Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Fx 4170 vs Fx 8120

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 1, 2012 10:55:33 AM

For gaming which of these CPU's would be the best deal.
Also Plan on overclocking with a Hyper 212 Evo.

More about : 4170 8120

a c 159 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
a b 4 Gaming
June 1, 2012 10:59:45 AM

Most games don't need 8 cores or utilize them. Either cpu will work fine; the 4170 should run cooler so you may be able to overclock it higher. If you want to run alot of background stuff such as downloading dvd's while you're gaming, then the 8120 may be a better choice. But for gaming only, I'd go for the 4170.
m
0
l
a c 83 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
a b 4 Gaming
June 1, 2012 11:00:08 AM

ctorres1211 said:
For gaming which of these CPU's would be the best deal.
Also Plan on overclocking with a Hyper 212 Evo.

between the two, the 8120 is the better overall performer. afaik, it's got more integer cores, similar oc potential with a decent cooler. all fx cpus are harvested from the same die. 8120 is a lower clocked 8150, 4710 is a high clocked 8150 with defective cores lasered off.
for overall gaming, though, intel sandy bridge and ivy bridge core i5 cpus are better than fx cpus.
m
0
l
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
a c 203 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
a b 4 Gaming
June 1, 2012 11:35:29 AM

How locked into that Fx 4170 vs Fx 8120 choice are you?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
June 1, 2012 2:18:47 PM

Theoretically the 4170 with greater clockspeed games better, but all round usage on the FX 4XXX are meh.

Appart from being a bad time to buy AMD, if the difference in price is not that much, the FX 8120 has more utility.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
June 1, 2012 2:41:09 PM

If you're not dead set on AMD, I'd recommend looking at Intel's low end SB/IVB quad cores. They cost a bit more than the 4170, but they perform much better.

Don't be fooled by AMD's core count. All of their FX series processors really have half as many cores as claimed, due to sharing the critical floating point scheduler.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
June 1, 2012 2:46:46 PM

AMD has stipulated that they are cores, they just may not operate as pure dual cores but they are cores nonetheless.

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
June 1, 2012 2:48:39 PM

I should clarify, they perform like they have half as many cores, with the exception of workloads that are quite rare for a desktop computer (pure integer work).
m
0
l
a c 283 à CPUs
a c 110 K Overclocking
a b 4 Gaming
June 1, 2012 2:53:24 PM

Although the way they actually work is very different, I think it's fair to say that each Bulldozer Module is basically the same as an Intel core with Hyperthreading (just with less performance overall).
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
June 1, 2012 2:53:56 PM

As before, it really is a bad time to be buying AMD, what with Piledriver out soon which should be a noticable difference.

The only solution I can come up with is;

1] get the 4100, it is relatively cheap and the writeoff in a upgrade will not be as severe.

2] Move to PD when released, if the performance is not up to scratch. (This is a very subjective factor)

Or you can go the Intel route....
m
0
l
!