Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › FX-8120 or Phenom II X4 980?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

FX-8120 or Phenom II X4 980? - Page 10

post #91 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by iinversion View Post

Multiplayer uses more CPU than you think. 64 player maps put ridiculous strain on the CPU. Single player BF3, you are right though.
Also depends what kind of multicore support your looking for. BD only has 4 FPU's like a quad core.. each FPU is shared with 2 integer cores..
Its still a physical 8 core CPU, they just share the modules resources. It is proven to benefit heavily in benchmarks if the benchmark is heavily threaded.
post #92 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by james_rich View Post

arma 2

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/10/12/amd-fx-8150-review/9

According to that review, FX-8150 @ 4.8GHz still loses to the 2500K @ stock in Arma 2.

Another review from Hardware.fr

446
 
Surface Pro 3
(7 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 3720QM @ 2.6GHz/3.6GHz Turbo  HM77 Geforce GT650M 1GB GDDR5 @ 900MHz 16GB @ 1600MHz  
Hard DriveOSMonitor
256GB Samsung PM830 SSD OSX 10.8 Mountain Lion 2880x1800 Retina Display 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Core i5-4300U @1.9GHz/2.5GHz Turbo Intel HD4400 8GB @ 1600MHz 256GB SSD 
OSMonitorKeyboard
Windows 8.1 Pro 2160x1440 ClearType HD  Surface Pro Type Cover 3 
  hide details  
Reply
 
Surface Pro 3
(7 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 3720QM @ 2.6GHz/3.6GHz Turbo  HM77 Geforce GT650M 1GB GDDR5 @ 900MHz 16GB @ 1600MHz  
Hard DriveOSMonitor
256GB Samsung PM830 SSD OSX 10.8 Mountain Lion 2880x1800 Retina Display 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Core i5-4300U @1.9GHz/2.5GHz Turbo Intel HD4400 8GB @ 1600MHz 256GB SSD 
OSMonitorKeyboard
Windows 8.1 Pro 2160x1440 ClearType HD  Surface Pro Type Cover 3 
  hide details  
Reply
post #93 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clairvoyant129 View Post

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/10/12/amd-fx-8150-review/9
According to that review, FX-8150 @ 4.8GHz still loses to the 2500K @ stock in Arma 2.
Another review from Hardware.fr
446
I'm not sure what you're getting at, did you even read the thread and our conversation? He asked what applications could use better multicore support. Currently arma 2 can only effectively use up to 3 cores at 80% utilization, then the rest are left at 20% utilization. Very unbalanced.


This is getting very off topic. My point still stands, applications need better mutlithreaded support to take advantage of Bulldozer in Windows.
Edited by james_rich - 5/3/12 at 6:31pm
post #94 of 124
The thing I wonder is with those overclocked 8150 benchmarks, are both the CPU and NB overclocked or just the CPU? Bulldozer, like Phenom, really comes alive with a big NB jump. If theyre just bumping the core clock to 4.8 but leaving the NB alone, then theyre leaving a lot of Bulldozer's performance out. Reading that Bit-Tech article about overclocking, they dont state anything about touching the NB. I would like to see some benchies of the 8150 where the NB is also cranked up. I bet theyd be a lot better.
post #95 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by james_rich View Post

I'm not sure what you're getting at, did you even read the thread and our conversation? He asked what applications could use better multicore support. Currently arma 2 can only effectively use up to 3 cores at 80% utilization, then the rest are left at 20% utilization. Very unbalanced.

Instead of adding more cores and making it harder for developers, AMD could instead increase clock speed + IPC with fewer cores. Even in heavily multi-threaded situations, Intel's 4 core + HT easily keeps up/outperform the FX-8150.

Higher core count doesn't make up for inferior IPC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacLeod View Post

The thing I wonder is with those overclocked 8150 benchmarks, are both the CPU and NB overclocked or just the CPU? Bulldozer, like Phenom, really comes alive with a big NB jump. If theyre just bumping the core clock to 4.8 but leaving the NB alone, then theyre leaving a lot of Bulldozer's performance out.

It wouldn't have mattered because it wouldn't have made up for the ~30%-40%+ deficit. Besides for most end users overclocking is a non-factor.
Edited by Clairvoyant129 - 5/3/12 at 6:34pm
 
Surface Pro 3
(7 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 3720QM @ 2.6GHz/3.6GHz Turbo  HM77 Geforce GT650M 1GB GDDR5 @ 900MHz 16GB @ 1600MHz  
Hard DriveOSMonitor
256GB Samsung PM830 SSD OSX 10.8 Mountain Lion 2880x1800 Retina Display 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Core i5-4300U @1.9GHz/2.5GHz Turbo Intel HD4400 8GB @ 1600MHz 256GB SSD 
OSMonitorKeyboard
Windows 8.1 Pro 2160x1440 ClearType HD  Surface Pro Type Cover 3 
  hide details  
Reply
 
Surface Pro 3
(7 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 3720QM @ 2.6GHz/3.6GHz Turbo  HM77 Geforce GT650M 1GB GDDR5 @ 900MHz 16GB @ 1600MHz  
Hard DriveOSMonitor
256GB Samsung PM830 SSD OSX 10.8 Mountain Lion 2880x1800 Retina Display 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Core i5-4300U @1.9GHz/2.5GHz Turbo Intel HD4400 8GB @ 1600MHz 256GB SSD 
OSMonitorKeyboard
Windows 8.1 Pro 2160x1440 ClearType HD  Surface Pro Type Cover 3 
  hide details  
Reply
post #96 of 124
edit.
 
Surface Pro 3
(7 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 3720QM @ 2.6GHz/3.6GHz Turbo  HM77 Geforce GT650M 1GB GDDR5 @ 900MHz 16GB @ 1600MHz  
Hard DriveOSMonitor
256GB Samsung PM830 SSD OSX 10.8 Mountain Lion 2880x1800 Retina Display 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Core i5-4300U @1.9GHz/2.5GHz Turbo Intel HD4400 8GB @ 1600MHz 256GB SSD 
OSMonitorKeyboard
Windows 8.1 Pro 2160x1440 ClearType HD  Surface Pro Type Cover 3 
  hide details  
Reply
 
Surface Pro 3
(7 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 3720QM @ 2.6GHz/3.6GHz Turbo  HM77 Geforce GT650M 1GB GDDR5 @ 900MHz 16GB @ 1600MHz  
Hard DriveOSMonitor
256GB Samsung PM830 SSD OSX 10.8 Mountain Lion 2880x1800 Retina Display 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Core i5-4300U @1.9GHz/2.5GHz Turbo Intel HD4400 8GB @ 1600MHz 256GB SSD 
OSMonitorKeyboard
Windows 8.1 Pro 2160x1440 ClearType HD  Surface Pro Type Cover 3 
  hide details  
Reply
post #97 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clairvoyant129 View Post

Instead of adding more cores and making it harder for developers, AMD could instead increase clock speed + IPC with fewer cores. Even in heavily multi-threaded situations, Intel's 4 core + HT easily keeps up/outperform the FX-8150.
Higher core count doesn't make up for inferior IPC.
It wouldn't have mattered because it wouldn't have made up for the ~30%-40%+ deficit. Besides for most end users overclocking is a non-factor.

Yeah, we get it. Intel is faster. Move along. We're discussing Bulldozer vs Phenom.
post #98 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by james_rich View Post

I'm not sure what you're getting at, did you even read the thread and our conversation? He asked what applications could use better multicore support. Currently arma 2 can only effectively use up to 3 cores at 80% utilization, then the rest are left at 20% utilization. Very unbalanced.


