I would really like to discuss about the fx 8150

[a39232]

Basically for games it seems to do fine in games and i was wondering is it really that bad. If you look on newegg it has a 5 star rating and basically everyone says it is a great cpu it may not of lived up to expectations and I've looked at every single benchmark and i know some of these are just fake payed by Intel. that is why i have just been looking at people who actually own it and they say they love it for the most part so is it really that bad... ABSOLUTELY NO FIGHTING AND NO RECOMENDATIONS ON INTEL i would like u to write what u think. btw i don't hate Intel and i don't hate Amd i'm neutral with them.

 

[bearclaw99]

Well..I really don't understand what kind of answer you're looking for. No it isn't THAT bad, but an Intel i5 2500K/3570K is the better buy going by any game benchmark

Your assumptions that the gaming benchmarks on all of the reputable sites are faked by Intel seem a bit paranoid. Either way, if I were going AMD, I'd just go with an X4 965 BE over any Bulldozer

 

[DJDeCiBeL]

Yeah, the 8120/50 is just fine (along with the 4170 for purely gaming).

This collection of benches shows it all though. A 2500K beats a 8150 in everything but the most highly threaded applications. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=288

BUT, like I said, the 8120/50 is just fine. Seriously though, for anyone wanting to upgrade right now, it's best to just wait for Piledriver, if you want AMD.

If one HAS to upgrade now, the Phenom II X4 965 BE is the best AMD choice for gaming.

And OP, if you ever come back to this thread that was seemingly just started to start a flame war (regardless of what you said about "no fighting"), my reply is probably going to be the most unbiased of them all. Threads like this ALWAYS end up in bloodshed and fanboyism and you should know that.

 

[a39232]

Thank you for your reply and i will get a piledriver cpu if it is not to expensive, and i am aware that a war will star i just hope u all can control yourselves please, But this is what im looking at for now because it seems like its just fine.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103960

 

[a39232]

not all but some btw the fx is not compeating against ivy bridge amd SPECIFICALLY SAID "THE FX 8150 IS SUPPOSED TO COMPETE WITH THE I5'S but it does beat some i7's.

 

[a39232]

ITS $200 US dollars now

 

[game junky]

I needed to upgrade my rig on a budget for BF3 when it was in beta so I was willing to give the 8150 a shot. Granted, I came from an AMD X2 but I am very satisfied with my purchase. I am a media freak so I rip a lot of video and audio and I am loving ripping video with an octocore. It is more than enough power to game with and the motherboard features were actually better for what I want to eventually do than Intel had at the time. Planning on doing a RAID5 with SSDs down the road.

Though I'm not unhappy with my purchase, I think if I were on the fence and didn't already have a motherboard selected I would probably lean toward an Ivy Bridge. They're so much more energy efficient which makes for less of a space heater in the summer. I do hope AMD tries to step up to the plate with the Piledrive procs but they've said they're getting out of the performance market so I get the feeling they may have scrapped the whole lineup. Oh well, still money well spent

 

[a39232]

yea well i am in your situation im upgrading from a athlon 7550 but that is still very good to me just games i get about 25 fps on new games with a gt 240 and i love it its just hopefully a fx 8150 will be somewhat future proof and i will be pairing it with a 6870 or a 7850.

 

[iam2thecrowe]

The lowest end i5 2320 will be better than an overclocked fx 8150 for 99% of games. the 8150 is a rip off. If you even consider an fx cpu for gaming, just get the fx4100 and OC the hell out of it, even then, an i3 2120 is the same price and performs better in games.

 

[nekulturny]

The 8150 is perfectly adequate for smooth game play in any game. Are there better options from Intel sure? Thats not what the OP asked.

 

[megagabobe1]

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

 

[vrumor]

Always 1 in the crowd nekulturny

 

[davemaster84]

Well man all I can say is that the cpu is overrated regarding games, which cpu?, any!
Nowadays games basically are gpu hungry and you'll only see a cpu bottleneck if you play a massive online multiplayer (not talking of bf3) like lineage 2 or WOW, but the rest you'll first encounter a gpu bottleneck than a cpu one.

Talking about the processor is a very good processor, 8 cores will let you do sereval things without seeing your pc slow, and for gaming it will be mostly the same if you own a mid range card. I think the only cases where cpu matters a lot are in SLI configurations and with dual gpu video cards like the gtx 690, amd 6990 ; I have a gtx 689 and basically I run any game as good as any intel i7 owner, if they are 4 fps ahead it's already too much So if you can't wait until piledriver, get your 8150 for less than 250 and it'll perform same as a i5 2500k.

Note: Just beware of power consumtion, fx processors are hungry beasts, you are going to overclock it close to it's limit better get a very good PSU. Regards

 

[nekulturny]

Nowadays games basically are gpu hungry and you'll only see a cpu bottleneck if you play a massive online multiplayer (not talking of bf3) like lineage 2 or WOW, but the rest you'll first encounter a gpu bottleneck than a cpu one.

Yea.. the 99% of games guy got it backwards, its the other way around. Maybe 1% of games the inherent weakness of the 8120s will shine through. (Okay, maybe 5% of games at the most) And I'm sorry, if games are putting out over 60FPS on average with an FX-8120, don't show me a bench that shows an i5 putting out 96 FPS, thats silly guys, unless you have a $400+ 120hz monitor, and then I call the necessity into question.

I wouldnt give WOW that much credit for being able to tax a CPU either honestly, at least in my experience with it. lineage 2 I don't know anything about. Runescape (which is a single core java game) in full settings, might give an 8120 a bit of a workout on the one core, but its probably still good enough.

 

[megagabobe1]

Nowadays games basically are gpu hungry and you'll only see a cpu bottleneck if you play a massive online multiplayer (not talking of bf3) like lineage 2 or WOW, but the rest you'll first encounter a gpu bottleneck than a cpu one.

Yea.. the 99% of games guy got it backwards, its the other way around. Maybe 1% of games the inherent weakness of the 8120s will shine through. (Okay, maybe 5% of games at the most) And I'm sorry, if games are putting out over 60FPS on average with an FX-8120, don't show me a bench that shows an i5 putting out 96 FPS, thats silly guys, unless you have a $400+ 120hz monitor, and then I call the necessity into question.

I wouldnt give WOW that much credit for being able to tax a CPU either honestly, at least in my experience with it. lineage 2 I don't know anything about. Runescape (which is a single core java game) in full settings, might give an 8120 a bit of a workout on the one core, but its probably still good enough.

runescape XD haha funny you mentioned that game

 

[nekulturny]

I actually recently quit it, I know everyone says you never "quit" runescape. This is no different for me either, I'm tired of the bots and RWTers, if Jagex doesn't get rid of them, they're not getting any more of my money. I have a lvl 138 account, played off and on for 11 years. Sad isn't it?

 

[megagabobe1]

I actually recently quit it, I know everyone says you never "quit" runescape. This is no different for me either, I'm tired of the bots and RWTers, if Jagex doesn't get rid of them, they're not getting any more of my money. I have a lvl 138 account, played off and on for 11 years. Sad isn't it?

about never quitting it might be true haha, i started 8 years ago, ive had multiple account so mu strongest one was a lv 111, but from time to time i still login to see how is everything, biut i prefer it how it was in 2006 when i just started, i have like 2 years now without playing, they ruined the game in my opinion haha

 

[a39232]

I just hope the fix single threaded on pile driver i think it will be great if they can

 

[yehia7000]

the bulldozer amd fx 8150 is rediculous device for gaming , it is slower than the old phenom ii x6 1100t and 1090t , i think amd made this cpu for just multitasking processes as it is the best amd cpu for multitasking , but in gaming ? it is the worst
i think the amd fx 4170 is the best amd gaming cpu and i am sure of that ,look at this and all of you will know iam right : http://www.techspot.com/review/537-max-payne-3-performance/page7.html .....
http://www.techspot.com/review/532-diablo-3-performance/page5.html
http://www.techspot.com/review/507-mass-effect-3-performance-test/page5.html

 

[nekulturny]

http://www.techspot.com/review/537 [...] page7.html .....

Yes because in Max Payne it gets 81 FPS with a GTX 580 I mean c'mon guys, thats so horrible, its completely pathetic! Espeically when for 50 bucks more you can have an Intel i5-2500K and get 81!!!!.

http://www.techspot.com/review/532 [...] page5.html

I mean, gosh, seriously guys, who would buy this garbage? You mean to tell me in Diablo 3 in fully maxed settings it only gets 135FPS? Thats total crap guys, you're a fool if you don't buy an Intel CPU!

http://www.techspot.com/review/507-mass-effect-3-performance-test/page5.html

You mean to tell me that in Mass Effect 3 the best an 8150 can do is 92FPS average? Thats horrible. I mean I know my monitor can only display 60FPS because its a 60hz monitor, but CLEARLY you guys should be buying the 2500K, no question about it!

Note: The FX-4170 only performs higher in these benches because it is clocked higher, and FX-8120 can effortlessly overclock to 4.2GHZ and match the clock speed of the 4170 model on the stock Heatsink, while if you're not into overclocking, you definitely should consider the FX-4170 if you MUST buy an FX CPU for gaming, but there are definitely better options from Intel in the price range. WE GET IT, stop answering questions nobody asked with silly logic.

 

[yehia7000]

no, no, no man , i mean that you will be an idiot when you buy a 400 dollar card like
gtx 580 and get 50 fps with amd fx 8150 vs i5 2500k ( 17 fps is big defference)
and i5 2500k is cheaper . look at this : http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/47155-amd-bulldozer-fx-8150-processor-review-16.html .

the difference between i5 and bulldozer exceeds 35 fps it is a huge difference

and this : http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/47155-amd-bulldozer-fx-8150-processor-review-17.html
the difference in team fortress is 40 fps
in the past , i have a gtx 590 and phenom ii x6 1090 3.2 and when i play crysis 2 1080p it gave me the performance of gtx 580 50 fps avg and 45 fps minimum , i try to overclock it to 4.2ghz
but it gave the same performance , when i upgraded it to i7 3770k 4.6ghz it gave 66 fps avg and this is the real power of gtx 590 and it never goes bellow 65 fps .
you will be a foolish when you make gtx 590 a 750 dollar card perform like 400 dollar card

 

[nekulturny]

What are you talking about? Most computer monitors (except ones that cost minimum $400) are 60hz monitors. This means that your computer could send 1000FPS to it, you'll only ever see 60 of them. Now, if you're one of those high dollar budget people who can afford a 120hz monitor, then hell no, you should not buy an FX CPU!

and i5 2500k is cheaper

*smack* No.. It isn't. And the 8120 is IDENTICAL to the 8150, and since both are fully overclockable, that means, you could just buy the 8120 and clock it to 3.6GHZ and you got yourself an 8150.

Newegg

i5-2500K. $219.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115072

FX-8150 $199.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103960&Tpk=8150

FX-8120 $169.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103961


TigerDirect

i5-2500K $219.99
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=7073161&CatId=6988

FX-8150 $199.99
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=1308191&CatId=7341

FX-8120 $169.99
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=1239958&CatId=7341

MicroCenter (All of them are In-store only prices, meaning you not available online)

2500K- $169.99
http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0354589

FX-8150 $199.99
http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0375764

FX-8120 $149.99
http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0375765

----

Summation: If you live in driving distance of a MicroCenter, yup, without question, go for the 2500K, if you order online like the rest of us.. Well..


Now for your Team Fortress benchmark.

All of those CPUs put out MORE THAN TWICE the frame limit of every computer monitor on the market that costs below $400. Please sit down, I highly doubt you ever had $750 for a GTX 590 card in your life. Provide your own benches and CPU-Z validator file, or it didn't happen.

 

[yehia7000]

you are hard amd fan boy and i wont argue with you like a child , you really bother me

 

[amuffin]

you are hard amd fan boy and i wont argue with you like a child , you really bother me

I'm a die hard Intel fan boy, and yet I see someone who acts like a child here. [:lutfij:2]

 

[yehia7000]

comming soon , i will have gtx 670 sli not gtx 590 and i swear that i have msi gtx 590 . team fortress is abad game , crysis 2 , bf 3 multiplayer 64 players , this is the most popular games right now and i am in confrontation with you if amds cpus
dont bottleneck those games , oh god , i think you will go madness with amd cpus