Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27

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

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,332

    Default

    Very curious results, having the older cpu beat the newer one in perf/W in a number of scenarios. And also having lower idle and max power use!

    That's a different result from Windows reviews, which is why it's good we have Phoronix around.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    141

    Default

    All those recent tests on FX-8350 had mtune=generic (at least that's what has been written under the config table). So they don't show the real potential (if any). No AVX, no AVX2, no AES, ...
    All those gathered numbers don't have any value...

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    80

    Thumbs up

    Average watt usage of fx 8150 @ 4,6ghz is 297,8
    time to compile is 79,25
    297,8 / 79,25 = 3,76 - which is correct

    Average watt usage of the fx 8350 @ 4,6ghz is 264,3
    time to compile is 72,98
    264,3 / 72,98 = 3,62

    -> the calculation is correct but I dont see any sense in it.
    shoulnd't it be more like:

    fx 8150@4,6ghz: 79,25 / 297,8 = 0,266
    fx 8350@4,6ghz: 72,98 / 264,3 = 0,276

    => the fx 8350@4,6ghz gives 3,8% more performance per watt compared to the fx 8150@4,6ghz


    also I'd calculate
    297,8 * 79,25 = 23601 kJ for the fx 8150 @ 4,6ghz
    264,3 * 72,98 = 19288 kJ for the fx 8350 @ 4,6 ghz

    19288 / 23601 = 0,817 .. means that the fx 8350 almost needs 18% less power than the fx 8150 @ 4,6ghz - for compiling the kernel - which is definitely a better job.

    correct me if I am wrong of course



    mcgreg
    Last edited by mcgreg; 10-26-2012 at 11:12 AM.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,332

    Default

    -> the calculation is correct but I dont see any sense in it.
    shoulnd't it be more like:

    fx 8150@4,6ghz: 79,25 / 297,8 = 0,266
    fx 8350@4,6ghz: 72,98 / 264,3 = 0,276

    => the fx 8350@4,6ghz gives 3,8% more performance per watt compared to the fx 8150@4,6ghz
    I think you got that wrong - that's seconds per watt, and the 8350 is taking _longer_ per watt. This would mean it's worse, not better?

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    I think you got that wrong - that's seconds per watt, and the 8350 is taking _longer_ per watt. This would mean it's worse, not better?
    No, it means that if the 8350 would only get 1 watt it can "compute" for 0,276s and the 8150 would only "compute" for 0,266s. So more would be better. But this number alone says nothing because longer "computing" does not generally mean it does more things.

    /edit:
    The only meaningful number is indeed this:
    Quote Originally Posted by mcgreg View Post
    297,8 * 79,25 = 23601 kJ for the fx 8150 @ 4,6ghz
    264,3 * 72,98 = 19288 kJ for the fx 8350 @ 4,6 ghz
    Last edited by droste; 10-26-2012 at 12:12 PM.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    80

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by droste View Post
    No, it means that if the 8350 would only get 1 watt it can "compute" for 0,276s and the 8150 would only "compute" for 0,266s. So more would be better. But this number alone says nothing because longer "computing" does not generally mean it does more things.
    Well, in that case it actually does. Because

    The info says, you need 264,3s/297,8s to finish compiling the kernel.
    fx 8350@4,6ghz 0,276s / 264,3s = 0,104 % of the kernel finished = 1 watt
    fx 8150@4,6ghz 0,266 / 297,8s = 0,089 % of the kernel finished = 1 watt

    correct me if I'm wrong

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    492

    Default

    Here's another interesting review: performance per clock. http://hardocp.com/article/2012/10/2...c_overclocking

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    537

    Default

    Well yes, if calculate the number by doing what is done here (full run of the same workload) it can be compared.

    but it's
    8350@4,6ghz 0,276s / 72,89s = 0,379 % of the kernel finished = 1 watt
    8150@4,6ghz 0,266s / 79,25s = 0,336 % of the kernel finished = 1 watt

    If you calculate this by actually give the CPU only 1 watt and say compile the kernel and see what is done, you can not be sure that the same things were computed in this time, because they may start compiling different files. Not that someone would do this :-D. But still, context is needed (as in how did you come up with the number).

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    80

    Default

    Ahh yes, I used the wrong numbers, and you corrected it, thx.

    So, the results is clear: the FX 8350 is more efficient in performance / watt and michaels results is wrong then - this is actually what most people were already thinking, we just proved it.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mcgreg View Post
    also I'd calculate
    297,8 * 79,25 = 23601 kJ for the fx 8150 @ 4,6ghz
    264,3 * 72,98 = 19288 kJ for the fx 8350 @ 4,6 ghz

    mcgreg
    Correct, except "J", not "kJ".

    Or, one can get inverse: 1/23601 = 0.000042371, which means ~42 microlinuxkernels (are compiled) per joule. Here, the more the number is the better.

Posting Permissions

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