Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

I'm an AMD fan! Q> is the 8Core FX good for gaming/videoediting/all?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
January 6, 2012 2:10:42 AM

Ghythybhy said:
IS it a good all around processor? or? D: any thoughts? since it said its 8 core so...??? :pt1cable: 

yes it is a good all around CPU , but there are better ,for the price . I went with 1100t and 1090t because it is not enough of an increase in performance or decrease in power usage over Thuban .
So yes it is good and might improve with win 8 , just not enough of over all for me . Hope the next CPU AMD puts out i will be a big improvement
Score
0
January 6, 2012 2:12:34 AM

Yeah i've heard a lot of disappointment about FX 8 core.. :C

Meh sad~ XD
Score
0
Related resources
January 6, 2012 2:20:27 AM

Btw it said 8 core what does the 8 core do anyway? O:
Score
0
January 6, 2012 4:47:22 AM

What are your current specs? Do you think they will hold you down till piledriver comes out?
Score
0
a c 185 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
January 6, 2012 5:51:32 AM

Its not a true 8 core, and for the price the i5-2500k or i7-2600k will outperform it in rendering and video editing.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
January 6, 2012 10:52:46 AM

Sigh !

Again in answer to your question, yes it is a good CPU and will surely see you right for a couple of years.

Yes there are better intel CPUs out there, but like me you prefer AMD, so buy it and enjoy it.

After all i like KIA car, i own a Sportage and i love it, yes there are better 4WD out there by other companies, but i like KIAs.

So stick to your guns and buy what you like.
Score
0
a c 471 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a c 118 À AMD
January 6, 2012 10:59:53 AM

As long as you realize that the majority of games only use two cores, some use three cores, and very few use four cores. Therefore, most of the time while playing games, most of your cores will simply be idling.

Of course, with so many core you should be able to play games and encode videos at the same time without much of a performance decrease in games.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 6, 2012 1:09:26 PM

AMD FX isn't bad, the problem is that above 200 dollars, usually, Intel Cpus are better. Even some games at 1080p (where the weight shifts to GPU) cpus Intel get better and better fps (without mentioning huge multiplayer maps, etc).
If you going stick with multi-gpu the way to go is intel again.. (just check benchmarks)
Score
0
a c 471 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a c 118 À AMD
January 6, 2012 4:12:17 PM

^^^

However, if you look at what's above the 6 core Phenom II X6 1100T, it is the quad core Phenom II X4 980. Therefore, the two extra cores do not do anything.





Also, if you look at the benchmarks, you will note that going from a dual core i3-2120 @ 3.3GHz to the quad core i5-2500k @ 3.3GHz the increase in performance is 1 frame. That basically tells you that BF3 only makes use of a dual core CPU.
Score
0
a c 471 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a c 118 À AMD
January 6, 2012 4:20:00 PM

Here's THG's review regarding CPU scaling:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-3-graph...








However, it seems that AMD's FX-8150 can make use of more than 2 cores since the FPS increases from 72 to 79. That all good I suppose... until you look at the 1st chart again and realize that the dual core i3-2105 @ 3.1GHz can beat the FX-8150 @ 3.7GHz. Hell, according to that chart the Core i3 even beat it's bigger brother, the i7-2600k.


Score
0
a c 83 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 6, 2012 4:51:34 PM

While we're at showing BF3, here is 64 player on Caspian Border.


For most games FX is fail, it has 8 weak cores, even a Core I3 matches or beats it's performance as do the older Phenom II processors.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-8120-6100-4100_6.html#sect0

But I'm not here to just bash FX, it has high powerdraw and 8 weak cores which doesn't do much good for gaming. But if you read that whole review I linked you'll see in some software including video encoding it's a very competitive product.


I wouldn't waste my time looking at Tomhardwares worthless BF3 benchmarks, they like most everyone else used a scripted scene from a single player campaign. It is very easy on the CPU and only tests the GPU, they utterly failed at providing real benchmarks. :lol: 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 6, 2012 5:04:00 PM

a really good benchmark of the Bulldozer vs. Sandy Bridge vs. Nehalem w/AMD 7970

while it is a capable CPU, I disagree with it being a good CPU since benchmarks prove it is highly over-priced when compared to the 2500k or even 2400.

