• 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's Piledriver And K10 CPU Architectures Face Off

How come the Phenom X6 is completely ignored? Phenom X6 overclocked to 4ghz were great chips at the time (probably still are by AMD's standards). ;)
 
humbug said:
I used to be able to get my 1090T to 4.3Ghz with a 3Ghz CPU-NB,- 8 hour Prime95 Stable. On air.
This is an early 2010 model, I don't know about the later 2012 models but I have never seen anyone match mine :D mine was a Gold pressed Platinum CPU incrusted with Diamonds.

Edit- I was offered quite a lot of money for it on Overclockers.com more than a year ago.
Click to expand...

My 1100T was better than your 1090T wasn't it? I remember your Physics scores in 3D11 thread were almost 500 points lower, mine clocked to around 4.35Ghz 3.1Ghz NB. I sold that rig to my boss at work though! :D Should go round there and clock the nuts off it :D

Mine was a late 2010 model.
 
Tonester0011 said:
My 1100T was better than your 1090T wasn't it? I remember your Physics scores in 3D11 thread were almost 500 points lower, mine clocked to around 4.35Ghz 3.1Ghz NB. I sold that rig to my boss at work though! :D Should go round there and clock the nuts off it :D

Mine was a late 2010 model.
Click to expand...

I think the 2010 models were defiantly better.
 
Marine-RX179 said:
Is that on the same clock, or when it is overclocked higher?
Click to expand...

The FX-4350 @ 4.2Ghz (stock) is 2% slower to 15% faster than a Phenom II x4 @ 4Ghz in gaming, clock for clock its probably going to be about 5% slower to 10% faster to the FX-4350, those are the 4 cores.

So for the 6 cores (x6 vs FX-6350) it will be the same, just that the FX-6350 runs at 3.9Ghz out of the box. so overall Piledriver is a little faster than Phenom II clock for clock / core for core.

Keep in mind also that 4Ghz is the best the x4 will do on air and about 4.2Ghz on water, while the Piledriver chips will do 4.6 on air and 4.8 on water, so in the end they are about ~15% faster.

I would think with 2 extra cores the FX-8350 would be (30% at stock and 40% overclocked vs overclocked) faster than the x6 with all cores loaded up.

Is it worth the FX-6350 if you have an x4? Yes, if you have an x6? it might be, people upgraded from a 2500K to a 3570K for less performance increase, an FX-8350? for £150 it would be if 8 cores are of use to you.

I would like to see a direct comparison: Piledriver vs Bulldozer, but from what I remember the FX-8150 needed all 8 just to keep up with my x6, I think Piledriver is quite a ways better.
 
Last edited:
cheesyboy said:
Tom's Piledriver review included the 1100T;
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328.html
Click to expand...

Thanks :)

Its difficult to tell.

Normalised: with Sandy Bridge, Phenom II, Bulldozer and Piledriver at the same clocks....

In Skyrim: if Phenom II is 100%, then Bulldozer is 92%, Piledriver is 98% and Sandy Bridge is 140%.

In WoW, which is a strange one as it appears to use 6 or more cores given that the 3.3Ghz x6 is slightly faster than the 3.7Ghz x4 and yet the 8 thread Ivy Bridge is no faster at all than the 4 thread one.

That one makes no sense at all.

I think Skyrim is a good measure of how these CPU's perform in these low threaded Floating Point DX9 games.

So I think what we can take from that is Bulldozer is the slowest Chip at about 92% performance, next is Piledriver at 98%, then Phenom II as the benchmark at 100% and Sand Bridge at 140%.

Keeping in mind that Piledriver clocks on average about 15% higher than Phenom II and ends up about that much faster.

I would like to see SR gain a solid 20% over Piledriver to put it at 120%, and then overclock to 4.8 / 5Ghz
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
The FX6300 is on average quicker than a Phenom II X6 1090T or 1100T in most games.
Click to expand...

At stock maybe but Phenom X6 at 4ghz I reckon it would be better for games and basically anything which doesn't make use of the new instruction sets (ie encoding).

cheesyboy said:
Tom's Piledriver review included the 1100T;
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328.html
Click to expand...

