Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Benchmark Results: Audio And Video Encoding

AMD's FX-8150 After Two Windows 7 Hotfixes And UEFI Updates
By

Between the operating system patches to address lightly-threaded applications and the HPC firmware switch to benefit performance in more thoroughly-threaded workloads, we expected to see at least small improvements in our audio encoding suite. Unfortunately, we didn’t.

At a minimum, we expected MainConcept to benefit from HPC mode. But again, we see no discernable performance improvements indicating the effectiveness of AMD’s updates.

Display all 132 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 27 Hide
    stm1185 , January 25, 2012 3:32 AM
    I still cant get past that the 8 core 8150 is slower then a quad core no hyper threading 2500k doing a 3DS Max Render. 248 frames, 8 at once on the 8150, 4 at once on the 2500k, but the 2500k actually finishes rendering each frames in under half the time it takes the 8150 to render a frame.

    That is just pathetic for an 8 core to fail at rendering.
  • 27 Hide
    azathoth , January 25, 2012 3:13 AM
    Sigh* I was expecting to see small gains of maybe ~8% optimistically, but instead I see microscopic improvements.

    It is simply embarrassing for an eight core processor to be beaten by a quad core, even considering some apps don't support more then two or four cores.
  • 22 Hide
    ohim , January 25, 2012 6:22 AM
    4 Modules with 2 cores each ... for once stop comparing Intel with AMD directly .. now they are really different architectures. Intel goes with 4 cores and 2 logical threads per core , AMD is a total different story that at the moment it is clear that the current software has absolutely no clue about it. And seriously TOM ... start pushing multicore CPU to their intended use ... multi tasking .. i`ve read a lot of user reviews from the ones who actually bought this CPU and they were delighted on how it handles multitasking compared to intel, put 2 -3 workloads on the CPU and get some scores ...there are many ppl out there that are actually interested in this kind of performance.
Other Comments
  • 27 Hide
    azathoth , January 25, 2012 3:13 AM
    Sigh* I was expecting to see small gains of maybe ~8% optimistically, but instead I see microscopic improvements.

    It is simply embarrassing for an eight core processor to be beaten by a quad core, even considering some apps don't support more then two or four cores.
  • -5 Hide
    JonnyDough , January 25, 2012 3:23 AM
    Quote:
    In our own exploration of performance in the developer build, FX did, in fact, yield better numbers.


    There it is. That's all you need to know. AMD made a processor that was too ahead of software to be viable. Forward thinking is good, but the software just wasn't ready for it. I have a feeling they'll be ahead though when it comes to the next architectural design. They are after all, pioneering the way.
  • 22 Hide
    clownbaby , January 25, 2012 3:28 AM
    Like putting lipstick on a pig. I don't understand the method behind AMD's madness with these chips. They're basically relying on software to take advantage of optimization instead of developing a truly fast and efficient architecture. More cores may be the way of the future, but AMD can't compete with intel if it's using twice as much silicon (or more) to achieve similar results. They're reputation as a value alternative can only hang around so long before consumers wake up. I sure hope their next chip takes a large step forward, if for no other reason than to keep intel CPUs affordable.
  • 27 Hide
    stm1185 , January 25, 2012 3:32 AM
    I still cant get past that the 8 core 8150 is slower then a quad core no hyper threading 2500k doing a 3DS Max Render. 248 frames, 8 at once on the 8150, 4 at once on the 2500k, but the 2500k actually finishes rendering each frames in under half the time it takes the 8150 to render a frame.

    That is just pathetic for an 8 core to fail at rendering.
  • 3 Hide
    KelvinTy , January 25, 2012 3:40 AM
    Sigh... The change is so insignificant that they don't even need to exist...
    My God, AMD... the 2500K just shhhh all over your face again... Why would you do such thing!
  • 18 Hide
    soccerdocks , January 25, 2012 3:44 AM
    stm1185I still cant get past that the 8 core 8150 is slower then a quad core no hyper threading 2500k doing a 3DS Max Render. 248 frames, 8 at once on the 8150, 4 at once on the 2500k, but the 2500k actually finishes rendering each frames in under half the time it takes the 8150 to render a frame. That is just pathetic for an 8 core to fail at rendering.


