AMD CPU FX 8120 vs AMD CPU PHEN2 X6

Why?

BTW, if you going to build a system to gaming, and didn't buy anything yet, think about the Core i5-2500k CPU.

Check the following benchmarks where a Phenom II X4 975 or 980 usually is faster than the 1100T and the FX-8150:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955 [...] 0-tested/8
http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 060-7.html
http://www.techspot.com/review/452 [...] age10.html

That logic makes no sense. Intels I5 2500 is no more expensive than an FX 8120, and is superior to anything AMD has for gaming.

Do not forget too that a FX-8120 vs Phenom II (both at SAME Ghz), Phenom II monocores is faster than FX-8120.

games moved away from "monocore" in 2005 with the launch of seventh generation consoles. today most games are dual to multi-core (3-4) optimized but the speed still kills in games, something bulldozer will always lack since games needs to make fast calculations based on your actions. sixe core CPUs will not be needed for gaming until the eight generation of console launch and by that time (at least two more years), current processors will start to look long in the tooth.

if you want to see the bulldozer history, just look that the phenom I CPUs. Outdated when launched, embarrassed by intel dual cores CPUs, and beaten in games by fast athlon X2 CPUs. AMD fanboys screamed how "when games utilize four cores" the phenom I would show its true potential. Unfortunately by 2010-2011 when games really need four cores, the phenom I is lethargic when compared to modern quad cores.

so your trying to say games will not use more than 4 cores till 2014? While I somewhat agree that will be when MOST games support 4+, it is beneficial today.(notice how dirt 3 favors the 8-core "slower" cpu on techspot) Benchmarkers just run the game without background things going on, where as average users have lots of apps in the background, (virus checkers, voice chat, internet windows, ect). Wich cpu would stumble more when the worst of those kicks in (virus scan).

As for your saying games needing to use the faster cpu, read my first post where I said that already.

for pure gaming today the 980 is the faster AMD choice. you can always upgrade just the cpu later (probably get a used one cheap) as long as you buy a newer motherboard that supports it.

This

you are living up to your avatar name by linking one game, here are several under a test by Tom's

What of the Phenom II X6? Well, games largely don’t seem to utilize more than four threads at a time. The final results suffer a little from the curious issue this processor suffers when playing F1 2010, but even when this game isn't taken into account the results are identical to a cheaper Phenom II X4. I suppose users who do a lot of media encoding and heavy threading will want to consider the AMD’s hexa-core architecture. However, from a purely gaming perspective, this CPU doesn’t have a lot to offer.

http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 59-10.html

by the time games need six cores, there will be much better options then the FX series or phenom II x6 of today. you seem to miss that point, these current CPUs will be underpowered for those games. Similar to a phenom I trying to run today's games that need a quad core.

no, actually it was my whole point, that time is starting (Key word, starting )now, not 2 years from now. So the big question on purchasing a new cpu, outdate it starting now or extend it a year or two with the x6 or 8120 ( <-- only recommended if overclocking), or as I stated also, 980 now (or the 965 on sale +1 to that), best available for the motherboard when its too slow.

As games move more and more away from single thread and in essence 4 threads, even today's top cpu choice (x4 980) will start to look slower and slower as time goes on, where the x6 will keep up a bit longer, just as seen in dirt 3, hawx 2, and most prominent in resident evil 5.

If your such a god and know everything known to man

Explain the chart i linked earlier how can a 3.3 ghz 6-core thuban run faster than a 4-core 3.7ghz x4 since no game as you put it can utilize more than 4 cores. Your only failure is to look beyond blind beliefs even when handed to you.

If you concentrating on the word NEED now, ya, no game will probably ever NEED beyond a 4 core cpu, doesn't mean it won't run like crap, but it wil still work. If thats what you meant, maybe thats what you should have said in the first place, instead of your constant story changing.

you do know the difference between utilize and need right?

and lol ... forum ettiquette .... BITE ME

I love blind ambition

3.3 ghz vs 3.7 ghz ... go. explain it, don't just close your eyes.

lol way to avoid the subject, your wrong and you know it.

Since your so blind not to see how RE5 is a heavily multi-thread friendly game that doesn't exist, maybe explain why the 990x is at the top. can't be because of the 2 extra cores since no game uses more than 4 cores.

or better yet, maybe the chart is upside down.

or maybe resident evil 5 isn't actually a game at all, but instead a conspiracy.

well hey, since you want to use toms for your arguement, lets check those also

Metro 2033
3.0ghz = 57.3 average 18.8 minimum <--- x6
3.5ghz = 56.0 average 14.5 minimum<--- x4

Lost planet 2 same article
3.0 ghz = 55
3.5 ghz = 52.5

who is running away ... why does a 6-core 0.5ghz slower processor win or tie when no games use more than 4 cores? first you say that legit reviews and re5 don't exist, fine explain toms results. no running away.

who is changing the subject, your the idiot trying to tell me there isn't a single game in existance that can utilize more than 4 cores. I have done that several times now.

The time for 6+ core gaming is starting now, period .. otherwise defend yourself instead of trying to pretend those games don't exist, even on tom's site.

That article your posting was done in march, even toms stated what I have said, games largely(aka MOST) don’t seem to utilize more than four threads at a time.. But even that can be shown even in their own review does not mean ALL games. When the game supports multi-threading past 4 cores, even a slower clocked cpu shows improvement with more cores. They even said in their overall chart, its skewed because of one buggy game title that ran slow on the x6 cpu.

that cheaper x4 is 0.5 ghz faster but throwing identical results ...

Its ok to admit that your wrong, and that games are continuing to change towards more multiple threads even today.

actually this is an x4 vs x6 flamewar

ROFL how in the h%@! does showing games scaling to 6 cores prove you right .... wow ... thats all i can say .. wow.

3.0 ghz x6 vs 3.5 ghz x4 = identical performance ... wow.

that .. is the funniest thing yet. man, this is entertaining. now my facts must be opinions when they don't agree with your ... no idea what that would be .. that games won't advance until consoles do ... fact ...

Apologies to the OP if you haven't received the answer you're looking for. Locking this thread since a couple of people are dragging it off topic into their own personal argument.