|
|
|
The New AMD Building Thread
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
8. January 2012 @ 18:08 |
Link to this message
|
|
While I'm disappointed with several factors of the Bulldozer, I wouldn't say I wish it hadn't happened. A step is a step, no matter how small. And no, I would not say a step backward. It has certain benefits over other processors, despite people ignoring them. I do acknowledge it's single thread performance(or rather lack thereof). I've read of people talking about windows being coded to handle them better. Performance increase? Don't know yet.
The only thing at this point that really disappoints me, is the power consumption. But it is a core beast. Perhaps we'll see what piledriver has in store. I'd really like to see a revision of the 8150/8170. E.g. B3 stepping?
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
8. January 2012 @ 18:09 |
Link to this message
|
|
Wonderful, New page bug...
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
8. January 2012 @ 18:12 |
Link to this message
|
|
npb
The thing about Bulldozer, is that in actual fact, it isn't a step forward. What it is, is a crossover from the server market to the desktop market. Everything about the way Bulldozer works makes it better for servers. The same is also true of Sandy Bridge-E (i7-3900 series). When you remember that Opterons exist, Bulldozer isn't a step forward at all. It's just a server chip that fits on desktop motherboards. They put server chips on server boards for a reason...
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 8. January 2012 @ 18:13
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
8. January 2012 @ 18:13 |
Link to this message
|
|
THanks sam. YOur message allowed me to view the page :)
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
8. January 2012 @ 18:14 |
Link to this message
|
|
That's what I'm here for :)
Edited my message into the other post.
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
8. January 2012 @ 18:18 |
Link to this message
|
Well, it certainly caters to multitasking freaks :p There are people that have compared it to 2500-2600k, and said the bulldozer felt smoother when running multiple processes/threads. Perhaps an Amd fanboy, giving points in Amd's favor though. It sure would be a step up in my configuration. I'd probably be concerned about load on the VRM's though :S
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
8. January 2012 @ 18:31 |
Link to this message
|
|
That would come from there being many cores, so there is more breathing room for other tasks if you really are maxing out the CPU 100%. If you want a system to be fluidly responsive but use 100% of its raw power, you're doing it wrong, but there's no reason you can't down-prioritise a task if you want to use the system for a bit during the middle of the work.
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
13. January 2012 @ 00:56 |
Link to this message
|
I wasn't expecting a miracle, but here it is. Not sure what I'm doing in february. I'd like to see my encode times cut in half, clearly I'm not gonna see that for at least a while longer. Perhaps when the 10 and 12 core beasts come out, I'll build a machine chiefly for encoding. Provided it isn't too expensive :S
Microsoft patches Bulldozer?s performance
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/11...-we-investigate
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 13. January 2012 @ 02:47
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
13. January 2012 @ 02:20 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by omegaman7:
I wasn't expecting a miracle, but here it is. Not sure what I'm doing in february. I'd like to see my encode times cut in half, clearly I'm not gonna see that for at least a while longer. Perhaps when the 10 and 12 core beasts come out, I'll build a machine chiefly for encoding. Provided it isn't too expensive :S
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/11...-we-investigate
4%, about what I expected. I was thinking along the lines of 5-10.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
8. January 2013 @ 19:34 |
Link to this message
|
I've decided to add this post from the building thread, in hopes of discussing AMDs and overclocking. I meant to post this PDF the other day. I sent it to a couple of friends that are planning to OC their 1090ts. I got called for dinner and I forgot to send it. Sorry!
http://sites.amd.com/us/Documents/AMD_F...uning_Guide.pdf
While this is for tuning with AMD OverDrive, I just used some of the same settings in my motherboard's setup. The results are pretty darn good, if I do say so myself!
120,504 MIPS!
MB 12,466MB/s
Cache and Memory performance
Processor Multi Media! 601,104/421,998it/s
This is at 4.03GHz, with great temperatures. That's where I'm going to leave it for now until I get another A/C 120mm 77 cfm, pwm push fan for the radiator.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835186078
You can pair two of them to the CPU fan header on the motherboard, using the wiring that comes with the fan, and since they are the same fan, they both run the same speed, controlled by the CPU temperature. I think it will do at least 4.4gHz, maybe more. The definitions of all the new controls in the setup, is worth reading, if you want to OC an AMD.
Have Fun,
Russ
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
 |
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
18. January 2013 @ 09:01 |
Link to this message
|
So sitting very comfortably and coolly at 3.8GHz with my 1090T. Goes to 3.6 with stock 1.325v but requires a large increase to 1.4v to be able to run 3.8 stable. At 1.4v the temps are largely unaffected. To get any higher requires in the neighborhood of 1.45 to 1.475, which is still well within safe for temps, but poking the edge of my tolerances.
NB OC'd to 2400MHz with 1.2v, HTT left stock.
Overall is noticeably faster than my 955 at the same speed. Sometimes due to the better architecture and memory controller, sometimes due to the extra core. What I know for sure is that it's unlocked a new tier of performance for my 6850s. They seem slightly more adequate recently. Was the 955 really that much of a bottleneck? Games like Crysis 2 and Battlefield 3 have transformed. I can't suddenly turn on AA or anything as the memory limit still applies, but performance has nonetheless increased significantly. Enough to make the difference between playable and unplayable in Crysis 2. I've clocked almost a 30% improvement in areas. That's not all due to extra cores.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 18. January 2013 @ 09:05
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
18. January 2013 @ 09:12 |
Link to this message
|
Not sure on that one tbh, the CPU test for Crysis 2 not only shows no benefit from going from Phenom II X4 to X6, but also shows a frame rate where the X4 should already be perfectly smooth. Battlefield 3 also puports not to be too heavily CPU limited in vanilla form (expansions may differ) but does show around a 15% improvement per mhz when using an X6 versus an X4.
