Closed

Is the AMD Fx-8120 a true 8 core?

Is the fx8120 really got 8 cores or is it like hyper threading on intel processors?
57 answers Last reply
More about 8120 true core
  1. Well not "real" cores, just mashed up bulldozer cores. However, hyper threading outperforms the bulldozer modules, and the previous phenom cores are faster too!
  2. It's like hyperthreading +1. More of the resources are duplicated, resulting in better average performance, but it's still not really an 8 core chip. Combine this with the exceptional low IPC in Bulldozer based chips (it's easily the worst of any processor for the last several years), and hyperthreaded Intel chips at lower clock speeds consistently outperform them in most situations.

    Unless you know for a fact you're going to be using predominantly integer based workloads (if you don't know, then you aren't), the Bulldozer chips are not good buys. Get a Phenom II if you want a cheap chip, and an Ivy Bridge if you want to pay more and get more speed for it.

    I really don't see a logical place for Bulldozer in the market.
  3. Bulldozer has what AMD calls "Modules. Each module features two integer cores and a shared floating point core. So the FX-8150 has 4 modules which consist of 8 integer cores, each pair of integer cores shares 1 floating point core.

    The problem that 8 core processors have is that there are only a few applications which can utilize that many cores, the same issue that affects the i7 and its multithreading capability.

    And contrary to popular belief, Bulldozer is a decent processor. You can't just look at numbers when looking at benchmarks, you also have to pay attention to the test setup. There are a number of things that Bulldozer does better than the Intel cpus and vice versa. Is the Intel i5/i7 faster than the AMD FX cpus? Generally, yes, but only in benchmarks. In most cases you are not going to be able to tell the difference between the two in a real world setting. People like to say that FX sucks at gaming and that the i5/i7 obliterate and wipe the floor with the FX. However, this is not true. The difference is usually a few frames per second. For example, in this review the FX is only a few FPS less than even the Ivy Bridge: http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1914/10/

    Also take a look at these links as well:
    http://www.techspot.com/review/452-amd-bulldozer-fx-cpus/page8.html

    http://www.madshrimps.be/articles/article/1000220/AMD-FX-8150-Bulldozer-CPU-Review/0#axzz1uCYsktim
  4. It's not a simple answer. Yes, the FX 8120 does have 8 cores, but each of the cores shares resources with another core. Therefore, one core can be waiting while the other core is busy using those shared resources. The FX-8120 has 4 modules each of them contains two cores and the shared resources.

    The shared resources includes the prefetching module, decoding units, a floating point unit and the L2 cache. This design approach is better than Hyper Threading because HT only "creates" virtual cores. Simply stated, the virtual cores shares resources with the physical core much like how every two physical cores shares resources in the FX-8120.

    The problem with the FX-8120 is that they process less data/instructions per 1MHz than any processor in the Core i3/i5/i7 series. Therefore, an AMD FX series CPU has to be clocked higher in order to perform as well as their competition.

    The real answer is a lot more complex than what I have stated, but I think what I've provided should suffice.
  5. Okay, so i will be using this new custom build pc for playing games such as the sims 3, flight simulator deluxe, dirt 3 ect. i will also be doing emails and facebook and forums along with some media editing. so should this setup be good? i have little patience so hopefully everything will be near enough instant?
  6. maui67 said:
    Bulldozer has what AMD calls "Modules. Each module features two integer cores and a shared floating point core. So the FX-8150 has 4 modules which consist of 8 integer cores, each pair of integer cores shares 1 floating point core.

    The problem that 8 core processors have is that there are only a few applications which can utilize that many cores, the same issue that affects the i7 and its multithreading capability.

    And contrary to popular belief, Bulldozer is a decent processor. You can't just look at numbers when looking at benchmarks, you also have to pay attention to the test setup. There are a number of things that Bulldozer does better than the Intel cpus and vice versa. Is the Intel i5/i7 faster than the AMD FX cpus? Generally, yes, but only in benchmarks. In most cases you are not going to be able to tell the difference between the two in a real world setting. People like to say that FX sucks at gaming and that the i5/i7 obliterate and wipe the floor with the FX. However, this is not true. The difference is usually a few frames per second. For example, in this review the FX is only a few FPS less than even the Ivy Bridge: http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1914/10/

    Also take a look at these links as well:
    http://www.techspot.com/review/452-amd-bulldozer-fx-cpus/page8.html

    http://www.madshrimps.be/articles/article/1000220/AMD-FX-8150-Bulldozer-CPU-Review/0#axzz1uCYsktim

    it contains two 128-bit FP units which can be combined to form one 256-bit FP unit
  7. watters1996 said:
    Okay, so i will be using this new custom build pc for playing games such as the sims 3, flight simulator deluxe, dirt 3 ect. i will also be doing emails and facebook and forums along with some media editing. so should this setup be good? i have little patience so hopefully everything will be near enough instant?

