Phenom II vs. FX

claptonman

claptonman

New Member
It's time to do some benchmarking. Here I am testing the infamous FX series to the phenom II. A claim is that phenom IIs bench faster at stock using CPU benchmarks. Well, that may be true, but what about gaming? How does it compare at a gaming stand-point? How about the Bulldozer patch released by Microsoft and AMD? Well, let's find out.

I have yet to do a side-by-side test with an i5 2500k with everything else the same, but that's for another day. Here I am testing the similarly priced FX 6100 and Phenom II 960t.

Tests being run:

Unigine Heaven DX 11 Benchmark
Ran 3 times for each OS/CPU/overclock, average scores given.
Standard settings, 1920x1080.

The results from a benchmark may not be the same as in game, but its good for consistency. If one CPU performs better here, chances are it will perform better in game.

OS's being tested for the Phenom II:

Windows 7 Pro 64-bit

OS's being tested for the FX:

Windows 7 Pro 64-bit
Windows 7 Pro 64-bit with Microsoft Bulldozer patch

All OS's are a clean install. No updates given besides the bulldozer patch. I needed to go to service pack 1 to install those.. Aero disabled.
Programs installed: Unigine Heaven Benchmark, and Nvidia driver 296.10 for windows 7.

Settings:
960T @3.3GHZ and 4GHZ. 4GHZ is the fastest I've gotten the 960t without overdoing the voltage, so this will be the “max” for the 960t.

FX 6100 @3.3GHZ, 4GHZ, 4.5GHZ.

All BIOS power saving features are disabled.

System being tested is the same as in my signature, besides the SSD and motherboard. I did these tests when I had my Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3. All settings for the CPU, GPU, and RAM confirmed by CPU-z and GPU-z.

All OS's installed cleanly to my Western Digital 750GB HDD Black, 64mb cache with no other partitions.

First up: 960T at 3.3ghz with windows 7.

claptonman-albums-amd-cpu-picture716-960t-3-3.png


960T at 4ghz.

claptonman-albums-amd-cpu-picture717-960t-4.png


Pretty obvious results. Higher overclock = better results. Does the overclock do much where it would be stupid not to do it? From the Minimum and average FPS readings, doesn't look like it much. Let's see what the FX does.

6100 at 3.3ghz.

claptonman-albums-amd-cpu-picture718-fx-3-3.png


At 4ghz.

claptonman-albums-amd-cpu-picture720-fx-4.png


At 4.5ghz.

claptonman-albums-amd-cpu-picture719-fx-4-5.png


Conclusion:

Does the FX outperform a Phenom II? Yes. At the same speeds, the minimum and average FPS are better for the FX. The max FPS for the Phenom II may be higher, but at that high of a FPS, you would not notice a difference.

The update for bulldozer? Does seem to make a difference. Outperforms at 4GHZ, but no where else. My conclusion for this is that the update does not effect gaming.

Final conclusion:

The FX is the better choice for gaming, if you can find a 6100 at the same price as a Phenom II, which I did. There are minimal gains comparing the FX to the Phenom II for gaming, but it still is better. If the prices are similar, why not get the FX?

A comment that has been floating around is that the FX is a dud. Does this seem like a dud? No. The FX is faster at gaming compared to the Phenom II, looking at the average and minimum FPS.

Hope you all liked the comparison I made.

Any comments/suggestions/criticisms are welcome.
 
Darren

Darren

Moderator
Staff member
Everyone had overhyped expectations. They were expecting some good competition for Intel. That didn't happen, but AMD still released a decent line. Hopefully new programs will be better optimized for the processors.
 
StrangleHold

StrangleHold

Moderator
Staff member
I look at it like this. I would recommend a FX-4000 over a Athlon II. A FX-6000 over the Phenom II X4. A FX-8120 over a Phenom II X6. Even in the few IPC efficiencies it has vs. the Phenom II, it will clock alot better then a Phenom II to make up the difference plus quite a bit. True if you run the voltage over 1.4V it will pull more wattage then the Phenom II. But thats not really a issue with me so its a mute point.
 
M

Mishkin

New Member
Denther said:
Everyone had overhyped expectations. They were expecting some good competition for Intel. That didn't happen, but AMD still released a decent line. Hopefully new programs will be better optimized for the processors.
Click to expand...

I disagree about your "a decent line" comment. I don't see how it could be viewed as decent, considering that at least from a gaming/majority standpoint it performs nearly identically to the LAST generation. I mean really, the fact that this thread itself exists says everything that needs to be said. The only outside shot Bulldozer has is its different architecture, in case a miracle happens and later iterations of it (like Piledriver) become a resounding success. Then you could at least look back at Bulldozer and give it the credit of being the pioneer.

The big saving grace it has (at least for gaming) is that an FX cpu is still good enough for most gamers, which is almost unfortunate. It's too bad PC games are no longer cutting-edge and you would NEED to have the current equivalent of a modern Intel processor to run games as well as most people would like. But that still gives no excuse and isn't relevant to the fact that it is more or less the same thing as the last generation.
 
Last edited:
JLuchinski

JLuchinski

Well-Known Member
I've been on the fence about this one, I don't know if I should get an FX chip or go with intel as I suspect my 970 is a bottleneck to my GTX 670. Thanks to the OP for taking the time to do this also.
 
