• What
    is this?

    You've landed on the AMD Portal on AnandTech. This section is sponsored by AMD. It features a collection of all of our independent AMD content, as well as Tweets & News from AMD directly. AMD will also be running a couple of huge giveaways here so check back for those.

    PRESENTED BY

Gaming Performance

AMD clearly states in its reviewer's guide that CPU bound gaming performance isn't going to be a strong point of the FX architecture, likely due to its poor single threaded performance. However it is useful to look at both CPU and GPU bound scenarios to paint an accurate picture of how well a CPU handles game workloads, as well as what sort of performance you can expect in present day titles.

Civilization V

Civ V's lateGameView benchmark presents us with two separate scores: average frame rate for the entire test as well as a no-render score that only looks at CPU performance.

Civilization V—1680 x 1050—DX11 High Quality

While we're GPU bound in the full render score, AMD's platform appears to have a bit of an advantage here. We've seen this in the past where one platform will hold an advantage over another in a GPU bound scenario and it's always tough to explain. Within each family however there is no advantage to a faster CPU, everything is just GPU bound.

Civilization V—1680 x 1050—DX11 High Quality

Looking at the no render score, the CPU standings are pretty much as we'd expect. The FX-8150 is thankfully a bit faster than its predecessors, but it still falls behind Sandy Bridge.

Crysis: Warhead

Crysis Warhead Assault Benchmark—1680 x 1050 Mainstream DX10 64-bit

In CPU bound environments in Crysis Warhead, the FX-8150 is actually slower than the old Phenom II. Sandy Bridge continues to be far ahead.

Dawn of War II

Dawn of War II—1680 x 1050—Ultra Settings

We see similar results under Dawn of War II. Lightly threaded performance is simply not a strength of AMD's FX series, and as a result even the old Phenom II X6 pulls ahead.

DiRT 3

We ran two DiRT 3 benchmarks to get an idea for CPU bound and GPU bound performance. First the CPU bound settings:

DiRT 3—Aspen Benchmark—1024 x 768 Low Quality

The FX-8150 doesn't do so well here, again falling behind the Phenom IIs. Under more real world GPU bound settings however, Bulldozer looks just fine:

DiRT 3—Aspen Benchmark—1920 x 1200 High Quality

Dragon Age

Dragon Age Origins—1680 x 1050—Max Settings (no AA/Vsync)

Dragon Age is another CPU bound title, here the FX-8150 falls behind once again.

Metro 2033

Metro 2033 is pretty rough even at lower resolutions, but with more of a GPU bottleneck the FX-8150 equals the performance of the 2500K:

Metro 2033 Frontline Benchmark—1024 x 768—DX11 High Quality

Metro 2033 Frontline Benchmark—1920 x 1200—DX11 High Quality

Rage vt_benchmark

While id's long awaited Rage title doesn't exactly have the best benchmarking abilities, there is one unique aspect of the game that we can test: Megatexture. Megatexture works by dynamically taking texture data from disk and constructing texture tiles for the engine to use, a major component for allowing id's developers to uniquely texture the game world. However because of the heavy use of unique textures (id says the original game assets are over 1TB), id needed to get creative on compressing the game's textures to make them fit within the roughly 20GB the game was allotted.

The result is that Rage doesn't store textures in a GPU-usable format such as DXTC/S3TC, instead storing them in an even more compressed format (JPEG XR) as S3TC maxes out at a 6:1 compression ratio. As a consequence whenever you load a texture, Rage needs to transcode the texture from its storage codec to S3TC on the fly. This is a constant process throughout the entire game and this transcoding is a significant burden on the CPU.

The Benchmark: vt_benchmark flushes the transcoded texture cache and then times how long it takes to transcode all the textures needed for the current scene, from 1 thread to X threads. Thus when you run vt_benchmark 8, for example, it will benchmark from 1 to 8 threads (the default appears to depend on the CPU you have). Since transcoding is done by the CPU this is a pure CPU benchmark. I present the best case transcode time at the maximum number of concurrent threads each CPU can handle:

Rage vt_benchmark—1920 x 1200

The FX-8150 does very well here, but so does the Phenom II X6 1100T. Both are faster than Intel's 2500K, but not quite as good as the 2600K. If you want to see how performance scales with thread count, check out the chart below:

Starcraft 2

Starcraft 2

Starcraft 2 has traditionally done very well on Intel architectures and Bulldozer is no exception to that rule.

World of Warcraft

World of Warcraft

Windows 7 Application Performance Power Consumption
POST A COMMENT

428 Comments

View All Comments

  • JumpingJack - Sunday, November 06, 2011 - link

    This is a good point. Reply
  • mianmian - Wednesday, October 12, 2011 - link

    How disappointed I am. I can't believe what AMD will claim later on. Reply
  • Marburg U - Wednesday, October 12, 2011 - link

    Cannot see a reason to wait for Piledriver. Am3+ won't survive that chip, and +15%, even in single thread, won't be enough (for Sandy, I'm not even talking about Ivy).

    If BD had not been so bad i would have hoped in a price drop of the Thuban, and would have gone for it. But now, i fear price spikes of the old Phenom II X6 as it approaches it's EOL.
    Reply
  • Ethaniel - Wednesday, October 12, 2011 - link

    ... using a chainsaw. Newegg sells a 2500k for USD 220. I'm thinking something like 170-180 for the FX-8150. I was expecting a lot from the FX line. And I think that was my mistake, probably. Too bad. Reply
  • Leyawiin - Wednesday, October 12, 2011 - link

    I guess we can take comfort in that some things never change - naming AMD processors are always behind the curve (since before Intel's C2 Duo). Guess I'll hang onto my X4 955 @ 3.6 Ghz for a while longer. It'll be the last AMD processor I'll bother with (and I'm tired of being faithful and waiting on them). Reply
  • richard77aus - Wednesday, October 12, 2011 - link

    ""At the same clock speed, Phenom II is almost 7% faster per core than Bulldozer according to our Cinebench results.""

    I am far from being an expert in CPUs but isn't the main advantage intel has had since core2- sandybridge the per core performance? not closk speed and not multi core.

    I've seen some benchmarks showing real world usage of the SB i3 dual core where it out performs a faster clocked quad core phenom 2.
    Reply
  • richard77aus - Wednesday, October 12, 2011 - link

    Meaning AMD giving first priority to clockspeed and core count was the wrong thing to aim for even if they had achieved a 4ghz+ stock 8 core speed processor, but to actually go backwards compared to such an old arch. is a disaster. (my first post here, is there a way to edit posts?) Reply
  • Kristian Vättö - Wednesday, October 12, 2011 - link

    The thing is that Phenom II, which is AMD's arch, is FASTER clock for clock than their new Bulldozer arch. Intel is far ahead of both CPUs, but it's a bit laughable that AMD's older CPUs actually outperform their new ones. Reply
  • Saxie81 - Wednesday, October 12, 2011 - link

    Hey Anand, did you happen to get the power consumption numbers when you hit 4.7ghz?

    This is... disappointing. I knew the Single thread benchmarks were going to be bad, but you need to be running something thats needing the 8 cores, if not its of no use. Kinda like using a Magny Cours to run Crysis.
    Reply
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Wednesday, October 12, 2011 - link

    I'm going to be doing some more overclocking tomorrow, but I broke 300W at 4.7GHz :-/ Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now