Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD FX-8150 Bulldozer On Ubuntu Linux

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Kivada View Post
    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.
    Could be, yes. But you should also mention, that power consumption increases disproportionally.
    Look at this bench for example:
    http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/...mance_review/9
    numbers under load:
    i7 2600K @stock: 181W
    i7 2600K @4,8GHz: 275W
    FX-8150 @stock: 258W
    FX-8150 @4,6GHz: 452W
    Impressive, isn't it?

    Comment


    • #32
      Good job Phoronix

      I do agree that Phoronix did a terrific job to make those benchmarks. People use the new CPU where is strong and where is strong it shine. In fact we don't care as typical users that we will not get 130 FPS when we will get 80, cause the single threaded performance is not that good, but we care when we have to encode a clip and we do hope that anything is scaled right.
      Also I think in some way I do think that AMD have to get a good review as Bulldozer is not a bad CPU. It remembers me to K6 times, K6-2 times, when AMD was not a leader but it will trail well, sometimes worked even better if uses architecture specifics (in K6-2 were the 3DNow! instructions).
      I do believe that it will be a good competitor for IvyBridge (it is for middle end of performance of Sandy Bridge, which is quite a feat) when will integrate the GPU core. I will consider to buy an AMD CPU at that time (of course if Linux side work nice).

      Comment


      • #33
        anyone knows how to enable TurboCore for the new FX-8150?
        i've already loaded the powernow-k8 kernel module, and it says that Turbo is enabled, but the cpu will never clock to 4200MHz, only to 3600. (even when i'm running a singlethreaded program)

        Code:
        dmesg|grep power
        powernow-k8: Found 1 AMD FX(tm)-8150 Eight-Core Processor            (8 cpu cores) (version 2.20.00)
        powernow-k8: Core Performance Boosting: on.
        powernow-k8:    0 : pstate 0 (3600 MHz)
        powernow-k8:    1 : pstate 1 (3300 MHz)
        powernow-k8:    2 : pstate 2 (2700 MHz)
        powernow-k8:    3 : pstate 3 (2100 MHz)
        powernow-k8:    4 : pstate 4 (1400 MHz)
        kernel version is 3.1

        i'm asking here because i saw some benchmarkes where turbocore seems to be working.
        http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...AR-AMDFX815044

        Comment


        • #34
          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.
          WTH is wrong with you people? AMD clearly has a more advanced, forward thinking architecture, and Intel fanboys think if that translates into doing well in any benchmark, that it's "unfair".

          Unfortunately, the engineering they did doesn't translate into a clear win in every possible category, but this whining is just unbelievable.

          I suppose if Llano or Trinity just stomp Ivy Bridge into the ground in OpenCL benchmarks with their vastly superior GPUs, that OpenCL benchmarks will be unfair in general?

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by nepwk View Post
            ... AMD clearly has a more advanced, forward thinking architecture...
            You're absolutely right. It's just that me and a handful of other nutjobs tend not to buy "a more advanced, forward thinking architecture", but just go for the best bang for the buck. Now.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
              the 1090T should be cheap to buy if you buy it used on ebay.
              Well then, is it also cheap for you to buy it on ebay and send it to Michael? No?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Kivada View Post
                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.
                Even if all of that wasn't the case, intel and AMD only guarantee that a processor will run at x MHz and that is where they should be benched at. Any over clock is a bonus and core speeds are really only comparable when running against the same family (perhaps even stepping) of processor. Otherwise there are way too many differences that also effect overall performance as well.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by nepwk View Post
                  I suppose if Llano or Trinity just stomp Ivy Bridge into the ground in OpenCL benchmarks with their vastly superior GPUs, that OpenCL benchmarks will be unfair in general?
                  * AMD A8-3850 with OpenCL on the iGPU brings its Performance on the level of a 2500K.
                  * Ivy Bridge will be faster then Sandy Brdige.
                  * Ivy Bridge will get a much better iGPU (read the intel documents on ivy bridge), and as it looks it will be capable of running OpenCL-Code on the GPU.

                  So I don't think that enabling OpenCL will push Llano or Trinity ahead of Ivy Bridge, though I think with Trinity things get more interesting for desktop users on the amd side (if Global Foundries gets their 32nm-problems away (power consumption) and enhanced Bulldozer really gains 10% performance)
                  Last edited by schmalzler; 10-25-2011, 08:11 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by schmalzler View Post
                    Could be, yes. But you should also mention, that power consumption increases disproportionally.
                    Look at this bench for example:
                    http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/...mance_review/9
                    numbers under load:
                    i7 2600K @stock: 181W
                    i7 2600K @4,8GHz: 275W
                    FX-8150 @stock: 258W
                    FX-8150 @4,6GHz: 452W
                    Impressive, isn't it?
                    Meh, it's a desktop, not a laptop, so I don't see the point in worrying about power consumption on a high end desktop. Just look at the people running quad SLi GTX480s.

                    Now if we where talking a laptop then yes, give me all the cores and cache you can and the BIOS options to underclock and undervolt it as far as it will allow for battery life.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      I waited for that test because I was interested if its really windows 7 problems that did lead to this bad reviews, and we did saw it was that.

