The Official PC building thread - 4th Edition

Sam,

I repeat, the techreport Shaff linked had two games tested. Crysis and X3:Terran Conflict! That was the extent of their games part of the review!

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/01/03/intel-sandy-bridge-review/10

Russ

 

Bit-tech is not techreport.

 

Mr-Movies,

If you are an E-Blast subscriber at Newegg, you already know that they have the Phenom II 965BE on sale for $114.99 w/promo code, for 48 hours.



That's a lot of bang for the buck given that low a price. No fire sale either, as the Debebs have already paid for themselves. Most are going to buy the llano over the Sandy Bridge, for less money because of the superior HD 6550D Graphics. The cheapest Sandy Bridge Quad core, the 2.8GHz i5-2300 costs $179, the top 2.9GHz Llano A8-3850 Quad Core costs $139. People who don't overclock, are going to go by the graphics and the $40 lower price tag!. I don't even begin to understand the thinking of someone buying one, and then installing a dedicated video card or cards, although a number of people seem to do it. I have this thing about not wasting money on things I can't use.

Oh, one more thing. If someone does have a Sandy Bridge and has to RMA it back to Intel, be advised that when they ask you for the model and make of your memory, have a brand and model number handy that is not over 1333MHz. If you tell them it's 1600 memory, it will void your warranty immediately, and you don't get an RMA, or a second chance as the warranty is void for that serial number for good, effective now! Intel threatened to void my warranty because I didn't use the stock cooler, when I sent my E6750 back for replacement. That was the deciding factor in my making the switch from Intel to AMD. I haven't regretted it yet, especially with the performance boost I got after switching to the GigaByte 990XA-UD3 AM3+ motherboard. It's more than fast enough for me!

Best Regards,
Russ

 

Sam,

No it's not. We were discussing Bit-Tech, in particular the two games they reviewed in the link I posted. I guess you decided to throw a different outfit, techreport into the mix. Why I have no idea, and I didn't snap to it. What does techreport have to do with bit-tech only using Crysis and X3:Terran Conflict as their only game tests. That was my question, and you popped up with techreport??

Russ

 

I'm not even going to respond to that. It's your mistake, not mine, and I'm not going to be held to ransom for it.


In other news, detailed benchmarks of the Bulldozer CPUs are out, such as this one:

http://techreport.com/articles.x/21813/7

I'm not impressed.
Early days perhaps, but they could only get it as far as 4.4Ghz tops, and at the already high 3.6Ghz stock speed, it underperforms the i7s at basically everything.

 

FX-8150 %Performance relative to X4 980, X6 1100T, i5 2500K, i7 2600K, i7 980X

Games tests
1a. Bad Company 2 average frame rate: 100/99/86/86/86 (probably GPU limited)
1b. Bad Company 2 minimum frame rate: 95/98/79/81/82
2a. Civilization 5 Late game view (rendered): 107/107/74/73/73
2b. Civilization 5 Late game view (unrendered): 111/103/74/70/71
2c. Civilization 5 Unit benchmark (rendered): 92/85/69/58/61
2d. Civilization 5 Unit benchmark (unrendered): 126/108/96/80/66
3a. F1 2010 average frame rate: 121/111/95/94/97 (GPU limited)
3b. F1 2010 minimum frame rate: 123/120/95/92/92 (GPU limited)
4a. Metro 2033 average frame rate: 116/105/98/97/98 (GPU limited)
4b. Metro 2033 minimum frame rate: 146/79/119/127/190
5. Valve Source Engine particle sim: 118/94/76/61/46

Productivity tests
1. Sunspider Javascript bench: 90/97/84/84/79
2a. 7-zip file compression: 157/116/138/98/68
2b. 7-zip file extraction: 145/109/149/105/70
3a. Truecrypt AES: 479/363/108/82/58
3b. Truecrypt Overall: 252/188/126/95/67
Performance here is indicative of AES support, which is featured on Bulldozer, as well as Sandy Bridge and Gulftown, but not early i5s and i7s, nor Phenom IIs.

