Overclock.net banner

X6 Thuban@4.5Ghz vs OCed FX8350? Or which architecture from AMD to date is the most capable of all.

3K views 74 replies 25 participants last post by  SmOgER 
#1 ·
09a12c00_impressive.jpeg


+

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?285695-Phenom-II-X6-core-vs-83xx-FX-core-24-7-OC-vs-OC-is-it-worth-the-change (unrelated to pic)

Now judging by the above it's kind of safe to assume that Thuban clock for clock is faster for both single threaded and multi threaded tasks than Vishera. And yes, that's despite having 2 cores less.

Now I couldn't find many benchmarks of 4.5Ghz Thuban but that R11.5 score actually marginally beats FX9590 (better ST equal MT in R11.5) and by the looks of it 4.5Ghz isn't really that far fetched and is attainable for 24/7 with a good chip and proper cooling. Not to mention that FX9590 isn't really a cool running or little power consuming chip itself. I'am not necessarily implying that X6@4.5Ghz is overall faster than FX9590, but it might indeed turn out to be the case.

If someone could throw some more relevant numbers here to deny or prove my assumptions and provide some more accuracy, that would be great.
thumb.gif
 
See less See more
2
#2 ·
For gaming, I would definitely stay with Thuban. It has higher IPC than Vishera. 4.5 GHz on X6 is quite rare, however.
 
#3 ·
Good heavens. If you have a Thuban that can run at 4.5 GHz stable, keep it. That thing's still beastly when it comes to the world of AMD CPU's. Very few Thubans can get that high, though. Even the very last 1100T's out of the fabs normally topped out around 4.2. And that one's an unlocked X4 960T. You won the silicon lottery.
thumb.gif


Unless you have something that makes a lot of use of AVX instructions, Thuban will typically be slightly faster than Vishera at the same clocks. It's a more efficient microarchitecture than that revision of K15h, and Stars chips can actually make proper use of the L3 cache. The L3 in K15 chips is so slow it doesn't offer much benefit.

It's not really as fast as an FX-9590 would be in multithread, but Cinebench hates K15h, especially the 11.5 version. My old 1035T overclocked to 3.7 was basically a match for a stock FX-8350. But a Thuban at 4.5 will spank the crap out of any FX-6xx0 processor and certainly would beat an FX-81x0 Bulldozer chip.
 
#4 ·
I've seen FX 8300s running 5GHz stable for gaming. My Thuban scores an 8 in that bench at 4.5. Just had to raise the NB to 2800. Thanks to Redwoodz's tip. It was 10C outside when i did, so i cracked the window open.
smile.gif
 
#5 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsc1973 View Post

Good heavens. If you have a Thuban that can run at 4.5 GHz stable, keep it. That thing's still beastly when it comes to the world of AMD CPU's. Very few Thubans can get that high, though. Even the very last 1100T's out of the fabs normally topped out around 4.2. And that one's an unlocked X4 960T. You won the silicon lottery.
thumb.gif


Unless you have something that makes a lot of use of AVX instructions, Thuban will typically be slightly faster than Vishera at the same clocks. It's a more efficient microarchitecture than that revision of K15h, and Stars chips can actually make proper use of the L3 cache. The L3 in K15 chips is so slow it doesn't offer much benefit.

It's not really as fast as an FX-9590 would be in multithread, but Cinebench hates K15h, especially the 11.5 version. My old 1035T overclocked to 3.7 was basically a match for a stock FX-8350. But a Thuban at 4.5 will spank the crap out of any FX-6xx0 processor and certainly would beat an FX-81x0 Bulldozer chip.
That 960T is mine
wink.gif

http://hwbot.org/submission/2492615_cssorkinmanocn_cinebench___r11.5_phenom_ii_x4_960t_be_7.79_points

That chip was amazing. I had at as an X6 - 1.424 volts on my FX - 790 GD 70 running 4.6 ghz , forgot I had it at those settings , fired it up and played CSS , l4d and putz around on it for about 3 hours one night before i realized where it was clocked at.
Unfortunately, it died when I tripped the OCP on an 850 gold rated seasonic psu running 4.8 ghz on firestrike at about 1.58 volts physics. RIP . However I bought 2 of them the same day and the other one is a twin sister from the same batch ( its in my bedroom htpc atm)
A little over 5 ghz on Vishera will get you more than the Thuban has at 4.5 ghz on cb 11.5 for single thread. Every 8 core Vishera I've had would run faster than that on CB ( im up to 12 now I think).
 
