Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 73

Thread: AMD FX-8150 Bulldozer On Ubuntu Linux

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    56

    Default ekopath

    With all that Ekopath buzz when it was open sourced why not try and see how that works ?
    Also it would be nice to see how long it takes to compile using Bulldozer ( timed Apache compile ? )

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,070

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hechacker1 View Post
    I'd say these are surprising results for Bulldozer on linux. Almost all the Windows reviewers found it to barely be competitive with the i5 2400 or 2500 depending on the test. Even with the expected 10% improvement from Windows 8, it wouldn't win at all on a Windows platform.

    But I guess Linux's better threading is winning here. I'm surprised by the encoding tests where it showed to be competitive.

    It seems these chips may actually be great server parts.
    Nah, this was pretty comparable to the windows results I saw. It slightly beats out the 2500k on most highly threaded tests, but loses by a fair margin to the i7 2600k (same chip but with hyperthreading enabled, and more expensive of course). It's the lightly threaded tests where it is only at 2400 levels.

    A lot of it just has to do with the fact that most windows tests aren't that highly multi-threaded. Michael runs a bunch of parallel tests, which make the chip look better compared to the windows reviews.

    I do think this could be a decent server chip, but we'll have to wait and see.

  3. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drago View Post
    Michael, did you compile these tests with -march=bdver1 for Nulldozer, and whatever option is for SB?
    or just everything with -march=native

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    519

    Default

    Among the other tests that are still being carried out at Phoronix with the FX-8150, which will be published in the coming days, include: [...]
    Looking forward to that, and I applaud the effort.
    Edit: seems like the openbenchmarking.org results are already out, correct?
    Edit 2: what where the memory settings on each config?

    Quote Originally Posted by Shining Arcanine View Post
    The comparison was biased.
    I think "incomplete" is a more adequate statement. The tests were run on what hardware was available.
    Also I challenge your price comparisons. First, one might as well include the more affordable FX-8120 (3,1 GHz stock instead of 3,6 GHz, so a slight overclock and bam...). Second, one has to consider the platform as a whole. Third, for current 890/990-chipset mobo owners, I doubt the price difference of "only" $35 holds much weight.

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    It slightly beats out the 2500k on most highly threaded tests
    So I guess we have a different definition of "slightly".

    Nice review in any case.
    Last edited by PsynoKhi0; 10-24-2011 at 07:41 AM.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Oh noe! Water c00l1ng :/ I hate watercooling en masse. :/

    Its great stuff all and all, if you aim for overclocking straight, forgetting purchase costs (but then, real overclockers would use custom llang ddc-based watercooling with 3x120 or 6x6x120 anyway!), or even head for refrigerators/liquid nitrogen.
    But 1x120 "closed system" is just laughable in terms of "advantage", packaging it in series is laughable 2x.

    Because this basically means
    1) (for AMD) you cannot solve your thermal problems (1x120 is nothing for overclocking)
    2) (for buyer) you are a ricer with no understanding

    Btw, awesome review, Michael! Much thanks!
    Kudos to AMD for sending sample.

    But a small test regarding actual power consumption of systems (provided they use same gfx card) in
    1) idle
    2) full load CPU
    3) full load GPU
    states would awesome to add up.

    Thanks again!
    Last edited by crazycheese; 10-24-2011 at 07:39 AM.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Overall, the CPU is very well balanced. Means, it does not loose much (except in openmp test) and it manages to compete with gulftown on any tests(where sandybridge is straight outsmoked).
    Sandy looks more like singlethread optimized, approach that may outdate this cpu very soon.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,583

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazycheese View Post
    Oh noe! Water c00l1ng :/ I hate watercooling en masse. :/

    Its great stuff all and all, if you aim for overclocking straight, forgetting purchase costs (but then, real overclockers would use custom llang ddc-based watercooling with 3x120 or 6x6x120 anyway!), or even head for refrigerators/liquid nitrogen.
    Real overclockers in Canada just open the window during the winter. ;D

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazycheese View Post
    custom llang ddc-based watercooling
    Its "laing ddc", typo.

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Real overclockers in Canada just open the window during the winter. ;D
    Harsh Canada overclockers are so harsh

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    32

    Default

    Yeah Michael, can you throw in the i7 2600k and Phenom II 1100T into your tests? And, it might be worth updating the Crosshair V to the latest Asus Bios, as opposed to the one included with the AMD test kit.

    And I agree with others that suggest that the 8150 is a waste of money. If you want a Zambezi chip, buy the 8120 for much cheaper, and just adjust the multiplier. It will have much higher price/performance ratio than the 8150.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,583

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by devguy View Post
    And, it might be worth updating the Crosshair V to the latest Asus Bios, as opposed to the one included with the AMD test kit.
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •