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 EST3D Movement Algorithm Test
The algorithms in 3DPM employ both uniform random number generation or normal distribution random number generation, and vary in various amounts of trigonometric operations, conditional statements, generation and rejection, fused operations, etc. The benchmark runs through six algorithms for a specified number of particles and steps, and calculates the speed of each algorithm, then sums them all for a final score. This is an example of a real world situation that a computational scientist may find themselves in, rather than a pure synthetic benchmark. The benchmark is also parallel between particles simulated, and we test the single thread performance as well as the multi-threaded performance.
The biggest difference between the processors is shown in our CPU tests. In Single thread mode, we see characteristically that the FX-8150 is a lot lower than the X6-1100T even with Turbo Boost. This is because 3DPM is a wholly floating-point driven benchmark, and the FX-8150 is geared up to be an integer processor. In an ideal optimised world, all programs would use a hex base to calculate numbers (for example, highly optimised calculators of Pi), however the modern scientist may input code they understand to get results, even if it is floating point numbers. In this circumstance, Thuban is the way to go.
This is echoed even more strongly in the multi-threaded test, where the FX-8150 acts like a quad core (due to its FPU architecture) rather than an octo-core because of the floating point calculations in 3DPM.
WinRAR x64 3.93 - link
With 64-bit WinRAR, we compress the set of files used in the USB speed tests. WinRAR x64 3.93 attempts to use multithreading when possible.
WinRAR seizes the multi-threaded nature of the processors, and the FX-8150 acts better than the X6-1100T, but is still only on par with a quad-core i5-2500K. In terms of the motherboards, the Sabertooth once again takes credit here.
FastStone Image Viewer 4.2 - link
FastStone Image Viewer is a free piece of software I have been using for quite a few years now. It allows quick viewing of flat images, as well as resizing, changing color depth, adding simple text or simple filters. It also has a bulk image conversion tool, which we use here. The software currently operates only in single-thread mode, which should change in later versions of the software. For this test, we convert a series of 170 files, of various resolutions, dimensions and types (of a total size of 163MB), all to the .gif format of 640x480 dimensions.
Due to the single thread nature of FastStone, despite the increased frequency of the FX-8150, it's all about how the pipeline is managed. In this case, the MSI seems to fall by the wayside on both processors, while the Sabertooth again plays near the top.
Sorenson Squeeze 6.0 - link
Sorenson Squeeze is a professional video encoder, complete with a vast array of options. For this test, we convert 32 HD videos, each a minute long and approximately 42 MB in size, to WMV 512KBps format. Squeeze can encode multiple videos at once, one for each thread.
Video decoding and encoding is a purely optimised INT calculation unit affair, where multiple threads reign supreme. Thus we have the FX-8150 pulling ahead of the 1100T, and the MSI boards actually having a good showing.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
57 Comments
View All Comments
Mathieu Bourgie - Friday, April 6, 2012 - link
Here's hoping*john21108 - Friday, April 6, 2012 - link
I read the review and didn't see the FX-6200 getting walked over. The benches were all pretty close; the FX, X4, and the X6 all trading blows. At worse, the FX-6200 performed similar to the X4 980; at best, it would barely beat the X6 1100T.The FX looked good to me considering the X6 1100T is going for $240+ on eBay. If building new, is same performance worth an extra $70? Is it an upgrade to an X4 BE or X6, no.
estarkey7 - Thursday, April 5, 2012 - link
I am disappointed in this article for a number of reasons, most of all that the preface of this article had very little to do with the content at all. You start off by stating:"...despite the fact that Windows 7 (and Windows 8, natively) is now receiving updates so the operating system can understand the processor architecture a little better, and hopefully boost performance. This gives a second wind to those owning (or thinking of owning) a Bulldozer based processor, and in turn, a 900-series motherboard."
With that being a defining point of this article, where are before and afters? I and everybody else on here already know what Anand did (hell, we read this site multiple times a day!). Why should I give this platform a second look?. Your preface led me to believe that I would see benches of these motherboards before and after firmware revisions or more importantly firmware revisions and Win 7 vs. Win 8 preview.
It doesn't even make sense to run a full set of benches against motherboards with the same processor at stock speeds, as the differences will surely show in their overclocking potential and feature sets.
Do you even realize that after reading this article that every single reader of Anandtech.com learned absolutely, positively nothing about Bulldozer vs. Thurban vs. Intelxxx that they didn't already know before they wasted 15 minutes of their time?
Why not just delete it, and we'll forget you ever wrote it...
IanCutress - Thursday, April 5, 2012 - link
The purpose of the review was to look at the motherboards and the differences between them, not the absolute performance of the processors. Hence why this review is listed under the motherboard section rather than the CPU section, and the paragraph you quoted ended with the phrase, with appropriate pauses to create emphasis on, 'a 900-series motherboard'. The initial paragraph created purpose and the fact that there is reason to perhaps own one of these motherboards, generating the context and situation to which they are currently in.Anyway, as a regular reader of Anandtech, surely you recognise me as the motherboard reviewer for the past year or more? :)
Ian
estarkey7 - Thursday, April 5, 2012 - link
Ian,I let my recent bulldozer system build get the best of me!
I retract my statement. I believe my attack on you was not reasonable and served no purpose. Although I do disagree with some of the phrasing in the intro paragraph, my post was not warranted and I sincerely apologize.
Keep up the good work.
Ed
Dekkatek - Thursday, April 5, 2012 - link
I don't know if anyone else noticed this, but there is a galler pic of the ASUS Crosshair board with a 4 video card setup and the 4th card is not physically connected to the motherboard!http://www.anandtech.com/Gallery/Album/1843#13
IanCutress - Thursday, April 5, 2012 - link
Haha nice catch :) Most of those images are from ASUS' media kit for the board - I think I must have looked at it and thought they were using the ROG Xpander for four-way. Looking at the Xpander page now, it was only ever compatible on the R3E and R3F.Ian
Makaveli - Thursday, April 5, 2012 - link
When did you need a $1000 extreme edition cpu to be an enthusiast.I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make.
A i7 920 a 2500k or 2600k are all enthusiast cpu that cost less than $400. And all outperform AMD current line up.
It like you are trying to be like AMD before they launched BD comparing it the 990x and saying look out processor is better and doesn't cost $1000 don't make me laugh.
If you are gonna troll you better start doing a better job.
cocoviper - Thursday, April 5, 2012 - link
$1000? Try any CPU over $240.http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-r...
http://leapvine.com/p/1237/Intel%20Core%20i7-2600%...
CPU price ranges tend to range between $50 and $1000 in the retail market. AMD's fastest solution captures the lowest 25% of this market, leaving 3/4 of the price range, and the range with the best margins, to Intel. We all want AMD to be competitive again like they were in the late 90s/early 2000s but they simply aren't.
AMD has also officially stated they have no intention to compete in the performance / enthusiast segment. Per Anand:
"As AMD's client strategy is predominantly built around APUs, the only high-end desktop parts we'll see from AMD are low-end server CPUs. Socket-AM3+ has a future for one more generation and we'll likely see other single-socket, high-end platforms for the desktop. The days of AMD chasing Intel for the high-end desktop market are done though. That war is officially over."
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5503/understanding-a...
BaronMatrix - Thursday, April 5, 2012 - link
Why doesn't anyone use the recommended GPU? If I buy an 8150, it will at least get a 6970 but probably a 7970.No wonder I left this "review site" stuff alone. I can't learn anything except that people think there are 50 CPU makers and AMD is the worst.
Good luck with that.