Image Processing tests
1. The Panorama Factory Photo Stitch: 134/111/84/82/85
2a. picCOLOR Real tests: 115/108/94/87/81
2b. PicCOLOR Synthetic tests: 123/125/85/84/86

Video encoding tests
1a. x264 HD Pass 1: 98/100/78/83/84
1b. x264 HD Pass 2: 150/115/126/100/77
2. Windows Live Movie Maker Encoding: 101/104/91/89/87

3D Modelling/Rendering
1a. Cinebench Single thread: 92/93/69/67/83
1b. Cinebench Multi thread: 137/103/110/87/68
2a. POV-Ray Rendering High res: 134/100/104/86/70
2b. POV-Ray Rendering Low res: 111/100/92/81/85
3. Valve VRAD map build: 126/98/82/66/60

Scientific Computing
1. MyriMatch proteomics: 138/100/112/78/55
2. STATS Euler3D Fluid Dynamics: 137/110/85/77/60


System Power consumption:
AMD E-series ITX: 43W idle, 52W load
Intel Atom: 48W idle, 52W load
AMD Llano A8 series: 58/59W idle, 114/145W load
Intel Sandy Bridge (i3-2100/i5-2400/i5-2500K/i7-2600K): 64W idle, 107/129/132/144W load
Intel Lynnfield (G6950/i3-560/i5-655K/i5-760/i7-875K): 65/65/66/80/79W idle, 94/107/109/142/170W load
AMD Bulldozer: 76W idle, 209W load
AMD Phenom II (X4/840/X4 980/X6 1100T): 76/83/82W idle, 154/189/187W load
Intel Gulfdown (i7 950/970/980X/990X): 114/112/108/91W idle, 198/209/213/222W load

Calculation / Power efficiency:
1st. i7 2600K: 8.5KJ/task
J2nd. i5 2500K, i7 980X, 990X: 9.9KJ/task
8th: X6 1100T/990FX: 13.1KJ/task
11th: FX-8150: 14.3KJ/task
13th: i5 760: 14.9KJ/task
18th: A8-3800: 15.9KJ/task
19th: Core 2 Q9400: 16.5KJ/task
21st: X4 975: 17.7KJ/task


Points ranking system - 1st: 6, 2nd: 5, 3rd: 4, 4th: 3, 5th: 2 6th: 1
Double weighting for single tests

Games:
i7 980X: 5+4+2.75+2.5+2.5+3/+5+5.5/+4.5+1/+12 = 47.75 - B
i7 2600K: 5+5+2.75+3+3+2/+6+5.5/+6+3/+10 = 51.25 - A
i5 2500K: 5+6+2+2+2+2.5/+5+4/+4.5+4/+8 = 45 - C
X6 1100T: 3+2+0.75+1+1.5+1/+2+2/+2+6/+6 = 27.25 - D
X4 980: 1.5+3+0.75+0.5+1+0.5/+1+1/+1+2+2 = 14.25 - F
FX-8150: 1.5+1+1.5+1.5+0.5+1.5/+3+3/+3+5/+4 = 25.5 - E

Productivity:
i7 980X: 12+6+6+6+6 = 36 A
i7 2600K: 9+5+4+5+5 = 28 B
FX-8150: 2+4+5+4+4 = 19 C
i5 2500K: 9+2+1+3+3 = 18 D
X6 1100T: 4+3+3+2+2 = 14 E
X4 980: 6+1+2+1+1 = 11 F

Image Processing Tests:
i7 980X: 8+6+4 = 18 C
i7 2600K: 12+5+6 = 23 A
i5 2500K: 10+4+5 = 19 B
FX-8150: 6+3+3 = 12 D
X6 1100T: 4+2+1 = 7 E
X4 980: 2+1+2 = 5 F

Video encoding:
i7 980X: 4+6+12 = 22 A
i7 2600K: 5+4.5+10 = 19.5 B
i5 2500K: 6+2+8 = 16 C
FX-8150: 1.5+4.5+6 = 12 D
X6 1100T: 1.5+3+2 = 6.5 F
X4 980: 3+1+4 = 8 E

3D Modelling/Rendering:
i7 980X: 4+6+6+5+12 = 33 A
i7 2600K: 6+5+5+6+10 = 32 B
i5 2500K: 5+2+2+4+8 = 21 C
FX-8150: 1+4+3.5+2.5+4 = 15 E
X6 1100T: 3+3+3.5+2.5+6 = 18 D
X4 980: 2+1+1+1+2 = 7 F

Scientific Computing:
i7 980X: 12+12 = 24 A
i7 2600K: 10+10 = 20 B
i5 2500K: 4+8 = 12 D
FX-8150: 7+6 = 13 C
X6 1100T: 7+4 = 11 E
X4 980: 2+2 = 4 F


i7 980X: BACAAA - Final score: 33
i7 2600K: ABABBB - Final Score: 32
i5 2500K: CDBCCD - Final score: 23
FX-8150: ECDDEC - Final score: 18
X6 1100T: DEEFDE - Final score: 13
X4 980: FFFEFF - Final score: 7

Overall comparison:
FX-8150 sits equidistant between the Phenom II X6 and the Core i5 2500K for performance - giving it a roughly estimated retail value of $205, between the X6 1100T's $190 and the i5 2500K's $220.
As it stands at $240, it's not too far off what it should be, but is probably a little overpriced.
If you already own an X6 1100T or similar, there is no reason to upgrade to this new CPU, especially not for gaming purposes, where it underperforms the Phenom 2s on several occasions due to being slower per-core.