When looking at AMD's Bulldozer at low resolutions, which is where each CPU can prove its worth, we see the FX-8150 showing more weakness than strength, despite its eight CPU cores. That does not mean that Bulldozer is hopeless for gaming. Once resolution and AA is cranked up, even the fast HD 7970 GPU becomes the limiting factor in most games and we see very decent performance. Unfortunately platform cost of the Bulldozer setup is similar or higher when compared to the Intel 2500K which does offer better performance overall. In its current state Bulldozer is a very tough sale to any member of the gaming crowd. I could imagine it being interesting for users who want to use other benefits of the platform, like multi GPU gaming with two graphics cards connected via PCI-Express x16 each - Sandy Bridge LGA 1155 supports only 2x x8. Another incentive for Bulldozer could be the native six SATA 6 Gbps ports with RAID 0, 1, 5, 6 support, which would make a hell of a server. Nevertheless, the average gamer is better off with Intel's LGA 1155 Sandy Bridge platform.




http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970_CPU_Scal...
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 6, 2012 5:53:28 PM

Its easy for people to bash AMD because thats what people want. Kinda like finding a bad review for amd and latching onto it like its god-sent.

Benchmarks is where Intel owns, but seriously, do you really think you can tell the difference between 96fps and 101 or 62.2 and 62.8?

I will say this, the 8150 is overpriced, esp when you take overclocking into consideration, the 8120 kills the 8150 in price/performance.

BD is disappointing because AMD marketing fked up, throwing crap around saying its going to be 500% faster than intel, wich spread like wildfire on the internet and when it came out, people were disappointed and refuse to look at it for what it is, instead look at it as what retards in marketing said. I don't buy a car because the saleman said its "uber." I buy it if it fits my needs in the real world. I don't play games at 1024x768 so I could care less, I look at 1900x1200 because thats what my monitor supports.

Lastly, if your playing with photoshop, last thing you want is to wait constantly. 3 seconds isn't much from the 2600k, but the "best AMD gaming cpu (everyone recommends the 980 right?)" wait time is 31seconds longer.



Performance is a balancing act. What are you doing with it? if your gaming and only gaming and spending ~$1000+ on gpu, then your stupid for buying anything less than SB-E, but if like the majority and using a budget $400 GPU or less, you won't notice a difference in games going from 92.3fps to 92.4 at the resolution you will be using (1900x1200).

Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 6, 2012 6:14:04 PM


noob2222 said:
Its easy for people to bash AMD because thats what people want. Kinda like finding a bad review for amd and latching onto it like its god-sent.

http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/452/bench/Gaming_01.png


or like finding two benchmarks and holding on to them like they are godsent :lol: 
at least you live up to your name sake but the difference between BD and SB is a lot more then 1% in a lot of games if you had the intelligence to go through the thorough review linked above rather the spew the garbage you always link
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 6, 2012 6:28:06 PM

maybe read what I wrote

Quote:
but if like the majority and using a budget $400 GPU or less, you won't notice a difference in games going from 92.3fps to 92.4 at the resolution you will be using (1900x1200).


How many budget gamers are rushing out to buy that $525 7970?

And as far as overall results, there are some issues that skew the results, so do you include them for your needs if you don't play that game?



What exactly did they do to make it run that bad? and why does all resolutions have the same results?



and how does the 5870 beat the 7970 (above 5870, below 7970)

Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 6, 2012 7:13:33 PM

how many times can i prove you wrong in one thread...or how many times you can be wrong in one thread? lets post the entire test from anandtech shall we

Civ V's lateGameView benchmark presents us with two separate scores: average frame rate for the entire test as well as a no-render score that only looks at CPU performance. While we're GPU bound in the full render score, AMD's platform appears to have a bit of an advantage here. We've seen this in the past where one platform will hold an advantage over another in a GPU bound scenario and it's always tough to explain. Within each family however there is no advantage to a faster CPU, everything is just GPU bound. Looking at the no render score, the CPU standings are pretty much as we'd expect. The FX-8150 is thankfully a bit faster than its predecessors, but it still falls behind Sandy Bridge.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review...




