-
Amd Fx 8150 Drivers For Mac카테고리 없음 2020. 2. 19. 04:42
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. While we're GPU bound in the full render score, AMD's platform appears to have a bit of an advantage here.
Oct 14, 2011 - From October 12 onwards, AMD and its retail partners, will sell the FX-8150 and FX-8120 CPUs, to be followed by a bevy of six- and four-core. Unlock and load. Blow away the competition with the unrestrained power of an AMD FX processor. Experience unmatched multitasking and pure core.
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. 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 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 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: 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: Dragon Age 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: Rage vtbenchmark 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: vtbenchmark 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 vtbenchmark 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: 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 has traditionally done very well on Intel architectures and Bulldozer is no exception to that rule.
World of Warcraft. Sunday, February 12, 2012 - I am not trying to discount the reviewer, the performance of Sandy Bridge, or games as a test of general application performance. I have no connection to company mentioned really anywhere on this site. I am just a software engineer with a degree in computer science who wants to let the world know why these metrics are not a good way to measure relative performance of different architectures. The world has changed drastically in the hardware world and the software world has no chance to keep up with it these days.
Developing software implementations that utilize multiprocessors efficiently is extremely expensive and usually is not prioritized very well these days. Business requirements are the primary driver in even the gaming industry and 'performs well enough on high end equipment(or in the business application world, on whatever equipment is available)' is almost always as good as a software engineer will be allowed time for on any task. In performance minded sectors like gaming development and scientific computing, this results in implementations that are specific to hardware architectures that come from whatever company decides to sponsor the project. NVidia and Intel tend to be the ones that engage in these activities most of the time. Testing an application on a platform it was designed for will always yield better results than testing it on a new platform that nobody has had access to even develop software on.
This results in a biased performance metric anytime a game is used as a benchmark. In business applications, the concurrency is abstracted out of the engineer's view. We use messaging frameworks to process many small requests without having to manage concurrency at all. This is partly due to the business requirements changing so fast that optimizing anything results in it being replaced by something else instead. The underlying frameworks are typically optimized for abstraction instead of performance and are not intended to make use of any given hardware architecture. Obviously almost all of these systems use Java to achieve this, which is great because JIT takes care of optimizing things in real time for the hardware it is running on and the operations the software uses.
As games are developed for this architecture it will probably see far better benchmark results than the i series in those games which will actually be optimized for it. A better approach to testing these architectures would be to develop tests that actually utilize the strengths of the new design rather than see how software optimized for some other architecture will perform. This is probably way more than an e-mag can afford to do, but I feel an injustice is being done here based on reading other people's comments that seem to put stock in this review as indication of actual performance of this architecture in the future, which really none of these tests indicate. I bet this architecture actually does amazing things when running Java applications. Business application servers and gaming alike. Java makes heavy use of integer processing and concurrency, and this processor seems highly geared towards both.
And I just have to add, CINEBENCH is probably almost 100% floating point operations. This is probably why the Bulldozer does not perform any better than the Phenom II x4. Also, AMD continues to impress on the value measurement. Check out the PassMarks per dollar on this bad boy. Sunday, February 19, 2012 - Beware!!!!
This chip is junk. I love Amd with all my heart and soul. This fx chip is a black screen machine. It breaks my heart to write this. I am sending it back and trying to snag the last x6 phenom 2 's I can find. The fact that this chip is a dud is too well hidden. When I called newegg they told me your the second one today with horror stories about this chip.
Msi would not come clean.this chip is a turkey. Yet they were nice.
I will waste no more time with this nonsense. My 754's work better. We need honesty about the failure of this chip and the fact windows pulled the hot fix. Tlb bug part two. Even linux users say after grub goes in Black screens. Why isn't the industry coming clean on this issue.
Amd's 939 kicked Intel butt for 3 years- till they got it together,we need Amd,but I do not like hidden issues and lack of disclosure. Buyer beware!. Monday, March 05, 2012 - Guys you are already upset because you spent your lunch money on Intel and even with higher this and that boards and memory AMD (even with half as much memory onboard 32GB & Intel has 64GB ) Intel is misquoting thier performance again.no matter what you say AMD= Dodge as to Intel=Cheverolet.and when it gets down to AMD on the game versus Intel.Intel has another hardcore asswhipping behind and ahead. Wednesday, May 09, 2012 - I work as a building architect and use this CPU on my Linux workstation, in a Fractal Design define mini micro atx case, with 8GB ram and AMD radeon hd 6700 GPU.
I usually have several applications running at the same time. Typically BricsCAD, a file manager, a web browser with a few tabs, Gimp image editor, music player, our business system and sometimes Virtualbox as well with a virtual machine. I do allot of 3D projects and use Thea Render for photo rendering of building designs. I use conky system monitor to watch the processor load and temperature. These are my thoughts about the performance: Runs cool and the noise level is low, because the processor can handle several applications without taking any stress at all. Usually runs at only a few% average load for heavy business use (graphics and CAD in my case). When working you get the feeling that this processor has good torque.