    if 'along with' means multitasking, then BD is much much better than SNB, even sometimes it scales better than SNB-E, 6.66 on cinebench as i remember from amdfx.blogspot.com,

    plus BD should give you a better overall experience, according to the AMD blind test
  8. madooo12 said:
    it contains two 128-bit FP units which can be combined to form one 256-bit FP unit


    Yeah i read that you can overclock the CPU to 4.0ghz and combine the 8 cores into 4, but there isnt much point buying an ''8 core'' just to turn 4 of them off, so there should be a way to overclock all 8.
  9. Yea i you havn't gotten it yet.. i would get a Sandy Bridge i5/i7. I used Bulldozer for a while and was disappointed. a 560 ti with the FX chip i used was claimed to run BF3 ultra 1080p but i tried it... NO!. tried two GTX 560 ti's for ultra.... still no... tired the Phenom II and can play the campaign on ultra but not Multiplayer... Before i switch i couldnt handle Multi or single player on ultra with 1 or 2 gpu's. I have made up my mind i will get a card with more vram and afterwards i will be getting intel. Piledriver will most likely be another FAIL, so i basically got my 990FX board for nada
  10. watters1996 said:
    Okay, so i will be using this new custom build pc for playing games such as the sims 3, flight simulator deluxe, dirt 3 ect. i will also be doing emails and facebook and forums along with some media editing. so should this setup be good? i have little patience so hopefully everything will be near enough instant?


    The three most intensive task you listed are Flight Sim X, Dirt 3 and "some media editing". The rest does not really matter. Flight Sim X is very CPU bound. Unfortunately, I have not seen any benchmarks that compares the performance of the FX to a Core i5/i7. Therefore, I can't which CPU will perform better for this particular game.

    Dirt 3 is easy, the FX-8150 will loose a Core i5/i7; but not by too much unless you are going to play at low resolution. Since the FX-8120 is slower than the FX-8150 the performance will naturally be less.





    Source: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/8


    "Some media editing"... well the closest would be encoding video using the x264 codec. As you can see below, the Core i5/i7 easily outperforms a FX-8150 in the 1st pass. But it's the 2nd pass that's more important because it takes longer to complete the 2nd pass. The FX-8150 easily beats the Core i5-2500k so you can expect that the FX-8150 will complete the entire encoding process sooner than the i5-2500k. However, thanks to the i7-2600k's Hyper Threading abilities it is slightly quicker than the FX-8150 in the 2nd pass. Therefore, overall the i7-2600k will finish the entire encoding process before the FX-8150. Naturally the FX-8120 will take a little longer to encode video when compared to the FX-8150.





    Source: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/7
  11. Quote:
    it contains two 128-bit FP units which can be combined to form one 256-bit FP unit


    And personally I feel the chip is messed up here. My gut says it spends too much time "in 256bit mode" and not enough doing two separate 128bit work. There is also the issue of the reduced front end compared to PhII. The front end is also horribly small.

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/2

    Notice that as long as you deal with a single core you are fine, but at dual and quad core you are able to decode less often then the old PhII. When looking at quad core rates the old PhII is able to decode 12 instructions to the BDs 8.

    As mentioned the answer is kinda. It's sometimes an 8 core and sometimes a quad. But hopefully as that last link showed the ability of quad core CPUs to decode data to work on isn't equal. When looking at quad core rates both the old PhII and the i7 are able to start decoding data a lot faster then the new BD. Core count isn't everything.
  12. Sorry maui67, almost everything you said is extremely deceptive and misleading.
    Quote:
    The problem that 8 core processors have is that there are only a few applications which can utilize that many cores, the same issue that affects the i7 and its multithreading capability.

    It's the same issue, yes, but because so much of Bulldozer's processing power is tied up in its core count you can't just dismiss the issue. The fact is that Bulldozer is affected much more severely by poor multithreading than Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge, which is why it gets absolutely destroyed in single threaded applications. Clock for clock, Bulldozer is the slowest chip on the market. Yes, there's a perfectly good reason that Bulldozer runs slower than it should. Knowing and stating this reason doesn't make the chip any faster, though.

    Quote:
    There are a number of things that Bulldozer does better than the Intel cpus and vice versa.

    Glossing over the fact that while both have their strengths and weaknesses, SNB/IVB have a lot more strengths and a lot fewer weaknesses than Bulldozer. Basically the only thing Bulldozer actually does really well is highly parallel workloads that involve no floating point calculations. Those workloads are almost nonexistent outside servers (which is funny, because the BD server chips are even farther behind than their desktop chips), which is why the chip fares so poorly in so many benchmarks, and does well in so few.

