• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD Phenom II x6 vs FX-8350

humbug

humbug

humbug

Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
49,590
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
Components used.

Case: HAF 912+ Link
MOBO: Asus Sabertooth 990FX Link
CPU Cooler: CM Hyper 412S (EOL) Link
GPU: Powercolor PCS+ R9 290 @ 1100/1350 Link
 RAM: 4x 2GB (8GB) Corsair XMS3 @ 1600Mhz Link
Main Drive: 128GB Samsung 830 SSD Link
PSU: XFX Pro 750 Watt Link

And the CPU Link
Turbo Core turned off on both CPU's

FX-8350 Stock = 4Ghz
X6 1090T Stock = 3.2Ghz

All games tested at maximum settings 1080P.
RAM running at 1600Mhz on both CPU's
CPU overclocks tested for 1 hour in Prime95 and 2 hours in Crysis 3 as a stability level pass. they are not maximum benching overclocks on either CPU, that is pointless for a reality check on these CPU's.

Part One: Gaming, Stock clock:

BF4 DirectX Shanghai, CN base to flag B.
X6 1090T FPS: Min 44, Max 97, Avr 61.6
FX-8350 FPS: Min 57, Max 103, Avr 75.3 +21%

Dirt Showdown.
X6 1090T FPS: Avr 83.2
FX-8350 FPS: Avr 85.9 +3%

Grid2.
X6 1090T FPS: Min 55, Avr 75
FX-8350 FPS: Min 67, Avr 90 +20%

Thief DirectX.
X6 1090T FPS: Min 27, Max 75, Avr 41
FX-8350 FPS: Min 33, Max 78, Avr 50 +21%

Star Swarm DirectX.
X6 1090T FPS: Avr 18
FX-8350 FPS: Avr 24 +30%

Valley.
X6 1090T Points: 2138
FX-8350 Points: 2358 +10%


Part Two: Gaming Clock for Clock (4Ghz)

BF4 DirectX Shanghai, CN base to flag B.
X6 1090T FPS: Min 48, Max 98, Avr 65.7
FX-8350 FPS: Min 57, Max 103, Avr 75.3 +15%

Dirt Showdown.
X6 1090T FPS: Avr 83.9
FX-8350 FPS: Avr 85.9 +2%

Grid2.
X6 1090T FPS: Min 56, Avr 78
FX-8350 FPS: Min 67, Avr 90 +15%

Thief DirectX.
X6 1090T FPS: Min 28, Max 76, Avr 44
FX-8350 FPS: Min 33, Max 78, Avr 50 +13%

Star Swarm DirectX.
X6 1090T FPS: Avr 21
FX-8350 FPS: Avr 24 +20%

Valley.
X6 1090T Points: 2294
FX-8350 Points: 2358 +3%


Part Three: Gaming overclock vs overclock: X6 1090T = 4Ghz. FX-8350 = 4.6Ghz

BF4 DirectX Shanghai, CN base to flag B.
X6 1090T FPS: Min 48, Max 98, Avr 65.7
FX-8350 FPS: Min 59, Max 109, Avr 78.1 +20%

Dirt Showdown.
X6 1090T FPS: Avr 83.4
FX-8350 FPS: Avr 87.3 +5%

Grid2.
X6 1090T FPS: Min 56, Avr 78
FX-8350 FPS: Min 70, Avr 96 +23%

Thief DirectX.
X6 1090T FPS: Min 28, Max 76, Avr 44
FX-8350 FPS: Min 34, Max 81, Avr 54 +24%

Star Swarm DirectX.
X6 1090T FPS: Avr 21
FX-8350 FPS: Avr 30 +30%

Valley.
X6 1090T Points: 2294
FX-8350 Points: 2459 +7%


Part Five: Applications, Stock clock:

WinRar.
X6 1090T Kb/s: 2,950
FX-8350 Kb/s: 4,360 +49%

Hand Break Video Encoding Time.
X6 1090T time: 2m 23s +34%
FX-8350 time: 1m 47s


Part Six: Applications, clock for clock (4Ghz)

WinRar.
X6 1090T Kb/s: 3,146
FX-8350 Kb/s: 4,360 +38%

Hand Break Video Encoding Time.
X6 1090T time: 2m 03s +15%
FX-8350 time: 1m 47s


Part Seven: Applications, overclock vs overclock: X6 1090T = 4Ghz. FX-8350 = 4.6Ghz

WinRar.
X6 1090T Kb/s: 3,146
FX-8350 Kb/s: 4,779 +51%

Hand Break Video Encoding Time.
X6 1090T time: 2m 03s +29%
FX-8350 time: 1m 35s


Conclution:

Clock for clock the FX-8350 is on average 13% faster than the Phenom II x6 in Games, reasonably achievable overclocks for both CPU's has the FX-8350 more than 20% ahead.

