Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

AMD FX8120 or Core i5 3450

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 2, 2012 9:09:33 AM

Hello everybody,

I currently have an old core 2 duo E8400 and i think my AMD HD6950 may not be fully used with this cpu, so here is the big question:

For gaming, which cpu would be better?

AMD FX8120

Core i5 3450

I'm leaning towards the AMD, mostly because the mobo will be cheaper and I wont have to buy adapters to my Noctua cooler(NH-U12P).
Having 8 cores is something that would be some kind of waste, but where I live it is cheaper than the intel cpu... and i think it would work better with my AMD GPU (just my 5 cents)

Reading the "Best CPU for the Money" article clearly chooses the Intel CPU, but on the internet you see a lot of people showing bulldozer getting very close (sometimes even better) than 2500k (and then again, AMD is cheaper than Intel here).

Can you guys help me decide?

thanks in advance!

More about : amd fx8120 core 3450

a b à CPUs
July 2, 2012 9:47:16 AM

nope, for gaming you should get i5 3450 for excellent output.
EVERY amd gpu work fine with INTEL cpu's.
m
0
l
July 2, 2012 10:04:40 AM

Go for intel. Benchmarks show that sandy bridge is better than bulldozer.

u can also consider the i5-2500 as you will not be using the inbuilt graphics of 3450
m
0
l
Related resources
July 2, 2012 10:11:10 AM

luccha said:
Hello everybody,

I currently have an old core 2 duo E8400 and i think my AMD HD6950 may not be fully used with this cpu, so here is the big question:

For gaming, which cpu would be better?

AMD FX8120

Core i5 3450

I'm leaning towards the AMD, mostly because the mobo will be cheaper and I wont have to buy adapters to my Noctua cooler(NH-U12P).
Having 8 cores is something that would be some kind of waste, but where I live it is cheaper than the intel cpu... and i think it would work better with my AMD GPU (just my 5 cents)

Reading the "Best CPU for the Money" article clearly chooses the Intel CPU, but on the internet you see a lot of people showing bulldozer getting very close (sometimes even better) than 2500k (and then again, AMD is cheaper than Intel here).

Can you guys help me decide?

thanks in advance!


Hi luccha,

At this point of time, buying a Bulldozer processor isn't the best move. AMD Piledriver, the next generation Bulldozer will be released later this year and benchmarks have proven that it will bring about 15% performance improvement.

So, I recommend you to wait for AMD Piledriver processors.

However, if you can't wait then you should get AMD FX-8120 as it will be cheaper and will give decent performance. Also, it will not bottleneck your HD 6950.

Regards,
SmartGeek
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 2, 2012 10:13:09 AM

don't forget to mention HASWELL are on thier way.
m
0
l
July 3, 2012 2:03:29 AM

first of all I'd like to thank you all for those quick replys!


Quote:
EVERY amd gpu work fine with INTEL cpu's.


I know this xtreme5, but i've read somewhere that if you have both the CPU and GPU from AMD, it can take the load from one component to another if it is overloaded (example: if the game is very CPU intensive, some of the CPU load would happen in the GPU). That seems to be the main argument of AMD fanboys.... however not sure if true


Quote:
u can also consider the i5-2500 as you will not be using the inbuilt graphics of 3450


Thanks shubham_66 for the suggestion, but the 2500 is out of my budget...


Quote:
So, I recommend you to wait for AMD Piledriver processors.


Do you think that it will be out by the time windows 8 releases the final version? Will they be AM3+ compatible?



I'm really having a bad time trying to decide! each site I search for a review tells me something different... I think that having 8 cores might be more ""future proof"", since there will be a time when apps are build for more than 2-4 cores... but i5 seems to be faster anyway, beating FX even in some highly CPU intensive games.

i just wish intel didn't change their socket every year... that would make me much more comfortable...


Thanks again!
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 3, 2012 2:25:54 AM

a friend of mine just built a gaming rig with a 8120 and a 7850 EVERY game we played ran perfectly, the 8 cores are good fopr gaming too, games are starting to use mores cores, example battlefield 3 and max payne 3, so have 8 cores a good future proof, i got myself a six core 2 years ago and its still running perfectly stock with no slowdowns in any game
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 3, 2012 2:43:53 AM

luccha said:
i've read somewhere that if you have both the CPU and GPU from AMD, it can take the load from one component to another if it is overloaded (example: if the game is very CPU intensive, some of the CPU load would happen in the GPU). That seems to be the main argument of AMD fanboys.... however not sure if true

Quote:
So, I recommend you to wait for AMD Piledriver processors.


Do you think that it will be out by the time windows 8 releases the final version? Will they be AM3+ compatible?



What you heard is bullshit :)  It do4esn;t work that way....i guess you got confused with openCL computing, where certain applications are programmed in such a way so as to use both the CPU and GPU for computation. You CANNOT simply just shift loads form a CPU to a GPU and vice-versa on the fly as and when u want to!!!

Piledriver is confirmed to be AM3+, as for the date, i say maybe around November :) 
m
0
l

Best solution

a c 78 à CPUs
July 3, 2012 6:51:27 AM

Quote:

I'm really having a bad time trying to decide! each site I search for a review tells me something different... I think that having 8 cores might be more ""future proof"", since there will be a time when apps are build for more than 2-4 cores... but i5 seems to be faster anyway, beating FX even in some highly CPU intensive games.

The thing that has to be considered with gaming is that the vast majority of the 1000s of games on the market ARE NOT CPU intensive. Most games are completely limited by the video card.

This is a comparrison that shows your typical games (Excluding Skyrim, Crysis which are typically known to be "exceptions" to the rule). The final summation basically is, yes the i5s have stronger core performance, but is it really necessary?

http://www.overclock.net/t/1210060/fx8120-vs-2500k-benc...

I'm not going to say you should buy the FX-8120 over the Intel 3450, but I will say it is absolutely a viable option contrary to what some may make it seem.
Share
July 4, 2012 5:59:38 AM

Best answer selected by luccha.
m
0
l
October 17, 2013 9:10:16 AM

i had been using intel core i5 3450 for 6 months and my brother has AMD fx 8120.I m much satisfied with intel because of its performance and it also doesnot gets heated up.It sometimes shows a clock of 3.6GHz - 3.7GHz .While
Amd fx gets too much heated up and mostly remains in the clock of 3.4GHz.
Intel's out is far much better than AMD.
So,no doubt , go for intel!!
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 17, 2013 3:22:52 PM

Don't even touch the 8120. It gets beaten out by Pentiums.

Get the 8320. The speed is night and day compared to the 8120.
m
0
l
!