                      That teaches me to not belive benchmarks from some sides especially from the german site: www.computerbase.de

                      I did maybe missplaced on a Intel thread (as reaction of a joke about how bad the bulldozer would be) link to this test in the hope that they maybe relativate their topic:

                      Test: AMD „Bulldozer“
                      Ein schwarzer Mittwoch
                      translated:
                      Test: AMD „Bulldozer“
                      A black Wednesday
                      instead I earned some Site-or-Intel-fanboys-comments from people who could not accept what cannot be. I tryed to argue further and got now blocked for one week.

                      I am a bit shocked how biased and unproffessional a hardware-test-site can be.

                      But thanx again that opened my eyes about this site and I will not use this site again for getting information which hardware I should buy.

                      Sadly there are not much site that have such good layout, most hardware-test sites have horrible site styles. Phoronix is a kind of good exception but here are not that much hardware-tests.

                      At the moment I try golem.de but search for better alternatives.

                      I hope Amd learns from this fanboy-review-debackels and sends first samples to phoronix to not have such myths born like phenom1 or bulldozer1 are bad prozessors.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Kivada View Post
                        Meh, it's a desktop, not a laptop, so I don't see the point in worrying about power consumption on a high end desktop. Just look at the people running quad SLi GTX480s.

                        Now if we where talking a laptop then yes, give me all the cores and cache you can and the BIOS options to underclock and undervolt it as far as it will allow for battery life.
                        Why have these people migrated to 560Ti asap it appeared?
                        Not everyone is american, not everyone can purchase gallons of fuel to tiny prices. Pity, but fact. Powerconsumption affects me as much as performance.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Shining Arcanine:
                          Funny, in Germany the prices are:
                          2500k: €182
                          8150: €214
                          2600k: €260

                          That's 2500k + €32 = 8150 + €46 = 2600k
                          So here the price is closer to 2500k. And it's not really in the market by now, only two dealers have them in stock. Usually prices trickle down once products are in stock widely.

                          raj7095: It's a comparison of CPUs of a certain price range at stock speeds. Nothing unfair here. If you want an overclocking review/comparison, that would be a different review.

                          The power draw is a problem to some, though. And to some, it's not

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by schmalzler View Post
                            Could be, yes. But you should also mention, that power consumption increases disproportionally.
                            Look at this bench for example:
                            http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/...mance_review/9
                            numbers under load:
                            i7 2600K @stock: 181W
                            i7 2600K @4,8GHz: 275W
                            FX-8150 @stock: 258W
                            FX-8150 @4,6GHz: 452W
                            Impressive, isn't it?
                            Thats not complete graph to be impressive:

                            --IDLE--
                            FX-8150 @ 112W
                            FX-8150/4.6Ghz @ 120W

                            i7 2600K @ 102W
                            i7 2600K/4.8Ghz @ 144W

                            i7 920 @ 169W
                            i7 920/4Ghz @ 257W
                            Note: Amd power management is actually more efficient!

                            --LOAD--
                            FX-8150 @ 238W
                            FX-8150/4.6Ghz @ 442W

                            i7 2600K @ 181W
                            i7 2600K/4.8Ghz @ 275W

                            i7 920 @ 265W
                            i7 920/4Ghz @505W!

                            It has something to do with core construction.
                            i7 2600 is particulary very efficient (less waste) with each Hz+, compared to BOTH i7 920 and BD.
                            Notice, 920 consumed MORE than BD, in terms of efficiency it is worser than BD.

                            Also, previous tests in that review under link you posted, show that not only BD scales in terms of watt waste per Mhz a lot worser than 2600, yet similar to 920;
                            BUT Bulldozer overclock to 4.6Ghz brings very LITTLE performance advantage, yet MAJOR BOOSTS power consumption. This means unfortunately BD is very inefficient for overclocking. Do not overclock your BD CPU.

                            Compared with i920, which not only required more voltage, but also has boosted performance (unlike BD), it looks like bulldozer has major bottleneck somewhere.
                            Last edited by crazycheese; 10-25-2011, 02:12 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              important comparison missing from initial review

                              The review compared the Bulldozer to an Opteron 23xx. Any chance of seeing a comparison against an Opteron 4100 or 6100? This would be the most relevant comparison for those of us considering Opteron 42xx or 62xx machines. I haven't seen any 'real' benchmarks of an Interlagos system, so the FX8150 is closest thing available...

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by nepwk View Post
                                WTH is wrong with you people? AMD clearly has a more advanced, forward thinking architecture, and Intel fanboys think if that translates into doing well in any benchmark, that it's "unfair".

                                Unfortunately, the engineering they did doesn't translate into a clear win in every possible category, but this whining is just unbelievable.

                                I suppose if Llano or Trinity just stomp Ivy Bridge into the ground in OpenCL benchmarks with their vastly superior GPUs, that OpenCL benchmarks will be unfair in general?
                                I am sorry, but why should I care about if the architecture is forward thinking in the first place? Isn't that supposed to be the corporation's job? Also, I didn't even make fun of the architecture. I am just saying that it would be nicer if we knew how sandybridge would do with hyperthreading. Also, 400 mhz isn't a too low in this case. Because, 3.8 ghz is about 10 percent less than 4.2 ghz. And it wasn't an unfair benchmark, I just said it was somewhat unfair to not see 2600k in there. Actually, lemme make it clearer, it was not unfair, just a little disappointing for me to not see 2600k in there. I would have really loved that. Also, everyone knows amd integrated gpus are way better than intel integrated gpus. nobody denying that.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X