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 ESTAliens vs. Predator Benchmark
Aliens vs. Predator is a DirectX 11 science fiction first-person shooter video game, developed by Rebellion Developments. Available as a standalone benchmark, on default settings the benchmark uses 1920x1080 with high AF settings. Results are reported as the average frame rate across 4 runs.
AVP is seemingly a GPU limited benchmark all the way through, with no apparent difference between the processors until you get to the dual 580 usage scenario. However, at 130 FPS, it is unlikely a difference will be spotted.
Dirt 3
Dirt 3 is a rallying video game and the third in the Dirt series of the Colin McRae Rally series, developed and published by Codemasters. Using the in game benchmark, Dirt 3 is run at 1920x1080 with full graphical settings. Results are reported as the average frame rate across 4 runs.
Dirt3 always ends up showing a big difference between boards, as it is all about how well the runs are and how often the motherboard decides to tell the GPU to use more or less cores, or implement turbo states. In this case, the FX-8150 tends to reign over the 1100T, but the choice of motherboard at high GPU rates will cause up to a 9 FPS difference. The Sabertooth in this instance comes near the top.
Metro2033
Metro 2033 is a challenging DX11 benchmark that challenges every system that tries to run it at any high-end settings. Developed by 4A Games and released in March 2010, we use the inbuilt DirectX 11 Frontline benchmark to test the hardware at 1920x1080 with full graphical settings. Results are given as the average frame rate from 10 runs.
The most demanding benchmark in our suite this time round is Metro2033, requiring a lot of GPU grunt to give even a nice 60 FPS at 1920x1080. The processor doesn't seem to matter much here, as all our results are within statistical variance. Though the Sabertooth again comes rather near the top most of the time.
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.