AMD Phenom II X6 1100T versus FX-8120 Performance Guide

Discussions about AMD Processors and overclocking. Need help with that new AMD CPU or not sure which one to buy? Like to void your warranty? This is the place for you! Please keep the topic on Processors only!
User avatar
windwithme
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 583
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:27 am
Contact:

AMD Phenom II X6 1100T versus FX-8120 Performance Guide

Postby windwithme » Mon Dec 26, 2011 12:27 am

In the past years, AMD CPU performance hasn’t been revolute.
Since 2006, first time K8 performance crossed over by Core 2 Duo, they started to focus on multi-core and parity price.
For entry or mainstream PC users, it’s good news.
During that time, AMD high end product lost the performance strength, they only could move to mid-end market.
After Core i launched, the single core performance gap was even bigger. Multi-core became main product strategy for AMD.

Image

Windwithme would like to share CPU comparison since FX-8120/8150 lanuched.
Originally, I would like to use 3 unlocked CPUs which price is around 200USD to compare.
They are AMD Phenom II X6 1100T, AMD FX-8120 and Intel Core i5-2500K.
For 2500K performance, I have shared many times which you can refer my former reviews.
Moreover, 2500K may make this stage brutally. After consideration, I decided to use AMD only.

AMD Phenom II X6 series, 1090T has the best C/P value.
However, I pick Phenom II X6 1100T due to the price is similar to FX-8120.
1100T packing is all black which meets Black Edition.
Image

Left side is AMD Phenom II X6 1100T.
Right side is original cooler. Black Edition CPU cooler is bigger size and cooper pipe design.
This cooler is same grade as FX-8120.
Image

Before the battle, let’s introduce the players.
Left side representative - AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition
45nm, 6-Cores, official clock is 3.3GHz, TDP 125W
Core name is Thuban and supports Turbo Core to 3.7GHz. L2 is 3MB and L3 is 6MB.

Right side representative - AMD FX-8120.
32nm, 8-Cores、official clock is 3.2GHz
Normal FX-8120 is 125W. This review is using lower power consumption version, TDP is 95W.
Core name is Zambezi and supports Turbo Core to 4.0GHz. L2 is 8MB and L3 is 8MB.
Image

Just judge by spec, FX-8120 manufacturing is more advanced.
FX-8120 has bigger L2 and L3 cache. After sharing to each core, actual L3 is 1MB and L2 is 2 times of 1100T.
Image

I pick AMD current most high end chipset 990FX - GIGABYTE 990FXA-D3.
Using entry 990FX MB can have better C/P.
Image

Blue PCB is standard color of GIGABYTE. This year, they also use black PCB for high end MB to enhance texture.
Image

Lower-Left Corner
4 X PCI-E 2.0 X16 support 2-Way ATI CrossFireX/nVIDIA SLI.
Dual VGA bandwidth is X16+X16. The others are X4.
2 X PCI-E X1
1 X PCI
Realtek RTL8111E LAN chip.
Realtek ALC889 audio chip supports 7.1 channels High Definition Audio and S/PDIF output.
Image

Lower-Right Corner
6 X Blue SATA provide by SB950 and support SATA3.
It also supports RAID 0, RAID 1, RAID 5, RAID 10 and JBOD.
TPM security encryption module slot and dual 32 Mbit Flash BIOS.
Image

Upper-Right Corner
4 X DIMM DDR3 support 1066/1333/1600/1866/2000(OC). The max DDR3 capacity is 32GB.
DDR3 2000 needs to pull CPU clock. Next is 24-PIN DC-In connector.
Image

User avatar
windwithme
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 583
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:27 am
Contact:

Re: AMD Phenom II X6 1100T versus FX-8120 Performance Guide

Postby windwithme » Mon Dec 26, 2011 12:43 am

Upper-Left Corner
990FXA-D3 uses 4+1 phases PWM. The upper white connector is 8-PIN DC-In.
Black AM3+ socket supports AMD AM3+ FX/AM3 Phenom II/AMD Athlon II CPU.
Image

IO
1 X PS2 KB/MS
1 X S/PDIF optical output connector
8 X USB 2.0(Red)
2 X USB 3.0(Blue)
1 X RJ-45 LAN
6 X Audio
Image

System Configuration
CPU: AMD Phenom II X6 1100T / FX-8120 8-Core Processor
MB: GIGABYTE 990FXA-D3
DRAM: CORSAIR VENGEANCE CMZ8GX3M2A1600C9
VGA: msi N560GTX-Ti Twin Frozr II
HD: Intel 510 Series 120GB
POWER: be quiet! STRAIGHT POWER GOLDEN 550W
Cooler: CORSAIR Hydro Series H60
OS: Windows7 Ultimate 64bit SP1
Image

Besides CPUs are different, the other spec is all the same.
Performance Test
1100T
CPU 201.4 X 29 => 3323.1MHz(Torbo 3726MHz)
DDR3 1610.8 CL7 9-8-24 1T
FX-8120
CPU 201.4 X 29 => 3222.4MHz(Torbo 4028MHz)
DDR3 1879.2 CL9 10-9-24 1T

As same software test below, the first pic is 1100T and second is FX-8120.
Hyper PI 32M X 6 => 22m 48.628s
CPUMARK 99 => 504
Image

Hyper PI 32M X 8 => 28m 37.477s
CPUMARK 99 => 423
Image

CPUMARK and PI both have long history. I still remember K8 was always leading Pentium4 in CPUMARK and PI.
Till now, CPUMARK is still very good and easy benchmark software in single core test.
Early stage, SUPER PI only can test single core CPU. Now, latest version Hyper PI can support 16 cores. It’s a very common benchmark software.
1100T single core performance is higher than FX-8210 around 19.1% in CPUMARK. In Hyper PI 32M, multi-core full speed is also 26.2% faster.

Nuclearus Multi Core => 2216
Fritz Chess Benchmark => 24.33/11677
Image

Nuclearus Multi Core => 16231
Fritz Chess Benchmark => 20.87/10019
Image

Nuclearus Multi Core hasn’t been update after 2008. It doesn’t support multi-core well.
As FX-8120, it can run Multi Thread Speed. In contrast, 1100T cannot run this option.
Former 6-Cores 980X and recent 3-Cores A6-3500 also cannot finish the test. Implying it cannot support triple murderer cores?!
However, we can refer to the full finished ALU Speed and FPU Speed items, 1100T is still leading obviously.
Fritz Chess Benchmark is a multi-core benchmark by chess. It can support to 8 threads.
1100T 6-core full speed is 24.33 and FX-8120 8-core full speed is 20.87. 1100T is still 16.6% higher.

CrystalMark 2004R3 => 222715
Image

CrystalMark 2004R3 => 219825
Image

CrystalMark 2004R3 test several items performance in full system. 1100T is still a little ahead in total score.
If look into CPU performance, you can refer to the ALU and FPU to see the difference.
For DDR3 performance, FX-8120 has more advantages. You can see detail test below.

User avatar
windwithme
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 583
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:27 am
Contact:

Re: AMD Phenom II X6 1100T versus FX-8120 Performance Guide

Postby windwithme » Mon Dec 26, 2011 1:04 am

CINEBENCH R11.5
CPU => 5.87 pts
CPU(Single Core) => 1.09 pts
Image

CINEBENCH R11.5
CPU => 5.11 pts
CPU(Single Core) => 0.96 pts
Image

CINEBENCH is fastest updated and complete multi-core support.
1100T in single core performance is 13.5% higher. 6-core full speed is also 14.9% higher than FX-8120 8-core full speed.
MP Ratio can see 1100T 6-core efficiency is 5.36x, but FX-8120 8-core is only 5.31x.
It looks like it’s caused by 4M8T new structure.
OpenGL pages, FX-8120 is 9.3% higher.

PCMark Vantage => 13589
Image

PCMark Vantage => 12803
Image

PCMark7 => 3993
Image

PCMark7 => 3845
Image

PCMark Vantage and PCMark7 are both system benchmark. The difference is not big. 1100T total score is a little bit higher.

Windows Experience Index - CPU 7.5
Image

Windows Experience Index - CPU 7.5
Image

Basically, Windows Experience Index is very fast and convenient benchmark software. The accuracy is based on persons.
If using FX-8120 in other 990FX, the score is 7.8. However, the other benchmark is almost the same.
In Z68, I also suffered this issue before.
I set DRAM at DDR3-2133 and one Z68 got only 5.9 but the other got 7.9.
After comparing three DDR3 bandwidth software, the performance is same for both Z68 platforms.
I only can say, Windows Experience Index is very simple benchmark tool. It’s just for reference.

DRAM structure is the key change for FX-8120. It uses AMD latest Memory Controller.
In CPU 200MHz and don’t OC frequency, the memory can set to DDR3 1866, but 1100T only can reach 1600.
This review uses CORSAIR VENGEANCE series DDR3. The model is CMZ8GX3M2A1600C9.
The packing shows it supports both AMD and Intel dual channel platforms. The capacity is 2 X 4GB.
Image

The clock is DDR3 1600. CAS Latency is 9 9-9-24 at 1.50V. It meets AMD platform latest 1.5V voltage regulation.
VENGEANCE series has black, red, blue and green colors. Each color means different spec and use.
This VENGEANCE can work at DDR3 1600 CL7 or OC to 1866 CL9. It’s good for enhancing these 2 CPUs performance.
Image

User avatar
windwithme
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 583
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:27 am
Contact:

Re: AMD Phenom II X6 1100T versus FX-8120 Performance Guide

Postby windwithme » Mon Dec 26, 2011 1:26 am

1100T DDR3 1610.8 CL7 9-8-24 1T
ADIA64 Memory Read - 9280 MB/s
Sandra Memory Bandwidth - 12768 MB/s
MaXXMEM Memory-Copy - 11660 MB/s
Image

FX-8120 DDR3 1879.2 CL9 10-9-24 1T
ADIA64 Memory Read - 14699 MB/s
Sandra Memory Bandwidth - 18120 MB/s
MaXXMEM Memory-Copy - 13862 MB/s
Image

DDR3 bandwidth, FX-8120 wins 1100T in big gap.
FX-8120 leads 58.4% in ADIA64, 41.9% in Sandra and 18.9% in MaXXMEM.
FX-8120 bandwidth score is similar to Intel first Gen. Core i platform. It’s still a little behind 2nd Gen. Core i platform.
At least it’s a shot in the AMD arm. In the past 8 years, this improvement is a big step. I hope they can catch up the competitor’s bandwidth.

Temperature – Enable Cool 'n' Quiet power saving technology
1100T Enter to OS Desktop - 34(Room temperature is 20˚C)
Image

FX-8120 Enter to OS Desktop - 30
Image

1100T Full Speed - 60
LinX 0.6.4
Image

FX-8120 Full Speed - 45
LinX 0.6.4
Image

AMD32nm APU and FX series CPUs always show very temperature in most software.
Sometimes, it’s even lower than room temperature. It’s often to see 8~16˚C. However, CPU is not a cooler. The temperature should be higher than room temperature.
It shouldn’t be lower environment temperature. I will ignore AIDA number.
For right side MB tool to compare, we can use this for reference. Even though, I think this number is still lower than FX-8120 real temperature.
In Touch BIOS, 32nm FX-8120 burning temperature is much lower.
It has 2 more cores than 1100T. As we set both in default mode, FX-8120 temperature owns the obvious advantage.

Power Consumption Test
1100T Enter to OS Desktop (Enable CNQ) - 81W
Image

FX-8120 Enter to OS Desktop (Enable CNQ) - 74W
Image

1100T Enter to OS Desktop (Disable CNQ) - 103W
Image

FX-8120 Enter to OS Desktop (Disable CNQ)- 93W
Image

User avatar
windwithme
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 583
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:27 am
Contact:

Re: AMD Phenom II X6 1100T versus FX-8120 Performance Guide

Postby windwithme » Mon Dec 26, 2011 1:33 am

1100T Full Speed - 238W
LinX 0.6.4
Image

FX-8120 Full Speed - 166W
LinX 0.6.4
Image

When enter to OS desktop, FX-8120 power consumption is 7~10W lower.
When both CPU work at multi-core full speed, FX-8120 power consumption is 72W lower.
FX-8120 in default mode, no matter temperature or power consumption, it all shows 32nm advantage.
In the premise, it’s only for default mode. I shared FX-8120 OC status in my previous review.
Even it’s 95W FX-8120, when I OC over 4.3GHz, the power consumption bump up to over 380W.
FX-8120 temperature is also rise a lot.

3D Test
msi N560GTX-Ti Twin Frozr II
3DMark Vantage => P21867 CPU SCORE => 54346
Image

3DMark Vantage => P19559 CPU SCORE => 46417
Image

StreetFighter IV Benchmark
1920 X 1080 => 242.92 FPS
Image

StreetFighter IV Benchmark
1920 X 1080 => 223.66 FPS
Image

FINAL FANTASY XIV
1920 X 1080 => 4018
Image

FINAL FANTASY XIV
1920 X 1080 => 3538
Image

1100T in 3DMark Vantage, the 3D performance is 11.8% higher and CPU score is 17.1% more.
In StreetFighter IV and FINAL FANTASY XIV, 1100Ts is also 8.6% and 13.6% higher than FX-8120.
You can see for Game, CPU execution performance is very important. Also, most games just need 2~4Cores.
For real 3D requirement, core number is not the most important factor. I suggest you to choose higher performance CPU.

GIGABYTE 990FXA-D3
Good
1. The price segment is entry level in 3 major brands.
2. It has 4 PCI-E X16 and supports 2-Way ATI CFX and nVIDIA SLI technology.
3. IO provides 8 USB 2.0 and 2 USB 3.0 interface. Including front USB, user can have 14 USB 2.0 devices.
4. Built-in 6 native SATA3 support many RAID modes.
5. BIOS provides plenty items and wide voltage range which is good for OC or fine tune performance.

Weakness
1. Heat sink is a little small and no pipe.
2. It’s no front USB 3.0 Port.
3. BIOS is not UEFI interface.

Image

Performance ★★★★★★★★☆☆
Components ★★★★★★★★★☆
Specification ★★★★★★★★☆☆
Appearance ★★★★★★★★☆☆
C/P Value ★★★★★★★★☆☆

After so many comparisons, you can see both CPU has their own strength and weakness.
As default mode, no matter single core or multi-core performance, Phenom II X6 is all better than FX-8120.
FX-8120 has obvious advantage in temperature and power consumption. Its’ CINEBENCH OpenGL page is also very good.
Also, FX CPU DDR3 bandwidth wins X6 a lot. This is Bulldozer structure main strength for performance.

Maybe many readers think the benchmark is just numbers. They prefer to know the performance in real use environment.
I use so many benchmark software, applications or games to test. I think the score is also consultative.

Image

In the AMD market, if you are looking for better performance, you can choose Phenom II X6 CPU with 970X or entry 990FX.
If you need more cores, better temperature, lower power consumption, latest AMD platform and don’t care the lower performance, you can choose FX-8120.
However, the current price is a little bit high.
Bulldozer structure introduces 8-Cores to PC market, but the structure and performance is not good enough.
If AMD would like to break through the performance bottleneck currently, I suggest they can move Phenom II X6 to 32nm.
Also improve Bulldozer structure to be more efficient and launch FX II to win back the users confidence.
Above is windwithme sharing for AMD new platforms. As a smart users, for mainstream CPU, what your choice will be?

Finally, Happy Holidays… Let’s countdown to 2012. :)

User avatar
Major_A
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 3793
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 2:11 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Re: AMD Phenom II X6 1100T versus FX-8120 Performance Guide

Postby Major_A » Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:57 am

Sad news when the old Thuban thumps the Bulldozer. I really can't believe they released this product in its current state. Thanks for the review as always.