StrangleHold

StrangleHold

Moderator
Staff member
Mishkin said:
I disagree about your "a decent line" comment. I don't see how it could be viewed as decent, considering that at least from a gaming/majority standpoint it performs nearly identically to the LAST generation. I mean really, the fact that this thread itself exists says everything that needs to be said. The only outside shot Bulldozer has is its different architecture, in case a miracle happens and later iterations of it (like Piledriver) become a resounding success. Then you could at least look back at Bulldozer and give it the credit of being the pioneer.

The big saving grace it has (at least for gaming) is that an FX cpu is still good enough for most gamers, which is almost unfortunate. It's too bad PC games are no longer cutting-edge and you would NEED to have the current equivalent of a modern Intel processor to run games as well as most people would like. But that still gives no excuse and isn't relevant to the fact that it is more or less the same thing as the last generation.
Click to expand...

Its points of view like this that gives this thread reason. Unrealistic condescending, even contradicting yourself. I'll even go so far to say, since the FX are all unlocked and meant to be overclocked. I would rather have a FX then any Intel processor other then the K models. Take the 8120, its unlocked and can clock to 4.5ghz easy with out hardly any voltage increase. Show me a 169 buck Intel that can out perform it.
 
claptonman

claptonman

New Member
Mishkin said:
I disagree about your "a decent line" comment. I don't see how it could be viewed as decent, considering that at least from a gaming/majority standpoint it performs nearly identically to the LAST generation. I mean really, the fact that this thread itself exists says everything that needs to be said. The only outside shot Bulldozer has is its different architecture, in case a miracle happens and later iterations of it (like Piledriver) become a resounding success. Then you could at least look back at Bulldozer and give it the credit of being the pioneer.

The big saving grace it has (at least for gaming) is that an FX cpu is still good enough for most gamers, which is almost unfortunate. It's too bad PC games are no longer cutting-edge and you would NEED to have the current equivalent of a modern Intel processor to run games as well as most people would like. But that still gives no excuse and isn't relevant to the fact that it is more or less the same thing as the last generation.
Click to expand...
Not the point of this thread. Point of it is for people helping others build low priced and high performance machines. Many times people suggest phenom over FX just because of word of mouth. This thread shows that FX does perform better than the phenom.

And I don't think my 60+ fps on BF3 on high settings (probably the most intense graphical game out there) shows that AMD processors are not something to be passed over and seen as something that can't produce good graphics in games.
JLuchinski said:
I've been on the fence about this one, I don't know if I should get an FX chip or go with intel as I suspect my 970 is a bottleneck to my GTX 670. Thanks to the OP for taking the time to do this also.
Click to expand...

If it plays good to you, I wouldn't worry about it.
 
spynoodle

spynoodle

Active Member
I like how you tested one of the lower-end Bulldozer chips. Usually the FX-8100 is the only one that's ever talked about, which is not representative of how well the lower-end models compare to some of Intel's CPUs. The FX-4100 actually beats the Core i3s at its price point.
 
jonnyp11

jonnyp11

New Member
FuryRosewood

FuryRosewood

Active Member
Only places the bugger seemed to get beat at Johnny was at high resolutions with AA enabled, which...is not what your going to use a budget chip and gpu for honestly. Still say you could go either way and get good performance on a budget, but without a budget, amd isnt viable. Both those chips were neck and neck at normal settings for the hardware used
 
M

Mishkin

New Member
StrangleHold said:
Its points of view like this that gives this thread reason. Unrealistic condescending, even contradicting yourself. I'll even go so far to say, since the FX are all unlocked and meant to be overclocked. I would rather have a FX then any Intel processor other then the K models. Take the 8120, its unlocked and can clock to 4.5ghz easy with out hardly any voltage increase. Show me a 169 buck Intel that can out perform it.
Click to expand...

Explain yourself. I would like to know what in my post was condescending, unless you count simply disagreeing with someone as condescension. Also, I am curious as to what in my post was unrealistic and contradictory. Anything specific?

By the way...overclocked crap is still crap. An FX may work just fine for a lot of gamers right now, but the second you throw a higher-end video card into the mix or even THINK about any sort of future-proofing down the road, it starts looking pretty unattractive. For gaming I would take virtually any modern Intel processor over an FX, other than the Pentium line. When it comes to FX, overclocking simply doesn't make up the difference. To me, the final results and final performance are infinitely more important than the % overclock any certain chip can achieve.

^^That's condescension.
 
JLuchinski

JLuchinski

Well-Known Member
Well so far it's ok. At stock it's just a tad faster then the 970 which isn't bad considering I paid $25 more for the 970. 3d mark 11 scores are as follows: 970: 6870, FX 6100: 6931. I gave the 6100 an 8% oc which puts it at the same speed as the 970 at stock and got a score of 7139. I'm going to see how much further I can push it without voltage adjustments.
 
M1kkelZR

M1kkelZR

Active Member
I just don't get how the 6100 beats the 960T...
I've always read tha the FX series were Crap. Or maybe the 6100 is the only good FX out there :O
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top