# Let's Talk FX 8000 Series and PII X6's



## Xenturion (Aug 11, 2012)

Well, first off, I'll introduce myself, Xenturion (or Dake on WCG). I joined the TPU WCG team about a week ago. I've been crunching for WCG for nearly 2 years now and it's something I really enjoy. When I saw that the TPU team does so well and read some of the forum posts in this subforum, I realized that there were other people out there as passionate about it as I am. So, I joined the team. And here I am.

However, as the title states, I want to talk team Red. Currently, I've got an i7 920 @ 3.5Ghz, a Core i5 2400 running at work, and a A6-3400M @ 2.0Ghz that I really need to work on having up and running more often. Even still, I've got the system builder bug (as many of us do), and I find myself constantly dreaming up my next rig. Seeing as my 920 @ 3.5Ghz is still plenty for games, I'm not really looking to supplant my main rig. More I'm considering it as a media center or guest computer.

I want to build an AMD machine because I tire of the rather ridiculous business practices of Intel. (Namely epic price-gouging, a role as platform executioner, and an insistence on consistently having two competing platforms ) I'm also a bit of a sucker for the underdog, and, to be honest, I don't want to see AMD slip away; The only thing keeping Intel from charging us a left testicle for their platforms and CPUs is good ol' Big Red.

Now, with that in mind, I want to maximize the PPM of this machine. And, as such, I'm curious about the performance of the PII X6s vs. the new FX series. I'm really intrigued by Bulldozer and think the architecture, while proving to be rather inefficient in the real-world, is really interesting. Obviously, the PII X6 is a staple of computer-work based machines. (Being the only true hex core under $500) So, with the 8 series FX, you get 8 ALUs and 4 FPUs, (12 total processing cores), but with the PII you get 6 ALUs and 6 FPUs. (12 total processing cores) Essentially, my question is, does anyone have any idea of what most of the WCG work units consist of? More Floating Point, or more Arithmetic? Which, in your experience, pulls more PPM at somewhat similar clock speeds? I'm sure there are some AMD fans who can weigh in.


----------



## ThE_MaD_ShOt (Aug 11, 2012)

Welcome man and it great to have you on the team  

Now with my 1055T's at the stock 2.8 I average between 3 and 3.5k ppd. My buddy Norton is running a Fx815 and he is getting close to 1k ppd more. I know these aren't clock for clock but I don't know of anyone on the team running a 1090 or 1100t x6 yet. Now if it was me I would go for the fx series just for future upgrade path. Yes the x6 may be a little cheaper right now to build but your at the end of the line for those. Amd is releasing the PD within the next couple months and it will work in the current Am3+ boards so you can upgrade to that later with just a cpu change.


----------



## [Ion] (Aug 11, 2012)

Xenturion said:


> Well, first off, I'll introduce myself, Xenturion (or Dake on WCG). I joined the TPU WCG team about a week ago. I've been crunching for WCG for nearly 2 years now and it's something I really enjoy. When I saw that the TPU team does so well and read some of the forum posts in this subforum, I realized that there were other people out there as passionate about it as I am. So, I joined the team. And here I am.
> 
> However, as the title states, I want to talk team Red. Currently, I've got an i7 920 @ 3.5Ghz, a Core i5 2400 running at work, and a A6-3400M @ 2.0Ghz that I really need to work on having up and running more often. Even still, I've got the system builder bug (as many of us do), and I find myself constantly dreaming up my next rig. Seeing as my 920 @ 3.5Ghz is still plenty for games, I'm not really looking to supplant my main rig. More I'm considering it as a media center or guest computer.
> 
> ...



Wait for Norton to weight in, he's running several AMD FX-8xx0 and FX-6xx0 CPUs; they all seem to do well for him.  My suggestion would be to get a FX-8120, for $170 you get a CPU that runs 8 tasks and does ~4k PPD (apparently, they can do close to 6k if OCed to a bit over 4GHz and running the right projects).  Sure, the FX-8120 is going to be slower than an i7, but not _drastically_ slower, and for the price IMO it's really hard to beat.


----------



## Xenturion (Aug 11, 2012)

Thanks, that's exactly the information I was looking for. I wasn't expecting a scientific comparison, only a rough estimate. When you say future upgrade path, has AMD indicated it intends on keeping the AM3+ alive through Piledriver? Either way, I think when the time comes, I'll go with an FX8120, throw an aftermarket cooler on it, and see where I can get as far as multiplier goes without adding too much voltage. (My i7 920 and 2 GTX 480's already pose enough threat to circuit breakers without me adding a highly overclocked 8120 to the mix)

I also have another question though: Is WCG currently issuing GPU work units for any project? And if so, how do I sign up? I've already set my computers to receive "beta" work units and I have my preferences set to always use GPU and set preferences to enable GPU calculations. I know CUDA still has a little more prevalence, and if at all possible, I would like to be able to set them yup to crunch a bit, too.


----------



## ThE_MaD_ShOt (Aug 11, 2012)

That all you need to do to except gpu betas. They don't come out often and when they do they don't linger around. Maybe a day at most. 


Piledriver will use Am3+ so if you go fx now you can always pop in a PD later.  I will be slowly upgrading to FX chips in all my crunchers in the near future. Even the x6's are going to go bye bye just they will be the last to go.


----------



## Norton (Aug 11, 2012)

I would go with an FX-8150 as a first pick for a BD cruncher (for the higher stock clocks). Mine hits about 4k ppd at stock clocks. Daimus runs an overclocked FX-8120 and he easily hits 5-6k ppd.... I should hit the same when I put my clock up to the level he uses.

We both have our specs open at FreeDC so you are free to take a look at the output we're getting.

As Mad Shot said- Piledriver will be an AM3+ chip. Pildriver is reported/rumored to be 10-15% faster while using less power so you can expect even more WCG output with them. Would be nice if it is similar to the Phenom I to Phenom II performance increase.

*Note- my next FX will be an 8120 only because I want to complete the set... I'm running the 6100, 6200, and the 8150 already


----------



## Daimus (Aug 11, 2012)

I have nothing to add to what my friends said.
The only thing I would like to draw your attention.
Half of the tasks performs FX  faster than a Phenom, core per core. Even overclocked, FX shows lower results in the performance test, 7200 and 1850 vs 8400 and 3250. But, as rightly said ThE_MaD_ShOt, Phenom is the end of the line. I think that the future tasks will use new FX's instructions (AES, H.264). Don't know how, but I'm sure.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Aug 21, 2012)

First off welcome to the team, if you need anything, stop by the team thread and let's have a chat.  Really laid back place here 

As far as both CPU's I think you have it covered already with the previous posts


----------



## ThE_MaD_ShOt (Sep 1, 2012)

jimmyhelu said:


> Now lets move on too 1st gen Phenom's at 2.8 ghz averages 50 fps. ... AMD Phenom II 1100T X6 @3.66GHz | XFX Radeon HD 6870 1GB



Huh? We are talking about crunching performance. I have no idea what your talking about or are referring to.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Sep 1, 2012)

ThE_MaD_ShOt said:


> Huh? We are talking about crunching performance. I have no idea what your talking about or are referring to.




x2


----------