Just curious where are you located? I know Japan uses the US standard (120V 60Hz) while much more of the world uses the Euro standard (240V 50Hz). 240V is inherently more efficient than 120V so I'm just curious when looking at your power draw.

ewanqbl
Legit Little One
Legit Little One
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2012 5:20 am

Re: AMD Phenom II X6 1100T versus FX-8120 Performance Guide

Postby ewanqbl » Fri Jan 20, 2012 5:37 am

So why are people insisting this much on Bulldozer? I have two friends that refuse to believe that bulldozer is such a slouch and want a FX 8150. I told them it would be cheaper to go for the Intel i5 2500K, but they feel like they are being ripped off by Intel somehow. And it's a lot cheaper than going for the FX 8150.

Lovely review and presentation. I know I am new to the forum and my posts will raise some eyebrows, but very good stuff and I appreciate you have taken the time to present this.

Toallpointswest
Legit User
Legit User
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:44 am

Re: AMD Phenom II X6 1100T versus FX-8120 Performance Guide

Postby Toallpointswest » Tue Jan 31, 2012 8:36 am

To be fair your friends are correct in a sense.. while AMD clearly doesn't offer superior processor capabilities, they do offer superior upgradability. In the past 5 years how many times has a new processor from Intel required an entirely new motherboard due to a socket difference? How many times as AMD? If you look at it from that standpoint, AMD comes out ahead as a total platform, however if you're purely looking at processors then Intel is ahead

EDIT: Thank you windwithme for doing this review, I've been wondering about the performance delta between the older X6 and the FX chip series for awhile. Looks like I'll be putting an X6 in my board for my next upgrade

User avatar
Major_A
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 3793
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 2:11 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Re: AMD Phenom II X6 1100T versus FX-8120 Performance Guide

Postby Major_A » Tue Jan 31, 2012 9:00 am

Toallpointswest wrote:In the past 5 years how many times has a new processor from Intel required an entirely new motherboard due to a socket difference? How many times as AMD?

Both have done this time and time again. Intel rode socket 775 for a long time. During that time AMD released a lot of other sockets. When the Athlon 64 first came out it was on the socket 754 for less than a year before they came along with the socket 939. There's also rumors that the new Llano replacement isn't going to be a FM1 socket. Point is they both do this so it's a matter of research and hoping that they don't abandon a socket too quickly (I have a feeling that the LGA 2011 isn't going to be around very long).

NightDarkfold
Legit Little One
Legit Little One
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:46 pm

Re: AMD Phenom II X6 1100T versus FX-8120 Performance Guide

Postby NightDarkfold » Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:10 pm

((edited to show computer specs))

Heres the problem... AMD has started to "hyperthread" their processors!! I myself am actually fairly irate that this was marketed (AMD FX-8120 and 8150) as being 8 cores. I am an AMD fan but this one may have been the stick that broke the proverbial camel's back. Look at the x6, it has 512 x 6 the fx 8120/8150 have 2048 x 4. Everest lists the cores as follows....FieldValue CPUID Registers (CPU #1) CPUID Registers (CPU #2 Virtual)and so on for cpu2 and cpu3 virtual..... they are not truly an 8 core processor, they are a 4 core with 4 virtual cores, much like intel's hyperthread technology.

If someone can show me where I am wrong, please do so and make me feel better for spending $230.oo dollars on a processor that I had been lead to believe was superior in numbers even if the benchmarks said differently. The benchmark I use for all my machines is FFTz from sourceforge net. The phenom benched at 577, un-overclocked and untouched, the fx-8120 benched a 397, in my experience with my benchmark that I use its generally about 100 marks or so for one core. Some do better then others. My wife's laptop has an i3 in it, its similar to the old extreme edition dual core intels, its a dual core hyperthreaded cpu, it benched a 238, again keeping in line with the ~100 mark per core.

I am tempted to sent it back to AMD and ask for a phenom for exchange or face lawsuit for false advertisement.

