Results 1 to 10 of 27

Thread: AMD FX-8350 Linux Performance-Per-Watt

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,787

    Default AMD FX-8350 Linux Performance-Per-Watt

    Phoronix: AMD FX-8350 Linux Performance-Per-Watt

    The latest Phoronix benchmarks to share of the AMD FX-8350 "Vishera" processor are performance-per-Watt results for the Piledriver eight-core processor compared to the previous-generation Bulldozer FX-8150. Tests were conducted when running at stock speeds as well as overclocked settings.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=18074

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    76

    Default

    Ok, it's nice to see that the 8350 is a improvement over the 8150, but can we please get the same Bench in comparison with the Core i7 3770K, please? This would add real value to the article.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynxeye View Post
    Ok, it's nice to see that the 8350 is a improvement over the 8150, but can we please get the same Bench in comparison with the Core i7 3770K, please? This would add real value to the article.
    Yup, the onlt thing you can tell from this article is that the new architecture is a slight improvement over the old one. It would've benn rather puzzling if it weren't. But including the competition makes the whole thing pretty useless.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1

    Default

    I agree. And performance/watt/price statistics for 5 years would be nice too.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    490

    Default

    Wow, 8 pages "Vishera" advertisement!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    3

    Default

    FX-8350@4.6 compiles Linux kernel in 72.98 seconds, consumes 207 Watts on average.
    FX-8150@4.6 compiles Linux kernel in 79.25 seconds, consumes 235 Watts on average.

    How is it possible for FX-8150@4.6 to have better performance-per-watt? Results in performance-per-watt graph seems to be wrong...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    945

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by abacaba View Post
    FX-8350@4.6 compiles Linux kernel in 72.98 seconds, consumes 207 Watts on average.
    FX-8150@4.6 compiles Linux kernel in 79.25 seconds, consumes 235 Watts on average.

    How is it possible for FX-8150@4.6 to have better performance-per-watt? Results in performance-per-watt graph seems to be wrong...
    That also seemed strange to me. I think there's something wrong with the formula used to come up with those numbers. It's actually calculating how many watts are needed for each second, which obviously reverses the results. That formula works when more is better, but not when less is better. That's why all the graphs involving less is better are wrong.

Posting Permissions

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