Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 117

Thread: AMD FX-8350 "Vishera" Linux Benchmarks

  1. #101
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by efikkan View Post
    Memory timings matters very little for most benchmarks, nothing for practical use. The reason for this is the fact that no program writes to RAM and then immediately after reads it back in the next few CPU instructions. And if so, it would be in CPU cache, so it would not matter any way.

    People keep complaining these kinds of tests are run without DDR3-1866, but that does normally not matter. In general the improvements will be less than 2%, sometimes none at all. You could actually run the memory at 1333 MHz and it would still not hurt too much. The exception is the APUs, which are a bit more sensitive to memory bandwidth.

    Do you actually know what XMP is? XMP would not affect performance at all, it's just stored recommended settings embedded in the flash on the memory chip. The user still has to select it in the BIOS menu, and there is nothing preventing the user from running the same settings on an AMD board. "AMD Performance kit" is just marketing bullshit, any module following specs will do. And for your information, many SB/IB boards actually defaults to running DDR3-1333 even as CPU and Memory support more, so this should be an disadvantage for Intel!
    I know that memory can affect AMD FX-8150 CPU. For instance, gaming under windows you would lost up to a 8% performance if you run memory at 1333 MHz instead of at stock speeds



    And the performance lost would be larger in more memory intensive tasks.

    Moreover, how many users will be overclocking the FX chip @ 4.8 but underclocking the ram? Memory @ 2133 seems a more adequate timing and then differences would be a bit larger.

    As you say, the APUs are much more sensitive to memory bandwidth. I read reports where the gain in performance is of up to 20% by using faster memory under windows. I know AMD chips usually run faster under linux. That is why I asked about what memory is being used in phoronix tests. This is important info (at least for me) which is lacking.

    So far as I know AMD mobos support XMP via emulation. Enthusiasts users say me that the best results are obtained with AMD optimized RAM. I do not know more about this issue, and this is why asked to test some AMP profile.

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    For APU tests Michael did test the RAM scaling.

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    For APU tests Michael did test the RAM scaling.
    Yes, and he wrote:

    It's just not with the graphics performance though where the AMD A10-5800K APU performance really desires fast memory, but for memory-intensive applications there is also a big impact when moving to DDR3-2133MHz speeds.
    I would like to know what memory timings were used in the Vishera Benchmarks for the FX, the APUs, and the Intel chips. My impression is that the Intel chips got an extra advantage from the AMD chips running with underclocked RAM.

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    9

    Default

    You are wrong because its not a short period of time you can force this output all the time.

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,598

    Default

    ddr3-2133 is not really cheap, the money you spend for that you could instead invest in a nv gfx card without onboard vga faster ram over ddr3-1333/1600 is hardly noticeable. OEM boards often run with ddr3-1333 setting all the time (you can not select the ram speed with those boards). Lately i got 4gb ddr3-2133, it was 1-2 fps faster with TF2/mesa 9.1 and intel hd 4000. I would not say that when it jumps from 51 fps to 53 fps it was a needed upgrade (usually i use 8gb ddr3-1600 with that board) - well I switched back to the slower but more ram after some benchmarks.

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    8

    Default

    It's not like Intel has 8 FPUs and 4 integer cores...

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Ivy Bridge was shown not to measurably scale with RAM speeds on Windows. So not surprising you didn't see it on Linux either.

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kano View Post
    ddr3-2133 is not really cheap, the money you spend for that you could instead invest in a nv gfx card without onboard vga faster ram over ddr3-1333/1600 is hardly noticeable. OEM boards often run with ddr3-1333 setting all the time (you can not select the ram speed with those boards). Lately i got 4gb ddr3-2133, it was 1-2 fps faster with TF2/mesa 9.1 and intel hd 4000. I would not say that when it jumps from 51 fps to 53 fps it was a needed upgrade (usually i use 8gb ddr3-1600 with that board) - well I switched back to the slower but more ram after some benchmarks.
    In my country the difference between 8GB 1333 and 8GB 2133 is pretty ridiculous: $5.

    Intel chips have bad performance gains, but AMD FX chips do it better. If you look to the figure in my previous post you can see that going from 1333 to 2133 can generate up to 10 extra frames (10% more performance) on a bulldozer chip. And some people claim greater improvements in games such as civ 5.

    2133 RAM seems a must for new builds.

    Most windows benchmarks report the brand and timings of the memory used. Why does phoronix not provide that basic info?
    Last edited by juanrga; 04-19-2013 at 11:27 PM.

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    360

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juanrga View Post
    In my country the difference between 8GB 1333 and 8GB 2133 is pretty ridiculous: $5.
    It's about the same where I live. It's possible to find really cheap no-name 1333 memory, but quality 1333 is almost the same price as 2133.

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juanrga View Post
    Moreover, how many users will be overclocking the FX chip @ 4.8 but underclocking the ram? Memory @ 2133 seems a more adequate timing and then differences would be a bit larger.
    For overclockers these benchmarks are usually useless anyway. And those who really want performance go with a i7-3930K at 4.5-5 GHz or a i5-3570K.

    If the reviewer forgot to check memory timings, this should be an advantage for AMD, since they will be more often be running DDR34-1600 at full speed than Intel without configuration.

    Quote Originally Posted by juanrga View Post
    As you say, the APUs are much more sensitive to memory bandwidth. I read reports where the gain in performance is of up to 20% by using faster memory under windows. I know AMD chips usually run faster under linux. That is why I asked about what memory is being used in phoronix tests. This is important info (at least for me) which is lacking.
    Compiler optimizations for AMD makes AMD CPUs faster on Linux than Windows, that's true. But how do you think this affects the performance of Catalyst? This is not related to the performance gain for higher memory bandwidth for the graphics parts of the APU.

    As regarding the graphics performance of the A10 APUs, even though you will get more performance with higher memory speeds and AMD outperforms Intel's integrated GPUs with a factor of 2, they still are way too weak to run newer commercial games at FullHD at approx 60 FPS (windows games), so people would be better off with a cool Intel dual core and putting some money in a cheap dedicated graphics card. For Windows anything from 7750-7790 and up would be great.

    Unfortunately benchmarks of SandyBridge-E on Windows does not utilize all four memory channels. I don't think Windows is aware, so it's practically impossible to benchmark this since physical addresses are hidden for programs.

    But I do agree on one thing, test should provide all the technical details for those interested.

    Quote Originally Posted by juanrga View Post
    So far as I know AMD mobos support XMP via emulation. Enthusiasts users say me that the best results are obtained with AMD optimized RAM. I do not know more about this issue, and this is why asked to test some AMP profile.
    Enthusiasts may say a lot of suff, enthusiasts also claim vinyl and tubes yield higher audio quality even when proven wrong.
    I suggest you read the XMP specs from Intel, and you'll see it's just some extra information to help choose memory clocks and timings. Once you set these settings, the performance will be equal regardless of XMP or AMP.

    Quote Originally Posted by juanrga View Post
    In my country the difference between 8GB 1333 and 8GB 2133 is pretty ridiculous: $5.
    2133 RAM seems a must for new builds.
    Even my new workstation with i7-3930 and 64GB DDR3-1600 does not use faster memory, because tests show non-significant performance improvements. You might see higher scores in memory benchmarks, but in real-world performance the gain is negligible.

Posting Permissions

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