My current system is configured as such:
Field Value
Computer
Operating System Windows 7 Ultimate Media Center Edition

Motherboard Asus
CPU Type AMD FX-8120 4x , 3433 MHz
Motherboard Name formula V rev 1.xx(ROG)
Motherboard Chipset Ati ID5A14
System Memory 16344 MB
BIOS Type AMI version 0913 (09/27/2011)

Display
Video Adapter GeForce 9500 GT
Video Adapter GeForce 9500 GT
Video Adapter NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti
Video Adapter NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti
Monitor Generic PnP Monitor [NoDB] (MXI74D0N00035)
Monitor Generic PnP Monitor [NoDB] (QFP065103945)
Monitor Generic PnP Monitor [NoDB] (QY6075103386)

Storage
IDE Controller AMD SATA Controller
IDE Controller Asmedia 106x SATA Controller
SCSI/RAID Controller AV174I6I IDE Controller
SCSI/RAID Controller MagicISO SCSI Host Controller
SCSI/RAID Controller Romex SCSI Controller
Disk Drive WDC WD32 00AAJS-22VWA0 SATA Disk Device (298 GB)
Disk Drive ST315005 41AS SATA Disk Device (1397 GB)
Disk Drive WDC WD50 00BEVT-22ZAT0 SATA Disk Device (465 GB)
Disk Drive WL640GSA 1672 SATA Disk Device (596 GB)
Disk Drive Maxtor 6 L300R0 USB Device (300 GB, 7200 RPM, Ultra-ATA/133)
Disk Drive Romex RAM-DISK SCSI Device (3 GB)
Optical Drive LGBYFK LMV8L6F89Q SCSI CdRom Device
Optical Drive MagicISO Virtual DVD-ROM0000
Optical Drive MagicISO Virtual DVD-ROM0001
SMART Hard Disks Status OK

Partitions
C: (NTFS) 295249 MB (73138 MB free)
D: (NTFS) 15005 MB (7406 MB free)
F: (NTFS) 4095 MB (4049 MB free)
G: (NTFS) 610477 MB (225381 MB free)
J: (NTFS) 445929 MB (78165 MB free)
T: (NTFS) 1430796 MB (361266 MB free)
Total Size 2735.9 GB (731.8 GB free)

Input
Keyboard Standard PS/2 Keyboard
Mouse HID-compliant mouse

Network
Network Adapter Intel(R) 82583V Gigabit Network Connection

User avatar
Athlonite
Legit Fanatic
Legit Fanatic
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 10:01 pm

Re: AMD Phenom II X6 1100T versus FX-8120 Performance Guide

Postby Athlonite » Sat Jun 30, 2012 1:06 pm

what are you smoking NightDarkfold AMD don't do Hyperthreading

AMD FX 8120/50 8 cores = 4 x 2 x86 cores + 1 x87 core so that gives you 8x x86 cores and 4x x87

also MS just released 2 new patches for the FX 1st one is for thread scheduling and the second one deals with core parking in lightly threaded situations download em and use em you'll notice a difference trust me

windows 7's thread scheduler doesn't quite know what to do with the FX properly with the patch it's fixed

the core parking one stops cores from being shut off in lightly threaded situations and force all cores to be used
[color=#FF0000]Asus Crosshair V Formula
AMD FX 8320 @ 3700MHz NB/HT @ 2600MHZ
2x 4GB Corsair Vengeance LP 1600 C9
1x Sapphire Radeon HD 7850 9550MHz core 1250MHz mem
1x Pioneer DVD-RW DVR212S SATA
2x Samsung HD502IJ 16MB cache 7200rpm raid0
1x Samsung HD502IJ 16MB cache 7200rpm storage
1x WD2500AAJS 8MB cache 7200rpm storage
Thermolab Baram 1 x 120mm CM R4 90cfm 2000rpm 1x SilverStone 120mm AP 1500rpm 37.5cfm
SilverStone ST75F-P 750W PSU Full Modular
SilverStone RaVeN RV02B-W


Return to “AMD Processor Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests