Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

FX 8120 vs FX 8150

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 16, 2012 7:03:35 PM

Hey All,

Which CPU should I go with for gaming? (FSX) I plan on marrying this CPU with an ASUS Sabertooth 990FX Mobo. I'd like to slightly overclock with be using Coolmaster fans to replace the stock CPU fan.

Any Memory recommendations, I'm considering Patriot Viper Xtreme Series Divison 2 8GB1866MHz 9-11-9-27

Thanks!!

More about : 8120 8150

a b à CPUs
April 16, 2012 7:07:44 PM

In before: "GO INTEL FFS!!!11"

As for the question ... if you go AMD, go all the way, aka 8150, it has a quite higher default clock speed. Pair it with a good aftermarket cooler and OC to a safe 4.2GHz. ;) 
April 16, 2012 7:12:42 PM

The difference is a simple binning process to find the higher stable clock rates for the chips. They will both overclock within ~150mhz of each other, which you will never notice in games. Go for cheaper.
Related resources
April 16, 2012 7:19:51 PM

8120 all the way, just as Stingstag said they OC to with 150 mhz of each other, so go for the cheaper- 150mgz is negligible once you reach the 4.0ghz+
April 16, 2012 7:26:58 PM

Ichy said:
8120 all the way, just as Stingstag said they OC to with 150 mhz of each other, so go for the cheaper- 150mgz is negligible once you reach the 4.0ghz+


Is that your system spec's, why did you go with the FX 8150? Do you think it is worth the additional cost for the slightly faster stock chip?

I plan to overclock to 4GHz, I hear it runs quite stable & strong there. Thoughts?
April 16, 2012 7:30:38 PM

stingstang said:
The difference is a simple binning process to find the higher stable clock rates for the chips. They will both overclock within ~150mhz of each other, which you will never notice in games. Go for cheaper.


I'm running Windows 7 64bit, is the patch from Microsoft for AMD 8 cores worth applying or even still available? Looks like Windows 8 will be a bigger performace jump with the OS and 8 core chips?

Thanks!
April 16, 2012 7:30:56 PM

Most go to 4.4 ghz without a fuss. I set my 4-core there just changing the multiplier, and never had problems, even using the stock cooler.
I would say ichy bought that for the vastly higher stock clocks, since he doesn't list an overclocked speed.
April 16, 2012 7:35:52 PM

stingstang said:
Most go to 4.4 ghz without a fuss. I set my 4-core there just changing the multiplier, and never had problems, even using the stock cooler.
I would say ichy bought that for the vastly higher stock clocks, since he doesn't list an overclocked speed.


WOW! Thanks man, I am leaning to the FX 8120 because of exactly what you did with your 8120, but wasn't sure how it handled OC and stable it is? But sounds like it runs strong & fast.

Any updates with Win7 you had to do to get it use all 8 cores?
a b à CPUs
April 16, 2012 8:30:27 PM

Go with the FX 8120, not only is there a $50 difference between the two price wise, the performance is negligible.
a b à CPUs
April 16, 2012 8:37:11 PM

Surprised no one is trying to talk him down from AMD Hmmm to OP the second you mention Game Intel is the only way to go. You can go dual core and cheap and still get higher FPS. I would feel bad if I had a bad ass 8 core monster of a computer and Jo momma could get higher FPS on her i3 2100 (assuming same video card).. Just sayin..

Thent
a b à CPUs
April 16, 2012 8:43:03 PM

Microcenter has the FX8120 with the Asus sabertooth MB for $260.
a b à CPUs
April 16, 2012 8:58:45 PM

Good price that!
a b à CPUs
April 16, 2012 9:09:34 PM

thently said:
Surprised no one is trying to talk him down from AMD Hmmm to OP the second you mention Game Intel is the only way to go. You can go dual core and cheap and still get higher FPS. I would feel bad if I had a bad ass 8 core monster of a computer and Jo momma could get higher FPS on her i3 2100 (assuming same video card).. Just sayin..

Thent


you may want to check this video out. the 8150 comes pretty close to the i5-2500k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kd4dvLJQP4
a c 79 à CPUs
April 16, 2012 9:34:07 PM

computernewb said:
you may want to check this video out. the 8150 comes pretty close to the i5-2500k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kd4dvLJQP4

and you may want to read all the reviews which show the i3 2100 beating the pants off the 8150 in most gaming situations http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/289?vs=434 and then compare it with an i5 2500k http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=434 . You would have to be incredibly ignorant of facts to chose an AMD cpu for gaming.
a b à CPUs
April 16, 2012 9:34:57 PM

I would recommend saving some cash and going with the 8120. Especially since you seem comfortable with overclocking.

As far as a recommendation on RAM, you are definitely right in going with 1866MHz as the memory controller on the FX chips will handle that. The Kingston should be good. Personally I prefer Crucial or G-Skill, but that's because I have good history with those 2 brands. Maybe something like these:

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

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
a b à CPUs
April 16, 2012 9:38:52 PM

iam2thecrowe said:
and you may want to read all the reviews which show the i3 2100 beating the pants off the 8150 in most gaming situations http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/289?vs=434 and then compare it with an i5 2500k http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=434 . You would have to be incredibly ignorant of facts to chose an AMD cpu for gaming.


lol..

1) the guy in the video works for ncix, tests every product on the market, has the videos to prove them, and gives his honest opinion on every product.

2) He clearly shows that the fx-8150 comes within 1-5 fps of many popular games played at settings common to many gamers.

I have every reason to believe him over a parrot who just repeats popular mantra.. "squak AMD sucks.. SQUAK" ;) 
a b à CPUs
April 16, 2012 9:43:14 PM

iam2thecrowe said:
and you may want to read all the reviews which show the i3 2100 beating the pants off the 8150 in most gaming situations http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/289?vs=434 and then compare it with an i5 2500k http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=434 . You would have to be incredibly ignorant of facts to chose an AMD cpu for gaming.


It took a little longer than I expected for the Intel folks to chime in. There really is no need to call someone ignorant. Respect a person's decision. We could throw benchmarks at each other until our fingers bled. Your preferences do not have to be dictated on everyone else.

Is the i5-2500K better than FX-8120/8150? Yes, in most cases but not by the "pants off" margins everyone like to think.
a b à CPUs
April 16, 2012 9:50:43 PM

maui67 said:
Is the i5-2500K better than FX-8120/8150? Yes, in most cases but not by the "pants off" margins everyone like to think.

The real question, I think, is this. Why would you buy the 8150 when you know the 2500k is faster (even if not by a huge margin) when the 8150 costs more? Why pay more for less?

I'm no Intel fanboy, I'm a value fanboy. The FX series are just not good value in my book. If you're going to argue that the performance doesn't matter in games, you should be suggesting they get a Phenom II, not an 8120/8150. Might as well take the argument to the logical conclusion and only get as much power as is needed, which a $100 Phenom II provides.

I just think that if you're spending $200+ on a CPU, Intel is the only logical choice.
a b à CPUs
April 16, 2012 9:54:19 PM

willard said:
The real question, I think, is this. Why would you buy the 8150 when you know the 2500k is faster (even if not by a huge margin) when the 8150 costs more? Why pay more for less?

I'm no Intel fanboy, I'm a value fanboy. The FX series are just not good value in my book. If you're going to argue that the performance doesn't matter in games, you should be suggesting they get a Phenom II, not an 8120/8150. Might as well take the argument to the logical conclusion and only get as much power as is needed, which a $100 Phenom II provides.

I just think that if you're spending $200+ on a CPU, Intel is the only logical choice.


youre right. the i5-2500k is a better buy. its faster and cheaper. If i was building a system now i would go with the i5-2500k.

However, thats not the point. Im trying to refute the claim that the 8150 is a "bad" cpu. The video i posted shows that the 8150 comes pretty close to the i5-2500k in gaming. The test setup was clearly shown and done by a knowledgeable and respectable person. Any cpu that comes close to the i5-2500k is not a "bad" cpu.
a b à CPUs
April 16, 2012 9:58:40 PM

computernewb said:
youre right. the i5-2500k is a better buy. its faster and cheaper. If i was building a system now i would go with the i5-2500k.

However, thats not the point. Im trying to refute the claim that the 8150 is a "bad" cpu. The video i posted shows that the 8150 comes pretty close to the i5-2500k in gaming. The test setup was clearly shown and done by a knowledgeable and respectable person. Any cpu that comes close to the i5-2500k is not a "bad" cpu.

And I'm not trying to say it's a bad CPU. I'm just saying it's not a good buy. Our opinions are totally compatible, no need to argue about anything.
April 16, 2012 10:24:16 PM

Not only all of the above....also power consumption and heat...I believe the 2500k uses less power right??

(Correct me if I'm wrong...)
a c 283 à CPUs
April 16, 2012 11:59:48 PM

I think you're all missing the fact that the game in question (FSX) can use as many cores as you throw at it. I haven't seen any benches comparing the 2500K to 8120/8150 in FSX, but given that it loves more cores (even if the 8120/8150 aren't "true" 8 core processors), it will probably perform on par and possibly better than the 2500K. FSX is the only game I would recommend the 8120/8150 for ATM, though.
a b à CPUs
April 17, 2012 12:35:25 AM

If your overclocking, there is no reason to look at the 8150 unless your gunning for 5+ ghz. Most 8120 will reach 4.4 to 4.8 with a few capable of 5+.
a b à CPUs
April 17, 2012 1:01:57 AM

Oustanding, you guys actually managed 9 posts WITHOUT resorting to flame wars.

Thently, I believe if someone asks the difference 2 very similar AMD processors you can be fairly safe to presume he's done his homework and narrowed it down to these 2 CPU's.

The OP DID not ask AMD OR INTEL, he ask AMD or AMD. Keep your opinions to yourself, you've ruined a good thread.
a b à CPUs
April 17, 2012 1:36:42 AM

@OP,

If you must go AMD, then the 8120fx is a good buy for it's price. Then 8150fx is overpriced and doesn't offer a good value.

I'm not going to go into an AMD vs Intel debate as that's out of topic and incredibly rude to the OP, what I will say is that the single player timed loop demos show an i3 matching an i5 and i7. Think long and hard about that for a moment. The i3 has two CPU cores, the i5 has literally double the CPU power and the i7 has the same power as the i5 but has HT turned on (HT just allows more efficient use of cores in poorly coded applications). Any benchmark that shows two CPU's as being equal when one has 100% more processing power is a poor benchmark to use.

Also, something many people completely forget to consider is that CPU's don't exist in a vacuum. They plug into motherboards, and those motherboards are not cheap (the good ones anyway). If the customer already has an AM3+ Mobo then they would only be spending $190 USD for the CPU. I5 is @220 USD + another $150~200 for a new performance board, so $370 ~ 420 USD price tag to "upgrade" to the I5. $190 vs $400 for largely the same performance level.
a c 79 à CPUs
April 17, 2012 3:02:07 AM

maui67 said:
It took a little longer than I expected for the Intel folks to chime in. There really is no need to call someone ignorant. Respect a person's decision. We could throw benchmarks at each other until our fingers bled. Your preferences do not have to be dictated on everyone else.

Is the i5-2500K better than FX-8120/8150? Yes, in most cases but not by the "pants off" margins everyone like to think.

im not one of the "intel folks" you believe I am. I am a realist, and the reality is that these FX chips are not good, they are worse than the older phenom II lineup, cost more, produce more heat and need more cores to get the same work done. I have owned AMD chips since the AMD K6-2 days, until the Core 2 architecture was released. Now AMD have nothing to compete with intel for most purposes in the high end, and their low end is struggling. i'm not a fan of either Intel or AMD, i just buy the best thing I can afford at the time, and at this point in time, it is not AMD. If your a delusional fanboy of one company or the other, then your buying the FX chip because your delusional, not because its better. If that is the thought process that flows through your mind, then buy the 8150 because your a fanboy of that particular number, not because its faster/slower/whatever, thats fine. I'll be sitting right here bewildered by your decision to buy an 8 core cpu that is horribly inefficient and slower than intel's 4 year old offerings and amd's previous phenom II model for its intended purpose.
a b à CPUs
April 17, 2012 6:08:54 AM

I have heard plenty of conjecture as to the performance of the FX relative to the processors they replaced as well as the Intels offerings, and the discrepecies are way off the mark, while it lacks the per core grunt of the out going Phenom II's and Intels available processors, the performance is made up in multithreaded performance. Having used a X6, FX 8120 and 2500K of which I still have them all, they are all by and large on a par.

While the FX is anything but what was hoped for, it is not a bad processer, AMD now have something to work off going forward with the new architecture.

I did post images from 3Dmark and HWBot showing my Stock X6 1100T with stock reference single HD6970 coming withing 300marks of fellow benchmarkers 2500K oc'ed at 4.5ghz with a oc'ed HD6950.
a c 79 à CPUs
April 17, 2012 10:53:32 AM

3dmark and hwbot have no merit when comparing cpu performance in gaming, that is cherry picking. Put a game bench up with settings that do not graphically bottleneck the systems and see which is actually faster for real world gaming. actually, don't do that, every major hardware review website already has, just go read the reviews, clear win for the 2500k for gaming. This is old news, you people should already know this.
a b à CPUs
April 17, 2012 2:33:01 PM

Yes, old news but there are a few issues here. Firstly the OP makes no reference to Intel so he is enquiring about FX chips not whether it is comparitive with Intel or not. Second the real gauge on gaming performance is the real world experience, fortunately the FX chips all game well over playable frame rates and perform well when paired with the right Graphics cards.
April 17, 2012 3:27:50 PM

Thanks for the lively discussion, I was at first considering Intel i5 2500K vs AMD FX 8120. It appeared to me thru research online that the AMD was more powerful and bang for the buck. An 8 core processor for less than $200 vs a Intel quad core. I think both chips are very nice. I'm just looking for the best CPU to really run FSX (avid flight simmer) the best possible on my budget. Thanks for the continued feedback it is helping me.
April 17, 2012 4:32:56 PM

willard said:
The real question, I think, is this. Why would you buy the 8150 when you know the 2500k is faster (even if not by a huge margin) when the 8150 costs more? Why pay more for less?

I'm no Intel fanboy, I'm a value fanboy. The FX series are just not good value in my book. If you're going to argue that the performance doesn't matter in games, you should be suggesting they get a Phenom II, not an 8120/8150. Might as well take the argument to the logical conclusion and only get as much power as is needed, which a $100 Phenom II provides.

I just think that if you're spending $200+ on a CPU, Intel is the only logical choice.


I'm actually looking at the FX 8120 vs i5 2500K. They are both in the same price point, just comparing to see which one Flight Simulator X runs better on. More FPS.

Thanks for everyone's input in my decision process.
April 17, 2012 4:35:04 PM

noob2222 said:
If your overclocking, there is no reason to look at the 8150 unless your gunning for 5+ ghz. Most 8120 will reach 4.4 to 4.8 with a few capable of 5+.


I plan to overclock to 4.4 Ghz and leave it. So I am looking at the FX 8120. Your thoughts?
a b à CPUs
April 17, 2012 5:23:17 PM

Coolbreeze74 said:
Thanks for the lively discussion, I was at first considering Intel i5 2500K vs AMD FX 8120. It appeared to me thru research online that the AMD was more powerful and bang for the buck. An 8 core processor for less than $200 vs a Intel quad core. I think both chips are very nice. I'm just looking for the best CPU to really run FSX (avid flight simmer) the best possible on my budget. Thanks for the continued feedback it is helping me.



Sounds like you got fooled by AMD's "more cores is better" BS. Everything you said is compleatly the opposite. First of all the Bulldozer isn't even 8 real cores, it's four true cores with four modules. Secondly the Bulldozer is not more powerful and not a better bang for your buck. Look at the benchmarks Bulldozer is outperformed by BOTH older AMD and Intel CPU's. You're buying a processor that cost more then the I5, runs hotter and has worse performance than the I5.















April 17, 2012 5:33:11 PM

palladin9479 said:
@OP,

If you must go AMD, then the 8120fx is a good buy for it's price. Then 8150fx is overpriced and doesn't offer a good value.

I'm not going to go into an AMD vs Intel debate as that's out of topic and incredibly rude to the OP, what I will say is that the single player timed loop demos show an i3 matching an i5 and i7. Think long and hard about that for a moment. The i3 has two CPU cores, the i5 has literally double the CPU power and the i7 has the same power as the i5 but has HT turned on (HT just allows more efficient use of cores in poorly coded applications). Any benchmark that shows two CPU's as being equal when one has 100% more processing power is a poor benchmark to use.

Also, something many people completely forget to consider is that CPU's don't exist in a vacuum. They plug into motherboards, and those motherboards are not cheap (the good ones anyway). If the customer already has an AM3+ Mobo then they would only be spending $190 USD for the CPU. I5 is @220 USD + another $150~200 for a new performance board, so $370 ~ 420 USD price tag to "upgrade" to the I5. $190 vs $400 for largely the same performance level.


More confused than ever...lol I'm looking for a mobo & CPU. I'm considering AMD FX8120 vs Intel i-5 2500K since they are on par with each other. Which one be best with FSX since FSX likes a multi-core & fast processor. I'm also running Nvidia GTX 550ti (OC) SLI cards. Any suggestions on AMD or Intel is appreciated. Thanks
a b à CPUs
April 17, 2012 6:22:07 PM

Seriously, if you want a AMD setup, get it. You will hardly tell the difference in real world gaming experience. Either way if you go AMD or you go Intel you will be happy.
a b à CPUs
April 17, 2012 7:37:05 PM

Well,

My 6x AMD CPU (960t $110) plus USB 3.0 SATA 3 etc mobo (GA970-D3 $170) = 280NZD

i5 2500k processor = 300 dollars.

For a (depending on the game) 10, tops 30% performance increase and I actually have better video encoding ability well then screw that price difference of over 100%..
a b à CPUs
April 17, 2012 7:37:42 PM

Coolbreeze74 said:
I plan to overclock to 4.4 Ghz and leave it. So I am looking at the FX 8120. Your thoughts?

get the 8120. the asus sabertooth is a cherry to work with, but I have set up another system with a gigabyte 990 board.

The 8120 will handle fsx just fine and will be just as fast as the intel with 2 550ti cards, as fast as meaning 1-2 fps.

Also, since you are doing sli, only some of the 970 chipsets support sli, others are crossfire only. all of the 990 should have sli support.

a b à CPUs
April 17, 2012 7:46:58 PM

Coolbreeze74 said:
More confused than ever...lol I'm looking for a mobo & CPU. I'm considering AMD FX8120 vs Intel i-5 2500K since they are on par with each other. Which one be best with FSX since FSX likes a multi-core & fast processor. I'm also running Nvidia GTX 550ti (OC) SLI cards. Any suggestions on AMD or Intel is appreciated. Thanks

Very strongly recommend Intel. Bulldozer only performs like an 8 core processor with exclusively integer workloads. I would be incredibly shocked if flight sims were anywhere even approaching predominantly integer workloads.

Get the 2500k. It's better than anything AMD has to offer, especially for gaming. After the additional cost of an Intel mobo, the 2500k will cost about the same as the 8150. There is no question that the 2500k is the best value in processors today. Overclocks to 5 GHz easily with a decent aftermarket cooler, or into the 4 GHz range without one.

It's not even a tough call. Don't let the fanboys sway you with core count nonsense or synthetic benchmarks which represent the best case scenario for AMD. And hell, even in those rare cases where the Bulldozer architecture really shines, it's still not much better than the 2500k.

I'd also like to point out that the very site you're posting on, Tom's Hardware, does monthly articles on the best gaming CPU for the money. The FX-8150 and 8120 have never appeared on that list, while the 2500k has been on the list since it was released, holding strong for a year or so now. In fact, AMD hasn't even had a single processor on the list for the last couple months.
a b à CPUs
April 17, 2012 8:22:18 PM

Quote:
In fact, AMD hasn't even had a single processor on the list for the last couple months.


thats because toms decided to go with a list of games compiled by the help of Intel. Ill bet you could never guess wich cpu came out on top.

The thing about FSX from my understanding isn't necessarily the 1-5 fps difference you will get (won't be able to actually see that difference) but more the texture loading into blocks then getting rendered. This is where a multi-core cpu will help by actually loading the textures as they show up on the screen instead of after.
a b à CPUs
April 17, 2012 9:38:06 PM

willard said:
Very strongly recommend Intel. Bulldozer only performs like an 8 core processor with exclusively integer workloads. I would be incredibly shocked if flight sims were anywhere even approaching predominantly integer workloads.

Get the 2500k. It's better than anything AMD has to offer, especially for gaming. After the additional cost of an Intel mobo, the 2500k will cost about the same as the 8150. There is no question that the 2500k is the best value in processors today. Overclocks to 5 GHz easily with a decent aftermarket cooler, or into the 4 GHz range without one.

It's not even a tough call. Don't let the fanboys sway you with core count nonsense or synthetic benchmarks which represent the best case scenario for AMD. And hell, even in those rare cases where the Bulldozer architecture really shines, it's still not much better than the 2500k.

I'd also like to point out that the very site you're posting on, Tom's Hardware, does monthly articles on the best gaming CPU for the money. The FX-8150 and 8120 have never appeared on that list, while the 2500k has been on the list since it was released, holding strong for a year or so now. In fact, AMD hasn't even had a single processor on the list for the last couple months.


I agree 100%.
a b à CPUs
April 17, 2012 10:13:54 PM

noob2222 said:
thats because toms decided to go with a list of games compiled by the help of Intel. Ill bet you could never guess wich cpu came out on top.

I expect you can produce a list of games for which AMD beats Intel quite easily then. Go on, I'm waiting. In good faith, I'll go ahead and post some sites that have compared gaming performance of the 8150 and 2500k that aren't Tom's Hardware.

In Anandtech's review the 8150 comes in dead last three times more often than it beats the 2500k, and one of its two victories over the 2500k was in a GPU bound situation and alleviating the GPU bottleneck caused the 2500k to jump to a massive 30% lead over the 8150. So really, it came in dead last six times more often than it beat the 2500k.

In TweakTown's review, which unfortunately only tests the 2600k, you see the 8150 only keeping pace in GPU bound situations, with the 2600k leading by anywhere between 15% and 60% when the CPU performance actually matters.

In Techspot's review the 8150 loses to the 2500k in every single gaming benchmark, by about 4% to 20%. It also chalks up losses to the i7-920, i5-750, Phenom II x4 980 and Phenom II x6 1100T in GPU bound situations. Clearly, all of these CPUs are more than enough when GPU bound, so it's hardly relevant to point to GPU bound results as being in favor of the 8150. Makes much more sense to buy a Phenom II than Bulldozer chip if that's your argument.

Are all those sites biased as well?
a b à CPUs
April 17, 2012 11:53:16 PM

willard said:
I expect you can produce a list of games for which AMD beats Intel quite easily then. Go on, I'm waiting. In good faith, I'll go ahead and post some sites that have compared gaming performance of the 8150 and 2500k that aren't Tom's Hardware.

In Anandtech's review the 8150 comes in dead last three times more often than it beats the 2500k, and one of its two victories over the 2500k was in a GPU bound situation and alleviating the GPU bottleneck caused the 2500k to jump to a massive 30% lead over the 8150. So really, it came in dead last six times more often than it beat the 2500k.

In TweakTown's review, which unfortunately only tests the 2600k, you see the 8150 only keeping pace in GPU bound situations, with the 2600k leading by anywhere between 15% and 60% when the CPU performance actually matters.

In Techspot's review the 8150 loses to the 2500k in every single gaming benchmark, by about 4% to 20%. It also chalks up losses to the i7-920, i5-750, Phenom II x4 980 and Phenom II x6 1100T in GPU bound situations. Clearly, all of these CPUs are more than enough when GPU bound, so it's hardly relevant to point to GPU bound results as being in favor of the 8150. Makes much more sense to buy a Phenom II than Bulldozer chip if that's your argument.

Are all those sites biased as well?

What vendor would allow amd to cripple performnce on an intel cpu considering the market share intel has?

Only an idiot woul even consider it, but flip the coin to cripple the tiny marketsher amd has, its much easier to accept.

http://www.osnews.com/story/22683/Intel_Forced_to_Remov...

To answer your question, what vendor would even consider it?

As for your TT review, don't forget the 2600 is clocked 500mhz faster.

And for my point farcry 2 is compiled by intel's help.