In compression and video encoding the FX-8350's performance delta to the X6 1090T is just a good, with +40 and +15% clock for clock, and 50% to 30% overclocked.

If you already have a 990FX series Motherboard and an ageing X6 the FX-8350 is a worthwhile upgrade.
 
Last edited:
I went from a Phenom II X6 1055T @ 3.5GHz/3.8GHz to a FX-8350 @ 4.5GHz and I didn't do anything this detailed but I really couldn't notice much difference, infact except for video encoding I probably preferred the X6 (video encoding the FX-8350 was better, partly due to having 2 more cores).
From my experience (again, not as 'scientific' as yours, just gut feeling) I would've said going from my X6 to the FX was a complete waste of money.

I was so disappointed that I then switched it out for a 4770K and noticed a world of difference. Some of that might have just been a placebo though from knowing that the Intel chip would be much better.
Yes the Intel was more expensive, but if I calculated the cost of everything I do in life to find the cheapest option I'd never have time to do anything.

EDIT: I do have to admit to being a little confused as to why this is in the Graphics Card sub-forum though.
 
My 8320 was good for me because I had a poor clocking 955 BE. I think where they really shine is in productivity applications. In 3ds Max for example the FX-8xxx are about as fast as a 4770.
 
humbug would you be able to provide data like this on the gpu usage per game, using process explorer. http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h313/2000gtv4/cpu/48cropfc3_zpsdc839662.png
also what is the default cpu-nb that you used for the thuban, and nb for the fx8. and for overclocking values could you show how you did it whether it be just a multi increase on the cpus?

and what were the ht link and cpu-nb fo the overclocked phenom II
and the ht link and and nb for the overclocked fx8.

(Ht link I'm referring to is not the ht ref (commonly incorrrectly referred to as the fsb)
 
Edit, yeah ^^^ that looks familiar in the deltas your getting. nice :)

Davedree said:
humbug would you be able to provide data like this on the gpu usage per game, using process explorer. http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h313/2000gtv4/cpu/48cropfc3_zpsdc839662.png
also what is the default cpu-nb that you used for the thuban, and nb for the fx8. and for overclocking values could you show how you did it whether it be just a multi increase on the cpus?

and what were the ht link and cpu-nb fo the overclocked phenom II
and the ht link and and nb for the overclocked fx8.

(Ht link I'm referring to is not the ht ref (commonly incorrrectly referred to as the fsb)
Click to expand...

I will do a GPU used test for those, but not until Friday now.

CPU-NB for Thuban was 2400Mhz
CPU-NB for FX-8 was 2200Mhz (Stock)

Overclocking for both CPU's was multi only, 20x for the Thuban and 23x for the FX-8 (HT Ref 200Mhz)

HT-Link was 2000Mhz on the Thuban and 2200Mhz on the FX-8 (stock)

I havent got into seeing what it can do yet, i spent about an hour getting the FX-8 stable @ 4.6Ghz simply by messing and then test 23x muliti and Core volts, the volts i ended up with was 1.45v with Ultra High LLC (about 1.46v under load)

Temperatures in P-95 was around the low 70's for CPU and high 60's for Package (HWMonitor)

I don't know what the max temperature is on these, i have seen it said they throttle at 70c, i can tell you they don't, but i feel 75c is the highest i would like to see it in P-95.

With very high overclocks (4.8Ghz +) i suspect the challenge actually is keeping the VRMs cool, its those getting to hot that causes throttling.

On the Sabertooth they are pretty good, Vcore-1 (CPU VRMs) reach about 72c or so, i believe they are rated for about 140c short and 90c medium term, its when they get to 80c i think they start to power down the CPU and it begins to throttle.

I have seen people with water cooling running 5Ghz+ lay a couple of 40mm fans over the Sabertooths VRM HS, which is pretty effective.
 
Last edited:
great work humbug, I know how much time it takes to carry out these tests. I compared an fx8 system to phenom II to a 2600k in gaming and some apps, at those clock ranges as shown in the handbrake testing above. The 2600k obviously still remains king in gaming and only just in most apps.

Thanks for providing the extra info that wasn't too clear before on the cpu configs,
It's often said that the temp thresholds for a Vishera is 70 on cpu and 60c on package, I've seen people push more, But yeah vrm cooling over the vrms is the secret, a lot of people make the mistake of watercooling and not having any airflow over the socket too.

Don't pay too much attention to p95 for stability with fx8,fx6 etc, (even though I have in my sig)
It just presents an unrealistic core load and temp load which doesn't represent the true stability of the system. You seem to be hitting the higher v-core a little bit too early for 4.6ghz but maybe theres some scope there for more, although temps are probably causing the higher v-core for stability, also adjusting the ht-ref and finding a sweet spot supposedly reduces the temps a little too.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom