Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Amd FX 8150 fast build?

Last response: in Systems
Share
January 6, 2012 5:46:13 AM

hello, im looking to build a computer and need builds with AMD FX 8150 strictly cause its better then intel and it has 8 cores.

Budget $800-$900, Cuz thats what im spending for this build:
OCZ ModXStream Pro 700W Modular High Performance
Amd FX 8150
Seagate Barracuda ST31000524AS
GIGABYTE GA-990FXA-UD3 motherboard
G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600
RAIDMAX Tornado ATX-238WU


If you have a better build please post.

I need AMD FX 8150, Great looking case, 1 terabyte hardrive: 6.0 gb/s i think its called, and 7200 rpm.8 gb ram from a good company and a good psu. thanks

More about : amd 8150 fast build

January 6, 2012 5:58:14 AM

Why do you NEED the AMD FX 8150?
m
0
l
January 6, 2012 6:08:05 AM

8 core compared to 4, faster, better and newer! amd fx 8150 is meant for like heavy applications and programs. i7 is meant for gaming.. im looking at heavy applications. and if i want to sell my computer, i wont be able to if i have a i5 because people will say why i cheaped out and bought the i5 not the i7. if i want to sell it i can say, amd fx 8150 is the top of line proccessor made by amd.

thanks for your reply!
m
0
l
Related resources
January 6, 2012 7:34:20 AM

But why buy a CPU that is worse than the Core i5 2500K and rated the best power supply when you are within a budget?
m
0
l
a b À AMD
January 6, 2012 8:06:43 AM

what applicaitons will you be running?
the core i7 usually outperforms fx 8150 in most applications.
core i7 is too costly for typical gaming pcs, core i5 2500k (much cheaper than core i7) is more of a gaming cpu. even the core i5 2500k, cheaper than the fx 8150, can keep up with the fx 8150 in most app-intensive tasks. the core cpus are much more power efficient as well.
fx and core can't be correctly compared in terms of cores. 4 of 8150's cores are not complete in the traditional sense. it's more like a 4 module, 4 full cores and 4 partial core cpu.
it's possible that a core i7 or i5 pc will have better value than an fx 8150 pc.
1tb hdds don't benefit from sata 6gb/s - only adds to price. they can't even saturate sata 1.5 gb/s. may be wb cavier black or blue. hdd prices are way inflated right now.
you could go for cheaper fx 8120 cpus if you must get an amd cpu. or a core i5 2500k/ core i7 2600 - intel cpus with a z68 motherboard.
m
0
l
January 6, 2012 8:36:40 AM

He is a troll
m
0
l
January 6, 2012 10:36:22 AM

if you are eager to waste your money then get the fx
m
0
l
January 6, 2012 10:41:25 AM

the FX its good ..go for it :) 
m
0
l
a b B Homebuilt system
January 6, 2012 10:43:10 AM

Don't let the fanboys discourage you. The 8150 is a fast processor, just because it doens't perform as well as another Intel processor does not mean it's not fast.

Is a Cadillac CTS-V not fast just because it's .2 seconds slower 0-60 than a Ferrari California?

Not to mention Windows 7 scheduler can't efficiently use BD's architecture, therefore it takes a performance hit. With Win8 (or possibly a win7 update) you will see 15-20% performance increase. It's performance per watt will also be very close to SB because Win8 will allow use of BD's Core parking, allowing it to shut down uneaded cores and allow the needed cores to turbo higher than Win7 allows them to now.

You didn't mention a video card....if your only using 1 high end graphics card then it doesn't matter what cpu you choose because you'll be gpu limited long before your cpu limited.

It's only going to matter if your running 2 or more very high end cards and in that case you can just overclock it to 4.5ghz.
m
0
l
January 6, 2012 11:24:47 AM

geekapproved said:
Don't let the fanboys discourage you. The 8150 is a fast processor, just because it doens't perform as well as another Intel processor does not mean it's not fast.

Is a Cadillac CTS-V not fast just because it's .2 seconds slower 0-60 than a Ferrari California?

Not to mention Windows 7 scheduler can't efficiently use BD's architecture, therefore it takes a performance hit. With Win8 (or possibly a win7 update) you will see 15-20% performance increase. It's performance per watt will also be very close to SB because Win8 will allow use of BD's Core parking, allowing it to shut down uneaded cores and allow the needed cores to turbo higher than Win7 allows them to now.

You didn't mention a video card....if your only using 1 high end graphics card then it doesn't matter what cpu you choose because you'll be gpu limited long before your cpu limited.

It's only going to matter if your running 2 or more very high end cards and in that case you can just overclock it to 4.5ghz.


Is a Cadillac CTS-V not fast just because it's .2 seconds slower 0-60 than a Ferrari California? -> Really that FX is that close?
With Win8 (or possibly a win7 update) you will see 15-20% performance increase -> Can't confirm that.. considering that AMD said months ago that the bulldozer would be a SUPERB cpu.. man.. they knew that bulldozer would fail to take the crown, if that info came from AMD you know how to deal with the info don't you? Just don't believe it..
(I do want A LOT that bulldozer performance get stellar so we have some high-end competition.. but that's looking so hard.. specially that Intel going for Ivy-Bridge in a couple months)
m
0
l
January 6, 2012 11:25:44 AM

I've told everyone on this guys thread. He is a troll.
m
0
l
a b B Homebuilt system
January 6, 2012 12:52:48 PM

Vitornob, yes it's that close, if your talking about gaming with a single high end video card, your always going to be gpu limited before your cpu limited with the exception of some MMO's.

Apparently the OP isn't planning on doing any gaming so my point is irrelevant. And yes he IS misinformed.

However, AMD never claimed BD would "take the crown", you may have come to that conclusion on your own, but that's not true at all.

Yes it's a fact that Win7 scheduler cannot make good use of BD's module architecture and it places threads out of order, hence the bad benchmarks. Fact.

Win7 also cannot use BD's core parking feature which allows it to shut down un-needed cores and increase turbo on the cores being used, which would not only significantly improve single threaded performance but also bring BD within 9w of SB's idle power consumption. Fact.

I'm gonna leave this one alone because the fanboys are starting to foam at the mouth as usual.
m
0
l
January 6, 2012 1:03:33 PM

geekapproved said:
Vitornob, yes it's that close, if your talking about gaming with a single high end video card, your always going to be gpu limited before your cpu limited with the exception of some MMO's.

Apparently the OP isn't planning on doing any gaming so my point is irrelevant. And yes he IS misinformed.

However, AMD never claimed BD would "take the crown", you may have come to that conclusion on your own, but that's not true at all.

Yes it's a fact that Win7 scheduler cannot make good use of BD's module architecture and it places threads out of order, hence the bad benchmarks. Fact.

Win7 also cannot use BD's core parking feature which allows it to shut down un-needed cores and increase turbo on the cores being used, which would not only significantly improve single threaded performance but also bring BD within 9w of SB's idle power consumption. Fact.

I'm gonna leave this one alone because the fanboys are starting to foam at the mouth as usual.


Besides you wrote "Fact" doesn't mean it going to happen. But I do hope you're right cause I read something not very nice from AMD itself :-/
AMD: It Won't Be About 'AMD vs. Intel' Anymore, they sent the message after the bulldozer launch.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
January 6, 2012 4:36:57 PM

If you get the 8150, dont get the gigabyte or asus as they have problems atm, get the asrock.
m
0
l
February 24, 2012 12:24:48 AM

mauller07 said:
If you get the 8150, dont get the gigabyte or asus as they have problems atm, get the asrock.

malmental has this right, Asus sabertooth 990FX board is rock solid, can't speak for the Gigabyte. The Sabertooth is not only solid but the Asus software packaged with it make overclocking just "grandma never touched a computer simple". Or should I say Cave Man could OC on this board.
m
0
l
!