Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Phenom ii x4 965 vs fx 8120

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 20, 2012 4:27:02 AM

At stock speeds, which one would perform better in gaming? Also, if the 8120 is better, is it good enough to justify the extra 70 bucks?

More about : phenom 965 8120

a b à CPUs
October 20, 2012 4:39:19 AM

These chips are neck and neck when it comes to gaming. Really, you are only going to get better performance out of the 8120 when it comes to encoding video or rendering 3D. The 8120 will clock higher, but then again, the architecture isn't as efficient as the older one. AMD is bringing out new chips very soon, I would wait and see how they bench.
m
0
l
October 20, 2012 4:47:53 AM

maestro0428 said:
These chips are neck and neck when it comes to gaming. Really, you are only going to get better performance out of the 8120 when it comes to encoding video or rendering 3D. The 8120 will clock higher, but then again, the architecture isn't as efficient as the older one. AMD is bringing out new chips very soon, I would wait and see how they bench.

So for gaming, I'm better off saving 70 bucks and grabbing the 965. Cool. What if I want to record and upload videos to youtube?
Also, I heard that the new fx series is just the current series with a few minor, but effective tweaks. I doubt anything in it will be able to compare to the value of the phenom 965....
m
0
l
Related resources
October 20, 2012 9:29:17 AM

The 965 will still win for recording. I have one myself and I can tell you it can record BF3 at 40-50FPS high settings even on my now old HD6750 1GB. It's a solid buy, but try and get an I5 if you can.
m
0
l
a c 89 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
October 20, 2012 10:50:30 AM

even the lowst end i5 2xxx chip will stomp either for gaming. i would just spend the extra few dollars on an i5, unless you already have an amd motherbard.....
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 20, 2012 11:48:21 AM

Pah! By stomp, do you mean getting 65 fps in BF3 rather than 60? That is not stomping, my friend. That is charging a large amount more for just a tiny bit more performance.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 20, 2012 2:04:47 PM

TheScarecrow97 said:
At stock speeds, which one would perform better in gaming? Also, if the 8120 is better, is it good enough to justify the extra 70 bucks?

at stock speeds the 965 is a 3.4 ghz cpu, the 8120 is 3.1 ghz. If your not overclocking, a better comparison would be the 4170 or the 965.

very few games utilize more than 4 cores, but even when they do, your still looking at 3.4 ghz vs 3.1 ghz. core scaling would still make them about equal in an ideal situation for the 8120, but slower in all other games.

Also, not sure where your getting prices at $70 difference, at newegg its $60, and microcenter is $50.

If your not overclocking, might want to look at the 970, its only $10 more.
m
0
l
a c 89 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
October 21, 2012 1:30:30 AM

MajinCry said:
Pah! By stomp, do you mean getting 65 fps in BF3 rather than 60? That is not stomping, my friend. That is charging a large amount more for just a tiny bit more performance.

its not a tiny bit extra for example these banchmarks http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=363 show a signivicant difference. play on both rigs and you will notice a much smoother experience on the i5 rig compared to any amd rig, regardless of benchmarks. Any gaming enthusiast will tell you the same thing, its not about being biased to amd, or intel, its getting the best part for the job, and AMD does not have that.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 21, 2012 2:23:04 AM

really? http://news.softpedia.com/news/Blind-Test-Shows-AMD-Mac...

Quote:
Though there were 28 'no difference votes', 73 people felt that System B (AMD FX-8150) ran better. Meanwhile, the Intel rig got 40 votes.


that was an I7 2700k... Don't worry about anandtech's Intel bench program. The fact that they use sysmark should say it all. Id rate anandtech's bench up there with passmark.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 21, 2012 4:32:31 AM

anandtech's bench uses a lot of other benches too. The same one's used by Toms from what I can tell, so it's fine. Just don't bother with the benches you don't want/need is what anand's stance seems to be.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 21, 2012 2:44:52 PM

NoUserBar said:
anandtech's bench uses a lot of other benches too. The same one's used by Toms from what I can tell, so it's fine. Just don't bother with the benches you don't want/need is what anand's stance seems to be.

look at anand's civ v benchmark on that stupid list

8150 = 45 fps full render
2400 = 116.8 ...

now look at the actual test



Where the Fk did 116 come from...



oh, turn the graphics off ...

so one you have running every graphics setting on max, the other with the graphics completely OFF ... who plays by turning the graphics off?! If you haven't ran the civ bench, thats exactly what it does, turns all graphics off on no render, hence NO RENDER.

like I said, passmark.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 22, 2012 6:51:27 PM

Benches you don't want/need. But w/e
m
0
l
October 22, 2012 8:14:59 PM

TheScarecrow97 said:
At stock speeds, which one would perform better in gaming? Also, if the 8120 is better, is it good enough to justify the extra 70 bucks?

i would wait for piledriver imo but if you cant wait get the phenom ii
m
0
l
October 23, 2012 8:54:44 PM

go for the new FX-8320 it performs great
m
0
l
!