    Is rendering a floating point operation or integer operation? The 8150 is not truly an 8 core processor. Although it may perform like one in some aspects, it does not have 8 full cores.
  • 12 Hide
    aznshinobi , January 25, 2012 3:54 AM
    Lets hope the new stepping brings about larger improvements...
  • 3 Hide
    de5_Roy , January 25, 2012 4:03 AM
    great read. too bad the patches didn't improve performance. hopefully win 8 will change it. by then, piledriver and trinity might become available.
    it was funny to see stock 2500k's superior capability (especially at 1080p) as a gaming cpu. i recently read in some thread - one guy claiming that 8150's 8 cores (2500k has only 4 cores) improve performance in cpu bound scenarios.
    power consumption is still bad. if amd gets at least 10% better with win 8, that will mean 23 watts less! there's still hope there....i hope...
    i wonder what will happen in multiplayer games e.g. bf3 where cpu is important. from starcraft figures, looks like stock 8150 won't be able to keep up with stock 2500k.
  • 7 Hide
    _Pez_ , January 25, 2012 4:21 AM
    hmm well if there are "8" cores divided in 4 modules . Then why not do multitasking on both AMD "Octa" and Intel quadcore "Hyper treaded CPU's" with multiple programs and see what numbers/time are droped out. Is think my idea could probably show something different.. let's keep giving a try to AMD's new architecture....
  • -8 Hide
    thartist , January 25, 2012 4:34 AM
    ZOOMMGGG SOO MUCH UNLEASSHEED POTENTIAL!!!!!!!!1!1
  • 10 Hide
    crisan_tiberiu , January 25, 2012 4:56 AM
    The biggest mistake of AMD was that they sayd the FX 8150 is an 8 core CPU. They simply could say, "hey its a quad infact", many Intel fans even say that its a quad core not an full 8 core CPU. The FX 6100 should be called a triple core. Then, we the critics, would have better benchmarks. If we consider the 8150 as a quad core we have to admit that AMD made a big step on catching up the 3 year gap to Intel. I did not expect that AMD could beat intel with BD, the gap to them was to big.
  • 13 Hide
    dragonsqrrl , January 25, 2012 5:54 AM
    crisan_tiberiuThe biggest mistake of AMD was that they sayd the FX 8150 is an 8 core CPU. They simply could say, "hey its a quad infact", many Intel fans even say that its a quad core not an full 8 core CPU. The FX 6100 should be called a triple core. Then, we the critics, would have better benchmarks. If we consider the 8150 as a quad core we have to admit that AMD made a big step on catching up the 3 year gap to Intel.

    ... except it's not a quad-core. It falls far closer to an 8-core processor in terms of parallel hardware, power consumption, and transistor count, especially in comparison to Sandy Bridge. If you absolutely have to define it by core count, it's more accurate to call a 4-module Bulldozer an octa-core as opposed to a quad-core processor. Bulldozer has some issues, and shifting its classification to make the performance results feel better on the surface isn't the solution. It needs a series of hardware revisions to reduce its power consumption, increase its performance, and decrease its transistor count. We'll see what Pile Driver can do later this year. Only then can AMD compete with Intel in the $200 - $300 market.
  • 4 Hide
    Reynod , January 25, 2012 6:17 AM
    Solid work crash.

    This is something we have been waiting to hear about.

    :) 
  • 22 Hide
    ohim , January 25, 2012 6:22 AM
    4 Modules with 2 cores each ... for once stop comparing Intel with AMD directly .. now they are really different architectures. Intel goes with 4 cores and 2 logical threads per core , AMD is a total different story that at the moment it is clear that the current software has absolutely no clue about it. And seriously TOM ... start pushing multicore CPU to their intended use ... multi tasking .. i`ve read a lot of user reviews from the ones who actually bought this CPU and they were delighted on how it handles multitasking compared to intel, put 2 -3 workloads on the CPU and get some scores ...there are many ppl out there that are actually interested in this kind of performance.
  • 8 Hide
    Crashman , January 25, 2012 6:35 AM
    reynodSolid work crash.This is something we have been waiting to hear about.
    Waited for the second update since the first one actually showed the same thing. After going through this twice it was time to publish something :p 
  • 4 Hide
    crisan_tiberiu , January 25, 2012 6:58 AM
    Yup , a multitasking Benchmark could provide us more info. Stress the CPUs to the max. A few seconds or FPS difference between CPUs is insignificant IMO.
  • 0 Hide
    ivyanev , January 25, 2012 7:03 AM
    I hope it would turn out like phenom: first was a bit disappointing ,the second solid performer with low price. What test fail to show us is multitasking, witch this processor is made for.I know not many people would do 2 heavy things at the same time , but not many people need an 8 core processor.
  • -6 Hide
    alidan , January 25, 2012 7:06 AM
    i would have loved to see a phenom II quad core in there, for a perspective view, because there are really only 3 processors to look at, new amd, old amd, intel.

    amd has never been about the best of the best in recent years, just good value for the price, and through phenom II they were just that.

    now the games portion, i threw out the 2560x1600 resolution just because the people who have that monitor, are going for an intel, they have the money to burn for a better processor than what amd has out, but for the 1920x1080 (still think it should be 1920x1200) none of the games went into a not playable frame rate... well except metro, and no single gpu can really play that game well at dx11 settings (yea its cpu, but if you got dual high end gpus for that game you got an intel).

    that said im a bit surprised, i was guessing win 8 would have a 5-10% advantage over 7 on the cpu side, just because bottom up built for it, but this thing can barely gain a 1% difference on hotfixes... now im a bit less hopeful than i was before that win 8 would fix many of the problems with hic ups in the software... but its still a wait and see i guess, that said, piledriver will probably be what bulldozer should have been, and bulldozer is more or less an expensive beta test.

    ---- didnt read the comments yet so all this above was before i read them -----

    AzathothSigh* I was expecting to see small gains of maybe ~8% optimistically, but instead I see microscopic improvements.It is simply embarrassing for an eight core processor to be beaten by a quad core, even considering some apps don't support more then two or four cores.


    its realistically a 4 core processor with threads, but it comes down to how you slice what is a core. i never expected 8% as intel with their first threading solution had some serious problems. amd just cant really back out of its solution like intel did till they figured it out.

    JonnyDoughThere it is. That's all you need to know. AMD made a processor that was too ahead of software to be viable. Forward thinking is good, but the software just wasn't ready for it. I have a feeling they'll be ahead though when it comes to the next architectural design. They are after all, pioneering the way.


    they were probably thinking by now, there would be next to no single thread software around, when they first designed this, but sadly, we have barely moved ahead in consumer software, only where time is money do they ever acutlly try to take advantage of everything.

    clownbabyLike putting lipstick on a pig. I don't understand the method behind AMD's madness with these chips. They're basically relying on software to take advantage of optimization instead of developing a truly fast and efficient architecture. More cores may be the way of the future, but AMD can't compete with intel if it's using twice as much silicon (or more) to achieve similar results. They're reputation as a value alternative can only hang around so long before consumers wake up. I sure hope their next chip takes a large step forward, if for no other reason than to keep intel CPUs affordable.


    i did the math awhile ago on these, they apparently still make money per chip, and to be honest, if programs really took advantage of threads, amd would be ahead of intel with this architecture... but they still go for single cores and dont care about threads in most programs.

    stm1185I still cant get past that the 8 core 8150 is slower then a quad core no hyper threading 2500k doing a 3DS Max Render. 248 frames, 8 at once on the 8150, 4 at once on the 2500k, but the 2500k actually finishes rendering each frames in under half the time it takes the 8150 to render a frame. That is just pathetic for an 8 core to fail at rendering.


    note the 2010, not sure how much that matters, but im sure it wasn't built for amds bulldozer and am unsure if it ever got patched for it. i don't know if thats relevant, but keep that in mind.

    memadmaxYou know what's sad?They asked microsoft to help fix their fail................


    and intel didn't go to microsoft for the i7...

    dragonsqrrl... except it's not a quad-core. It falls far closer to an 8-core processor in terms of parallel hardware, power consumption, and transistor count, especially in comparison to Sandy Bridge. If you absolutely have to define it by core count, it's more accurate to call a 4-module Bulldozer an octa-core as opposed to a quad-core processor. Bulldozer has some issues, and shifting its classification to make the performance results feel better on the surface isn't the solution. It needs a series of hardware revisions to reduce its power consumption, increase its performance, and decrease its transistor count. We'll see what Pile Driver can do later this year. Only then can AMD compete with Intel in the $200 - $300 market.


    amd had to redefine what a core is to make it called an 8 core system... really its closer to 8 core but is still just a threading solution, granted one with potential, just implemented poorly.

    ohim4 Modules with 2 cores each ... for once stop comparing Intel with AMD directly .. now they are really different architectures. Intel goes with 4 cores and 2 logical threads per core , AMD is a total different story that at the moment it is clear that the current software has absolutely no clue about it. And seriously TOM ... start pushing multicore CPU to their intended use ... multi tasking .. i`ve read a lot of user reviews from the ones who actually bought this CPU and they were delighted on how it handles multitasking compared to intel, put 2 -3 workloads on the CPU and get some scores ...there are many ppl out there that are actually interested in this kind of performance.


    general multi tasking apposed to speed of the 4 working as one...
    i currently have 11 explorer windows open, task manager, dragon naturally speaking 11, 5 firefox windows with 500+ tabs across them all, foobar 2000, 2 win rar, 2 acdsee 8 instances, 1 acdsee pro 5, zoom player 8, cheome with about 70 tabs, and mirc

    all useing 6.4gb of ram on a 120gb ssd boot (intel 320), and a phenom 955 be no overclock, and a hd5770

    sense i went to an ssd and 8gb of ram (was at 3gb before and pushed my computer harder than i am now) i have noticed a massive improvement in speed, i don't know what to attribute it to, as my brother has win 7 64bit and his still feals sluggish as hell.

    in all honesty, even if my processor was 10X faster than it is now, im not sure i would see much of a difference.

    the real people you are talking about may fall under the placebo effect, or may have come off a significant upgrade. they may even be lieing to themselves because they spent 300$ on a cpu... i know if i am given a game for free my opinion on its allot different than if i buy the game myself.
Display more comments