what i will be upgrading too (eventually, it's either that or the 1090T, but i care more about multi-threading, so maybe BD is a better choice ). I'm quite content with my Phenom II x4 965 black edition and 8gig of RAM, for now. but eventually i will want 16gig and a faster CPU. I think BD is going to turn out to be better, than initial reviewers have deemed it.

                    thanks for the benchmarks/info, Michael

                    cheerz

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Shining Arcanine View Post
                      The comparison was biased. The Intel Sandy Bridge processors tested do not support SMT:
                      Whoever told you that SMT makes a difference lied.

                      The sure-fire sign of a rigged benchmark is anywhere SMT actually scales anywhere near like a real core. It's not a real thread capable of real work, so good ~100% scaling indicates that the load was designed for the CPU, and not the other way around.

                      Myself, and many others, whenever having a Xeon server that supports SMT foisted upon us, the first thing we do is turn Hyperthreading off in the BIOS. A real world high-performance load is not likely to benefit from it, and may actually be hurt substantially. A low intensity load is almost always going to be virtualization these days, and Hyperthreading once again is not going to help, and may really, really ruin your day.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        After looking at these benchmarks, the level of maturity of code, it seems that there is still a lot of maturing to go with the cpu and the supporting software. After running just a few of the tests where BD shines it comes apparent that there isn't much reason to upgrade to BD at this time if you have a x6 processor. It will be interesting a few months from now however to revisit BD when the new FX-8170 and it's B3 stepping comes out. Hopefully by then some tweaks to the silicon are made that improves some weaknesses and the code will have matured to support it properly. By then there should be some pretty aggressive price drops on the processors to put them more in line with their intel counterparts.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Somewhat unfair

                          This comparison was somewhat unfair. Lemme explain. First of all, fx-8150 is set 400 mhz higher turbo. The clock speed of 2500k and fx-8150 should have been the same because they both are almost identical when it comes to overclocking ability. Clock-for-clock, 2500k should be almost the same as fx-8150 in multithreaded applications. Also, it is not fair at all to compare 8 threads vs 4. 2600k would have been a good processor to use in this comparison. though, i understand since it's an expensive processor to buy just for a benchmark. but hyperthreading alone should give sandybridge enough power to obliterate fx-8150 easily.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by raj7095 View Post
                            This comparison was somewhat unfair. Lemme explain. First of all, fx-8150 is set 400 mhz higher turbo. The clock speed of 2500k and fx-8150 should have been the same because they both are almost identical when it comes to overclocking ability. Clock-for-clock, 2500k should be almost the same as fx-8150 in multithreaded applications. Also, it is not fair at all to compare 8 threads vs 4. 2600k would have been a good processor to use in this comparison. though, i understand since it's an expensive processor to buy just for a benchmark. but hyperthreading alone should give sandybridge enough power to obliterate fx-8150 easily.
                            If it was "unfair" then intel should bump up the processor speed. However, intel chooses to release that processor at that speed. There is nothing "unfair" about it, it is a comparison of how the processors are released from their respective venders.

                            PS please google Mhz Myth. Mhz hasn't been used as a base comparison of performance for over a decade now.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by raj7095 View Post
                              This comparison was somewhat unfair. Lemme explain. First of all, fx-8150 is set 400 mhz higher turbo. The clock speed of 2500k and fx-8150 should have been the same because they both are almost identical when it comes to overclocking ability. Clock-for-clock, 2500k should be almost the same as fx-8150 in multithreaded applications. Also, it is not fair at all to compare 8 threads vs 4. 2600k would have been a good processor to use in this comparison. though, i understand since it's an expensive processor to buy just for a benchmark. but hyperthreading alone should give sandybridge enough power to obliterate fx-8150 easily.
                              I'm just going to step right out here and say it, You don't compare on these things for benchmarks when you're doing something like this, you're comparing on Price/Performance. It's not a question of Can AMD beat out Intel!?!?!?1111, We already know the answer to that and it's the same as it's always been since things started going multicore: AMD Beats Intel in Multithreading and FPU Ops, Intel Beats AMD in Single/Low Threading Ops. The Question is instead, What is your priority and pricerange?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                                If it was "unfair" then intel should bump up the processor speed. However, intel chooses to release that processor at that speed. There is nothing "unfair" about it, it is a comparison of how the processors are released from their respective venders.

                                PS please google Mhz Myth. Mhz hasn't been used as a base comparison of performance for over a decade now.
                                That and the FX-8150 reviews I've read show the CPU being capable of running stable at 4.7-4.9Ghz across all cores with top end air coolers/low end liquid coolers, which puts the performance up there with the 6 core i7s.

                                I'd wager that with a high end liquid setup you could easily break 5Ghz. High end liquid constitutes a high efficiency block, enough thermal mass in the form of liquid to even out the CPU temperatures at a per core basis and enough surface area on the radiators to never go more then 5c over ambient room temp. Think 4x120+ sized radiators with 1/2" tubing and a 20oz+ reservoir.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X