Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

AMD FX 8120 VS Intel Comparable processors

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 10, 2012 3:11:48 PM

I am considering buying this processor VS an intel core equivalent. I mostly play Skyrim Elder Scrolls on high settings and may be getting into other games. Saving money is important and this is the fist decision in the rest of my build. I already have an ATI/AMD 5870 to pair with it, so please keep this in mind when formulating a response.

Thanks! :bounce: 

a b à CPUs
January 10, 2012 3:46:10 PM

sosofm said:
From Microcenter site :
i5 2500k 180$ is cheaper than FX 8120 Black Edition


Cheaper and much, much better.
Related resources
a c 83 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 10, 2012 3:48:55 PM

Going to have to recommend you get an I5 2500K instead, it's one of the best gaming chips available, better than anything AMD. Microcenter has $50 off motherboard with purchase of it right now too.

FX cores are weaker than Phenom II, it gives you 8 weak cores good for the limited software that can utilize those cores, but most tasks including games performance suffers. It's really a server designed CPU, it's the type of work load it does well at.

Gaming benchmarks.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-8120-6100-4100_6.html#sect0

Skyrim
http://www.techspot.com/review/467-skyrim-performance/page7.html

January 10, 2012 3:59:34 PM

Oops should have mentioned that I have a $50 off coupon for the microcenter cpu, so I'd pay $150. Cpus in this range?

Although the bundled price for the 2500k looks attractive, not sure if I wanna drop an extra $30.

Yeah, I agree loneninja about your 8 core comment. hm reconsidering.
a b à CPUs
January 10, 2012 4:40:25 PM

Pair a 2500k with a P67 motherboard. You don't really need z68 unless you want SSD caching.

Don't bother with the AMD FX series for gaming (I can't believe I'm saying that!).
a c 140 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 10, 2012 4:52:22 PM

Just spend the extra 30 dollars and get the I5. It it's definitely worth it in the end.
a b à CPUs
January 10, 2012 4:58:43 PM

All of our 2500k recommendations are assuming that you will overclock. If you aren't at all interested in overclocking then a regular 2500, 2400, 2300 (without the K) will do great. See: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-overcloc...

If you aren't going to overclock ever, then you can get a much less expensive motherboard like H61. But it is very easy to overclock the 2500k and if you are gaming this makes a big difference.
a c 140 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 10, 2012 5:15:32 PM

Overclocking will make a difference and with good air cooling there is no reason you shouldn't be able to hit 4.5GHz pretty easily.
January 10, 2012 5:44:44 PM

engineiro said:
.I already have an ATI/AMD 5870 to pair with it, so please keep this in mind when formulating a response.

Thanks! :bounce: 



So the FX will be enough with this card and if it is within your budget.

Best solution

January 10, 2012 6:30:44 PM
Share

I will give a quick EZ answer then one for you to ponder.

I5 2500 is currently your best choice for gaming. Games in general don't use a lit of cores. The i5 is best.

Now the one to ponder

In the next couple of years I would imagine games will utilize more cores. Intel is best in the per core market right now. AMD is not. Based on price and performance AMD is better in the multicore market. That being said I am going to build an FX setup to help "future proof" myself. Yes bad term to use, I know. Windows 8 will help AMD due to core assignment issues right now. And looking at the results in benchmarks I am fine with AMD VS I5 2500.

think about it this way. Example i5 plays a game at 100 fps the 8150/8120 plays it at 80 fps.
Look at both games and you will see no difference. That's my view. The numbers are real. I5 2500k kicks the AMD FX 8150/8120 in the balls on gaming. But at such a high fps rate. You won't be able to tell.

As for future proofing for games (my opinion) the more cores/threads the better. So I'm my eyes it is a i7 2600k (4 cores + 4 threads) vs 8150/8120 (4 modules = 8 cores) comparison on the build. AMD is less expensive with those comparisons and with Windows 8 coming out which will help with the current bulldozer chips and more so the piledriver (we hope). It only makes sense to me to go AMD.

Core assignment is
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
But should be
1,3,5,7,2,4,6,8

For info on the core assignment issue check out the other Toms forums or Google it. Basically its like hyper threading gone wrong in a nut shell. Or you can wait on ivy bridge to come out then compare.

So much to think about. Blah!
I have gone on long enough. Let the yelling and arguing begin. :-)
a c 184 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
January 10, 2012 6:57:42 PM

Where did you get the 50 dollar off microcenter coupon from? :o 
January 10, 2012 7:13:53 PM

Real fast here is a comparison with the brand new AMD gpu which is the fastest there is. Last 2 pages give you the final info if you don't want to see all the comparisons. Kinda interesting tho if you look at them all. Also I don't believe they are running Windows 8. Keep that in mind as well. http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970_CPU_Scal...
a b à CPUs
January 10, 2012 10:13:35 PM

kenmore81 said:
In the next couple of years I would imagine games will utilize more cores. Intel is best in the per core market right now. AMD is not. Based on price and performance AMD is better in the multicore market. That being said I am going to build an FX setup to help "future proof" myself. Yes bad term to use, I know. Windows 8 will help AMD due to core assignment issues right now. And looking at the results in benchmarks I am fine with AMD VS I5 2500.


If you added something like video editing to uses for your system then I *might* accept a BD chip as an acceptable gamer. But right now Zambezi just doesn't make sense for either performance or value. In 2 years AMD will have long since replaced Zambezi with better chips (God let's hope so). There are Intel chips now that beat Zambezi both on price and performance, imagine what the Intel chips 2 years from now will do to Zambezi. My point is buying a processor now that *might* get better in 2 years just doesn't make sense when something already better (indisputably at gaming) is already available.

Here are the gaming benchmarks from a $1000 Zambezi system - note the clear difference between the Intel CPU based system (previous month's system) vs the Zambezi system. Ouch. But maybe that's an unfair analysis and we should wait 2 years to re-evaluate.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-overclock-crossf...
a b à CPUs
January 10, 2012 10:30:51 PM

kenmore81 said:
I will give a quick EZ answer then one for you to ponder.

I5 2500 is currently your best choice for gaming. Games in general don't use a lit of cores. The i5 is best.

Now the one to ponder

In the next couple of years I would imagine games will utilize more cores. Intel is best in the per core market right now. AMD is not. Based on price and performance AMD is better in the multicore market. That being said I am going to build an FX setup to help "future proof" myself. Yes bad term to use, I know. Windows 8 will help AMD due to core assignment issues right now. And looking at the results in benchmarks I am fine with AMD VS I5 2500.

think about it this way. Example i5 plays a game at 100 fps the 8150/8120 plays it at 80 fps.
Look at both games and you will see no difference. That's my view. The numbers are real. I5 2500k kicks the AMD FX 8150/8120 in the balls on gaming. But at such a high fps rate. You won't be able to tell.

As for future proofing for games (my opinion) the more cores/threads the better. So I'm my eyes it is a i7 2600k (4 cores + 4 threads) vs 8150/8120 (4 modules = 8 cores) comparison on the build. AMD is less expensive with those comparisons and with Windows 8 coming out which will help with the current bulldozer chips and more so the piledriver (we hope). It only makes sense to me to go AMD.

Core assignment is
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
But should be
1,3,5,7,2,4,6,8

For info on the core assignment issue check out the other Toms forums or Google it. Basically its like hyper threading gone wrong in a nut shell. Or you can wait on ivy bridge to come out then compare.

So much to think about. Blah!
I have gone on long enough. Let the yelling and arguing begin. :-)


you have a poor understanding of video games and how they use the CPU and your "theory" on future proofing is pure garbage based on a wish rather then actual facts.
January 10, 2012 10:51:53 PM

dirtyferret said:
you have a poor understanding of video games and how they use the CPU and your "theory" on future proofing is pure garbage based on a wish rather then actual facts.


Agreed, and also looking at benchies the FX setup only beats the i5 on SOME multi tasking tasks with only a very slight performance increase so yea...

2500k is a very good chip, or wait till ivy bridge
January 10, 2012 11:01:28 PM

Quote:
if your gonna buy now then buy now do not wait for Ivy, it's not that great of a boost from Sandy.
Haswell seems to be the next logical step to look at after Sandy..


I just mentioned that as I see that he already plays skyrim on high so I assumed he has a decent computer already and just wants an upgrade. But not too sure on that one hehe
a c 184 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
January 11, 2012 1:52:57 AM

If the 2500k outperforms the fx 8150, can we not determine that it outperforms the fx 8120?
a b à CPUs
January 11, 2012 4:40:30 AM

Skyrim is really CPU dependent game and getting a 2500K for it is the way to go.
a c 172 à CPUs
a b å Intel
January 11, 2012 5:25:47 AM

kenmore81 said:

think about it this way. Example i5 plays a game at 100 fps the 8150/8120 plays it at 80 fps.
Look at both games and you will see no difference. That's my view. The numbers are real. I5 2500k kicks the AMD FX 8150/8120 in the balls on gaming. But at such a high fps rate. You won't be able to tell.

What about a game that is really CPU dependent? Like something that an i5 runs at 30 fps. 20% drop means that FX will run it at around 24 fps. Now, you will be able to tell.
January 11, 2012 12:01:08 PM

In gaming the 2500k also usually out performs the 2600k. So that is why I said 2500k is best. No, I don't have a good understanding on how games utilize a CPU. That it why I said its something to think about, ie look into/consider. You didn't give any reasoning to support that you know how it works either. Just saying that I obviously don't understand doesn't really help. Maybe you can shed some light as to how it works to help educate. I also linked a site to show how the CPU and gpu combo works with different games, including skyrim. The link shows how well the CPUs work at really high resolution causing lower fps.

I'm not being a jerk, just sharing the info I have found and giving my opinion. As I stated at the top of my first post. The i5 is the best chip to go with. Best one on the market for gaming is the i5. But I added the best now may not be better than another current chip in the future. Hence why I said its something to ponder.

Please share information, if you have it, to help the OP, myself and anyone else reading this. Being helpful is the idea behind these forums.
a b à CPUs
January 12, 2012 2:24:34 AM

kenmore81 said:
In gaming the 2500k also usually out performs the 2600k. So that is why I said 2500k is best. No, I don't have a good understanding on how games utilize a CPU.


the 2500k does not outperform the 2600k in gaming as you can see from the link. Most games out there do not take advantage of the 2600k's hyperthreading (the 2500k lacks it) making the 2600k more expensive for little to no added benefit in gaming. That would be the reason the 2500k is so popular with gamers.

I completely agree with your third statement though.

Games want a CPU capable of performing lots of instructions per clock cycle. This allows a dual core CPU like the intel i3 keep up or beat AMD CPUs like in the phenom II x4/6 and FX-4/6 in gaming.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-rev...
January 12, 2012 9:08:18 PM

Best answer selected by Engineiro.
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 21, 2012 12:51:19 PM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
!