Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Amd fx 8150 overclocked

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 13, 2012 11:34:43 AM

How much better would a overcloked bulldozer 5ghz perform compared to a core i7 2600k

More about : amd 8150 overclocked

a c 133 à CPUs
February 13, 2012 11:44:39 AM

Well with both CPU's at their stock clock the I7 2600K is 12% faster then the FX 8150. The I7 2600K responds to overclocking very very well and scales up nicely. If you are asking if the bulldozer OC to 5GHz will be faster then an I7 2600K at stock clock then sure it will probably be faster but it does not take much to unleash the real power of the 2600K.

Check out this link.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/10/12/amd-fx...
Score
0
February 13, 2012 11:50:10 AM

Yea hmm so the 8150 acctually isnt that bad as everyone says? :D  im thinking of getting it what you guys think?

since over 70% people are buying intel someone needs to keep amd alive right?
Score
0
Related resources
a b à CPUs
February 13, 2012 11:52:46 AM

if overclocking, for the price the 8120 is the better price/performance value.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 13, 2012 12:01:30 PM

Buy it only if you can get a good price and need it for multithreaded tasking. If you can get an 8120 for less than $200, it is a pretty good deal. Other people will advise you to buy a i5 2500K rig instead. I won't give you that advice if you are truly interested in an FX processor. I have both an FX 8120 and an i5 2500K, and to be honest, I cannot tell the difference when I am playing games like SWTOR or BF3, though the FX is significantly faster when I am working in Photoshop (both overclocked to 4+ Ghz).
Score
0
a c 133 à CPUs
February 13, 2012 12:02:12 PM

I would not get any AMD processors. I would suggest the I5 2500K which is still faster then the 8150.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 13, 2012 12:02:40 PM

Very true, and yea don't forget, AMD FX Bulldozer broke the OC'ing world record 2 times. I think Intel holds it with the new I7 3930. But still The 8 8150 is the best CPU AMD has, then the 8120, then i would get a Phenom II X6 instead of the FX 6100. I have a 6100 and i need to OC it some because within a year it's gonna be bottle necking my system. But yes get the 8150. So it doesn't beat Intels Chip at stock....No one can AMD it out run Intel. However them saying it's kicking the I5's arse was a tiny lie. Because the 8 Core is far from the I7's performance, and the I5 mostly runs neck and neck. But i still give it it's credit. Tho i will be doing Intel Next AMD has been pretty Impressive at making Components affordable. the 8 core does best at Multi Tasking. I can be running a Full Virus Scan with 5 web pages open and playing BF3 and the CPU usage is only at maybe 62% or less. and thats just the 6 core. If the store i got it from had the 8 core. would have snatched that thing up quick
Score
0
February 13, 2012 12:06:02 PM

Well i will be gaming, and rendering and uploading vids isnt the i5 only a quad core with no hyper threading?

i mean im not fan boy i dont hate intel or amd i have respect for both companys. What i am worried about is will amd be making any more cpus? lets say i wanna upgrade in a year or 2 will there be any more amd cpus?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 13, 2012 1:44:09 PM

Technically speaking will exist AMD cpus, but maybe not in the upper high-end.

AMD representative already said that AMD will focus in low power CPUs.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 13, 2012 1:56:42 PM

stanistheman said:
Well i will be gaming, and rendering and uploading vids isnt the i5 only a quad core with no hyper threading?

i mean im not fan boy i dont hate intel or amd i have respect for both companys. What i am worried about is will amd be making any more cpus? lets say i wanna upgrade in a year or 2 will there be any more amd cpus?


AFAIK socket AM3+ will change for the piledriver.
So if you build system with AMD FX you would need to do a full mobo+CPU change to upgrade in 2 years.
Can't say the same about Intel, Ivy-bridge will be socket compative with sandy-bridge (not the H61 chipset), I don't know about the cpu after ivy-bridge, but at least one iteration will be ok!

And just a hint, considering the following article: AMD FX-8150@4,8Ghz vs i7-2600k@5Ghz Power Consumption
i7 system = 313W
FX system = 586W

As per the article FX 8150 can't touch i7 performance, also, if you overclock both (i7 still faster) makes FX consumes a LOT more power.
This delta is 273W, or 0,27kW, if you render about 1 hour/day videos, or use your PC at max for hour a day, each month you would save about USD 2,50 in the electric bill (and this just saying that you ONLY do 1 hour rendering, and NOTHING more).
If you follow my line, a better option is too buy the i7 and OC it, like you would do with the FX-8150, after a year of heavy usage, or even less, you would pay the CPU price difference, have a better CPU, and keep saving each incoming month.

(considering a 1kWh = 30 cents)
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 13, 2012 5:34:28 PM

bit tech ... lol, they are laughable at best

Quote:
We initially used just the CPU multiplier to overclock, but there appeared to be a hole at 4.8GHz where the CPU just refused to play ball. Switching to a touch of HTT overclocking to achieve 4.818GHz (with a HTT of 205MHz and a CPU multiplier of 23.5) produced a perfectly stable system. We applied 1.45V to the CPU, 1.2V to the CPU/NB, 1.2V to the Northbridge, 1.25V to the NB HT and used the default 1.65V for our memory despite it running at 1,612MHz CL9 rather than the rated 1,600MHz CL9.

We should have been able to push the FX-8150 to 5.1GHz, but unfortunately core 7 wasn’t up to the task.



compared to toms 4.6 ghz at 1.5v, pulling a maximum of 363W, ill leave you to wonder how they managed to up that to 586W



And even that isn't doing an efficient overclock.



1.344V vs 1.5V = ? W ...
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 13, 2012 8:42:27 PM


kinda funny how no one really noticed how every game picked is single or dual threaded with the exception of BF3 and Dirt 3 wich show equal performance.

JC 2 uses 1 thread


Metro2033 uses 1



skyrim - 2 threads


starcraft 2 - 1 main thread



Its also interesting to note how starcraft is a poorly programed game. It actually stangles itself the more cores you add.



http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/08/18/how-ma...
So why is toms article lopsided for the i3 2100? 4/6 weak game titles paired with crappy 1333 memory that favors intel.
Score
0
February 13, 2012 10:37:12 PM

Wow the fx series is power hungry?.... D: Wont windows 8 be "optimized" for bulldozer architecture? Beacause from ive heard it will do better on windows 8 then windows 7. And also i was gonna go with the 8120 price=$224

core i7 2600k price=334 is it worth the $110 dollars more? i cannot go with i5 i need hyperthreading from i7
Score
0
February 13, 2012 11:48:52 PM

vitornob said:
AFAIK socket AM3+ will change for the piledriver.
So if you build system with AMD FX you would need to do a full mobo+CPU change to upgrade in 2 years.
Can't say the same about Intel, Ivy-bridge will be socket compative with sandy-bridge (not the H61 chipset), I don't know about the cpu after ivy-bridge, but at least one iteration will be ok!

And just a hint, considering the following article: AMD FX-8150@4,8Ghz vs i7-2600k@5Ghz Power Consumption
i7 system = 313W
FX system = 586W

As per the article FX 8150 can't touch i7 performance, also, if you overclock both (i7 still faster) makes FX consumes a LOT more power.
This delta is 273W, or 0,27kW, if you render about 1 hour/day videos, or use your PC at max for hour a day, each month you would save about USD 2,50 in the electric bill (and this just saying that you ONLY do 1 hour rendering, and NOTHING more).
If you follow my line, a better option is too buy the i7 and OC it, like you would do with the FX-8150, after a year of heavy usage, or even less, you would pay the CPU price difference, have a better CPU, and keep saving each incoming month.

(considering a 1kWh = 30 cents)

Yo might want to reconsider how you came up with the power draw discrepancy before you displace unsubstantiated or confirmed numbers I mean 200watts+ discrepancy is a bit much do ya think please prove certifiable claim in same test bench or rig LOL.
Score
0
a c 233 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 14, 2012 12:32:31 AM

Gamer Dude said:
Yo might want to reconsider how you came up with the power draw discrepancy before you displace unsubstantiated or confirmed numbers I mean 200watts+ discrepancy is a bit much do ya think please prove certifiable claim in same test bench or rig LOL.



Might want to read the article genius. They are in the same rigs.............the as same as can be with them requiring different motherboards. Everything else is identical.
Score
0
February 14, 2012 12:45:15 AM

anort3 said:
Might want to read the article genius. They are in the same rigs.............the as same as can be with them requiring different motherboards. Everything else is identical.

funny but how does a 125watt TDP FX-8150BD OCed pull 200watts+ more energy over a 95Watt max TDP i7 2600K overclocked part ?
Score
0
February 14, 2012 1:24:13 AM

How is the bulldozer that power hungry?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 14, 2012 1:34:16 AM

Houndsteeth said:
Buy it only if you can get a good price and need it for multithreaded tasking. If you can get an 8120 for less than $200, it is a pretty good deal. Other people will advise you to buy a i5 2500K rig instead. I won't give you that advice if you are truly interested in an FX processor. I have both an FX 8120 and an i5 2500K, and to be honest, I cannot tell the difference when I am playing games like SWTOR or BF3, though the FX is significantly faster when I am working in Photoshop (both overclocked to 4+ Ghz).



+1^ I have an 8120 OC'd to 4.2GHz and run smooth as silk.
Score
0
February 14, 2012 1:34:28 AM

stanistheman said:
How is the bulldozer that power hungry?

It isn't something is fudged or wrong with them numbers BD is not that power hungry.
Score
0
a c 186 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 14, 2012 2:01:11 AM

Just get an i5-2500k, the amount of cooling to get the fx-8150 to 5ghz 24/7 and the chances of killing your chip would allow you to get a great cooler on the 2500k and oc to about 4.6ghz 24/7 without risking any damage to the cpu and still outperform the 5ghz bd.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 14, 2012 3:32:56 AM

stanistheman said:
How is the bulldozer that power hungry?

Because that's what they want you to believe, but they were 100 watts and more over every other tests out there and 200W over toms tests.
Score
0
February 14, 2012 8:19:39 AM

I will be going with the amd 8120 I= understand that the intel i5/i7 will be faster although that is true. i will just overclock my bulldozer and id rather have the 4 extra cores is nice. one orther thing which liquid cooling should i go for with my cpu? i was thinking the corsiar h60 thoughts?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 14, 2012 9:31:27 AM

I use the Antec Kuhler 920 its amazing! but in reality any sealed loop water cooler will work just fine. ie Corsair H-Series, Antec Kuhler series
Score
0

Best solution

a b à CPUs
February 14, 2012 9:34:55 AM

if your considering one of the pre-made water kits, get the double size radiator h100, can never have too much cooling, helps keep the fan noise down when running cool and has more oomph for when it needs it. Advantage of the H100, easy to install and use, 5yr warranty.

For proper water cooling, with minimum effort searching for components is the xspc rasa kit. http://www.xoxide.com/xspc-rasa750rs240-watercoolingkit... $129 isn't bad for a starter custom WC loop, and is nearly identical to what I have, and just barely costs more than the h100 with much better cooling.

For a step-up, http://dazmode.com/store/index.php?main_page=index&cPat... stronger pump, newer block, newer radiator, but higher price, and a good start for gpu cooling setups with the 360 rads

If your worried about price, skip the h60 and get the CM 612 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

nearly identical performance as the H70/80 water kit for half the price. http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/NZXT-HAVIK-120-C...

the H60 is comparable to the Antec H2O 620, found about the middle of the pack.

h100 and the antec 920 are right up top tho.
Share
February 14, 2012 10:07:49 AM

Well im here in australia im not sure where i could get that XSPC Rasa 750. in my local computer store (centercom) its like microcenter the h100 is 165 and the antec is 148 will they be good enough? and which should i get?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 14, 2012 11:15:40 AM

stanistheman said:
I will be going with the amd 8120 I= understand that the intel i5/i7 will be faster although that is true. i will just overclock my bulldozer and id rather have the 4 extra cores is nice. one orther thing which liquid cooling should i go for with my cpu? i was thinking the corsiar h60 thoughts?



That is if you consider the bulldozer a 8core, which it isn't, it is a 4 module 8 threaded processor. A phenom II X6 is a pure hex core which out performs the FX 8150, it lends itself to thought as to why a 1.2billion transistor chip cannot match intels 990X and 3960X if it was supposed to have more transistors and more cores. It is simple really, strip the FX 8150 down and you get a 4Core with AMD's version of SMT which is grossly inefficient in comparison to Intels SMT(hyperthreading)
Score
0
February 14, 2012 1:17:31 PM

stanistheman said:
How much better would a overcloked bulldozer 5ghz perform compared to a core i7 2600k


I was just putting together a list for myself might help you get a better picture as far as multithreading goes. I compiled these from watching videos of benchmarks so I could be sure it was real, but there has to be some wiggle room considering all the benchmarks are done on completely different systems. So take them as approximations (although cinebench isn't really affected hardly at all by things like memory speeds so the scores are useful I think). Where possible I looked at many benchmarks for the same CPU at the same speed and created an average score from those, but many I could only find one test. Only showing CPU's that interested me, so its not a complete list by any means.

Cinebench 11.5 Multithreaded test

8 threads
Intel i5 2500k 3.3GHz - 05.93
Intel i5 2500k 4.5GHz - 06.99
Intel i5 2500k 4.7GHz - 07.35
Intel i5 2500k 5.0GHz - 07.90

8 threads
Intel i7 2600k 3.4GHz - 06.46
Intel i7 2600k 4.0GHz - 07.81
Intel i7 2600k 4.5GHz - 08.57
Intel i7 2600k 5.0GHz - 09.58

8 threads
Intel i7 2700k 3.5GHz - 07.51
Intel i7 2700k 5.0GHz - 09.67

8 threads
Intel i7 3820K 3.6GHz - 07.40
Intel i7 3820K 4.6GHz - 08.98

12 threads
Intel i7 3930K 3.2GHz - 10.14
Intel i7 3930K 4.5GHz - 13.06
Intel i7 3930K 4.8GHz - 13.79

12 threads
Intel i7 3960K 3.3GHz - 10.50
Intel i7 3960K 4.6GHz - 13.42

4 threads
AMD 960T 3.0GHz - 03.42
6 threads (2 unlocked)
AMD 960T 4.1GHz - 07.32

8 threads
AMD FX 8120 3.1GHz - 04.96
AMD FX 8120 3.5GHz - 05.48
AMD FX 8120 3.7GHz - 05.57
AMD FX 8120 4.2GHz - 05.83

6 threads
AMD X6 1100T 3.3GHz - 05.85
AMD X6 1100T 4.2GHz - 07.25

8 threads
AMD FX 8150 3.6GHz - 05.98
AMD FX 8150 4.4GHz - 07.02

The first result is always the stock speed, the highest results may or may not be suitable for 24/7. You'd have to decide for yourself. BTW Cinebench is the only benchmark I use as it's based on what I work on all day, Cinema4D.



HTH
Score
0
February 14, 2012 2:30:19 PM

sarinaide said:
That is if you consider the bulldozer a 8core, which it isn't, it is a 4 module 8 threaded processor. A phenom II X6 is a pure hex core which out performs the FX 8150, it lends itself to thought as to why a 1.2billion transistor chip cannot match intels 990X and 3960X if it was supposed to have more transistors and more cores. It is simple really, strip the FX 8150 down and you get a 4Core with AMD's version of SMT which is grossly inefficient in comparison to Intels SMT(hyperthreading)

The difference is that Intel is the quasi here doing there version of HT on each ONE single core effectively halving it's power whereas the BD FX-8150/20 has a better version on HT and splits the work load in half to two actual full cores and you can see 8 physical cores on the die so there is no way around it bud you are wrong BD FX 8150/20 is a true 8 core with 8 real full cores.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 14, 2012 3:09:20 PM

Whatever way you look at it; it doesn't perform like a true octo-core, is significantly weaker than the existing AMD hex-cores, barely competitive with X4's and older athlon II's and has shocking IPC performance.

This is not a recommendable chip for its pricing, if it went for $200 maybe. The only thing AMD achieved out of the FX 8xxx series, is having the most transistors and biggest die available today. Grossly inefficient....OP buy yourself a i7 2600 and be extremely pleased with the fact you will have the best value for money option.
Score
0
February 14, 2012 3:14:29 PM

sarinaide said:
Whatever way you look at it; it doesn't perform like a true octo-core, is significantly weaker than the existing AMD hex-cores, barely competitive with X4's and older athlon II's and has shocking IPC performance.

This is not a recommendable chip for its pricing, if it went for $200 maybe. The only thing AMD achieved out of the FX 8xxx series, is having the most transistors and biggest die available today. Grossly inefficient....OP buy yourself a i7 2600 and be extremely pleased with the fact you will have the best value for money option.

Well the facts proved you wrong even if BULLDOZER FX - 8150/20 performs when OCed you are wrong unless it is at stock clocks. You better look up and post some more of them AMD trashing benchmarks where they have the i7 2600k OCed to 5ghz and the FX - 8150 is at stock.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 14, 2012 3:29:03 PM

Handbrake and Cinebench are the only synthetic benches that the FX stood out on, it is tailored for max thread optimization and that is where the bulldozer is at its strongest. For gamers that is rather pointless when the per core performance of the bulldozer is as poor as aging Athlon II's. when games are cpu bound the intel high end chips and some lower end chips stand head and shoulders above AMD's.

It is a badly designed power hungry chip, core efficiency is also so poor in comparison to the Intel chips available including nahelem.
Score
0
February 14, 2012 3:36:18 PM

sarinaide said:
Handbrake and Cinebench are the only synthetic benches that the FX stood out on, it is tailored for max thread optimization and that is where the bulldozer is at its strongest. For gamers that is rather pointless when the per core performance of the bulldozer is as poor as aging Athlon II's. when games are cpu bound the intel high end chips and some lower end chips stand head and shoulders above AMD's.

It is a badly designed power hungry chip, core efficiency is also so poor in comparison to the Intel chips available including nahelem.

In the real world BD FX 8150/20 is doing real well friend here is some gaming bench facts in some newer popular demanding titles. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kd4dvLJQP4
http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-7970-cpu-scalin...
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 14, 2012 3:49:06 PM

Since many people asked about the FX-8150 OC test, I looked for more articles, and I come to this:

KitGuru:
FX 8150@4,6ghz = 406W
i7 2600k@4,6ghz = 231W
Difference = 175W

Guru3d:
FX 8150@4,6ghz = 432W
i7 2600k@4,3ghz = 178W
Difference = 254W

HardOCP
FX 8150@4,6ghz = 452W
i7 2600k@4,8ghz = 275W
Difference = 177W

bit-tech
FX 8150@4,8ghz = 586W
i7 2600k@5,0ghz = 313W
Difference = 273W

Removing the higher and the lower differences, and getting an average value we get 215,5w difference

Well... after that research I still think that OC difference are in the 200w+ area

References:
Power Consumption: FX 8150 v i5 2500k v i7 2600k
GURU3D - AMD FX 8150 processor review
GURU3D - Core i5 2500K and Core i7 2600K review
AMD Bulldozer / FX-8150 Desktop Performance Review
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 14, 2012 5:03:49 PM

vitornob said:
Since many people asked about the FX-8150 OC test, I looked for more articles, and I come to this:

KitGuru:
FX 8150@4,6ghz = 406W
i7 2600k@4,6ghz = 231W
Difference = 175W

Guru3d:
FX 8150@4,6ghz = 432W
i7 2600k@4,3ghz = 178W
Difference = 254W

HardOCP
FX 8150@4,6ghz = 452W
i7 2600k@4,8ghz = 275W
Difference = 177W

bit-tech
FX 8150@4,8ghz = 586W
i7 2600k@5,0ghz = 313W
Difference = 273W

Removing the higher and the lower differences, and getting an average value we get 215,5w difference

Well... after that research I still think that OC difference are in the 200w+ area

References:
Power Consumption: FX 8150 v i5 2500k v i7 2600k
GURU3D - AMD FX 8150 processor review
GURU3D - Core i5 2500K and Core i7 2600K review
AMD Bulldozer / FX-8150 Desktop Performance Review

why leave out toms own tests? 363 W @1.5V, 323 @ 1.45v, 238@1.38V see the problem? cranking the voltage cranks the power draw, its an easy concept and wayy too easy to twist the results into whoever's favor you want. Guru3d ... lol, 1.45V vs 1.32 for intel.

Bit-tech .. rofl. check their setups and you will see how laughable they are. •Asus Maximus IV Gene-Z motherboard <--- thats a micro atx board
Biggest problem with your figures .. there is a big difference with maximum power draw vs efficient overclocking, thats what most of these are doing, especially bit-tech.

been running for 2 months
Score
0
February 14, 2012 9:35:57 PM

Are these power draws real? beacause i will be overclocking my cpu/gpu and i that powerdraw seems really high. but does it really matter? im getting a 1050w corsair
If you guys really think that the bulldozer is that bad i can change my order from the 8120 to the core i7 2600k thoughts? just rember the core i7 2600k is a $110 more thats not really problem just if its worth it ill get it
Score
0
February 14, 2012 11:43:11 PM

You're comparing the wrong Intel CPU. The i5-2500k is the one you want to be comparing with the 8120. The 2500k is faster than the 8120 and a lot cheaper than the 2600k. Overclocks so much better. It's a lot more efficient too, especially when overclocked.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 15, 2012 1:43:30 AM

First off if your going by your cinebench nombers, they are pretty deluded. Every test out there has the stock 2500k at 5.4 not 5.9
Second the 8120 is the same cpu as the 8150, so how in any way can the 8120 at 4.2 ghz be slower than 3.6 ghz. 4.7 ghz 8120 runs 7.72 and 5 ghz hits 8.2
Score
0
a c 233 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 15, 2012 3:22:30 AM

The facts are the facts no matter how hard the AMD fanboys cry " LOL tests wrong LOL me smarter than people doing tests LOL durr Bulldozer not fail because me bought one durrr."

Fanboys are fanboys. I could care if it's Intel or AMD, I have owned both. I have always and will always base my recommendations on empirical evidence ( eg. facts ) as to what is the best buy. And the facts are simple. Nothing AMD makes can compete with Intel right now. Since Phenom II is being phased out you are stuck buying Bulldozer, an inferior product to the Phenom II chips in almost every case. The only reason to even consider a Bulldozer based build is if you run rendering programs like Handbrake exclusively.

AMD themselves admit they can't compete with Intel in the high end desktop CPU market and they no longer plan on trying.

So do yourself a favor. Ignore this entire thread and do your own research. When every single test shows one thing, that thing is generally the truth.

As for the fanboys on either side you should read some basic psychology and learn about " Confirmation Bias " and the ' Bandwagon Effect ".

Oh and AMD employees are allowed to post anonymously on forums. Just thought I would share that little nugget.

http://alienbabeltech.com/abt/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=2424...

Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 15, 2012 5:37:44 AM

Other than coming off as a complete douche, why do you have a problem with people posting their experience? After all, I had this cpu for 4 months, took me 2 tmonths o achieve this overclock. Review websites had what 1 week max, most probably just a couple of days. What more reliable, 3 months of toying with settings or 2 days?

Maybe we should all stop and praise Intel. Ill start now since you opened my eyes.

Come on AMD, go bankrupt, I want to pay $350 for a celeron 530 2.4 ghz dual core chip and $500 for the motherboard required to use it.

Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 15, 2012 6:37:55 AM

This is going to turn into a tit for tat again. I buy what is best for my budget and has the best performance, at this juncture Intel was in that catagory so I go it, I do hope that AMD don't forsake the cpu market and run off to be the low end and gpu manufacturers, I do hope they release a chip that will again make buying an AMD worthwhile.
Score
0
a c 186 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 15, 2012 6:39:35 AM

You realise that intel won't raise any of their prices even if amd goes bankrupt? The thing is, they don't need to. Also the government won't let them.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 15, 2012 7:06:39 AM

a fx8 overclocked to 4.6 will equal to i7-2600 at stock in multi-threaded tasks (that can use upto 8 thread effectivly)

if you can overclock core 0,2,4 and 6 of fx8 to upto 5.8 (you can disable other cores) then you will be equal to a i7-2600k (at stock, ht off) in every tasks.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 15, 2012 7:28:07 AM

truegenius said:
a fx8 overclocked to 4.6 will equal to i7-2600 at stock in multi-threaded tasks (that can use upto 8 thread effectivly)

if you can overclock core 0,2,4 and 6 of fx8 to upto 5.8 (you can disable other cores) then you will be equal to a i7-2600k (at stock, ht off) in every tasks.


I don't know what to make of this, while interesting it does have two issues;

1] overclocking - worst possible thing to do, particularly to match another chips stock performance.

2] overclocking half the core functionality and disabling the other half makes it redundant to even buy the chip then.

In a way I feel sorry for AMD, just hope like I said earlier that the don't forego the CPU market to pedel the ATI market, which could be dire should Nvidia hit the money. I think AMD is in a rather precarious situation. Up until Kepler release nobody can speculate on how good the Nvidia cards will be, if they are better than the 7000 series it will become problematic. Anyways, pitty about bulldozer, hopefully AMD survives at least to the point of giving us options.
Score
0
February 15, 2012 9:03:29 AM

You can disable cores?!! AWESOME so i could disable 7 cores and overclock one core to 6ghz? lololol and what you mean overclocking is bad? im getting watercooling (antec 920) so i think ill be fine and i mean. and i think intel would rasie there prices and would make worser chips without amd they need that presure which amd isnt giving thats why i wanna support amd
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 15, 2012 10:27:56 AM

Overclocking is like being a high profile businessman dating upmarket woman, you may have had a successful career making wealth enjoying the fruits of your life dating fine woman, but you hit the midlife crisis and realize it doesn't do it for you anymore. Overclocking doesn't turn a mid range system into a extreme system, it doesn't make a aging system run like a contemporary processor, it doesn't give you something for nothing, it is just a hobby, one that doesn't always work and can be expensive.

Essentially overclocking is not going to make the 8150 better than it really is, or noticably. All you are doing is overpowering the system to eke out whatever gains you can which is not even at a high level. You also run the risk of voiding manufacturer warrenties, as well as shortening the life and performance of components.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 15, 2012 11:10:59 AM

Geez, these topics always turn into Intel's superiority over AMD lol. But I can tell you one thing, my 8120 may not be a "2500K" but it does perform very well and is easily the fastest CPU I've ever owned. Not to mention the $200 price tag and the 4.2GHz OC that was super easy to achieve. I couldn't be happier with my choice.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 15, 2012 11:26:05 AM

Thats what it comes down to at the end, benchmarks say one thing what it does for the end user is what matters.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 15, 2012 11:27:40 AM

you'll never convince these guys of that lol
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 15, 2012 11:33:39 AM

...and in the end, we will all end up paying for it once AMD decides to back out of the enthusiast CPU business and focus solely on GPU and embedded development. No amount of government oversight is going to change the fact that Intel no longer has competition, and that prices will inflate accordingly.

It may not be tomorrow, but I can assure you that by next year, you will be paying more for less unless AMD is able to pull something out of their hat. All of us consumers should be rooting for AMD at this point.
Score
0
!