    Quote:
    However, this is not true. The difference is usually a few frames per second. For example, in this review the FX is only a few FPS less than even the Ivy Bridge

    You neglect to mention that the reason it's only a few FPS behind is because neither CPU is running at full speed. In reality the Bulldozer chip is running under a higher load, consuming more energy and putting out more heat to perform the same amount of work. When you remove the GPU bottleneck, Bulldozer falls very, very far behind. If your only uses are gaming and web browsing, I can't help but think you're wasting your money buying anything more powerful than a Phenom II. You just don't need the CPU speed.

    Using bottlenecked games as an argument in favor of Bulldozer is like saying "Hey, you clearly don't need to spend $200+ on a CPU, so you should obviously buy the least powerful $200 CPU you can find." The conclusion does not follow.

    Quote:
    Is the Intel i5/i7 faster than the AMD FX cpus? Generally, yes, but only in benchmarks.

    No, Intel is just plain generally faster, not limited to benchmarks. Many of those benchmarks that you dismiss are actual applications that people use every day. They just happen to have highly repeatable results, so they're also great for comparing the relative power of chips.

    Also, you seem to have confused benchmarks with synthetics. A benchmark is an incredibly useful way to compare processors, and is literally the only objective way to do so. They've been used for decades and are accepted by the world at large as a fair way to compare performance.

    Synthetics (like PCMark), on the other hand, are programs that do not represent actual usage, and instead exist only to apply a predetermined load on a processor. These can show significant differences between largely equal chips due to idiosyncrasies in the way the chips work. This can result in the benches being meaningless, with a chip putting up unusually low or high numbers, or expose design flaws, like Bulldozer's crippled floating point performance.

    Quote:
    In most cases you are not going to be able to tell the difference between the two in a real world setting.

    If by "most cases" you mean Facebook and video games. In almost anything that can actually make use of the processing power without some other bit of hardware getting in the way, SNB/IVB stomp Bulldozer into the ground. The only time Bulldozer wins? Massively parallel integer exclusive workloads. Also known as server workloads.

    You also neglect to mention that in these cases you also can't tell the difference between a Phenom II and a Bulldozer. I don't think it's meaningful in any way to point out that when you're not asking much of your CPU, you don't need the most powerful CPU. File that one under N for "No ***, Sherlock."
  13. watters1996 said:
    Yeah i read that you can overclock the CPU to 4.0ghz and combine the 8 cores into 4, but there isnt much point buying an ''8 core'' just to turn 4 of them off, so there should be a way to overclock all 8.


    The easy answer is an 8 core BD performs on par with a quad core. As mentioned, software including operating systems are not optimized to use BD as intended.

    But that doesn't matter, what does matter is that it works like a quad core mostly.

    In terms of overclocking, BD overclocks a hell of a lot better than Phenom. In fact it overclocks as well as anything from Intel, however that won't give you more performance than the Intel CPU's. Unless you mess with the processor cores, you certainly will be overclocking all "8" cores. Which as I said you should really think of as 4 cores.

    That said, most BD owners have noticed a shift since the new year began where the FX8120 does not overclock to the level of the FX 8150. It appears AMD is binning the CPU's differentlly. Now the best one can hope for with the 8120 is about 4.4 Ghz. The 8150 can be consistently overclocked to the 4.7 range, or 4.8 with water cooling and a top o the line mobo. But to me that does not make the 8150 worth $50 more.
  14. buzznut said:
    Now the best one can hope for with the 8120 is about 4.4 Ghz. The 8150 can be consistently overclocked to the 4.7 range, or 4.8 with water cooling and a top o the line mobo. But to me that does not make the 8150 worth $50 more.

    Especially considering that for less than an 8150, the 2500k will do 4.7 on stock cooling and frequently 5.0+ on cheap air. Plus the 2500k is substantially faster clock for clock.
  15. Both Intel HTT and AMD CMT are basically SMT implementations. Sure, AMD's is a heck of a lot more powerful, but its still SMT. So it comes down to the definition of a "core", which I have yet had anyone define.
  16. okay, i already payed and brought this processor with a gigabyte motherboard and 4gb ram, before i ordered it i read all the reviews i could find and they generally were good, so its too late now ive got what ive got. (check my signature thing below)

    my old pc was a 2ghz amd sempron 3600+ with 3gb ddr2 ram and a acer f690gvm mobo, so my new pc should be a major improvement yes?

    its going to be used for is a bit of youtube, some facebook and emailing, a lot of internet, some gaming such as flight simulator and the sims and my 6th form work (word documents). so it should be good enough for those tasks yes? also i do some light multitasking
  17. Good enough, sure. Any $100+ CPU would have been good enough for your uses.
  18. watters1996 said:
    okay, i already payed and brought this processor with a gigabyte motherboard and 4gb ram, before i ordered it i read all the reviews i could find and they generally were good, so its too late now ive got what ive got. (check my signature thing below)

    my old pc was a 2ghz amd sempron 3600+ with 3gb ddr2 ram and a acer f690gvm mobo, so my new pc should be a major improvement yes?

    its going to be used for is a bit of youtube, some facebook and emailing, a lot of internet, some gaming such as flight simulator and the sims and my 6th form work (word documents). so it should be good enough for those tasks yes? also i do some light multitasking


    Sorry, not seeing the sig but +1 what Willard said.
  19. willard said:
    Especially considering that for less than an 8150, the 2500k will do 4.7 on stock cooling and frequently 5.0+ on cheap air. Plus the 2500k is substantially faster clock for clock.

