nice and welcomed benchmarks.

The phenom II x6 8-) shall take AMD through piledriver and maybe even steamroller until difference is realised woth excavator.....though very bad for business :

The Sandra Cryptography (AES 256) Bench shows an astounding jump with the FX 41 processors. Nearly a 25% leap,Then 500% from the next best showing AMD CPU.Then all of the FXs besting other AMD cpus in that specific test.Can you comment on what you think is the relationship to this specific test,and the specific processors.

Since most of the math tests I've seen are not at any kind of performance level between what I can tell any specific platform cause.

1456.43 %
Intel Core i7 3570K 3.40 GHz DDR3-1600 6'960 MB/s 1443.98 %
Intel Core i7 2600K 3.40 GHz DDR3-1333 5'990 MB/s 1161.83 %
Intel Core i5 2500K 3.30 GHz DDR3-1333 5'780 MB/s 1199.17 %
AMD FX-8150 3.6 GHz DDR3-1600 5'520 MB/s 1145.23 %
AMD FX-8120 3.1 GHz DDR3-1600 5'500 MB/s 1141.08 %
AMD FX-6100, 3.3 GHz DDR3-1600 5'490 MB/s 1139.00 %
Intel Core i7 3610QM 2.30 GHz DDR3-1600 5'440 MB/s 1128.63 %
AMD FX-4170 4.2 GHz DDR3-1600 5'014 MB/s 1040.25 %
AMD Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz DDR3-1333 724 MB/s 150.21 %


....you see the FXs jump around 500% above the closest Phenom x6 1090T processor. Is this a typo ? Any particlular hardware item ?

The other encryption test in Sandras Test 1 is a more normal gradiation.

The reason for this jump lies in the AES intruction set, which can be found with the Bulldozer but not with the Thuban CPUs from AMD.

If you are looking for some more info in the AES instruction set you can check out this LINK which will take you to wikipedia.

In fact, you can see a simliar jump with Intel CPUs. It is exactly the same story. From the moment when the put the AES instruction set "into" the chip encryption performance increased massively.

I hope this answers you question.

That is a massive gain in performance. A notable trait to want the FX over the other AMD processors. Thanks for info.,reply and excellent stats.

Also wanted to mention that these processors as compared are very well performing compared to those of 4 to 5 years ago. The "100%" shown as somewhere around an 'Intel 920' using 1333 mhz memory, is actually a premium,rather than a standard for good enough'. It is a relatively high bar,and is most of what is the best in the market.
There are many who have aged computers that need replaced. That specific comparison can be placed wherever the computer user can estabolish their own necesity or what their work describes.
I am still using a pentium class computer. So I have been watching the multiples of performance for some time. Personally I use the previous Quad Cores as 100%. Since I would be looking at scale from that reference. The 920,and the 2600 are the next but they are are a 'top notch'in the processor space from Intel.
The AMD processors are certainly performing above previous generations of cpus. Computing platforms. I am certain that I would be using a satisfactoral upgrade to take one of the recent FX cpus.

Any particular person wanting to place on weight will need to consume 500 calories more daily, this equates to a one pound gain every week