Closed

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

IS it a good all around processor? or? D: any thoughts? since it said its 8 core so...??? :pt1cable:
35 answers Last reply
More about 8core good gaming videoediting
  1. 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
  2. Yeah i've heard a lot of disappointment about FX 8 core.. :C

    Meh sad~ XD
  3. Btw it said 8 core what does the 8 core do anyway? O:
  4. What are your current specs? Do you think they will hold you down till piledriver comes out?
  5. Its not a true 8 core, and for the price the i5-2500k or i7-2600k will outperform it in rendering and video editing.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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)
  9. Yes. For games such as BF3, the more cores the better. In real benchmarks, an amd 6 core will outperform an intel i7 quad core in BF3 multiplayer. http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/pc-build-upgrade-forum/1437764-cpu-benchmark-bf3-beta.html
  10. ^^^

    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.
  11. Here's THG's review regarding CPU scaling:

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-3-graphics-performance,3063-13.html








    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.

  12. 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:
  13. 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).

  14. 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)

  15. 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.
  16. Stop with the personal attacks
  17. Agree to disagree, and go your seperate ways.

    To the OP, not sure how reliable this is, but something to look at
    http://semiaccurate.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5983
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. you can find my review on my blog @ http://AMDFX.blogspot.com
  21. What is the difference between a Kia and a shopping trolley?
  22. 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?
  23. Ghythybhy said:
    IS it a good all around processor? or? D: any thoughts? since it said its 8 core so...??? :pt1cable:


    seems you're just out to disturb the ***
    http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/322972-28-4100-6100#t2430587

    since you seem to know the answer in this thread
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. 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?
  28. 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.
  29. 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-benchmark,3074.html

    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/#CPUS
  30. 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...
  31. 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.
  32. 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.
  33. -"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.
  34. 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.
  35. 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.
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Gaming Fan AMD Processors