The AMD 7970 is used to remove GPU bottlenecks as best as possible and while the 7970 may be $500, two generations down the road it will be more mid-range in performance and most people keep their CPU for at least 2-3years. the GTX295 is three years old and launched (jan-2009) at $500. Today you can get similar performance in the $300 AMD 6970

Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 6, 2012 8:17:19 PM

How does that in any way change what I said. In fact it more supports the fact that tpu's civ v bench is invalid. Even at 1024x768 tpu got 41/66 fps to 95/124 at a higher resolution with a 3 yr old video card.
Score
0
January 6, 2012 10:15:03 PM

Stop with the personal attacks
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 6, 2012 10:33:06 PM

If you are an AMD fan and don't mind the 10% difference between a intel cpu and the FX-8150 in most settings you'd still have a very powerful and capable cpu.

The problem is you can have the same performance for cheaper depending on what you really want from an cpu.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
January 6, 2012 10:34:54 PM

OK i repeat.

Again in answer to your question, yes it is a good CPU and will surely see you right for a couple of years.

Yes there are better intel CPUs out there, but like me you prefer AMD, so buy it and enjoy it.

After all i like KIA car, i own a Sportage and i love it, yes there are better 4WD out there by other companies, but i like KIAs.

So stick to your guns and buy what you like.
Score
0
January 8, 2012 2:40:37 AM

What is the difference between a Kia and a shopping trolley?
Score
0
a c 185 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
January 8, 2012 2:40:56 AM

polyzp said:
you can find my review on my blog @ http://AMDFX.blogspot.com

Hey weren't you the guy who got his thread closed because you kept advertising your blog?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 8, 2012 1:03:41 PM

g4114rd0 said:
What is the difference between a Kia and a shopping trolley?


shopping trolling has not yet failed US D.O.T safety testing?
Score
0
January 8, 2012 2:38:26 PM

noob2222 said:


What exactly did they do to make it run that bad? and why does all resolutions have the same results?

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4955/41713.png

and how does the 5870 beat the 7970 (above 5870, below 7970)

http://tpucdn.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970_CPU_Scaling/images/civ5_1680_1050.gif


First question:
A strategy game like Civ V is more CPU limited than GPU limited.

Second question:
Slight variations between test platforms + statistical variation would be my guess.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 8, 2012 4:24:03 PM

kettu said:
First question:
A strategy game like Civ V is more CPU limited than GPU limited.

Second question:
Slight variations between test platforms + statistical variation would be my guess.

The thing is, going from 1024x768, 0AA to 2560x1600 4xAA = identical performance in every test .... not a chance

same results on starcraft 2 and skyrim

According to toms, skyrim at 1280x1024 no aa reaches 122 fps and 65 fps at 1900x1200 4xaa on the 6970 but techpowerup gets identical results and again slower with the 7970 only achieving 56fps at all resolutons

So seeing results that are clearly incorrect, how reliable is the entire article....

In my opinion ... not very reliable, but it is a good theory to test.
Score
0
January 8, 2012 5:34:22 PM

noob2222 said:
The thing is, going from 1024x768, 0AA to 2560x1600 4xAA = identical performance in every test .... not a chance

same results on starcraft 2 and skyrim

According to toms, skyrim at 1280x1024 no aa reaches 122 fps and 65 fps at 1900x1200 4xaa on the 6970 but techpowerup gets identical results and again slower with the 7970 only achieving 56fps at all resolutons

So seeing results that are clearly incorrect, how reliable is the entire article....

In my opinion ... not very reliable, but it is a good theory to test.


SC2 and Skyrim are both pretty hard on the CPU. Also keep in mind that 7970 is a "beast" (technical term). It will have no trouble in running those games at eyefinity resolutions with high levels of AA.

I'm not sure which Tom's article you are referring to. Perhaps they are using different sections of the game to do their testing. Techpowerup article is focussing on performance of different CPUs with a same GPU. So perhaps they chose a section of the game that taxes CPU more than GPU while Tom's tried to find a section that is more taxing on the GPU than CPU. Assuming Tom's test you're referring to is from a GPU review article.
Score
0
January 9, 2012 7:15:49 PM

guys does fx-8 needs any special motherboard. coz am using asus m4a88t-m-le.
so does it have any special requirements in this case?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 9, 2012 8:06:14 PM

g4114rd0 said:
What is the difference between a Kia and a shopping trolley?


