Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

FX-8150

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • AMD
  • Build
  • Product
Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 8, 2012 11:30:37 AM

So I am getting ready to build my new PC. Last 3 builds have been AMD. Basicaly because at one time they were the better processer for gaming and a better cost. Also spent 3 years working for a PC repair company. Saw more DOA Intel chips than AMD. So once again I go AMD and there new 8 core. I was shocked at the reviews here and on other sites at the poor performance. 4 core i5 and i7 betting it out. So my question is do I wait for Windows 8 and see if that unlocks the full potential of the 8150 or is it a lost cause and just build a i7 system? I would like a Toms Hardware expert who tested the chip to weigh in. This build has got to last 4-5 years.

More about : 8150

February 8, 2012 11:56:53 AM

I'm no expert but I have had one of the chips.

If you're like using say, multiple instances of a intensive program the 8150 is better.

If you are running one program that eats up power like crazy, the i7 wins.

If you are a gamer wanting max FPS the i5 often beats the i7 (Except for the higher end ones, 300$+)

The 8150 is not bad, it's just some people don't use it for it's main purpose.
Oh, and before you jump on the intel boat, try checking out the Phenom 2 980 BE or the Phenom 2 1100t BE. Both can compare to an i5 2500k and sometimes the 1100t outdoes it.
m
0
l
a c 203 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 8, 2012 1:22:49 PM

tdoughtony said:
Also spent 3 years working for a PC repair company. Saw more DOA Intel chips than AMD.
What was the ratio of DOA Intel to AMD chips?
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
February 8, 2012 1:35:33 PM

cyansnow said:
I'm no expert but I have had one of the chips.

If you're like using say, multiple instances of a intensive program the 8150 is better.

If you are running one program that eats up power like crazy, the i7 wins.

If you are a gamer wanting max FPS the i5 often beats the i7 (Except for the higher end ones, 300$+)

The 8150 is not bad, it's just some people don't use it for it's main purpose.
Oh, and before you jump on the intel boat, try checking out the Phenom 2 980 BE or the Phenom 2 1100t BE. Both can compare to an i5 2500k and sometimes the 1100t outdoes it.


Just remember that when the P2 X4 980BE or the 1100T follow up closely to 2500k, its mainly cause is the GPU being more punished than the CPU, so the GPU is the limiting factor.
When the GPU is strong enough, and the CPU can show its power then we can see the difference (just check some Skyrim reviews, sandy-bridge can show a much better performance, even at 1080p, all turned on)
m
0
l
February 8, 2012 2:17:46 PM

2456479,3,54640 said:
What was the ratio of DOA Intel to AMD chips?[/quotem

If we did 10 builds of each 4-1. But I haven't worked there if over 3 years. IDK what the ratio is now and how good Intel chips have gotten.
m
0
l
February 8, 2012 2:20:31 PM

cyansnow said:
I'm no expert but I have had one of the chips.

If you're like using say, multiple instances of a intensive program the 8150 is better.

If you are running one program that eats up power like crazy, the i7 wins.

If you are a gamer wanting max FPS the i5 often beats the i7 (Except for the higher end ones, 300$+)

The 8150 is not bad, it's just some people don't use it for it's main purpose.
Oh, and before you jump on the intel boat, try checking out the Phenom 2 980 BE or the Phenom 2 1100t BE. Both can compare to an i5 2500k and sometimes the 1100t outdoes it.



I am a gamer. Mostly online.
m
0
l
February 8, 2012 2:30:39 PM

tdoughtony said:
I am a gamer. Mostly online.



I'd say go with the P2 980. Gamers don't need 8 cores and the 980 is AMD's best 4 core chip in my opinion, the 8150 would not be good for gaming at all because 4 cores would be dormant while if you had the 980 all 4 are being used.

There is no real need to go Intel i7(or 5) unless you want cutting edge technology and the absolute best performance, what I'm saying if you want to pay 100+ extra you're not getting game crushing changes in performance compared to most AMD's.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
^980 BE

Just my opinion, go with the 8150 if you please though.
m
0
l
February 8, 2012 2:30:40 PM

tdoughtony said:
2456479,3,54640 said:
What was the ratio of DOA Intel to AMD chips?[/quotem

If we did 10 builds of each 4-1. But I haven't worked there if over 3 years. IDK what the ratio is now and how good Intel chips have gotten.
said:


I've worked in IT for 14 years now. Assembled, deployed and installed thousands of "boxes" so far. The CPU is the least cause for problems, by a very high margin. Way less than 1% of problems is CPU failure. In OEM econoboxes, it is most likely cooling/airflow problems that in the end kill the CPU. After 10 years or so.

So regardless of brand, i would just hope that all other manufacturers were like AMD or Intel. Reliable.

Now for gaming, if i would buy a CPU atm, i would go for a 1100T or a 2500k. Totally different price points, but value wise they are the head of their pack. An PII 955 can be had for 100€ witch value wise it is pretty good. Save a bit on the CPU and spend more GPU wise. Much better investment.
m
0
l
February 8, 2012 2:41:03 PM

cyansnow said:
I'd say go with the P2 980. Gamers don't need 8 cores and the 980 is AMD's best 4 core chip in my opinion, the 8150 would not be good for gaming at all because 4 cores would be dormant while if you had the 980 all 4 are being used.

There is no real need to go Intel i7(or 5) unless you want cutting edge technology and the absolute best performance, what I'm saying if you want to pay 100+ extra you're not getting game crushing changes in performance compared to most AMD's.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
^980 BE

Just my opinion, go with the 8150 if you please though.

100% agreed +1 ^
m
0
l
February 8, 2012 2:44:40 PM

radnor said:
I've worked in IT for 14 years now. Assembled, deployed and installed thousands of "boxes" so far. The CPU is the least cause for problems, by a very high margin. Way less than 1% of problems is CPU failure. In OEM econoboxes, it is most likely cooling/airflow problems that in the end kill the CPU. After 10 years or so.

So regardless of brand, i would just hope that all other manufacturers were like AMD or Intel. Reliable.

Now for gaming, if i would buy a CPU atm, i would go for a 1100T or a 2500k. Totally different price points, but value wise they are the head of their pack. An PII 955 can be had for 100€ witch value wise it is pretty good. Save a bit on the CPU and spend more GPU wise. Much better investment.

100% agreed +1 ^
m
0
l
a c 203 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 8, 2012 2:58:35 PM

radnor said:
The CPU is the least cause for problems, by a very high margin. Way less than 1% of problems is CPU failure.
And a fair percentage of those CPU failures were likely due to complications caused by the other hardware (motherboard, for example).
m
0
l
a c 203 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 8, 2012 3:02:00 PM

tdoughtony said:
If we did 10 builds of each 4-1.
40% Intel CPU failure rate vs 10% AMD CPU failure rate.
Seems unusually high for both. Something unusual going on in that shop.
m
0
l
a c 154 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 8, 2012 4:45:26 PM

tdoughtony said:
2456479,3,54640 said:
What was the ratio of DOA Intel to AMD chips?[/quotem

If we did 10 builds of each 4-1. But I haven't worked there if over 3 years. IDK what the ratio is now and how good Intel chips have gotten.
said:


I'm not buying that. Sounds to me like people don't don't know how to install a CPU. CPU's either work or they don't and of all the hardware in computers CPU's are probably the most reliable. Motherboards, video cards and PSU's fail a lot more often than CPU's. More than likely the failures were caused by someone not knowing what they were doing or from other hardware like a bad PSU or motherboard.

As for you if you're going to be gaming I would avoid the Bulldozer at all cost. I would go with an I3 or I5 depending on what you want to spend. Clock for clock the Bulldozer can't compete with Sandy Bridges.
m
0
l
February 8, 2012 4:50:17 PM

rds1220 said:
I'm not buying that. Sounds to me like people don't don't know how to install a CPU. CPU's either work or they don't and of all the hardware in computers CPU's are probably the most reliable. Motherboards, video cards and PSU's fail a lot more often than CPU's. More than likely the failures were caused by someone not knowing what they were doing or from other hardware like a bad PSU or motherboard.

As for you if you're going to be gaming I would avoid the Bulldozer at all cost. I would go with an I3 or I5 depending on what you want to spend. Clock for clock the Bulldozer can't compete with Sandy Bridges.

BD is not nearly as bad as it's buzz surrounding it and it very good in allot of stuff and gaming to.
m
0
l
February 8, 2012 4:52:27 PM

rds1220 said:
I'm not buying that. Sounds to me like people don't don't know how to install a CPU. CPU's either work or they don't and of all the hardware in computers CPU's are probably the most reliable. Motherboards, video cards and PSU's fail a lot more often than CPU's. More than likely the failures were caused by someone not knowing what they were doing or from other hardware like a bad PSU or motherboard.

As for you if you're going to be gaming I would avoid the Bulldozer at all cost. I would go with an I3 or I5 depending on what you want to spend. Clock for clock the Bulldozer can't compete with Sandy Bridges.



Another, biased Bulldozer hater. Why must you go on AMD threads and promote your oh-so-loved I-series CPUs? Even on threads where people say they are looking for AMD's?
m
0
l
a c 203 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 8, 2012 4:59:03 PM

cyansnow said:
Another, biased Bulldozer hater. Why must you go on AMD threads and promote your oh-so-loved I-series CPUs? Even on threads where people say they are looking for AMD's?
Based on what the OP said it looks fully relevant to me.
He's considering all his options ATM.
m
0
l
a c 154 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 8, 2012 5:04:56 PM

Gordon Freeman said:
BD is not nearly as bad as it's buzz surrounding it and it very good in allot of stuff and gaming to.


Yea it actually is. The Bulldozer needs to be overclocked to 5 GHz just to be anywhere near equal to a stock Intel I Core processor. It's ok if you're running a multi threaded program but most are single threaded and it's piss poor in single threaded programs. That's why the Icore processors beat out the Bulldozer in all but a few benchmarks.
m
0
l
a c 154 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 8, 2012 5:09:22 PM

cyansnow said:
Another, biased Bulldozer hater. Why must you go on AMD threads and promote your oh-so-loved I-series CPUs? Even on threads where people say they are looking for AMD's?


The Bulldozer is a joke. For as long as they had to develop it it's pretty sad that it's pathetic as it is. If you don't like it no ones forcing you to stay here. You can go to AMD forums with like minded blind worshippers.

Also he never said he was dead set on a Bulldozer he was considering all options including Intel.
m
0
l
February 8, 2012 5:13:19 PM

WR2 said:
Based on what the OP said it looks fully relevant to me.
He's considering all his options ATM.


Actually, the OP said for people that HAD experience with the chip and/or used it in the past or present. RDS blatantly narrows out the bulldozers and of course, shoves the Iseries into the picture. He didn't even mention other AMD options. The reason I have a high disregard for all of RDS' posts are that they are so biased! He obviously is a intel fan, which i cannot criticize that but he is just starting to piss me off every time I see one of his replies on many CPU threads bashing the bulldozer architecture and promoting Sandy bridge, he pretty much said (in this thread) I series beats the bulldozer by a lot whereas in general the price/performance ratio for intel is awful compared to the AMD's, he doesn't mention that for the Intel chips that are worth a look are very pricey, nor does he mention anything positive about the topic relating to the OP's original comment the 8150.
m
0
l
February 8, 2012 5:15:38 PM

rds1220 said:
The Bulldozer is a joke. For as long as they had to develop it it's pretty sad that it's pathetic as it is. If you don't like it no ones forcing you to stay here. You canto to AMD forums with like minded blind worshippers.

Also he never said he was dead set on a Bulldozer he was considering all options including Intel.


I'm not worshipping AMD, never said I was biased to AMD I just answered his question, which was about the FX 8150.
Your comments are un called for and you automatically classified me as an AMD worshipper for pointing out positive sides on the bulldozer chip, so does that mean I can classify you as you put it a "worshipper" of intel?
m
0
l
a c 203 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 8, 2012 5:20:23 PM

cyansnow said:
Actually, the OP said for people that HAD experience with the chip and/or used it in the past or present.
tdoughtony said:
So my question is do I wait for Windows 8 and see if that unlocks the full potential of the 8150 or is it a lost cause and just build a i7 system?
Personally, I don't find any of the comments here off the reservation.
Peoples opinions are just that - opinions.
m
0
l
a c 203 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 8, 2012 5:22:20 PM

cyansnow said:
Your comments are un called for and you automatically classified me as an AMD worshipper for pointing out positive sides on the bulldozer chip, so does that mean I can classify you as you put it a "worshipper" of intel?
I think you did that already.
"Another, biased Bulldozer hater. Why must you go on AMD threads and promote your oh-so-loved I-series CPUs? Even on threads where people say they are looking for AMD's?"
m
0
l
February 8, 2012 5:25:02 PM

rds1220 said:
Yea it actually is. The Bulldozer needs to be overclocked to 5 GHz just to be anywhere near equal to a stock Intel I Core processor. It's ok if you're running a multi threaded program but most are single threaded and it's piss poor in single threaded programs. That's why the Icore processors beat out the Bulldozer in all but a few benchmarks.

And even and I am not refuting that an FX 8150 needs tuning and OCing to run as fast as an i5 2500k since when is an 2500K a bad performer plus AMD has small budget Intel has big budget to buy all the good engineers which is why I am impressed with BD FX-81xx CPUs plus I dont need all the power of an OCed 2500K/2600K i5/i7 CPU I will never use it all = money down the drain and BD is to much money as well. PS Intel is inticing me for my next build because it has $200 i5 2500K and most importantly to my next build it needs to be a power efficient and cool running CPU so in that being said Intel hands down FTW but BD FX is good and I hope they refine it out a bit more in it's next iteration FTW.
m
0
l
a c 154 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 8, 2012 5:28:15 PM

cyansnow said:
Actually, the OP said for people that HAD experience with the chip and/or used it in the past or present. RDS blatantly narrows out the bulldozers and of course, shoves the Iseries into the picture. He didn't even mention other AMD options. The reason I have a high disregard for all of RDS' posts are that they are so biased! He obviously is a intel fan, which i cannot criticize that but he is just starting to piss me off every time I see one of his replies on many CPU threads bashing the bulldozer architecture and promoting Sandy bridge, he pretty much said (in this thread) I series beats the bulldozer by a lot whereas in general the price/performance ratio for intel is awful compared to the AMD's, he doesn't mention that for the Intel chips that are worth a look are very pricey, nor does he mention anything positive about the topic relating to the OP's original comment the 8150.


Tissue? The Icores do beat out the Bulldozer a lot. Look at the benchmarks the I core processors beat out the Bulldozer in all but a very few benchmarks. Like I said the Bulldozer needs to be overclocked to 5GHz just to be competitive with a stock I core processor running at 3.3 GHz. You want to talk about price to performance..puff the 8150 cost more than an I5 and has worse performance. In fact none of the 6 or 8 core processors are worth it because the performance gets beaten out by quad and dual core processors.
m
0
l
a c 154 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 8, 2012 5:32:08 PM

Gordon Freeman said:
And even and I am not refuting that an FX 8150 needs tuning and OCing to run as fast as an i5 2500k since when is an 2500K a bad performer plus AMD has small budget Intel has big budget to buy all the good engineers which is why I am impressed with BD FX-81xx CPUs plus I dont need all the power of an OCed 2500K/2600K i5/i7 CPU I will never use it all = money down the drain and BD is to much money as well. PS Intel is inticing me for my next build because it has $200 i5 2500K and most importantly to my next build it needs to be a power efficient and cool running CPU so in that being said Intel hands down FTW but BD FX is good and I hope they refine it out a bit more in it's next iteration FTW.


Yes I know which between everything that happened so far including not having the money Intel has it's no wonder they announced in the fall of 2011 that they would no longer try to directly compete with Intel.
m
0
l
February 8, 2012 5:33:10 PM

rds1220 said:
Tissue? The Icores do beat out the Bulldozer a lot. Look at the benchmarks the I core processors beat out the Bulldozer in all but a very few benchmarks. Like I said the Bulldozer needs to be overclocked to 5GHz just to be competitive with a stock I core processor running at 3.3 GHz. You want to talk about price to performance..puff the 8150 cost more than an I5 and has worse performance. In fact none of the 6 or 8 core processors are worth it because the performance gets beaten out by quad and dual core processors.

Who cares cause for most of us after a point it becomes about splitting a hair to find a tangible performance gain and as a gamer an 8120/50 FX or an Intel chip or a Pheonm II deneb is all good and I would be happy with any of them and I am content with my P2 955. PS BD FX- 81xx takes some tuning and OCing to get them running great.
m
0
l
a c 203 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 8, 2012 5:38:10 PM

Phenom II X4 980 / FX 8150 / Core i5-2500K will all get the 'job done' when it comes to gaming.

I don't believe one or the other of those options would allow you to run games at 'Ultra' settings where the others would only let you run games at 'High' settings.
m
0
l
a c 154 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 8, 2012 5:39:13 PM

It's not splitting hairs though. It's just showing how bad it really is. Stock vs stock it can't compete. The only way to get a Bulldozer to get half decent performance is to overclock it. Even at that though it only puts it's performance on par with a stock I Core.
m
0
l
February 8, 2012 5:39:53 PM

rds1220 said:
Yes I know which between everything that happened so far including not having the money Intel has it's no wonder they announced in the fall of 2011 that they would no longer try to directly compete with Intel.

That has nothing to do with AMD or Intel being the winner loser type thing cause AMD has there respective markets where they do well in and Intel has theirs AMDs APUs are better than Intels for example and AMD is owning in the notebook CPU/APU/GPU and desktop GPU division.
m
0
l
February 8, 2012 5:41:38 PM

rds1220 said:
It's not splitting hairs though. It's just showing how bad it really is. Stock vs stock it can't compete. The only way to get a Bulldozer to get half decent performance is to overclock it. Even at that though it only puts it's performance on par with a stock I Core.

Your being to hard and fickle on AMD bro ;-)
m
0
l
a c 154 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 8, 2012 5:45:23 PM

Never said either was a winner loser. With the lack of money and Bulldozer putting them two (soon to be three) steps behind Intel they aren't going to try to compete with Intel anymore. Instead they can make the money up by concentrating on graphics cards and APU.
m
0
l
February 8, 2012 5:56:56 PM

rds1220 said:
Never said either was a winner loser. With the lack of money and Bulldozer putting them two (soon to be three) steps behind Intel they aren't going to try to compete with Intel anymore. Instead they can make the money up by concentrating on graphics cards and APU.

AMD don't need to compete with Intel AMD is a multifaceted company with many roots Intel is a one trick pony.
m
0
l
February 8, 2012 6:11:08 PM

Honestly mates , i still don't see why all the hate with BD. All around it is a good CPU. The big problem is that games, in the year 2012, still can't manage 3 threads.
Hell, I got a friend with Core 2 Duo E8600 at 4.4ghz and he plays everything at max settings.

This is most likely a software problem, not an hardware one. BD server wise is pretty decent. So stop bashing it. Go for PII Black (X4/X6) or a 2500k if you have the money. Whaever diference you can get from a X6 to 2500k in performance, spend it in the GPU. Will be the same or even better.
m
0
l
February 8, 2012 6:15:29 PM

Full Moon is making people stupid today myself included LOL.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 8, 2012 6:18:49 PM

I would say its definately not worth it to go with the FX right now. The expect performance gain from window 8 is all over the place but I would hold it to be around 5-10% which isn't going to make the chip better than the sandy bridge cpus.

Even after win7 hotfixes the FX don't gain much is any performance and seem to be on the order of 1-3% but some software scores does improve somewhat.

If you are going for a AMD cpu, you'd best wait for piledriver and windows 8 to see what kind of performance gain but even then intel will probably be ahead in gaming. Games are just starting to use more than 2 cores, it will be a while before they can use more than 4. Ivybridge will probably be faster than piledriver and get here sooner.

Only time you should consider the AMD chips is if you do massive video transcoding and rendering ect.

m
0
l
a c 79 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 8, 2012 6:39:57 PM

there are games out there that do spread themselves out over 8 cores/threads.....( farcry2/crysis2/bc3 are a few ) and the chart above/and in reference to online gaming.......... don't crank up the resolution and don't crank up the settings to play on line. 1024x768 and settings high enough to be able to spot players at reasonable distances will suffice. Go too high and your reaction times will be slow and you'll get beat.
m
0
l
February 8, 2012 6:45:21 PM

swifty_morgan said:
there are games out there that do spread themselves out over 8 cores/threads.....( farcry2/crysis2/bc3 are a few ) and the chart above/and in reference to online gaming.......... don't crank up the resolution and don't crank up the settings to play on line. 1024x768 and settings high enough to be able to spot players at reasonable distances will suffice. Go too high and your reaction times will be slow and you'll get beat.

those games you mentioned still perform better on less and faster cores.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 8, 2012 8:11:05 PM

swifty_morgan said:
there are games out there that do spread themselves out over 8 cores/threads.....( farcry2/crysis2/bc3 are a few ) and the chart above/and in reference to online gaming.......... don't crank up the resolution and don't crank up the settings to play on line. 1024x768 and settings high enough to be able to spot players at reasonable distances will suffice. Go too high and your reaction times will be slow and you'll get beat.

Spreading themselves out doesn't relate to equal performance across 8 cores, as seen in testing with dropping cores. Most games aren't even hitting 100% in one core, much less across all 4 to 8



46% overall, but ~ 80% on core 1&2, 15-25% on the other 6



On this image, you can see the problem with hyper threading on cpu-usage. core 1 is fairly laxed, ~50%, but core 1 HT is pegging 90%. the problem with overall usage is you have 3 cores at 0% (ht being not used other than running the secondary main game thread) and 3 at 50%. Windows doesn't calculate ht usage, but just averages thread usage, so overall you end up with a lower usage than the 8150, but reality is that hyperthread core is ~ 30% max of a true core.

They didn't test the 2500k, so we don't have a graph on a true quad core intel cpu, but toms did show how HT hurts performance.



This is where games are heading, the extra threads in BF3 are for multiplayer usage. This is where the dual core cpus take a large crap. they can handle the game fine on single player, but when they try to handle the multiplayer threads they have no more cpu usage to give. As such, BD and probably i5 2500k doesn't even budge when going from single player to a 64 player map. The 2600k takes an artificial dive from the HT core being used too much initially, but not much. True quad cores drop some and dual cores become nearly unplayable.

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1654043

looking at the numbers, quad i5 3.4 ghz = 116.093 fps. dual I5 drops to 66.47 fps.. At 4.2 ghz, its 136 fps vs 82.

What happens in single player going from quad to dual? nothing



Quote:
those games you mentioned still perform better on less and faster cores


Do you really think a dual core cpu is good enough since single player testing shows no change?

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 8, 2012 8:28:03 PM

cyansnow said:
Another, biased Bulldozer hater. Why must you go on AMD threads and promote your oh-so-loved I-series CPUs? Even on threads where people say they are looking for AMD's?

Arguing on the side of a processor that costs more than an i5-2500k and basically competes with a $125 Core i3-21xx in most real gaming scenarios, and calling those who say so "biased" is a pretty ballsy side to take. I salute you, sir. Way to stick to your guns.

radnor said:
Honestly mates , i still don't see why all the hate with BD. All around it is a good CPU. The big problem is that games, in the year 2012, still can't manage 3 threads.
Hell, I got a friend with Core 2 Duo E8600 at 4.4ghz and he plays everything at max settings.

Considered in a vacuum, yes, it can run games at comfortable framerates. But you pay more (talking FX 8150, anyway) for less performance, which is what it always comes down to.

Don't expect a lot of games optimized for 6+ cores anytime soon, either: Dual-cores are still the most-used CPUs on Steam's hardware survey, with quad-cores only recently trailing a few points behind. 6 and 8 core users are still less than 2% of the survey combined. That will grow, but how fast, and how willing are developers to bet their capital on it?

There are enough games, in my opinion, where going from anything slower to a Core i5/i7 still gives a non-trivial FPS boost, many of which are shown by benchmarks on this site. I'd be interested to see how your friend's Core 2 Duo handles Skyrim on Ultra settings.
m
0
l
February 8, 2012 8:29:21 PM

noob2222 said:
Spreading themselves out doesn't relate to equal performance across 8 cores, as seen in testing with dropping cores. Most games aren't even hitting 100% in one core, much less across all 4 to 8

http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/458/images/FX-8150.png

46% overall, but ~ 80% on core 1&2, 15-25% on the other 6

http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/458/images/Core_i7_2600K.png

On this image, you can see the problem with hyper threading on cpu-usage. core 1 is fairly laxed, ~50%, but core 1 HT is pegging 90%. the problem with overall usage is you have 3 cores at 0% (ht being not used other than running the secondary main game thread) and 3 at 50%. Windows doesn't calculate ht usage, but just averages thread usage, so overall you end up with a lower usage than the 8150, but reality is that hyperthread core is ~ 30% max of a true core.

They didn't test the 2500k, so we don't have a graph on a true quad core intel cpu, but toms did show how HT hurts performance.

http://media.bestofmicro.com/Y/Y/313594/original/hyper-threading.png

This is where games are heading, the extra threads in BF3 are for multiplayer usage. This is where the dual core cpus take a large crap. they can handle the game fine on single player, but when they try to handle the multiplayer threads they have no more cpu usage to give. As such, BD and probably i5 2500k doesn't even budge when going from single player to a 64 player map. The 2600k takes an artificial dive from the HT core being used too much initially, but not much. True quad cores drop some and dual cores become nearly unplayable.

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1654043

looking at the numbers, quad i5 3.4 ghz = 116.093 fps. dual I5 drops to 66.47 fps.. At 4.2 ghz, its 136 fps vs 82.

What happens in single player going from quad to dual? nothing

http://media.bestofmicro.com/Y/Z/313595/original/intel%20core%20i7-2600k%20cores.png

Quote:
those games you mentioned still perform better on less and faster cores


Do you really think a dual core cpu is good enough since single player testing shows no change?

I dont play BF3 EA games suck and the only game I play online for a shooter is MW plus Crisis and Far Cry are largely dual threaded games and more suited for offline story mode game play whereas BF3 is geared for Online play. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7S2o0-VeTg&feature=list...
m
0
l
!