 

to quote someone else, "one small step for AMD, one big LOL for intel"

how can their 6 core last gen CPU be equivelent, sometimes better sometimes not, than their NEW, 7 years in the making, OCTO core CPU?

honestly, that a bunch of crap.

i was hoping to swap to AMD, just because i have been on intel for so long, but fudge that. intel it is. not to mention its overpriced aswell, which is odd from AMD.

why didnt they just die shrink the X6s?

 

It would have been better to die-shrink the X6, I agree.

Hilarious, loving this. Well, it shouldn't be, but it is. I take no solace in the fact that AMD are the butt of a joke here. Really this failure does no good to anyone.

 

I see no reason to switch to intel... :S

They're still high priced.

 

Well, the release of Bulldozer doesn't change anything about Intel's performance vs. price, nor will it need to. It performs so badly that Intel have no reason to change their current prices really. You want more performance, you pay a premium for it. This is what lack of competition does. In a games environment, there's little reason to upgrade from a high-end Phenom II because they're already fast enough. With more enterprise-grade work you can go for the i7 for the best performance, but for most, the X6 is the easiest route. It's not as fast, but it's cheaper, and a lot less of a logistical hassle for AMD users. The failure of Bulldozer now just means AMD users are stuck in a rut really, without a competitive CPU to upgrade to in the future, should Intel develop any new tech.

 

I don't like intel's way of doing things. I'm sure if they had new tech, a new cpu would be 1500 - 2000USD. That's completely ridiculous. Unless your a big spending business.
I can't see spending 750$ more on just the cpu, for what I Consider to be minimal gains

Besides it looks like 8150 does well enough for X264 encoding. I will of course be waiting til February. They will likely be introducing a new chip by then.

 

You make it sound like every CPU Intel offers is that kind of money...
AMD have said themselves that the new chip is going to be 10% or so faster, which will place it just behind the i7 970 for x264 encoding, which is pretty much the strongest asset the FX-8150 has.

 

I'm sorry. WHen I think intel, I think big money :S X264 encoding is my desire And I'm sure it smokes my 965. I'll likely only allow it 7 cores too(I currently allow 3). It's an upgrade for me. I say again though, I'd like to see what happens over the next 4 months. I won't be jumping into it.

 

X4 975 with 4 cores: 23.4fps
X4 975 with 3 cores (est): 17.6fps

X6 1100T with 6 cores: 31.3fps
X6 1100T with 5 cores (est): 26.1fps

FX-8150 with 8 cores: 35.9fps
FX-8150 with 7 cores (est): 31.4fps

i7 2600K with 4 cores: 36.0fps
i7 2600K with 3 cores (est): 27.0fps

i7 970 with 6 cores: 43.3fps
i7 970 with 5 cores (est): 36.1fps

 

Yup, looks good to me You probably think I'm silly LOL! I'll likely be overclocking it to its limits. Remember, I plan to go excellent water cooling on my next build. My figures will probably look better than that

 

but remember the intels clock at a higher percentage.

 

I'm not suggesting smoking the intels overclocks. Just AMD's. Time will tell. I probably won't be touching 8150. It'll probably be 8170, or a revised chip.

I suppose 8170 will simply be a 8150 with a higher clock...

 

You'll need a bit more than a standard water cooling setup:



That's a 450W TDP chip right there!

 

My water cooling will likely cost a great deal more than the CPU :S

But I'll be set for future CPU's.

 

I do have E-Blast so like you I get those specials. It will probably be next month when I do some posturing with new gear and will consider that.

I do normally get embedded GPU's even if I'm going to use it for gaming with a add-on card(s) for redundancy as it doesn't really cost much more for that type of board and if I have problems with my video card I can still use the computer. It's really a smart move for the very little cost difference.

That really doesn't surprise me at all and is one of the reasons I stay away from Intel solutions. As I've stated before the Intel team is EXTREMELY arrogant just like IBM was years ago and unlike IBM I'm very surprised they haven't been knocked off their pedestal yet. However there time will come.

That is very true and is why Shaff is off with his statement. Sure AMD has a high price when they first come out but it is always much lower than Intel's EVEN when AMD was out performing Intel. Also when AMD says 10% increase they are normally around that unlike Intel who would bolster 30% for a possible 10% real increase. Intel is a really shatty company and if they don't stay ahead of the game they could go down.

Still with that said I could see going to the 990 if I had the ching to make the jump.