    I love how people only compare the 8150 on price points vs the 2500k especially when the topic is the 8120. The 8120 can easily do 4.2-4.4 ghz and up to 4.7+ The 8150 is easier to push to 5.0+ ghz
    contrary to popular demand for Intel, the 8120 will work just fine and only uses 20 watts more than the Intel solution ... people love to blow the story up, kinda like this fish I caught one time, I swear it was 200 lbs bass. Biggest fish in the world, swallowed a man whole.
  20. willard said:
    Especially considering that for less than an 8150, the 2500k will do 4.7 on stock cooling and frequently 5.0+ on cheap air. Plus the 2500k is substantially faster clock for clock.


    Exactly. The added cost does not justify the purchase when a better solution can be had for less. I just believe the FX 8120 at 4.4 Ghz will generally be as good as or better than the Phenoms at 3.8-4.0. Considering the 8120 is now as low as $180, its not an awful choice as a gaming CPU, even better as an all purpose computing solution.

    Still, in the $200 range I would recommend the i5 2500k as the obviously superior CPU.
  21. buzznut said:
    Sorry, not seeing the sig but +1 what Willard said.


    sorry, it might not of saved, but here

    AMD FX-8120 @ 3.6GHz (OC'd)
    4GB DDR3 1333MHz Ram (1 stick)
    Gigabyte 970A-DS3
    Radeon X700 Pro (256MB)
    500GB Sata2 HDD
    200GB Sata HDD
    450watt PSU
    Sata DVD-RW Drive
  22. noob2222 said:
    I love how people only compare the 8150 on price points vs the 2500k especially when the topic is the 8120.

    I compared against the 8150 because that's what the post I was responding to was referring to, not that the OP mentioned overclocking at all (which you of course do not take offense to, because it doesn't make the 8150 look bad).

    Quote:
    The 8120 can easily do 4.2-4.4 ghz and up to 4.7+ The 8150 is easier to push to 5.0+ ghz

    And the 2500k can easily do 4.9-5.1, and remember, the 2500k gets a lot more done on each clock as well. I fail to see any point to be made for Bulldozer here.

    Quote:
    contrary to popular demand for Intel, the 8120 will work just fine and only uses 20 watts more than the Intel solution

    Nobody is saying the 8120 won't work. In fact, you can find a post of mine earlier in this thread saying that the 8120 is good enough for what the OP was asking about. In debate, this is known as a "straw man" argument, and generally indicates that the debater doesn't have a valid point to make, so they have to misrepresent their opponent's argument in order to make one.

    Quote:
    people love to blow the story up, kinda like this fish I caught one time, I swear it was 200 lbs bass. Biggest fish in the world, swallowed a man whole.

    Nope, no need to exaggerate anything. Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge are simply much better processors than Bulldozer. The only thing Bulldozer has going for it is being marginally cheaper. I'm of the opinion that if you don't need the performance of Sandy Bridge, you also don't need the performance of Bulldozer, and should get a Phenom II instead.

    The writing has been on the wall for several months, dude. Accept reality. Bulldozer is not a very good chip.
  23. well..at the first lauch of fx processor, i bought fx8120, do hope that i was making a big upgrade from my old 1090T..

    three days later...

    i sold it to my friend..and put my old 1090T back to the socket..


    *true story :D
  24. I simply love how people can change 2 sentences into 5 paragraphs. I didn't make separate statements, and I didn't write in bible verses.

    Buzzunt said the 8120 can't do over 4.4 ghz .. wrong. I have seen plenty of 8120s running 4.6-4.7 ghz, my own running at 4.7 and had it to 5.0. 4.4 is the low end unless you don't know how to overclock.

    My comment about the 8150 is inevitably thats what EVERYONE arguing Intel ops to compare to, always. The 8150 has been, is, and always will be overpriced especially for anyone overclocking. Is that the only arguement that fits Intel is to compare it to the 8150 at stock?

    If BD is absolutly soooo horrible, why is it every "overclock" review shows SB clocked significantly higher than BD? http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/4350/amd_fx_8150_bulldozer_gaming_performance_analysis/index5.html

    Shouldn't they desire to show you that at even clocks bd sucks? No, instead they have to show you that SB clocks higher after sifting through the chips for 9 months to find the best OC chip out there, vs 1 day playing with the sample AMD sent. Why is that? Why do NONE of these reviews show equal clocked cpus?