As for repeating gpu bottleneck over and over, who runs their systems at the very minimum settings, especially the game in question FSX?
a b à CPUs
April 18, 2012 1:03:23 AM

computernewb said:
For FSX you want the fastest CPU. Also, apparently extra cores do not help with in FSX.
http://fsxtimes.wordpress.com/2011/02/14/lower-cpu-core...

You want to go with the i5-2500k for your purpose.


It's a bit more complicated then that. It becomes a giant question of "it depends". FSX allows you to install add-ons that increase the processing requirements and unlike many sloppily coded console ports FSX will actually use additional CPU cores to run those add-ons. Also there are more metrics then just "frames per second", unfortunately without dtrace or similar software a consumer will not be able to benchmark anything except single player timed loop demos.

The 2500K is a better CPU then the 8150 / 8120 but not by the margins the pro-Intel folks are claiming. The bench's they point too show an i3 ... yes a freaking two core i3 on the same level as a i5/i7, that speaks volumes.

If your building from scratch then get an I5-2500 and a corresponding high performance motherboard.
a b à CPUs
April 18, 2012 1:36:27 AM

Quote:
The 2500k beats AMD's offerings in gaming, simple as that end of.
Multi-GPU becomes a huge difference, where the 2500k smashed the 8 core FX.



I happen to have 2 x EVGA GTX 580 Hydro's with a 970BE @4.2Ghz and 16GB DDR3-1600 memory. If my 970BE can push games at 60~120 (if I'm 3D gaming or not) then a 8150fx would have no issue doing the same.
a b à CPUs
April 18, 2012 1:40:37 AM

palladin9479 said:
It's a bit more complicated then that. It becomes a giant question of "it depends". FSX allows you to install add-ons that increase the processing requirements and unlike many sloppily coded console ports FSX will actually use additional CPU cores to run those add-ons. Also there are more metrics then just "frames per second", unfortunately without dtrace or similar software a consumer will not be able to benchmark anything except single player timed loop demos.

The 2500K is a better CPU then the 8150 / 8120 but not by the margins the pro-Intel folks are claiming. The bench's they point too show an i3 ... yes a freaking two core i3 on the same level as a i5/i7, that speaks volumes.

If your building from scratch then get an I5-2500 and a corresponding high performance motherboard.


ah ok. thanks for clearing that up
a b à CPUs
April 18, 2012 1:57:12 AM

LMAO, they had to go to 5040x1050 to start seeing major differences. ARMA 2 doesn't even utilize SLI nor multiple cores, an i3 would put out the same numbers an i5 does on it. Civ V ... nuff said. The rest were a toss up, Intel had a lead but it' wasn't by some insane playable vs unplayable margins. The funny part was that nobody mentioned an i3 would of put up similar numbers and is dirt cheap.

Like I said, more metrics then just FPS. Now go troll somewhere else.
a b à CPUs
April 18, 2012 2:09:40 AM

From the same article you posted from,

Quote:
While we tested this game, we turned on the SLI indicators from the NV Control Panel so that we could see the efficiency of SLI. We found that for the most part it wasn't doing much. There were times when it showed at best 50% efficiency, but those were brief. It seemed while panning and moving into new areas the SLI efficiency dropped, and we were completely reliant on the CPU. This was not a GPU dependent game, so keep this in mind as you look at the results below.


ARMA 2 is also single threaded, meaning 70~80% of BD's CPU power was dormant. In effect your benchmarking 20~25% of a CPU and then calling it crap.

The Intel i3 would score equally to the i5 and i7. Should we then call the i5/i7 crap because the i3 scores the same and is vastly cheaper?
a b à CPUs
April 18, 2012 2:25:19 AM

Quote:
50%, which means it is using SLi, just not scaling all that good with that certain game.

It cannot explain why those 2 identicle gpu's score a crap load less on the FX platform can it?

Let's reiterate what was said in the article.

"That extra $65 will get you twice the cores, but it won't make up for Bulldozers low gameplay performance. Save your money, get an Intel i5 and overclock it for a better experience."





Quote:
There were times when it showed at best 50% efficiency, but those were brief.
a b à CPUs
April 18, 2012 2:34:52 AM

Cpu limited or intel compiled?
!