#6 ·
 
#7 ·
If my 1090t and 1100t did over 4.2ghz i would still be using them for my main gaming pc:) My 1090t used to do a solid 4.2ghz 24hour prime But now i cant get it over 3.8ghz probably degraded over the years:(

And the 1100t does 4.15ghz but usely ran it at 4ghz.

Pretty much i went to the 8370e 4.8-5ghz proven which i bought use off the market here for a great deal.. And i got better minimum fps with the 8370 even at stock vs stock and twitch streaming did a bit better too on the fx probably because the extra 2 cores, Other than that the thurban kept up with the fx.

currently running the fx at 4.8ghz cause my temps is going to **** for some reason... and i think this sabertooth fx990 r2.0 is on its last legs:( Ran 5ghz straight for couple months with no problems.

I would've loved a 4.5ghz thurban tho which are rare to come by lol
 
#8 ·
Clock for clock the Thubans are faster. They also are not using the module design. That means each Thuban core has a dedicated FPU, unlike the K15 architecture where each module(2 integer cores) has a shared FPU. This is why the mulit-threaded abilities are very similar despite lack of integer core count. If you have one that clocks exceptionally well like that 4.5GHz example, then I would most definitely use it over Vishera.

However, the majority of Thuban users will get in the 4.0-4.2GHz range, and when compared to a 4.7-5.0GHz Vishera, the Vishera is going to be a bit faster.
 
#9 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by iinversion View Post

Clock for clock the Thubans are faster. They also are not using the module design. That means each Thuban core has a dedicated FPU, unlike the K15 architecture where each module(2 integer cores) has a shared FPU. This is why the mulit-threaded abilities are very similar despite lack of integer core count. If you have one that clocks exceptionally well like that 4.5GHz example, then I would most definitely use it over Vishera.

However, the majority of Thuban users will get in the 4.0-4.2GHz range, and when compared to a 4.7-5.0GHz Vishera, the Vishera is going to be a bit faster.
That's what I was thinking as well.

This would mean that we can say overall Thuban = Vishera as far as performance is concerned.
And the actual margin in one direction or another will depend per the particular chip and its silicone. Also this would mean, that AMD already peaked its performance per watt back in 2010.
tongue.gif

The following chips afterwards were more like the fancy sidegrade - playing with numbers, reshaping the performance without boosting the efficiency (increasing number of cores while decreasing IPC) and factory overclocking.
 
#10 ·
#12 ·
  • Rep+
Reactions: 7850K
#13 ·
At stock my 8350 was faster than my previous 955BE @ 3.5, even with Turbo off. While Thuban is slightly more efficient than Phenom II's I believe that Vishera is the better architecture, especially the 8xxx's with their two extra cores. Thanks to optimisation the 8350 matches a 3770K and the 9xxx's match the 6600K/6700K. However, compared with 6xxx's I would definitely take a Thuban at 4.5.
 
#15 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by InfamousTR View Post

I'd go with Vishera 8-core every time. Faster memory controller and can run 2400MHz ram, added instructions: AES, AVX, BMI1, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, SSE 4.1, SSE 4.2. XOP. Better power saving features for lower idle power draw and adjusting BCKL wont mess them up. And of course moar cores and 5GHz overclocks for added e-peen.
tongue.gif
Instructions sets is a valid point (if you need them), power saving features might be useful as well if you keep them on (personally I always turn them off on my systems as they often cause faint PSU/mobo high pitched whining). As for more cores and "5Ghz overclocks" that's for the benchmarks to decide if it's any good. From the data we have so far it does look like Thuban@4.5Ghz is either equal or slightly better than Vishera at around 5Ghz (FX8590).
 