Amd Fx 8150 Drivers For Mac Pro
Eight cores means most of the time every application can have at least one dedicated core and there is no lag even with lots of apps running. I think this will be a great advantage even if you use allot of older single core business applications. The fact that this processor has rather high power consumption at full load is a factor to take into consideration if you put it under allot of constant load (and especially if you over clock). For any use except really heavy duty CPU jobs (compiling software, photo rendering, video encoding) temporary load peaks will be taken care of in a few seconds, and you will typically see your processor working at only 1,4 GHz clock frequency. When idle the power consumption of this CPU is actually pretty low and temporary load peaks will make very little difference in total power consumption. I sometimes photo render jobs for up to 32 hours and think of myself as a CPU demanding user, but still most of the time when my computer is running, it will be at idle frequency. I consider the idle power consumption to be by far the most important value of comparison between processors for 90% of all users.
This is not considered in many benchmarks. It is really nice to fire up Thea Render, use the power of all cores for interactive rendering mode while testing different materials on a design and then start an unbiased photo rendering and watch all eight cores flatten out with 100% load at 3,6 GHz. Not only does this processor photo render slightly faster compared to my colleagues Intel Sandy Bridge. What is really nice is that i can run, lets say four renderings at the same time in the background, for a sun study, and then fire up BricsCAD to do drawing work while waiting. Trying to do this was a disaster with my last i5 processor. I forced me to do renderings during the night (out of business hours) or to borrow another work station during rendering jobs because my work station was locked up by more than one instance of the rendering application. To summarize, this is by far the best setup (CPU included) I have ever used on a work station.
Affordable price, reasonably small case, low noise level, completely modular, i will be able to upgrade in the future without changing my am3+ mother board. The CPU is fast and offers superb multi tasking. This is the first processor I have ever used that also offers good multi tasking under heavy load (photo rendering + cad at the same time) This is a superb CPU for any business user who likes to run several apps at the same time. It is also really fast with multi core optimized software. AMD FX-8150 is my first AMD desktop processor and I like it just as much as I dislike their fusion APUs on the laptop market. Bulldozer has all the power where it is best needed, perfectly adopted to my work flow.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 - I don't know what it is with all this hype destroying amd's reputation. The bulldozer architecture is the best cpu design I have seen in years. I guess the underdog is not well respected. The bulldozer architecture has more pipelines and schedulers that the Core 2. The problem is code is compiled intel optimized not amd optimized. These benchmarks for a bunch of applications I don't use have no bearing on my choice to by a cpu, there are some benchmarks where an i5 will outperform and i7 so what valid comparison's are we making here.
Amd Fx 8150 Benchmark
The bulldozer cpu's are dirt cheap and people expect them to be cheaper and don't require high clock speed ram and run on cheaper motherboards. AMD is expected to keep up with intel on the manufacturing process. Cutting corners and going down to 32nm then 22nm as quickly as possible does not produce stable chips. I have my kernel compiled AMD64 and it is not taxed by anything I am doing.
We've waited a long time for AMD to release a brand new processor architecture, but finally the AMD FX-8150 has arrived. This first chip is the vanguard of the somewhat tardy Bulldozer technology and is this top-of-the-line AMD FX chip, code-named Zambezi. This is the full-fat, eight-core AMD super-chip running at a not inconsiderable 3.6GHz straight out the box. The FX moniker isn't a new one for AMD chips.
The last time we saw it used for its high-end parts was in the 90nm Athlon 64 FX-74 in late 2006. It's been reborn this year to cover the first in what AMD hopes will be a long line of Bulldozer-based CPUs. The AMD FX CPUs represent the chip maker's first real new architecture since the exciting times of the first Athlon back in 2003. And it is very much a new architecture; AMD has started from scratch with the design of the Bulldozer modules, taking a very different approach to what makes up a CPU core than anyone else. We'll explore the depths of that architectural change later, but the real key is the use of that word 'module'. Each of these modules holds the essential makeup of a standard dual-core processor, sharing certain non-timing sensitive parts. The AMD FX-8150 has four of these Bulldozer modules and AMD claims that makes it the world's first eight-core desktop chip.
It's tough to ignore the sickly sweet scent of fudge here, though this hardware-based solution ought be a lot more effective than Intel's mostly software-oriented HyperThreading. The Bulldozer module represents the future of AMD processors going forward. Speaking with Bernard Seite, an AMD Technical Advisor, last month he told us that the Bulldozer modules are likely to last as the basis for its CPU range for the next 5-7 years. At the moment we've only seen the roadmap for the next couple of years, with the Piledriver update coming next year, Steamroller coming in 2013 and Excavator in 2014. Yes, we know it sounds like a joke, but AMD's latest roadmap really does read like the Urban Dictionary Karma Sutra. But hopes are still high for these new AMD FX processors, especially after it managed to snag the Guiness World Record for highest CPU clockspeed in September.
We saw this top CPU here running at well over 8GHz. That is impressive, but realistically it's just numbers. The world record didn't demand the machine to actually run any applications, it just needed to boot into Windows and report it's clockspeed. It also didn't need to be running all its cores.
Amd Fx 8150 Specs
The world record was actually only broken by a single Bulldozer module in operation and under serious liquid helium cooling too. The precedent is there though and means the AMD FX-8150 ought to be one hell of an overclocker's chip. What that will mean in real-world applications though we'll soon see. So how does the new AMD FX CPU stack up then? Can it give Intel's Sandy Bridge a run for its money and can it make AMD a performance chip manufacturer once more?