Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD FX-8150 Bulldozer On Ubuntu Linux

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

  • #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
    https://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
        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


        • #24
          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


          • #25
            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


            • #26
              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


              • #27
                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


                • #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.
                  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


                  • #29
                    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


                    • #30
                      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:

                      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

                      Working...
                      X