    But instead Phenom II is a far superior chip ....



    in 3 benchmarks. <-- fish story, its true, PII blows BD out of the water in all cases.
  25. this is not relevant to the "true 8 core thing" but i can put things in perspective for gaming performance > http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/50?vs=80 A similarly clocked Core 2 Quad is faster on average than a phenom II. It is agreed for gaming that a bulldozer of the same clock would be slower/some cases on par than both of these. This leads me to believe that you could compare a brand new bulldozer cpu to a Core 2 Quad. Is that progress? I would not by an FX CPU as I would not want a slower cpu than my 5 year old core 2 quad. I would buy a 2500k.
  26. noob2222 said:
    I simply love how people can change 2 sentences into 5 paragraphs. I didn't make separate statements, and I didn't write in bible verses.

    You probably need to look up the definition of the word statement, because you definitely made several.

    Quote:
    Buzzunt said the 8120 can't do over 4.4 ghz .. wrong. I have seen plenty of 8120s running 4.6-4.7 ghz, my own running at 4.7 and had it to 5.0. 4.4 is the low end unless you don't know how to overclock.

    Re-read his post. He's talking about binning changes which obviously wouldn't affect you or anyone else who got the chip before the change.

    Quote:
    My comment about the 8150 is inevitably thats what EVERYONE arguing Intel ops to compare to, always. The 8150 has been, is, and always will be overpriced especially for anyone overclocking. Is that the only arguement that fits Intel is to compare it to the 8150 at stock?

    1. The 8150 is compared because it's closer to the 2500k's price point. People generally like to compare apples to apples.

    2. We've been talking extensively about overclocking in this thread. Where did you get the idea that we're only talking about stock performance?

    Quote:
    If BD is absolutly soooo horrible, why is it every "overclock" review shows SB clocked significantly higher than BD? http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/4350/amd_fx_8150_bulldozer_gaming_performance_analysis/index5.html

    Seriously? Because it doesn't overclock as well, duh. You're saying that to be fair, we need to artificially limit the performance of one of the chips. Doesn't get any more illogical of fanboyish than that.

    Quote:
    Shouldn't they desire to show you that at even clocks bd sucks?

    You mean like this comparison, where the 8150 gets smoked by a Phenom II? I'm kind of shocked you asked for this, it's pretty well known that Sandy Bridge has superb IPC, while Bulldozer took a massive hit over the previous generation.

    Quote:
    No, instead they have to show you that SB clocks higher after sifting through the chips for 9 months to find the best OC chip out there, vs 1 day playing with the sample AMD sent. Why is that? Why do NONE of these reviews show equal clocked cpus?

    Where is your evidence for this favoritism? Oh, that's right, you don't have any. 5.2 GHz isn't unusual for Sandy Bridge. Took me all of an hour to get my 2500k stable and benching there, and the 2600k and 2700k both overclock better. This isn't sifting through chips, it's just quality chips.

    I've seen this conspiracy theory nonsense from you a couple times now, and you really might want to see a doctor about it. I really mean no insult here, but you're displaying classic signs of paranoid schizophrenia. I'm not kidding. You've concocted a global conspiracy rather than simply accept that Bulldozer just isn't a very good chip.

    Isn't it more logical that the chip just isn't as good as you think it is?

    Quote:
    But instead Phenom II is a far superior chip ....

    http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/mac/reviews/AMD/Bulldozer/AMD_FX-8150-201.jpg

    in 3 benchmarks. <-- fish story, its true, PII blows BD out of the water in all cases.

    And there's that strawman again. I've never said the Phenom II blows BD out of the water. I said that it's a better buy. If you're spending that much money, you may as well get the best chip at that price point. That chip is most certainly not the 8120 or 8150. If you don't need that much power, then I say spend a lot less and get a PII.

    Only hard to understand if you don't want to understand it.
  27. willard said:

    I've never said the Phenom II blows BD out of the water.

    ...

    willard said:
    You mean like this comparison, where the 8150 gets smoked by a Phenom II? I'm kind of shocked you asked for this, it's pretty well known that Sandy Bridge has superb IPC, while Bulldozer took a massive hit over the previous generation.


    wha ... so getting smoked != blown out of the water ...


    Anyway, have fun believing that reviews are not biased towards intel since they want you to believe that "AMD just can't overclock". I prefer RL results, if you don't want to hear what it can do, then thats your call, I can't make it for you.
  28. madooo12 said:
    if 'along with' means multitasking, then BD is much much better than SNB, even sometimes it scales better than SNB-E, 6.66 on cinebench as i remember from amdfx.blogspot.com,

    plus BD should give you a better overall experience, according to the AMD blind test


    Al right my friend you made some claims.

    1. multitasking, then BD is much much better than SNB, even sometimes it scales better than SNB-E, 6.66 on cinebench
    2. BD should give you a better overall experience, according to the AMD blind test

    Care to prove them?
  29. iam2thecrowe said:
    this is not relevant to the "true 8 core thing" but i can put things in perspective for gaming performance > http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/50?vs=80 A similarly clocked Core 2 Quad is faster on average than a phenom II. It is agreed for gaming that a bulldozer of the same clock would be slower/some cases on par than both of these. This leads me to believe that you could compare a brand new bulldozer cpu to a Core 2 Quad. Is that progress? I would not by an FX CPU as I would not want a slower cpu than my 5 year old core 2 quad. I would buy a 2500k.


    You are comparing a Q9550 to a Phenom II X4 940 and based on this comparison the FX-8150 is comparable to a Core 2 Quad!?! If that is the best argument you can come up with to discredit the FX processors, then this discussion is futile.

    I would agree that when the FX-8150/FX-8120 were $250/$200, it made more sense to get an i5-2500K. But AMD has finally lowered the prices on the FX processors. newegg.com has the FX-8120 at $160. AMD should have lowered prices a long time ago, and they need to lower them further. Then the FX can meet a better price/performance ratio.
  30. OK, as the host of this forum: i would like to change the topic very slightly:-

    I brought this processor for £123 off amazon, whereas the intel i5 2500k was £165, if i had the choice (and more money to throw into a pc) then yes i would of opted for the i5. Also the Phenom II X4 940 was around £190! i think for £123 the fx-8120 is pretty decent value considering its specs and price, I know it isnt as good but for 60 quid less i still think this chip is pretty good for the money. especially considering what i need it for.
  31. Would be a much better idea to start off a fresh topic.
  32. Quote:

    You mean like this comparison, where the 8150 gets smoked by a Phenom II? I'm kind of shocked you asked for this, it's pretty well known that Sandy Bridge has superb IPC, while Bulldozer took a massive hit over the previous generation.


    Even the author of that article stated to take the results with a grain of salt. That is a useless article and proves (or disproves) nothing. My opinion is that attempting to disable cores vis software to try and make the FX-8150 match the PII X4 is like removing 4 cylinders from a 12-cylinder engine to see how it performs against an 8-cylinder engine. You are correct though, SB does have better IPC than Bulldozer...Intel has had better IPC for some time now.

    I will agree with you that if you do not need the processing power, a Phenom II X4 cpu will do the job very well.
  33. watters1996 said:
    OK, as the host of this forum: i would like to change the topic very slightly:-

    I brought this processor for £123 off amazon, whereas the intel i5 2500k was £165, if i had the choice (and more money to throw into a pc) then yes i would of opted for the i5. Also the Phenom II X4 940 was around £190! i think for £123 the fx-8120 is pretty decent value considering its specs and price, I know it isnt as good but for 60 quid less i still think this chip is pretty good for the money. especially considering what i need it for.


    OP, you made an excellent choice based on this information.

    And I would personally like to apologize for my part in turning this into another AMD vs Intel thread. It was not right for us to sideswipe your original question.
  34. @maui67 dont worry about it, this threads been interesting.

    Quote:
    that's the main point.
    because if you were speaking of gaming then you made the wrong move.

    Im not a PC Gamer, if i want to play a game i play it on my ps3 or 360 or wii, im not a fan of pc gaming, I use my PC for microsoft office and email and general internet browsing, if i played all the new games on highest resolution then i would of gone for a more expensive chip, but as i say the 8120 seems to be more than enough for my needs and for the price is seemed pretty cheap with a decent spec.

    Just had an email off amazon and my motherboard (970a-ds3) ram (one stick of 4gb ddr3 1333mhz kingston) and processor has just been dispatched and is on its way from wales via a courier. When it gets here (can be as late as thursday 10th) I will comment on this thread my first impressions and after I have installed all of my programs (NIS, MO 2007 ect) i will let you know my overall opinion after using it how i need it too.

    Again I dont have £200 phenom processor money at the moment because I have to pay my phone contract and other monthly costs and im still a student. so considering what I brought for only £193 i think it seems like a pretty good price,
  35. Quote:
    your purchase is justified...
    you need 2x4GB sticks of RAM to ensure dual channel mode.
    and FX-Bulldozer runs 1866MHz by default, that 1333MHz will be like watching paint dry...
    :pfff:


    So what are you saying? it'll run really slow? or just not as quick as it would if I had 1866mhz ram? I can always overclock the ram. And i do plan on getting the other 4gig module to make the 8gb dual channel, also my mobo has 4 slots so i will have 16gb.
  36. Quote:
    slow and not as quick as 1866MHz...
    but it will still run and time/clock the RAM.