I know that the difference between a Toyota and a shopping trolley is that one has working brakes.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 9, 2012 8:17:20 PM

kettu said:
SC2 and Skyrim are both pretty hard on the CPU. Also keep in mind that 7970 is a "beast" (technical term). It will have no trouble in running those games at eyefinity resolutions with high levels of AA.

I'm not sure which Tom's article you are referring to. Perhaps they are using different sections of the game to do their testing. Techpowerup article is focussing on performance of different CPUs with a same GPU. So perhaps they chose a section of the game that taxes CPU more than GPU while Tom's tried to find a section that is more taxing on the GPU than CPU. Assuming Tom's test you're referring to is from a GPU review article.

I was looking at Toms skyrim review.

Toms clearly showed the game does change with resolution and especially aa settings.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/skyrim-performance-...

Even if a game is cpu taxing, how can it play the same at 2560x1600 with 4x aa and 1024x768 with no aa in 3 different tests? (skyrim, Civ V and Starcraft II)

Quote:
guys does fx-8 needs any special motherboard. coz am using asus m4a88t-m-le.
so does it have any special requirements in this case?


Bios support, wich looks like asus isn't going to do. http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/AMD_AM3/M4A88TM_LE/#CP...
Score
0
a c 112 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
January 9, 2012 8:29:36 PM

this is a joke post rite... how can you prefer amd over intel. its understandable people saying i prefer intel as they offer a stronger product. but to pick amd because there amd ???

its pure lunacy that some people will pay good money for inferior hardware and say they prefer it that way... thats like saying you prefer to be blind rather than look at an ugly painting... thats just idiotic

but you all want a pc to render as much as possible as soon as possible and today intel does it faster. if amd did it faster then i pick an amd. but to deliberately pick something that they know is slower just because of the label makes no sense.

seriously , explain it to me... why do you prefer what amounts to an inferior product...

Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 9, 2012 8:40:25 PM

HEXiT said:
this is a joke post rite... how can you prefer amd over intel. its understandable people saying i prefer intel as they offer a stronger product. but to pick amd because there amd ???

its pure lunacy that some people will pay good money for inferior hardware and say they prefer it that way... thats like saying you prefer to be blind rather than look at an ugly painting... thats just idiotic

but you all want a pc to render as much as possible as soon as possible and today intel does it faster. if amd did it faster then i pick an amd. but to deliberately pick something that they know is slower just because of the label makes no sense.

seriously , explain it to me... why do you prefer what amounts to an inferior product...
people have preferences.

And preferences aren't decided on a thing being better. Prefering intel doesn't mean anything more than prefering AMD, it just means you choose 1. Having facts then deciding should have no need for preferences.

Just because someone blindly choose to prefer 1 thing doesn't mean someone else's preference of something else is more wrong.

no need to go ripping on people's preferences and telling them what they should and should not prefer.
Score
0
a c 112 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
January 9, 2012 9:13:31 PM

im not talking about basing preferences on facts, thats how all decisions should be made... im talking blind brand loyalty. thats not a decison based on all the information and then picking the best. im talking about basing a decision on what label is on it.
Score
0
January 9, 2012 9:55:12 PM

-"I never hops to see such a traditional working-class CPU compared to KIA."
 between a Toyota... people have been so receptive to them. Don't miss out.
Score
0
a c 185 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
January 10, 2012 6:58:46 AM

HEXiT said:
this is a joke post rite... how can you prefer amd over intel. its understandable people saying i prefer intel as they offer a stronger product. but to pick amd because there amd ???

its pure lunacy that some people will pay good money for inferior hardware and say they prefer it that way... thats like saying you prefer to be blind rather than look at an ugly painting... thats just idiotic

but you all want a pc to render as much as possible as soon as possible and today intel does it faster. if amd did it faster then i pick an amd. but to deliberately pick something that they know is slower just because of the label makes no sense.

seriously , explain it to me... why do you prefer what amounts to an inferior product...

These are what mac users are.
Score
0
a c 112 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
January 10, 2012 7:50:27 AM

mac users tend to buy macs for osx and because the system is rated as more secure, and stable. like i say im not just saying its an amd thing. mac's xboxes/ps3 and intel all have there fanboys and they buy there systems because of the badge on the side. not because it performs better... like i say buying something because of a label is pure idiocy.
Score
0
!