The Phenom X6 is at stock though and they were very conservatively clocked, 2.8-3.3ghz with all cores in use, at 4ghz they were much better.

It just seems daft to me that they would do a comparison to the K10 architecture whilst ignoring the pinnacle of the K10 architecture, they don't even mention Thuban as if they never even existed.
 
Last edited:
mmj_uk said:
At stock maybe but Phenom X6 at 4ghz I reckon it would be better for games and basically anything which doesn't make use of the new instruction sets (ie encoding).



The Phenom X6 is at stock though and they were very conservatively clocked, 2.8-3.3ghz with all cores in use, at 4ghz they were much better.

It just seems daft to me that they would do a comparison to the K10 architecture whilst ignoring the pinnacle of the K10 architecture, they don't even mention Thuban as if they never even existed.
Click to expand...

What they show is the Phenom II chips are not faster, at 4Ghz the Phenom II CPU's perform only marginally better than the FX chips do at stock.
 
mmj_uk said:
At stock maybe but Phenom X6 at 4ghz I reckon it would be better for games and basically anything which doesn't make use of the new instruction sets (ie encoding).
Click to expand...

Probably not in many cases. The FX6350 runs at 3.9GHZ to 4.2GHZ,the FX6300 at 3.5GHZ to 4.1GHZ and the Phenom II X6 1100T at 3.3GHZ to 3.7GHZ. So for lightly threaded games,the Phenom II X6 will be running at 3.7GHZ and the FX6350 at 4.2GHZ(the same as the FX8350). Even with all cores enabled the clockspeed differences are not massive.

SC2:HoTS

http://gamegpu.ru/images/stories/Test_GPU/strategy/StarCraft II Heart of the Swarm/test/sc2 proz.png

WoW:Mysts of Pandaria

http://media.bestofmicro.com/Z/2/357662/original/world of warcraft 1680.png

PD thrashes the Phenom II in those games(yes,Intel is faster,but the improvement with PD is massive over the previous generation). They both use two to three threads.

Average test over many games:

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/screenshots/original/2013/08/Perf_Overall_-pcgh.png

The FX6300 which runs at 3.5GHZ to 4.1GHZ,is around 10% faster than a Phenom II X6 1100T at 3.3GHZ to 3.7GHZ. The FX6350 is around 16% faster.

Individual scores from the German review:

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/scree...tel-Dualcore-Haswell-4570T-Anno-2070-pcgh.png
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/scree...est-Intel-Dualcore-Haswell-4570T-BF3-pcgh.png
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/scree...Dualcore-Haswell-4570T-Dirt-Showdown-pcgh.png
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/scree...ntel-Dualcore-Haswell-4570T-SC2-HotS-pcgh.png
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/scree...-Dualcore-Haswell-4570T-TES-5-Skyrim-pcgh.png

The FX6300 and FX6350 are faster in all games when compared to the Phenom II X6 1100T,even in lightly threaded games where the clockspeed difference between the Phenom II X6 and FX CPU is around 10% or thereabouts.

The FX6300 is faster in C3:

http://gamegpu.ru/images/stories/Test_GPU/Action/Crysis 3 The Lost Island/test/crysis3 proz 2.jpg

The FX6300 is faster in the BF4 Alpha:

http://eashooters.ru/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/bf4-proz.jpg

HWBOT Phenom II X6 1100T:

http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/phenom_ii_x6_1100t_be/

~4GHZ

HWBOT FX6300:

http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/fx_6300/

~4.8GHZ

At 4GHZ you get around a 20% improvement in multi-threaded peformance and under a 10% improvement in lightly threaded performance with the Phenom II X6. It will barely match an FX6350 and still be beaten in a number of games.

It seems companies have better optimised for the PD CPUs now,and the Phenom II is starting to fall behind.
 
Last edited:
Skyrim is a bit weird as when it was first released Bethesda forgot to enable the compiler optimisation flags for the game executable, so basically it didn't use SSE instructions. Intel CPUs are always faster in legacy instructions so this resulted in very poor performance for AMD CPUs. It was fixed in later patches but I have no idea if these benchmarks are performed with the latest patch or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom