GFLOPS ranking

UETIAN

Distinguished
Feb 5, 2012
22
0
18,520
Hi all,
I am searching for the GFLOPS rating of AMD (FX series) and Intel (i3, i5) CPUs since many weeks. However after wasting many hours on internet I didn't get any reliable/ comprehensive data.
I am not interested in any graphics (etc.) benchmarks, as I have to work with numerics (Fortran/C++ programs) only.
Given more cores of AMD's FX CPUs, I suppose their GFLOPS should be higher.
I have seen some i5-2300, i7-2700K GFLOPS results that are between 50-150 GFLOPS.
But there were no results for FXs.
Kindly guide me to any link that has some information about this.
Thanks in advance.
 

mikeangs2004

Distinguished
Aug 28, 2009
312
0
18,810
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-14.html
More cores doesn't mean higher GFLOPS. It also depends on the number of threads per core, number of instructions each core can execute per cycle and its clock rate. In general Sandy Bridge has better performance per core. Core i5 have at most four cores with one thread each while Bulldozer may have at most 8 cores with one thread each. However, Core i7's can have 4 cores with two threads each or 6 cores with two threads each due to hyper threading technology.

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=2622
More recent reviews point to higher performance on Windows 8 for Bulldozer.
 
AMD's best FX CPUs, the FX-8120 and 8150, are below all of Intel's quad core CPUs for FP processing and are between an i5 and a Sandy Bridge i7 for highly threaded integer performance.

SB-E i7s are even faster than the Sandy Bridge i7s since they have 50% more cores, the extra cache can't hurt either.

I can't recommend FX for anything because there are better Intel processors that have similar or lower prices and use much less power.

FX has more cores, but each core is very slow so it doesn't really matter. FX-8120 is a decent competitor for i5s in highly threaded work but that's the only Bulldozer FX that competes with Intel.

EDIT: Yes, Bulldozer is expected to perform better with Windows 8 than with current operating systems. However, the difference might not be enough to take over the performance crown. Even if it did, the i7s can reliably overclock far beyond the Bulldozer processors while using less power than a stock eight core Bulldozer CPU so it doesn't matter much.

The FX-8120 is still the only FX CPU I find considerable, and only for heavily multi-threaded work. It is only considerable because Intel has nothing well below $300 that can compete with it, only the i5s are in it's price range and FX 8 core CPUs fly past the i5s in most software that can use 8 threads.

The power usage still stops me from recommending it, any machine that is on 24/7 for long periods of time might be able to end up using enough electricity to kill any money saved. The FX CPUs are also slightly more buggy than previous CPUs, some times they crash an application. The i7s have no such problem. An overclocked i5 might also be able to make up the lost performance ground when compared to an FX 8 core whilst still being more reliable.