990FX Motherboard Roundup with Thuban and Bulldozer – A Second Wind for ASUS, Gigabyte, MSI and Biostar
by Ian Cutress on April 5, 2012 11:00 AM ESTTest Setup
| Processor |
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T (6C, 3.3 GHz) AMD FX-8150 (8C, 3.6 GHz) |
| Motherboards |
($230) ASUS Crosshair V Formula (990FX) ($185) ASUS Sabertooth 990FX ($180) Gigabyte 990FXA-UD5 ($195) MSI 990FXA-GD80 ($130) Biostar TA990FXE |
| Cooling | AMD All-In-One Liquid Cooler, made by Asetek |
| Power Supply | Silverstone 1000W 80 PLUS Silver |
| Memory |
Patriot Viper Extreme 2x4 GB DDR3-2133 9-11-9 Kit GSkill RipjawsX 4x4 GB DDR3-1866 9-10-9 Kit |
| Memory Settings | Default |
| Video Cards |
XFX HD 5850 1GB ECS GTX 580 1536MB |
| Video Drivers |
Catalyst 11.8 NVIDIA Drivers 285.62 |
| Hard Drive | Micron RealSSD C300 256GB |
| Optical Drive | LG GH22NS50 |
| Case | Open Test Bed - CoolerMaster Lab V1.0 |
| Operating System | Windows 7 64-bit |
| SATA Testing | Micron RealSSD C300 256GB |
| USB 2/3 Testing | Patriot 64GB SuperSonic USB 3.0 |
System Power Consumption
Power consumption was tested on the system as a whole with a wall meter connected to the power supply, while in a dual GPU configuration. This method allows us to compare the power management of the UEFI and the board to supply components with power under load, and includes typical PSU losses due to efficiency. These are the real world values that consumers may expect from a typical system (minus the monitor) using this motherboard.
In idle power consumption, the FX-8150 with its newer architecture is able to more efficiently power gate itself. The Gigabyte board comes last on both processors, while the MSI has a good showing.
In video mode, it's all about how the motherboard decides to activate cores and/or turbo modes. Again, the FX-8150 seems to be the (in general) processor of choice, with the MSI again taking command of low power usage.
For OCCT, our CPU stress test, the FX-8150 starts to draw that extra power it needs. In this circumstance, the ASUS boards tend to use less power under either processor than their competitors.
In the case of Metro2033, as both GPUs are running equally at large load, it is all about how the motherboard decides to power up the CPU and assign turbo states. The Crosshair V Formula performs well on both processors.
CPU Temperatures
With most users’ running boards on purely default BIOS settings, we are running at default settings for the CPU temperature tests. This is, in our outward view, an indication of how well (or how adventurous) the vendor has their BIOS configured on automatic settings. With a certain number of vendors not making CPU voltage, turbo voltage or LLC options configurable to the end user, which would directly affect power consumption and CPU temperatures at various usage levels, we find the test appropriate for the majority of cases. This does conflict somewhat with some vendors' methodology of providing a list of 'suggested' settings for reviewers to use. But unless those settings being implemented automatically for the end user, all these settings do for us it attempt to skew the results, and thus provide an unbalanced 'out of the box' result list to the readers who will rely on those default settings to make a judgment. CPU Temperatures are not really indicative of quality or performance, even though one would postulate that worse parts may produce higher temperatures. However, if a manufacturer uses more conductive material in the power plane, this reduces resistance and increases the voltage at the CPU, causing a higher temperature but potentially better stability.
Analysing CPU temperatures is an observational science under our methodology, restricted by the fact that different motherboards use different sensors to report the temperature - some use the response back from the CPU to show temperature, while some connect themselves to onboard sensors. This has a direct result on any default fan profiles, as the Gigabyte board gave us almost zero fan speed while at idle, indicating perhaps a quieter (but potentially hotter) system. The Biostar seems to take advantage of this the most to represent the lower temperature (possibly to confuse reviewers...?), or there is a slight mis-calibration on the sensor readouts.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
57 Comments
View All Comments
mmstick - Thursday, April 5, 2012 - link
The primary problem with AMD FX is that in order to use the full power of the FPU the program needs to be compiled with FMA4 support, else it is only using half of the FPUs, thus making it a quad core. Secondly, many Windows-based programs are compiled with the Intel C+ compiler, so although the FX may support AVX and many other instructions, the compiled program sees it as a non-Intel CPU so it disables those instruction sets, allowing Intel CPUs to be optimized, and AMD CPUs to remain deoptimized. This is what happens when you are up against someone with the most market share, whom has the ability to dictate what instruction sets they want programmers to use. As well, when people say they are going to buy Intel CPUs instead because they claim AMD didn't make a good processor, why do you think they can't be on top of performance? Without R&D budget there isn't much that can be done, and when you face someone who practically owns a monopoly, that makes it even moreso harder to compete.Omoronovo - Thursday, April 5, 2012 - link
The IC++ compiler has not done that since 2010 when they were forced to settle their antitrust dispute with AMD.DigitalFreak - Thursday, April 5, 2012 - link
" This is what happens when you are up against someone with the most market share, whom has the ability to dictate what instruction sets they want programmers to use. As well, when people say they are going to buy Intel CPUs instead because they claim AMD didn't make a good processor, why do you think they can't be on top of performance? Without R&D budget there isn't much that can be done, and when you face someone who practically owns a monopoly, that makes it even moreso harder to compete."Waaaaah. It's always someone else's fault.
anubis44 - Friday, November 9, 2012 - link
"Waaaaah. It's always someone else's fault."Well, sometimes it really IS someone else's fault. If the mafia had it in for you, and cut your brake cables and burnt your house down when you weren't looking, you'd say it's 'someone else's fault' too. Intel's blackmail and threats to suppliers who used AMD processors kinda screwed AMD over just a tad.
That said, I think now that Jim Keller is back at AMD and head of AMD's CPU division, it won't be too long before AMD is seriously back in the game.
Monkeysweat - Thursday, April 5, 2012 - link
I saw them on some of the benchmarks, why didn't you post them along side the AMD benchies for gaming?If we are looking at a roundup of the best of what AMD and it's partners have to offer, I'd like to see what the competing team brings to the table,, just leave em stock and even let the AMD ones get overclocked.
I wouldn't even worry about cherry picking the Intel combos,, just something random.
Beenthere - Thursday, April 5, 2012 - link
AMD has not abandoned the highend CPU market. Their focus may be broadening but that does not mean they will discontinue discrete highend desktop CPUs for at least several years. Eventually everyone except a small group will use APUs as they will deliver the best performance/value proposition. Only extremists will bother with a discrete CPU/GPU with higher power consumption, increased heat and little practical benefit for mainstream users.Articuno - Thursday, April 5, 2012 - link
It's a pretty nice chipset and the lower tier boards are quite cost-effective. Just wish Bulldozer was competitive with Intel, let alone their last gen chips.Mathieu Bourgie - Thursday, April 5, 2012 - link
Thank you for this article Ian.Are there any chance that we'll see a review of the newer FX-6200 CPU or at least have data for it in the CPU bench? Considering that it's 500MHz faster than the model that it's replacing and no major site (or any that I can see) did a review of it, it'd be interesting to see how it performs.
I'm curious to see if it's a valid alternative, in any way, for $170, vs the Intel Core i5-2300 ($180).
I don't expect any miracle for gaming performance, but for workstation workloads (Photoshop, video editing and the like), who knows?
Thanks,
Mathieu
cosminmcm - Thursday, April 5, 2012 - link
There is a review at pcper, a good one. The processor is pretty weak, nothing exciting there. Thuban walks all over it.Mathieu Bourgie - Friday, April 6, 2012 - link
Thanks, I didn't see that.Quite disappointing indeed.
Here's about that Piledriver or Trinity are more competitive.