Best motherboard to use with amd fx 8150 gh 8 core

[trevor0719]

Hello,
I'm looking to build a gaming computer using a AMD FX 8150 3.6 GHz 8-core AM3+ CPU8 MB L2 cache +Turbo core technology and using a AMD Radeon 6970 2gb 16X GDDR PCIe HIS IceQ Turbo 840 MHz powered by AMD. Was wondering what would be a good motherboard for this processor considering it's for a gaming compute. Is this a good video card or would using the AMD 6970 2GB GDDR 16X PCIe major brand powered by AMD be a better way to go. This is my first build, any thoughts and suggestionsyou have would be greatly appreciated.

Thank You,
Jack C.

 

[rolli59]

If you look at reviews the performance for the money is in Intels I5 2500K on Z68 or P67 motherboard. Any HD6970 2GB is a good card just compare warranty and manufacturers reputation. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-19.html

 

[computernewb]

this guy claims that the fx 8150 and the i5 2500k are pretty similar in real world gaming

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kd4dvLJQP4

 

[amuffin]

You'd be better to go with an i5-2500k and a asus p8z68-v pro/gen 3 than any combination using the fx-8150. You could then get a higher end 6970, such as the msi twinfrozr 6970.

 

[maxinexus]

Don't listen to intel fun club boyz. I did exactly the same and end up giving 2500k to my wife. I build a new system with 8150 and it is the best system I ever had...everything is responsive and not lagging like with i5. Yes lagging. For all the haters if you did not have the opportunity to work on FX8150 don't give my your bs that i5 is the best. When it comes to games i5 is better but you should see the smoothness of juggling in windows, between applications, games, movies, and browsing. 8150 is a winner.

If you want best stability get 990FX sabertooth with 5 years warranty that beats everything.

 

[amuffin]

Don't listen to intel fun club boyz. I did exactly the same and end up giving 2500k to my wife. I build a new system with 8150 and it is the best system I ever had...everything is responsive and not lagging like with i5. Yes lagging. For all the haters if you did not have the opportunity to work on FX8150 don't give my your bs that i5 is the best. When it comes to games i5 is better but you should see the smoothness of juggling in windows, between applications, games, movies, and browsing. 8150 is a winner.

If you want best stability get 990FX sabertooth with 5 years warranty that beats everything.

Actually i5 outperforms your fx-8150 and that 5 year warranty won't last you much.

 

[maxinexus]

amuf if you would have ever had the chance to compare the two side by side for your self you would agree that 8150 system is snappier. I was waiting for FX and after reviews got in I was so disappointed so I went with intel. Holy shiskabab. My system was sluggish...not sure if it is the combination of SSDs and Z68 chipset or i5 but I did everything the intel, asus, and corsair support told me to but no resolution. The benchmarks points were as normal but in real life I did not see that my 2500k is better than my FX. I have both systems with almost identical components and you can tell without a doubt which systems is lagging - i5
So Am I mad? No, no no my brother my wife she is mad because her PC is slower.

 

[Raidur]

"Please note that we use HD 6970 and HD 6970 CrossFire (not HD 6870)."

This is with the first generation (older and slower than SandyBridge, or the i5-2500k) i7 with 500mhz less than the Phenom II. Mind you, the Phenom II is faster than the FX 8 core in games with the same clocks.

Now, the i5-2500k is going to be 10-20% faster per clock than the older i7 used here, AND is OCable to >4.5ghz on air.

But what do we know? We're just Intel fanboys. *sigh

Conclusion: Most high-end CPUs from AMD or Intel can handle a 6970 just fine, however throw in a stronger GPU setup and AMD starts feeling the hurt.

 

[Raidur]

amuf if you would have ever had the chance to compare the two side by side for your self you would agree that 8150 system is snappier. I was waiting for FX and after reviews got in I was so disappointed so I went with intel. Holy shiskabab. My system was sluggish...not sure if it is the combination of SSDs and Z68 chipset or i5 but I did everything the intel, asus, and corsair support told me to but no resolution. The benchmarks points were as normal but in real life I did not see that my 2500k is better than my FX. I have both systems with almost identical components and you can tell without a doubt which systems is lagging - i5
So Am I mad? No, no no my brother my wife she is mad because her PC is slower.

Snappier? You mean like OS performance?

FYI CPU has nothing to do with that these days. Get a SSD in an old Core2Duo laptop and you'll see windows go faster than any CPU w/ a slower HD.

What GPU did you have? Likely you were GPU bottlenecked if you're comparing gaming performance.

But go ahead and give false advice, when even my old ass Core2Quad out-performs FX CPUs clock4clock in games, and it's @ 4ghz.

In case you don't understand GPU bottlenecking, here is some food for thought.

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/core-i7-vs-phenom-ii-x2-vs-x4-scaling-performance-analysis/all/1

As you can see here, a single 5870 or GTX 480 shows CPUs all perform mighty similar (except in CPU-bound games). Throw in a 2nd 5870 and MAGICALLY a difference appears!

Another FYI, an 8 core CPU is going to perform very very similar to a quad core in 99% of games (in the 1% you'll get maybe 1-5 frames). So enjoy wasting that cash and feeding more false information.

But what do I know? I'm just an Intel fanboy. *sigh

 

[noob2222]

Considering the instant fanboy club on this topic, Trevor, if your still around, the Asus sabertooth 990fx is the best all-around, but the M5A990x is a bit cheaper but still good.

If you are just going to run a single video card, the M5A97 will do also.

 

[rolli59]

Considering the instant fanboy club on this topic, Trevor, if your still around, the Asus sabertooth 990fx is the best all-around, but the M5A990x is a bit cheaper but still good.

If you are just going to run a single video card, the M5A97 will do also.

We might be called fanboys but all we are is people stating facts that are all over the web from all major hardware sites even we post links to some of that information http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html
I currently have 4 AMD rigs in my household from socket 939 up to a AM3+ motherboard with a Athlon II X3 in it and no Intel computers, yet I am being called an Intel fanboy!

 

[noob2222]

"Please note that we use HD 6970 and HD 6970 CrossFire (not HD 6870)."

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/PerfSummary-1.jpg

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/PerfSummary-2.jpg

This is with the first generation (older and slower than SandyBridge, or the i5-2500k) i7 with 500mhz less than the Phenom II. Mind you, the Phenom II is faster than the FX 8 core in games with the same clocks.

Now, the i5-2500k is going to be 10-20% faster per clock than the older i7 used here, AND is OCable to >4.5ghz on air.

But what do we know? We're just Intel fanboys. *sigh

Conclusion: Most high-end CPUs from AMD or Intel can handle a 6970 just fine, however throw in a stronger GPU setup and AMD starts feeling the hurt.

obviously, might want to check the facts also ... 10-20% faster ...

looks like 0-2% for the I5 clock for clock. There is a reason most of the reviews tried not to show the I7 9XX vs SB.

 

[noob2222]

We might be called fanboys but all we are is people stating facts that are all over the web from all major hardware sites even we post links to some of that information http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html
I currently have 4 AMD rigs in my household from socket 939 up to a AM3+ motherboard with a Athlon II X3 in it and no Intel computers, yet I am being called an Intel fanboy!

I was more referring to the normal fanboy club that follows any AMD topic and tries to convince the OP that he or she is retarded. If you feel your in that club, well, I didn't name anyone. The 8120 is more than capable of a cpu, its just lacking an on-chip pci-e controller to be competetive to intel on the gaming aspect. the cpu itself is not bottlenecking. (note that 3.6 ghz = 4.4 ghz in ALL the games listed by Raidur, thats not what happens in a CPU bottleneck)

 

[rolli59]

I was more referring to the normal fanboy club that follows any AMD topic and tries to convince the OP that he or she is retarded. If you feel your in that club, well, I didn't name anyone. The 8120 is more than capable of a cpu, its just lacking an on-chip pci-e controller to be competetive to intel on the gaming aspect. the cpu itself is not bottlenecking. (note that 3.6 ghz = 4.4 ghz in ALL the games listed by Raidur, thats not what happens in a CPU bottleneck)

Just want to point out that I was the first person to point OP towards Intels I5 because he is building a gaming rig not a rendering editing machine where it could be a toss up between I72600K or FX8150!

 

[noob2222]

And I suppose reviews like this one http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/4350/amd_fx_8150_bulldozer_gaming_performance_analysis/index10.html are fake because it shows the 8150 = 2600k in 5/7 tests even while having a 500 mhz dis-advantage?

But considering the vast difference in specific games, its easy to pick and choose certain games to give Intel a superior feel. Here is a starter list that will do just that.

http://game-on.intel.com/eng/games/default.aspx

 

[rolli59]

And I suppose reviews like this one http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/4350/amd_fx_8150_bulldozer_gaming_performance_analysis/index10.html are fake because it shows the 8150 = 2600k in 5/7 tests even while having a 500 mhz dis-advantage?

But considering the vast difference in specific games, its easy to pick and choose certain games to give Intel a superior feel. Here is a starter list that will do just that.

http://game-on.intel.com/eng/games/default.aspx

The tweaktown review is exactly the reason why we recommend the I5 2500K for gaming since it is near to equal to the 2600K and costs less than the FX8150. No game to date can use the 8 thread capability of those two processor although productivity software can.

 

[Raidur]

obviously, might want to check the facts also ... 10-20% faster ...

http://www.techreaction.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/gamesavg_slide.png

looks like 0-2% for the I5 clock for clock. There is a reason most of the reviews tried not to show the I7 9XX vs SB.

You mean besides almost every single initial Sandy Bridge review that came out upon release?

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-review-intel-core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/1

May want to re-look at how you decide what reviews to go off. That one (the one you have shown) is obviously GPU bottlenecked, unless you really think thuban matches the 2500k.

Looks like 2-20% to me.

Also remember, the i5-2500k does not have hyperthreading like the i7-xxx, so make sure you're using the i7-2600k to do your comparison.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/287?vs=99

Also, I'm confused what you mean about my first post?

 

[amuffin]

in clock speed Sandybridge has 15% more performance than FX.

 

[noob2222]

You mean besides almost every single initial Sandy Bridge review that came out upon release?

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-review-intel-core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/1

May want to re-look at how you decide what reviews to go off. That one (the one you have shown) is obviously GPU bottlenecked, unless you really think thuban matches the 2500k.

Looks like 2-20% to me.

Also remember, the i5-2500k does not have hyperthreading like the i7-xxx, so make sure you're using the i7-2600k to do your comparison.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/287?vs=99

Also, I'm confused what you mean about my first post?

So make sure to compare 3.3 ghz I7 975 to a 3.4 ghz I7 2600k ... kinda defeats the purpose of stating that on equal clcoks doesn't it?

Even so, world of warcraft is the highest advantage at 14%

and the bottom end, you get -6.7% on a faster cpu

Everything else is ~2-9% with a 3% clock advantage to the 2600k

 

[Raidur]

Are you just looking at games or what?

Also... 70mhz isn't going to make much of a difference lol.

 

[noob2222]

Are you just looking at games or what?

Also... 70mhz isn't going to make much of a difference lol.

Look up top ...

Hello,
I'm looking to build a gaming computer ...

 

[Raidur]

Then you'll need to find a review that eliminates the GPU bottleneck using super high-end GPUs or super low resolutions. Or that are super CPU bound, such as Starcraft II.

However... usually when a CPU is faster in everything, it will usually carry over to games.

You're the one that started with the BS 0-2% statement.

Oh well Warcraft is there with 14% so this argument is complete.

 

[noob2222]

your the one that stated 10-20% when even the review you linked shows -6.7% to 14% and average of 5.8% not even the minimum your claiming.

2nd statement, there isn't a cpu thats faster in EVERYTHING. all too often for fanboys takes a slight majority to = the world. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-15.html That page must be fake since BD can't be faster than any SB, or even close.

Super cpu bound starcraft II ... lol .. how about Intel bound software? http://software.intel.com/sites/billboard/article/blizzard-entertainment-re-imagines-starcraft-intels-help

Ya, AMD sucks because it can't run on Intel software, thats all AMD's fault, has nothing to do with Intel not allowing AMD to use Intel's optimizations, esp if you consider the "CPU test" was designed BY INTEL.

Or maybe youd rather keep trying to convince people that a 2.66 ghz Intel cpu is more powerful than a 4, 6, or 8 core 3.8+ ghz AMD cpu simply because starcraft II was in part designed by intel.

http://www.techspot.com/review/305-starcraft2-performance/page13.html

Its kinda odd how almost every game that favors intel can be found on one of 2 web pages

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havok_(software)
http://game-on.intel.com/eng/games/default.aspx

Everything else is dubbed a "GPU bottleneck" because in truth there is VERY little difference between AMD and Intel with nonpartisan software.

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/4350/amd_fx_8150_bulldozer_gaming_performance_analysis/index7.html

 

[Raidur]

your the one that stated 10-20% when even the review you linked shows -6.7% to 14% and average of 5.8% not even the minimum your claiming.

2nd statement, there isn't a cpu thats faster in EVERYTHING. all too often for fanboys takes a slight majority to = the world. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-15.html That page must be fake since BD can't be faster than any SB, or even close.

Super cpu bound starcraft II ... lol .. how about Intel bound software? http://software.intel.com/sites/billboard/article/blizzard-entertainment-re-imagines-starcraft-intels-help

Ya, AMD sucks because it can't run on Intel software, thats all AMD's fault, has nothing to do with Intel not allowing AMD to use Intel's optimizations, esp if you consider the "CPU test" was designed BY INTEL.

Or maybe youd rather keep trying to convince people that a 2.66 ghz Intel cpu is more powerful than a 4, 6, or 8 core 3.8+ ghz AMD cpu simply because starcraft II was in part designed by intel.

http://www.techspot.com/review/305-starcraft2-performance/page13.html

Its kinda odd how every game that favors intel can be found on one of 2 web pages

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havok_(software)
http://game-on.intel.com/eng/games/default.aspx

Everything else is dubbed a "GPU bottleneck" because in truth there is VERY little difference between AMD and Intel with nonpartisan software.

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/4350/amd_fx_8150_bulldozer_gaming_performance_analysis/index7.html

*sigh

I meant on average. And in all performance, not just games.

Not sure why you're bringing AMD into this... your true mentality is becoming obvious now.

You're taking this over the top now, it is common knowledge AMD is very much behind Intel in raw (world w/o bottlenecks) performance so you should start a new thread and convince the entire forum.

I've shown you the gaming benchmarks with OLD Intel beating Phenom II (which is faster than Bulldozer clock for clock) while 500mhz less. Not sure what else you need to see if we're talking about game performance.

/fanboy flame thread

Assuming OPs question was answered, please lock.

 

[noob2222]

*sigh

I meant on average.

Not sure why you're bringing AMD into this... your true mentality is becoming obvious now.

You're taking this over the top now, it is common knowledge AMD is very much behind Intel in raw (world w/o bottlenecks) performance so you should start a new thread and convince the entire forum.

I've shown you the gaming benchmarks with OLD Intel beating Phenom II (which is faster than Bulldozer clock for clock) while 500mhz less. Not sure what else you need to see if we're talking about game performance.

/fanboy flame thread

you meant on average what? 10-20% that you claim or the proven 5.8%?

Maybe im missing what you mean by 500 mhz less, thats a 3.6 ghz BD taking on a 4.3 ghz PII, thats 700 mhz advantage for PII The only time there is really any difference at all is in CF mode. could be an early bios issue, driver issue, or maybe BD is that bad... doesn't perform that slow on my system (2x 5870 atm) with the december bios update on civ V or left 4 dead. Did you even notice that Civ V was slower in crossfire than in single card mode? do you really think issues like that are attributed to just the cpu?

AMD is behind Intel, but not 50% slower that everyone wants you to believe. maybe 10% in nonpartisan software, but that takes $1500 in video cards to find out. How many average gamers are running that much hardware? Mine was $380 on used hardware, and probably more than what most have. Does the 8120 bottleneck two 5870 video cards? Not a chance since most games test at 75% max cpu usage on one core, and often below 60%.

Why should I believe what I can't see for myself, I know what its doing and I know what my system is capable of, anything I throw at it. Why should I believe that the 8120 is total crap when its clearly not even maxed out on my own system?

Not sure why you're bringing AMD into this... your true mentality is becoming obvious now.

so you think that a thread on the 8150 motherboard recommendation shouldn't be an AMD topic ... instead be told that Intel rules the world and AMD doesn't exist.