AMD CPU FX 8120 vs AMD CPU PHEN2 X6

For gaming, the Phenom II X4 980 would be better.

Why?

Cause it have a higher IPC. Multi-core CPUs are not nicely used by games since just a few one uses 4-cores or more.

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

naah intel is too expencive to me

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/the-bulldozer-review...
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-power-consumptio...
http://www.techspot.com/review/452-amd-bulldozer-fx-cpu...

the FX is really a server CPU architure and lacks power in its single cores (something games desire for optimum performance). the benchmarks linked above prove it

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.  

if you look at reviews, most games out there now just want the faster ghz chip. As games mature to more and more multi-thread friendly, more cores will look better, but right now its all about speed. With that said, the 8120 is a 3.1 ghz cpu, vs the 980 at 3.8 ghz or 1100T at 3.7 ghz.

If you plan on overclocking, the 8120 will reach higher than the phenom IIs, and thats the only way you will get more out of the 8120. At stock its just too slow.

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

and as games move away from monocore ... you lose that 1-3 fps difference

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 Outdated when launched, embarrassed by intel dual cores CPUs, and beaten in games by fast athlon X2 CPUs.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.

AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition Deneb 3.4GHz: $115 thru Monday 11/14

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.

1. i think your caps lock key is broken
2. correct, games will not utilize more then four cores until eight generation consoles. game developers create games across multi-platforms to maximize revenue (fan boys have a hard time understanding a business needs to make money). Just about every major game released can be played on a console; ME2, Skyrim, BF3, RAGE, even PC specific IP are being taken (or discussed) to console like Crysis 2, Witcher2, DIablo III. All these games need to scale and be playable with the Xbox 360 & PS3 CPUs that are now going on five years.
3. any computer gamer worth his salt set virus scans to late night, not during gaming. All the other programs you mentioned (voice chat, vent, etc.,) are hardly CPU demanding. In fact my phenom II x4 @ 3.8ghz has no issue playing games at max with those programs in the background + fraps, HW monitors and streaming music playing while I game.

This

Whats so hard to understand about MOST? Most != all. want proof?

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/reviews/best-gaming-cpu-cor...

Then whats your point in complaining that i said MOST games will benefit later. the only arguement is that you think All games will not benefit till later. or is you think that if you take the average of all games = ... what ... it still does not take away from the fact that MOST games will not benefit right now, there are and always will be exceptions.

Or maybe you missed what I said alltogether



Did I say most games will benefit or did i say that is when most games will benefit ...


But i do like that article, wich cpu takes the smallest hit when multitasking?

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.

sniff sniff , this thread is starting to have a distinktive odour

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.

completely incorrect, that time is not now as no game need six cores. your inability to see that clear fact is marring your entire incorrect argument by opinions. As i have proved with linked facts (and you failed at every opportunity) no game needs six cores and history tells us with facts no games will need that CPU power until new consoles. You can continue to claim your opinion but it is wrong and is not a fact in any post you have made.

P.S. See how underlining makes a point rather then looking like a kid making text messages by capitalizing unnecessary words. Another failure by you...one of many  

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

im glad we both agree I know more then you (although that is not hard)

as far as your silly chart

CPU min / max
phenom II X6 143/180
phenom II X4 142/178

so the min difference is less then .5% and the max is less then 1.5%. that is the exact same results further proving my statement above.

I love blind ambition

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

you mean when an opinion from a forum troll like yourself goes against a review fact from the same web site you troll on?

However, from a purely gaming perspective, this CPU doesn’t have a lot to offer.

go ahead, explain how Tom's is wrong on that fact?  

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.

subject remains the same, i agree with toms and you don't. i have facts based on reviews by toms, you have no facts just opinion. that has never changed from my first post based on facts to your first post based on opinion. you just keep running around the subject afraid to face it. keep running so you don't feel embarrassed but you proved your lack of intelligence on the subject multiple time already.

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.

no one has ever stated "running away", go read every post! you are trying to change the issue, once again

the issue has always been "However, from a purely gaming perspective, this CPU doesn’t have a lot to offer." (from a phenom II x4) .

nice try on attempting to change the subject and attempt to save face but the toms charts actual defend my position, not yours.  

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.

Lol and the OP left at post 6 of 35 in this AMD vs INTEL flame fest.

Well Done dirtyferret and noob2222.

actually this is an x4 vs x6 flamewar

so you linked a bunch of stuff that proves me right and you wrong?...nice going, don't ever call another human being an "idiot" since you have taken the crown with that post!

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

you have failed to show any of that...

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

once again you post opinion,i post fact...

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 ...  

finally you start to agree with my facts and see the idiocy of your opinions.

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.