[Solved] Amd fx 8150 overclocked

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

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/c [...] 0-review/8

if overclocking, for the price the 8120 is the better price/performance value.

I would not get any AMD processors. I would suggest the I5 2500K which is still faster then the 8150.

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)

http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 20-10.html



No reason to go FX for gaming.

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

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.

How is the bulldozer that power hungry?

It isn't something is fudged or wrong with them numbers BD is not 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.

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thats what it comes down to at the end, benchmarks say one thing what it does for the end user is what matters.

...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.