#17 ·
I still like the thuban, but I have found that GTA V is pushing the poor little guy clooooose to it's limits.

Even with a 7870 at 1080p, the CPU usage is in the 80's-90's on all 6 cores @ 4GHz with 2760NB on my wife's 1065T

It has a faster IPC than Vishera, sure it does, BUT, I can get the IPC performance of my vishera past the thuban simply by running it at 5GHz, but even more helpful is the extra two cores to spread the load out a little..

Either way, the thuban has withstood the test of time VERY well.
 
#18 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent Smith1984 View Post

Either way, the thuban has withstood the test of time VERY well.
There is also another not so optimistic perspective on this. And that is that AMD hasn't really improved the performance of their desktop CPUs since 2010. If you need to overclock the tits out of the flagship 2013 CPU to match or marginally beat an overclocked 2010 CPU, that's not exactly what I would call improving.
ph34r-smiley.gif
 
#19 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmOgER View Post

There is also another not so optimistic perspective on this. And that is that AMD hasn't really improved the performance of their desktop CPUs since 2010. If you need to overclock the tits out of the flagship 2013 CPU to match or marginally beat an overclocked 2010 CPU, that's not exactly what I would call improving.
ph34r-smiley.gif
Yeah, but we all know that.....

Plus, if you want to really look at the maturation of AMD CPU's, you have to look at it for what they are selling, not what you are turning it into after the fact....
The fastest x6 was the 1100T at 3.3Ghz, the fastest vishera is the 9590 at 4.7GHz

Compare the numbers on those two at stock and it clearly shows the vishera is leaps and bounds faster. So, that is an improvement...
 
#20 ·
This is why I kept my 1090T rig and rebuilt it, because it's powerful. I just need some better fan speed control...but yeah, anyway, it may only be half as powerful as my sig rig but half of amazing is still great to me. It's a wonderful gaming rig for the TV downstairs as well as perfect for emulation and such
 
#21 ·
im still using my 1045T. But yea, modern games are pushing this baby to it's limit. Oh well, i will get at least another 2 years out of it before i start looking for a new rig.
 
#22 ·
#23 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liranan View Post

At stock my 8350 was faster than my previous 955BE @ 3.5, even with Turbo off. While Thuban is slightly more efficient than Phenom II's I believe that Vishera is the better architecture, especially the 8xxx's with their two extra cores. Thanks to optimisation the 8350 matches a 3770K and the 9xxx's match the 6600K/6700K. However, compared with 6xxx's I would definitely take a Thuban at 4.5.
How can you say such a thing man?

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1543?vs=1289

I7-6700k is far more powerful than a FX-9590, but much more...
 
#24 ·
#25 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqlittle View Post

How can you say such a thing man?

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1543?vs=1289

I7-6700k is far more powerful, but much more...

And the FX-8350 is neither more powerful than the i7-3770K...
He must have been sniffing glue when he made that comment.
Actually there are a few benching and gaming graphs that say the 8350 is about on par with a 3770K and the 9590 certainly beats it, assuming you leave both the 3770K and 9590 at "stock" speeds.
wink.gif


And don't even get me started on Price to Perf with Intel VS AMD...
biggrin.gif
 
#26 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by PimpSkyline View Post

Actually there are a few benching and gaming graphs that say the 8350 is about on par with a 3770K and the 9590 certainly beats it, assuming you leave both the 3770K and 9590 at "stock" speeds.
wink.gif


And don't even get me started on Price to Perf with Intel VS AMD...
biggrin.gif
dont even start when you can get a 3770k for like 180 dollars used since you cant buy them new. The 8350 is like 100 used but for the extra 80 bucks you get way more.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top