Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: AMD Phenom II X6 1100T versus FX-8120 Performance Guide

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazycheese View Post
    Windwithme stop creating clones! You don't know a fuck about pros and cons of subject, because all you do is periodically dump windows-oriented crap. Shut up & thanks!
    Let me guess you waited for the FX Bulldozer 8 core to come out whereas i went with the 1100t x6 and now you are pissed co's the slightly older 11oot x6 outperforms the newer 8 core. I can see why you'd be pissed off but the 1100t is a great chip for the money. And no I am nobodys clone

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    21

    Default

    thank you, this is the best review I've seen of the 1100T, great transparency with the readers, it shows the processors from all the angles

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    72

    Default

    AMD made a bad decision switching to bulldozer architecture, now they are deep in the ass. Bulldozer/Vishera/Steamroller all of them loosing to Core I* in multi-core performance. Also seems like Vishera (FX-8350) is their last 8-core CPU, as they stated there will be no Steamroller for AM3+ socket, they lost this fight. And soon they'll loose discrete video card market to Nvidia.

    R.I.P. AMD.

    Better was to improve Phenom II memory controller, move to 28/32 nm, and increase core count to 8/12 - that could be a Win strategy.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Madrid, Spain
    Posts
    401

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by leonmaxx View Post
    AMD made a bad decision switching to bulldozer architecture, now they are deep in the ass. Bulldozer/Vishera/Steamroller all of them loosing to Core I* in multi-core performance. Also seems like Vishera (FX-8350) is their last 8-core CPU, as they stated there will be no Steamroller for AM3+ socket, they lost this fight. And soon they'll loose discrete video card market to Nvidia.

    R.I.P. AMD.

    Better was to improve Phenom II memory controller, move to 28/32 nm, and increase core count to 8/12 - that could be a Win strategy.
    Vishera (like it was Phenom) is an excellent CPU. The issues of AMD are in my view not on the architecture, but in process. They have a 32 nm CPU fighting against 22 nm. They get the new 28 nm CPU in 2014 when Intel will launch 14 nm CPUs. Imagine, Intel can match on the same architecture 4x more transistors. Intel architecture is better than AMD's one, but AMD is not bad for some workloads and is not awful in any workload! The issue with AMD as for me, is not design, but implementation: their video cards have buggy drivers, the software tools is lacking (yet is lower cost than Intel's equivalents) they optimize late for example Java or GCC runtimes to have AMD support. Even on video front the Intel drivers are sometimes better than AMD (opensource) ones.

    I think that the biggest enemy of AMD is not Intel, but is ARM: is lowcost, is fairly fast (aka 3x-5x slower than the AMD counterpart) and they have decent graphics with 1080p output, sometimes 4K output. Also they consume less and there is wide industry adoption. Also the single missing part of ARM: 64 bit is here, at least in GCC, LLVM and in Android. I will expect that ARM will replace many low end hardware of AMD.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,340

    Default

    they optimize late for example Java or GCC runtimes
    The AMD GCC patches I've seen usually appeared a year before the hw was for sale. Late

    Kaveri GCC, Oct 2012: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...tem&px=MTIwNDY
    Kaveri for sale: Feb 2014

    Trinity GCC, Jul 2011: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-07/msg00842.html
    Trinity for sale: Oct 2012

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Madrid, Spain
    Posts
    401

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    The AMD GCC patches I've seen usually appeared a year before the hw was for sale. Late

    Kaveri GCC, Oct 2012: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...tem&px=MTIwNDY
    Kaveri for sale: Feb 2014

    Trinity GCC, Jul 2011: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-07/msg00842.html
    Trinity for sale: Oct 2012
    You're right. I remained with the impression maybe because of worse support for some (video) hardware, and I thought is the same story on the CPU. I am glad that they are really better now! My last AMD CPU was a phenom with a bug, and after that I bought one without a bug, but still they had lagging support at that time. I bought once an AMD video card with an Intel laptop, and on Linux I'm using just the Intel integrated hardware, as it runs much better.

    So once again, you're right, I stand corrected.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    639

    Default On Linux Bulldozer beats Phenom III x4 big time in Kdenlive

    In Kdenlive, processor loads come frokm Libx264 encoding and decoding when source and destination files are H264 video. On my FX-8120 overclocked to 4.4 GHZ I can do two simultanious renders from the same project, one to 1080p for archiving and one to 720p for publicaton, in just over 2x realtime. A single rendering out to 1080p takes about 1.4x realtime,
    and does not fully load the CPU. On the Phenom II x4 overclocked to just under 3.8 GHZ, it takes barely under 2x realtime to render out a single 1080p video from a Kdenlive project and almost fully loads the CPU. I forgot exactly how long a double render took on the Phenom, but it was close to 4x realtime, which makes sense as a single render that fully loads the CPUI gives about 2x realtime.

    A lot of this comes from clock speed, I tested the FX 8120 in in "one core per module" 4 thread mode and also with two modules disabled. From the difference in results it appears that for Kdenlive rendering to H264, the 2 core per module "hyperthreading" is about 35% faster that those same modules at one core per module. Also got 15% + higher clock speed overclocked to add to that.

    It's hard to fully load Bulldozer, which is why it can't do a single rendering job in real time. Full load to full load with all threads in use, it seems almost twice as fast as my Phenom II x4. Theoretical if the 8 cores were as good as 8 true discrete cores plus the higher clock speed would be 2.3x as fast, but either beats the just over 1.5x as fast as a Phenom II x4 that I would expect from a Phenom II x6. This is very different from the Windows results posted.

    Keep in mind video rendering (my most demanding use) is one of the applications Bulldozer and Piledriver are really good at. They are claimed to suck for gaming, but the newest Intel I have for comparison is a Pentium 4 so I cannot evaluate that.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    72

    Default

    Anyway, FX cpus not as good as Phenom II was. Just imagine the performance that could have 32nm 8-core Phenom with FX's memory controller?

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by leonmaxx View Post
    Anyway, FX cpus not as good as Phenom II was. Just imagine the performance that could have 32nm 8-core Phenom with FX's memory controller?
    Care to explain why my old FX-8120 is 50% faster than my Phenom II X6 1100T machines at x264 encoding (and a lot of other different heavy computational tasks) while having the same number of transistors per core? The main flaw with FX was having too little cache and a weak decoding unit. Both of these issues have been addressed in Steamroller. If you divide the number of transistors by each core, both FX-8350 and Phenom II have the same number of transistors -- yet FX architecture can scale frequencies much higher with a greater degree of instruction sets. Considering a FX-8350 is a good 15-30% faster per MHz in comparison to my FX-8120, and Steamroller is an unknown good margin faster than that, sounds like FX isn't so bad after all. AMD simply just needs to release a good 16 core FX CPU.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    72

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mmstick View Post
    Care to explain why my old FX-8120 is 50% faster than my Phenom II X6 1100T machines at x264 encoding.
    Better memory controller?

    Quote Originally Posted by mmstick View Post
    Considering a FX-8350 is a good 15-30% faster per MHz in comparison to my FX-8120, and Steamroller is an unknown good margin faster than that, sounds like FX isn't so bad after all.
    Compare single core performance of FX and Phenom II at same speeds, FX still looses to Phenom II in all except memory bound tests.

    Check out review on THG: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ew,3328-3.html
    The old Phenom II beats FX-8350 and I7-3770K in 3D Studio Max rendering test.

    Intel had made a mistake with NetBurst arch. in past, but they dropped it in favor of Core 2 CPUs. May be AMD will do the same, time will tell.

Posting Permissions

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