|Official| Smiles Benchmark 2.0 Ranking Thread! (new version :P)

SmileMan said:
The FX series are known to be slow per core, so in 4 threaded they got NO advantage...
Click to expand...

Never said they had a advantage if we were talking about a FX 4 core. But it does use more then 4 cores. Like said on mine the 4 threaded one uses 6 cores. There is no way a Phenom II 4 core @ 3.4ghz. should beat a Zambezi 6 core running @ 4.3ghz. The FX has a 900mhz advantage plus 2 extra cores.

We can argue about it till the sky falls, but the 4 threaded one is not running right on a FX. If this was a Intel SB/IB vs. a Phenom II I would agree. But not between a Phenom II vs. Zambezi. There is no way a Zambezi running 900mhz faster and 2 extra cores is going to lose to a Phenom II X4.
 
Last edited:
StrangleHold said:
Never said they had a advantage if we were talking about a FX 4 core. But it does use more then 4 cores. Like said on mine the 4 threaded one uses 6 cores. There is no way a Phenom II 4 core @ 3.4ghz. should beat a Zambezi 6 core running @ 4.3ghz. The FX has a 900mhz advantage plus 2 extra cores.

We can argue about it till the sky falls, but the 4 threaded one is not running right on a FX. If this was a Intel SB/IB vs. a Phenom II I would agree. But not between a Phenom II vs. Zambezi. There is no way a Zambezi running 900mhz faster and 2 extra cores is going to lose to a Phenom II X4.
Click to expand...

It is true. FX didn't improve a lot over old phenom AM3+. Windows 7 didn't correctly recognize the AMD FX. Here is solution i found not long ago. There is rumor that if AMD FX is fully load, it would be little slow. Also AMD FX have problem such as windows 7 shuting down unused core prematurely.

http://www.techpowerup.com/158534/New-Windows-7-Bulldozer-Patches-Available..html
 
Jamebonds1 said:
It is true. FX didn't improve a lot over old phenom AM3+. Windows 7 didn't correctly recognize the AMD FX. Here is solution i found not long ago. There is rumor that if AMD FX is fully load, it would be little slow. Also AMD FX have problem such as windows 7 shuting down unused core prematurely.

http://www.techpowerup.com/158534/New-Windows-7-Bulldozer-Patches-Available..html
Click to expand...

Not trying to be rude. But there is nothing you can tell me about a FX. I'm the AMD dude and knew this months ago. Anyway I have everything disabled and it doesnt park cores, plus I have the Schedular patch already installed.
 
StrangleHold said:
Not trying to be rude. But there is nothing you can tell me about a FX. I'm the AMD dude and knew this months ago. Anyway I have everything disabled and it doesnt park cores, plus I have the Schedular patch already installed.
Click to expand...

IIRC the scheduler patch and the other one (there was 2 i know) together really didn't improve it much, it did some, but didn't it actually drop performance in some places?
 
jonnyp11 said:
IIRC the scheduler patch and the other one (there was 2 i know) together really didn't improve it much, it did some, but didn't it actually drop performance in some places?
Click to expand...

The Scheduler patch works some what. It helps spread out the threads instead of bunching them up on the same module/s. The parked core patch doesnt apply if you have everything as in power savings disabled, then it doesnt park cores anyway.
 
StrangleHold said:
The Scheduler patch works some what. It helps spread out the threads instead of bunching them up on the same module/s. The parked core patch doesnt apply if you have everything as in power savings disabled, then it doesnt park cores anyway.
Click to expand...

hopefully i can find out for myself, if i ever get this thing sold i plan to use a 6100 or 8120 and a better motherboard next time, but by the time i do hopefully i can get a piledriver, would be nice, it's so cheap to get amd chips if you go to microcenter.
 
heavy. Processor and memory is set on the CPUz tabs.
Untitled-95.jpg


One thing I noticed is that the heavy is not testing to its full. It never reached 100% on any core and was bouncing around the threads constantly.

Untitled1-9.jpg

Light 8 thread. 100% on all 8 threads.
 
AMD or Intel? Might it be a quark of HT? I can turn HT off and try again if it would score better by locking it down to 4 cores.
 
This benchmark is not stable. Note also that a 2600k does not outperform a 2500k at inferior speeds (200MHz over vista kid yet slower time)
Untitled-97.jpg


And beating laquerheads 3770k @ 5.0 with a 2600k @ 4.5
Untitled-96.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top