    Well I know the ram wont be as quick, thats pretty self explanatory! as ive already said this upgrade is just a base upgrade, as ive said im planning a GPU upgrade and a 16gb ram upgrade, and i will be buying 1866mhz ram next time and a 1gb graphics card and a SSD, i just couldnt afford spending like £400 at once! :non:
  37. The problem is the IPC of BD is so bad you might have been better off with something else from Intel. 2400? 2120? These might have been around the same price and would perform similar. If all you do is "I use my PC for microsoft office and email and general internet browsing" the I would have gone with a different chip as even the 2100 or one of the Intel G6xx or G8xx chips would be more then enough, and would use a lot less power.
  38. I think it has been covered above but yes it is a 8core processor, but the architectural flaw in fusing the cores and sharing resources, along with the deep pipelines and cache latency issues make the FX in IPC surroundings a bad bet, but not shocking like what is implied, it has enough grunt to get through its demands but if IPC performance is what you need then the Intel chips are better. When multitasking and heavy CPU intensive work load is what is needed, then the FX is very much the desktop CPU's proverbial beast of burden, in that department the cheaper FX really excels.
  39. maui67 said:
    You are comparing a Q9550 to a Phenom II X4 940 and based on this comparison the FX-8150 is comparable to a Core 2 Quad!?! If that is the best argument you can come up with to discredit the FX processors, then this discussion is futile.

    I had to give that comparison since there was no direct comparison from a core 2 quad to a FX chip for gaming. Should have clarified my statement with "faster per core and per clock". But still, for gaming, which is the main purpose for my pc and i do nothing that requires 8 cores, the FX8120 is not really a step up from my overclocked q6600 for most games. when i was waiting for the FX chips to be released and found that to be true I was really disappointed. Not to mention power consumption (particularly when overclocked) and transistor count are rediculous. There is simply no good reason to buy an FX processor, and the pricedrops people are talking about have not filtered to Australia yet. Even if they did, i would opt for an i5 2320 before i'd buy an 8120 (purely from a gamers perspective).
  40. Wow talk about going down into the toilet.

    All green folks, apply body paint and line up over here.

    All blue folks, apply your body paint and line up over there.

    On the count of ten rush at each other and whomever is left standing is declared the winner.

    Anyhow,

    From my own observations treat each "BD Core" as .75 of a PHII / SB core. Thus an "8 core" BD chip operates more like a 6 core PHII / SB chip. This is actually a very good thing and impressive once you understand why.

    One "Core" on a PH2 / SB consists of
    1 Dispatcher / Predictor / Decoder unit
    3 ALU / AGU Integer units
    1 FPU (128 or 256 bit for SB, 1 128 bit for PHII).
    1 L2 Cache access unit
    1 MMU

    One "Core" of a BD has
    2 ALU / AGU Integer units
    1 FPU (128 bit)

    Shared components are
    1.5 Dispatcher / Predictor / Decoder (3rd and 4th lane are the only ones that can process a single double instruction).
    1 L2 Cache acess unit
    1 256 bit FPU (both 128-bit FPU's combine).
    1 MMU Load / Store unit (main memory access path)

    Right off the bat you can see one "BD" core is weaker as it only has two integer logic units instead of the three of PHII / SB. This gives the 8-Core BD a total of 16 Integer units compares to the 12 of SB and PHII. Also due to the shared front end and L2 cache a BD core will never achieve full utilization of something is running on it's twin core. Disabling every other core fix's many issues with single threaded performance but then your hurting your heavy multi-tasking performance.

    HT does NOT, I say again, does NOT create "virtual cores", there is no such thing as a "virtual core". What HT does is provide two targets for instructions to be run on simultaneously. This allows the core to achieve a much greater utilization of it's three integer units and FPU without having separate cores fight for access to a limited L2 cache pipeline. You only see double the cores inside the OS because that is how the BIOS and CPU present themselves via MPS.

    If I where building a new PC from scratch I wouldn't recommend BD right now. Price vs performance isn't quite there yet although the 8120fx is attractive.
  41. palladin9479 said:
    Wow talk about going down into the toilet.

    All green folks, apply body paint and line up over here.

    All blue folks, apply your body paint and line up over there.

    On the count of ten rush at each other and whomever is left standing is declared the winner.

    Anyhow,

    From my own observations treat each "BD Core" as .75 of a PHII / SB core. Thus an "8 core" BD chip operates more like a 6 core PHII / SB chip. This is actually a very good thing and impressive once you understand why.