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
18. January 2013 @ 09:28 |
Link to this message
|
|
So the new IMC must be of very large benefit for the architecture. Much more than I thought possible. It's gotta be in the neighborhood of 10% if SuperPi gives any clues. Add the extra cores and you have a fairly impressive CPU for the time it was new. Too bad I bought it so far behind the curve, but I'm glad I was able to snag one before they went out of style :)
If anything it's the first cost effective upgrade I've made in a while.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 18. January 2013 @ 09:31
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
18. January 2013 @ 09:45 |
Link to this message
|
As I've said a few times recently, I may not say that many kind words about AMD CPUs, but the best thing they've made since the early X2s is the Phenom II X6 series. In its heyday, it was not only a well-priced 6-core CPU (compared to the i7s which although superior, were admittedly absurdly expensive), but more than that it was good as a 4-core CPU too, which is something the FX range of today just doesn't have.
I'm in no hurry to upgrade my i5 despite its 3 years of age, because at its current 54% overclock, which it's held stable since new, it can still give AMD's flagship FX-8350 a run for its money, in a fully multi-threaded environment. Now granted, you could overclock the FX-8350 a little bit too to give it an advantage, but you wouldn't see a huge gain, and look what happens when you run something 1/2/4 threaded instead of 8 threads. My dusty three year old machine completely destroys it. So you can see, if people are happy with the FX-8350, I'm certainly happy with my little i5, and at the rate CPU advances are currently progressing, it's looking like the time I replace it is when something finally breaks, not when it's technologically outclassed. That is technology truly standing the test of time.
The Phenom IIs may be a little older and slower per-core, but they're still hanging in there too. A Phenom II core is still good enough to get the majority of the jobs done, as you can still see Jeff. Truthfully, you'd maybe see a bit more performance with a newer CPU, but I think it'd be a little wasteful without getting something with more video memory alongside it.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
19. January 2013 @ 00:15 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
As I've said a few times recently, I may not say that many kind words about AMD CPUs, but the best thing they've made since the early X2s is the Phenom II X6 series. In its heyday, it was not only a well-priced 6-core CPU (compared to the i7s which although superior, were admittedly absurdly expensive), but more than that it was good as a 4-core CPU too, which is something the FX range of today just doesn't have.
I'm in no hurry to upgrade my i5 despite its 3 years of age, because at its current 54% overclock, which it's held stable since new, it can still give AMD's flagship FX-8350 a run for its money, in a fully multi-threaded environment. Now granted, you could overclock the FX-8350 a little bit too to give it an advantage, but you wouldn't see a huge gain, and look what happens when you run something 1/2/4 threaded instead of 8 threads. My dusty three year old machine completely destroys it. So you can see, if people are happy with the FX-8350, I'm certainly happy with my little i5, and at the rate CPU advances are currently progressing, it's looking like the time I replace it is when something finally breaks, not when it's technologically outclassed. That is technology truly standing the test of time.
The Phenom IIs may be a little older and slower per-core, but they're still hanging in there too. A Phenom II core is still good enough to get the majority of the jobs done, as you can still see Jeff. Truthfully, you'd maybe see a bit more performance with a newer CPU, but I think it'd be a little wasteful without getting something with more video memory alongside it.
Sam,
For whatever reason, the 1090t needs a lot less voltage in the 990X 950SB boards than it does in the older 890X, and 790X boards. The FX-8320, even less. But check this out.
FX-8320 at 4026MHz @1.312v CPU Multiplier x20, FSB 201MHz
But watch what happens lowering the Multiplier and raising the FSB.
FX-8320 at 4217MHz @1.280v CPU Multiplier x19, FSB 222MHZ
All I changed was the multiplier and the FSB, I didn't change anything else, but it did lower the memory multiplier to 800MHz. I set the CPU voltage to 3.12v, and added 0.025v to the CPU NB VID, and the LLC to the 3rd position up, High. Everything stable, but I don't like the temps.
You want to see crazy, see what you think of this one. The claim is this is a Phenom II x4 960, running as a Phenom II x6 1605, 6 core. Some of the numbers make no sense to me at all. Scroll down close to the bottom of page 145. Check the cPU voltage as well.
http://www.overclock.net/t/1048912/offi...port-added/1440
I have my own thoughts, but I want to see what you guys think.
Russ
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
19. January 2013 @ 01:09 |
Link to this message
|
No surprises there Russ! The 960T is a core locked 1090T, plain and simple. Have seen a few of them unlocked now, though with varying results. Some people have managed Penta-cores with them. Some have managed full hex-cores. Some have stability issues with either of the two cores unlocked at stock speeds. Still others seem to be cherry picked hex-cores just with 2 cores disabled and so still OC like mad when unlocked.
I was able to unlock my X3 720BE to a full quad core, though it would only manage 3.2GHz stable with the 4th core unlocked. Even met someone lucky enough to get an engineering sample 7750BE Kuma that would unlock to a full Phenom I X4.
As far as the MB goes, please get back to me on that Russ. I am eager to try it and see what it does for my OCing :)
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 19. January 2013 @ 01:33
|
|
