Benchmarking Bulldozer and taking the GPU out of the picture

Subject: Processors | October 17, 2011 - 05:06 PM |
Tagged: bulldozer, fx-8150, crossfire, gaming

One of the questions we have been asking about Bulldozer is how much it effects game play performance.  We know that for non-multithreaded applications th FX-8150 falls behind the top SandyBridge processors and barely breaks even on heavily multithreaded apps.  That doesn't necessarily mean that it will lag behind SandyBridge in gaming as many games do not utilize the CPU enough to make a huge difference, though that premise needs to be proved.  Enter Tweaktown who have taken the top Bulldozer and SandyBridge CPUs along with three Sapphire HD 6970 video cards, and placed them in a Maximus IV Extreme-Z and  Crosshair V Formula motherboard respectively.  With that much graphical power, it is possible to see the performance difference that the CPU and the motherboard chipset have on performance.  Read on to see how Bulldozer fared.

View Full Size

"We've already provided a fair bit of coverage on the new FX-8150 CPU from AMD and it hasn't all been favorable for the team over at AMD. If you haven't looked yet, I highly recommend you check out our other pieces that cover the VGA testing side of things and my editorial Shi**y Marketing Killed the Bulldozer Star which has really gained traction over the last few days.

Today we test the video card side of things a bit more and see what goes on when we start to make use of CrossFireX on the 990FX platform. The 990FX chipset shows some good potential and it's going to be interesting to see what happens when we start to make use of all those PCIe lanes that are on offer."

Here are some more Processor articles from around the web:



Source: Tweaktown

October 18, 2011 | 11:16 AM - Posted by Mechromancer (not verified),5

Microsoft has acknowledged that Windows 7's scheduler doesn't know how to use all of Bulldozer's module resources. This makes it run VERY slow in Windows 7. They have it corrected in Windows 8 so we should see gains across the board.

October 19, 2011 | 11:55 AM - Posted by HM (not verified)

it could look even worse, they could have compared the FX to the CHEAPER 2500k, the difference to the 2600k would be minimal in terms of performance,
also if they tested it on some more intensive games (starcraft 2 and others, or use the extra physx effects on mafia II trough the CPU)...

the FX is not a good choice for gaming, that's for sure, if you have a slow VGA, just go for a i3 or PII X4, if you have really fast one (well, 3, or a HD7900 lol), there is only one logical choice, sandy bridge,

just take a look at the xbitlabs or reviews...
it's really sad the level of performance it achieves in some cases,

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.