    One "Core" on a PH2 / SB consists of
    1 Dispatcher / Predictor / Decoder unit
    3 ALU / AGU Integer units
    1 FPU (128 or 256 bit for SB, 1 128 bit for PHII).
    1 L2 Cache access unit
    1 MMU

    One "Core" of a BD has
    2 ALU / AGU Integer units
    1 FPU (128 bit)

    Shared components are
    1.5 Dispatcher / Predictor / Decoder (3rd and 4th lane are the only ones that can process a single double instruction).
    1 L2 Cache acess unit
    1 256 bit FPU (both 128-bit FPU's combine).
    1 MMU Load / Store unit (main memory access path)

    Right off the bat you can see one "BD" core is weaker as it only has two integer logic units instead of the three of PHII / SB. This gives the 8-Core BD a total of 16 Integer units compares to the 12 of SB and PHII. Also due to the shared front end and L2 cache a BD core will never achieve full utilization of something is running on it's twin core. Disabling every other core fix's many issues with single threaded performance but then your hurting your heavy multi-tasking performance.

    HT does NOT, I say again, does NOT create "virtual cores", there is no such thing as a "virtual core". What HT does is provide two targets for instructions to be run on simultaneously. This allows the core to achieve a much greater utilization of it's three integer units and FPU without having separate cores fight for access to a limited L2 cache pipeline. You only see double the cores inside the OS because that is how the BIOS and CPU present themselves via MPS.

    If I where building a new PC from scratch I wouldn't recommend BD right now. Price vs performance isn't quite there yet although the 8120fx is attractive.


    This is a nice way of putting it, I guess we can only speculate as to what the performance would be if AMD were to rather split the cores but have them on the same module and give them their own resources rather than shared resources, that would have cut latency times a lot. I do hope with PD that would be the correction made to the architecture, and certainly by Steamroller. It is about as interesting as debating where the true potential of AMD's CMT idea is actually placed, it is almost imposible to quatify that as its speculative but most would say it is very far from where bulldozer ended up.

    Though the sentiment is that the Zambezi's were alright but not really good enough, from a expectations stand point it was nowhere near what I was expecting (which wasn't that high a benchmark).
  42. After all this, the OP has made a decision and is happy with it. AMD is not interested in the performance crown and moving towards APU's and all the while Intel's GPU's still run like crap, so then let's raise a glass to AMD and Nvidia for keeping PC games alive......so that we can have this debate at all. :-)
  43. Intel have HD, and its serious business.
  44. In response to a few comments stating that a cheaper chip would of suited my needs: no I'd rather spend a bit more money and have something that isnt a cheap low end chip, afterall the more performance you have at your fingertips the better as you never know when you might need it. I will definitly be upgrading to water cooling as this chip will definitly get hot.

    Also up until now I have been limited as to what i can do on my old PC as it was old and low spec, but I can say with certainty that now I have the new PC I will be doing more on it. I have only just built the machine and will post my first opinion tomorrow night.

    UPDATE!
    My current specs are:-
    AMD FX-8120 @ 3.5 GHz (OC'd)
    4gb ddr3 1333MHz ram
    512mb nvidia 8400gs
    2 case fans
    gigabyte 970a-ds3 motherboard
    500gb sata 2 3gbps hdd
    250gb sata 2 3gbps hdd
    200gb sata 1.5gbps hdd
    450watt psu
    sata dvd+rw drive
  45. Yeah, that graphics card must go. I would say minimum of a GTX 550ti or HD 6850 now.
  46. well i found the nvidia card in the loft in my box of old computer bits n bobs and its better than the one I was using so i thought why not, Also the nvidia has my custom cooling system on because originally it was just a heatsink and it over heated a lot, but now it keeps cool. It'll last for a few months until I go and get a good gpu.
  47. Quote:
    so what's the consensus on SMT vs HTT (hyper-threading).

    4C/8T of stronger power
    vs
    4M/8C of mediocrity


    Depends on workload. If you get to 6+ core usage, then BD's design will be more powerful, as HTT is not very efficient. But software scaling will ALWAYS limit core growth, and for most workloads, those extra CMT/HTT cores do nothing.
  48. Quote:
    I'd rather spend a bit more money and have something that isnt a cheap low end chip, afterall the more performance you have at your fingertips the better


    I completely agree, which is why I was suggesting a better CPU then the 8120. Like the 2400. Here is that "low end" chip beating the 8150. I tried to pick the office type work loads. No point in showing you X chip beats Y CPU in task you never use. Yes, I am well aware that the 8120/50 can beat the 2400 in other tasks.





    And more important is power consumption. Office tasks don't need a lot of CPU power so nearly anything can do it. (assuming I'm in the right thread.) So why use a 125W chip when a lower wattage chip will work just as well?





    Edited to fix images.
  49. I was wondering as i read a lot about this is better and that is better , i was thinking about cars today , and thought is a 1000 cc model faster than another 1000cc model , so i looked at the 1000cc as power draw , a fx 8150 v a i5 2500k , so if you disabled 4 cores from the fx 8150 and overclocked and the same with the i5 2500k , but both having the same power draw which would be faster ? , i was wondering if there is a benchmark to test this ????
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Core Processors AMD Intel