POPPUR爱换

 找回密码
 注册

QQ登录

只需一步,快速开始

手机号码,快捷登录

搜索
查看: 2123|回复: 1
打印 上一主题 下一主题

xbitlabs的测试来了

[复制链接]
跳转到指定楼层
1#
发表于 2011-10-12 14:12 | 只看该作者 回帖奖励 |倒序浏览 |阅读模式
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-8150.html
Gaming PerformanceAs you know, it is the graphics subsystem that determines the performance of the entire platform equipped with pretty high-speed processors in the majority of contemporary games. Therefore, we do our best to make sure that the graphics card is not loaded too heavily during the test session: we select the most CPU-dependent tests and all tests are performed without antialiasing and in far not the highest screen resolutions. In other words, obtained results allow us to analyze not that much the fps rate that can be achieved in systems equipped with contemporary graphics accelerators, but rather how well contemporary processors can cope with gaming workload. Therefore, the results help us determine how the tested CPUs will behave in the nearest future, when new faster graphics card models will be widely available.








2#
发表于 2011-10-12 14:15 | 只看该作者
Performance in ApplicationsI have to say that the general and gaming performance of the new desktop Bulldozer turned out lower than we expected. However, we are not giving up and are ready to look for situations where new AMD microarchitecture will really shine.
To test the processors performance during data archiving we resort to WinRAR archiving utility. Using maximum compression rate we archive a folder with multiple files 1.4 GB in total size.

FX-8150 performance turns out close to that of Core i5-2500. WinRAR is not one of those applications that can split the load into eight parallel threads for all eight Bulldozer cores, but gigantic cache-memory seems to be saving the situation here.
The second similar test of the archiving speed is performed in 7-zip that uses LZMA2 compression algorithm.

FX-8150 does really great in 7-zip. This eight-core processor gets very close to the quad-core Core i7-2600 with enabled Hyper-Threading, which can also execute eight threads at the same time, just like the new Bulldozer.
The processor performance during encryption is measured with an integrated benchmark from a popular cryptographic utility called TrueCrypt. I have to say that it can not only effectively utilize any number of processor cores, but also supports special AES instructions.

Well-paralleled simple integer algorithms are exactly what Bulldozer microarchitecture needs. As we can see, the performance may be pretty impressive in this case. Namely, the only processor FX-8150 couldn’t outperform was the six-core Core i7-990X. As for all LGA1155 processors, our hero was way ahead all of them.
We use Apple iTunes utility to test audio transcoding speed. It transcodes the contents of a CD disk into AAC format. Note that the typical peculiarity of this utility is its ability to utilize only a pair of processor cores.

Applications generating few computational threads are not a good match for Bulldozer. Individual cores of this processor are too weak to perform well here.
We measured the performance in Adobe Photoshop using our own benchmark made from Retouch Artists Photoshop Speed Test that has been creatively modified. It includes typical editing of four 10-megapixel images from a digital photo camera.

In Photoshop FX-8150 doesn’t perform as poorly as K10 based processors, but it is still unable to catch up with Core i5-2500. In this case large cache memory helps Bulldozer microarchitecture a lot, but it is not enough to guarantee victory. The efficiency and specific performance of the computational cores are still the primary factor.
We have also performed some tests in Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3 program. The test scenario includes post-processing and export into JPEG format of a hundred 12-megapixel images in RAW format.

Lightroom is capable of splitting the photo processing between any number of cores that is why eight-core FX-8150 does pretty well here. Although I have to admit that “pretty well” could be considered a very relative term in this case, as its performance is only comparable with that of the Core i5-2500. And therefore it means that two Bulldozer cores are equivalent to one Sandy Bridge core without Hyper-Threading.
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

广告投放或合作|网站地图|处罚通告|

GMT+8, 2025-4-6 23:40

Powered by Discuz! X3.4

© 2001-2017 POPPUR.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表