But there's no point in having better multicore support because mainstream quad cores don't need it. You're deeming the support on this game bad because it doesn't support your 8 integer core BD well, when that CPU is like not even 2% of the mainstream market, why optimize a game for something that is a very small percentage of what will be using the game/app? Until a large percentage of mainstream products are 6+ core optimization isn't gonna happen.
Celerity
(21 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i5-8600K @ 5.3GHz / 1.4v Asus Z370 Maximus X Hero (WiFi-AC) EVGA GTX 980 Ti Classified  Corsair Vengeance LPX 4x8GB 3200MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCooling
Samsung 850 Pro 256 GB Western Digital Purple 2TB XSPC Raystorm Pro XSPC RX 360 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
XSPC D5 Photon 170 Windows 7 Professional Dell AW2518f BenQ GW2765 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
ViewSonic XG2401 Corsair Strafe RGB MX Silent EVGA SuperNOVA G2 750W Fractal Design Define S 
MouseMouse PadAudioAudio
Logitech G900 SteelSeries QCK+ Sennheiser HD 598 FiiO E10K 
Other
Cablemod Sleeved Cables (Black/White) 
  hide details  
Reply
Celerity
(21 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i5-8600K @ 5.3GHz / 1.4v Asus Z370 Maximus X Hero (WiFi-AC) EVGA GTX 980 Ti Classified  Corsair Vengeance LPX 4x8GB 3200MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCooling
Samsung 850 Pro 256 GB Western Digital Purple 2TB XSPC Raystorm Pro XSPC RX 360 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
XSPC D5 Photon 170 Windows 7 Professional Dell AW2518f BenQ GW2765 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
ViewSonic XG2401 Corsair Strafe RGB MX Silent EVGA SuperNOVA G2 750W Fractal Design Define S 
MouseMouse PadAudioAudio
Logitech G900 SteelSeries QCK+ Sennheiser HD 598 FiiO E10K 
Other
Cablemod Sleeved Cables (Black/White) 
  hide details  
Reply
post #99 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clairvoyant129 View Post

Instead of adding more cores and making it harder for developers, AMD could instead increase clock speed + IPC with fewer cores. Even in heavily multi-threaded situations, Intel's 4 core + HT easily keeps up/outperform the FX-8150.
Higher core count doesn't make up for inferior IPC.
It wouldn't have mattered because it wouldn't have made up for the ~30%-40%+ deficit. Besides for most end users overclocking is a non-factor.

Why would you buy a AMD's top in class if you dident want to OC.
post #100 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacLeod View Post

The thing I wonder is with those overclocked 8150 benchmarks, are both the CPU and NB overclocked or just the CPU? Bulldozer, like Phenom, really comes alive with a big NB jump. If theyre just bumping the core clock to 4.8 but leaving the NB alone, then theyre leaving a lot of Bulldozer's performance out. Reading that Bit-Tech article about overclocking, they dont state anything about touching the NB. I would like to see some benchies of the 8150 where the NB is also cranked up. I bet theyd be a lot better.

Exactly thumb.gif
AMD CPU lacks memory bandwidth efficiency by half than Intel CPU can offer. I've felt significant overall increase in performance with higher CPU-NB (IMC) speed.
And this is absolutely true that almost all reviews show benchmark scores at stock IMC speed, they only increase CPU multiplier. And for locked CPU they increase base clock with increased CPU multiplier, but then they lower the IMC to near default.
And that is why my 4.0Ghz overclock with 2.86Ghz - 3Ghz IMC gives higher scores in almost all type of benches than reviews at 4.0Ghz with stock IMC.
Haswell i3
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i3-4150 @ 3.5 GHz Asus B85M-G Rev 1.01, Bios: 2501 Integrated Intel HD 4400 2x 4GB DDR3 1600 MHz CL9 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 750 EVO 250GB Seagate Barracuda 1TB 7200.14 Seagate 500 GB 2.5" Samsung DVD/RW 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Corsair H70 Windows 10 64 bit Samsung A300N 20" 1600 x 900 60Hz 5ms 19Watt PS/2 Microsoft Wired Keyboard 500 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair TX850 V2 CoolerMaster Elite 430 Black Logitech M170 
  hide details  
Reply
Haswell i3
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i3-4150 @ 3.5 GHz Asus B85M-G Rev 1.01, Bios: 2501 Integrated Intel HD 4400 2x 4GB DDR3 1600 MHz CL9 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 750 EVO 250GB Seagate Barracuda 1TB 7200.14 Seagate 500 GB 2.5" Samsung DVD/RW 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Corsair H70 Windows 10 64 bit Samsung A300N 20" 1600 x 900 60Hz 5ms 19Watt PS/2 Microsoft Wired Keyboard 500 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair TX850 V2 CoolerMaster Elite 430 Black Logitech M170 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AMD CPUs
Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › FX-8120 or Phenom II X4 980?