okay guys, ive decided to go with the FX series cpu. please dont comment on here saying all the bad reviews about them, i dont care. but i have a couple questions on which one to get..
so what ill be doing is mostly messing around with photoshop and autocad. other higher apps.
ive read that say the six core fx is only 3 cores but have two cores inside them, if im saying that right. but my question is say if the application im using only turns on 2 cores. will it use two cores or use two cores inside one? hope that makes sense.
still trying to decide on a GPU, i dont game much, but i use alot of applcations and will be running atleast 2-3 monitors. ive heard mixed replys about getting a 6950, but i figured after 7000 series comes out the price will drop a little, and if it drops to say $250, i wouldnt see that as a bad buy. any replys to this would also help..
and last question. sorry these dont have anything to do with cpu's. looking to get couple new monitors. would yall prefer 3 20 inch monitors 1080 res, or 2 23-24 inch monitors 1080 res. i was leaning towards 20 inch monitors cause i like to have multiple things open while i work.
For single and dual threaded aps FX fails no matter what you are running. There are two cores per module however they are not full cores and there are many penalties of the design that hold things back. I suggest that you go for the four module/8 core models. The two module/4 core isn't very good and is often beat by cheaper lower priced Athlon quads from the older Phenom era. The 6 core three module is better but not by much. These FX cpus only prove their worth for those who do heavy multi tasking or heavily threaded applications. They are very poor for general use and gaming.
alright man. thanks for the reply. i was looking into the 8120 to begin with but started questioning myself. i just wasnt sure how the 6 core preformed but i dont game at all really. will just work on school projects and do alot of stuff in autocad/3d/and lots of photoediting. but i can prolly fork out another $50 for the 8120 if it makes a good difference.
yea looked into phenom II x6 but since they were discontinued id rather just go with FX, am going to go with the 8120. its basically the same price as the PH II and does a little better in rendering/adobe/cad apps which is what ill be working with more than gaming. going to prolly go ahead and step up to 21 inch monitors for 1080, and grab 3? whats good brands of monitors? looked at acer/asus mostly. and will stick with 6950 for future. it should go down a little after 7000 series comes out
This is a nice setup you have chosen blakecarter, and I am sure you will be far from disappointed with it. From what I am reading around the net I suggest pay attention to the RAM.
Apparently there is 20-40% improvement to be had with the correct memory installed. AMD are partnering with Patriot to provide "home branded" memory modules. There's an article on Tom's front page, no doubt you have read it.
I agree with your decision to stay resolute about going with FX and not looking back to Thurban. I think once the scheduling and compiler issues start to resolve themselves the FX will come into its own.
As of right now it returns similar results to Thurban and Deneb and neither of those two arch's are struggling at the moment, so nor will the FX. I'm running both DENEB and THURBAN and haven't even bothered to go for top line GPU's and just finished Crysis 2 on a 1080P TV/Monitor in near full settings. The other has an Eyefinity setup like you are hoping to do...it's simply brilliant, you are in for a treat. I am using 21.5" AOC monitors which I think are great bang for the buck.
only for people who are dead-set on amd fx:
among current fx cpus, 8120 should be the best performance for price - coupled with -
noctua dh-14 type cooler or corsair h100. lcs is better for fx (amd thinks so too).
a good 700w, 80+ rated psu. overclocking will need sufficient amount of power.
16 gb ddr3 1600 ram. fx's IMC (it's better than phenoms) sucks so it will benefit more from faster ram.
for running 3 displays - at least radeon hd 6950 2 gb and higher.
fx 6100 might cause some cpu bottleneck in gfx intensive tasks even after overclock. the 8120 should cause less bottleneck.
If you are not gaming, a considerably lesser GPU can run three displays. A HD6770 might provide a decent balance of low cost with modest gaming ability (on one monitor). If you want to play games across three monitors, then you probably will want the HD6950.
Use the PSU sizing calculator at http://www.extreme.outervision.com/psucalculatorlite.js... to determine the size PSU you need. A quality modern PSU has full range active PFC (no little voltage switch) and some level of 80+ certification for efficiency. Seasonic, Antec, Corsair, XFX, and Enermax/LEPA are among the better brands.
harna-- thanks for the input. i read a little into it. will read the rest later. yea i just bought a printer so idk if ill run 2 or 3 monitors. like i may have said i love to stay busy with multiple things open on each while i mess with applications/ forums/ downloads/movies and such. printer takes up space where the third monitor would have went so ill have to rearrange and see if it can fit but as of now im going with 2
a muffin-- yes i already got everything order/came in besides my cpu. memory should come in the mail today. waiting to get funds to order chip.
de5-roy-- i have gigabyte 990fxa ud3 mobo/ g.skill 1600 16gb ram/ 750w corsair psu 80+..