Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question
Closed

AMD FX-8320 Vs AMD FX-8150

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Performance
  • AMD
Last response: in CPUs
October 31, 2012 1:22:52 AM

Which one offers better performance? Is it anything major? worth the money?

also i do also have some other comparisons

AMD FX-6100 Vs AMD FX 6300

AMD FX 4170 vs AMD FX 4300

More about : amd 8320 amd 8150

a c 81 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 31, 2012 1:44:33 AM

For what? Gaming? Daily PC use? Browsing? Watching videos? Video Editing? CAD design? You need to be more specific. Yes the newer generations are better, but "is it worth the money" depends on your needs.
Score
0
Related resources
October 31, 2012 1:47:56 AM

go with the 300's they have about 15-20% better performance. Defiantly worth the money.
Score
0
October 31, 2012 2:43:31 AM

nekulturny said:
For what? Gaming? Daily PC use? Browsing? Watching videos? Video Editing? CAD design? You need to be more specific. Yes the newer generations are better, but "is it worth the money" depends on your needs.

gaming sorry i was in a rush
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 31, 2012 2:47:25 AM

examplehi said:
gaming sorry i was in a rush


if you are going to be gaming then you should really get a Intel i5/i7. Intel i3s perform better than AMDs new 8cores in gaming.
Score
0
a c 81 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 31, 2012 2:48:11 AM

examplehi said:
gaming sorry i was in a rush

Fair nuff. What games are you planning to play and at what resolution? Is this a new system build? What video card are you planning to pair it with? And do you have a budget in mind?
Score
0
a c 81 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 31, 2012 2:49:17 AM

marshal11 said:
if you are going to be gaming then you should really get a Intel i5/i7. Intel i3s perform better than AMDs new 8cores in gaming.

*ahem* not necessarily. There are some games even the 8150s outperform i7-2600Ks in gaming, depends on the game.
Score
0
October 31, 2012 2:51:15 AM

marshal11 said:
if you are going to be gaming then you should really get a Intel i5/i7. Intel i3s perform better than AMDs new 8cores in gaming.

im on a tight 700 dollar budget so i think ill just stick with AMD
Score
0
a c 81 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 31, 2012 2:52:54 AM

examplehi said:
im on a tight 700 dollar budget so i think ill just stick with AMD

Well, you might be better off posting in the homebuild section, since really we're getting into the question of a whole system build. Hopefully a mod will move your thread rather than lock it, if he/she decides to take a peek.. I'd ask you to fill out this form though, mainly so I know what your budget has to cover.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/353572-31-build-upgra...
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 31, 2012 3:00:28 AM

nekulturny said:
*ahem* not necessarily. There are some games even the 8150s outperform i7-2600Ks in gaming, depends on the game.


really? hm. could you send me a link?

EDIT: wait, i just re-read that and thought about it. how could the 81xx outperform a 2600k in gaming? the only way that's possible is if the game fully support all 8 cores of the CPU and makes GOOD use of them. there isn't a game on this planet that supports 8 core/needs that much processing power. there is software that supports 8 cores, but definitely not games. if a program supports 8 cores but doesn't support hyperthreading, that is the only way an AMD 81xx CPU could beat an Intel i7. if it did support hyperthreading, then the 81xx would loose against the i7s, shown by many, many benchmarks. i would like to see where you get your info from...
Score
0
October 31, 2012 3:02:05 AM

nekulturny said:
Well, you might be better off posting in the homebuild section, since really we're getting into the question of a whole system build. Hopefully a mod will move your thread rather than lock it, if he/she decides to take a peek.. I'd ask you to fill out this form though, mainly so I know what your budget has to cover.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/353572-31-build-upgra...

alright but 1 quick question is the FX-6300 Enough for Gaming because thats the only part i think im looking to change from the FX-8320
Score
0
October 31, 2012 3:08:23 AM

Best answer selected by examplehi.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 31, 2012 5:11:35 AM

marshal11 said:
really? hm. could you send me a link?

EDIT: wait, i just re-read that and thought about it. how could the 81xx outperform a 2600k in gaming? the only way that's possible is if the game fully support all 8 cores of the CPU and makes GOOD use of them. there isn't a game on this planet that supports 8 core/needs that much processing power. there is software that supports 8 cores, but definitely not games. if a program supports 8 cores but doesn't support hyperthreading, that is the only way an AMD 81xx CPU could beat an Intel i7. if it did support hyperthreading, then the 81xx would loose against the i7s, shown by many, many benchmarks. i would like to see where you get your info from...


You had to come in here and kick up a fuss about the "my intel is faster than yours" rhetoric that is rather dull and boring, kinda like the product range. Anyways the OP asked which is better between the two options and he/she later confirmed that the budget facilitated better for AMD so this is rather pointless. If you feel the need to master of the universe your chip do so in a nearest intel circlejerk thread.

As for some insight, my A10 5800K at stock with a 7850 maintains well over 60FPS, more like 70+ FPS in titles like BF3 with maxed settings, some argued that this CPU at $130 lacked puch, clearly they were wrong, at that price baring in mind my monitor is a 60hz monitor so anything upper 60FPS is unnoticeable, even a lowly APU proves to be a gaming piece at a low enough cost to replace with its replacement whenever it so comes....better yet it is on the same socket.

Good luck replacing that setup of yours, sure it will be sufficient but it will be old superceeded tech, and on a EOL socket in about 6 months from now.......Enjoy.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 31, 2012 6:38:03 AM

sarinaide said:
You had to come in here and kick up a fuss about the "my intel is faster than yours" rhetoric that is rather dull and boring, kinda like the product range. Anyways the OP asked which is better between the two options and he/she later confirmed that the budget facilitated better for AMD so this is rather pointless. If you feel the need to master of the universe your chip do so in a nearest intel circlejerk thread.

As for some insight, my A10 5800K at stock with a 7850 maintains well over 60FPS, more like 70+ FPS in titles like BF3 with maxed settings, some argued that this CPU at $130 lacked puch, clearly they were wrong, at that price baring in mind my monitor is a 60hz monitor so anything upper 60FPS is unnoticeable, even a lowly APU proves to be a gaming piece at a low enough cost to replace with its replacement whenever it so comes....better yet it is on the same socket.

Good luck replacing that setup of yours, sure it will be sufficient but it will be old superceeded tech, and on a EOL socket in about 6 months from now.......Enjoy.


wow, i really don't know how to begin. my mind is so full of your ignorance right now i really don't even know where to begin. first of all, as you can see before my edit, i actually believed you and just asked for some proof to hopefully learn something. then i thought about it for a minute and realized what you said can't be true, explained why it can't be true, and then asked for proof of your info. how is that bragging about my CPU being faster than yours?! how did you come up with that?! that is just insanely stupid! i am DEFINITELY NOT TRYING TO KICK UP A FUSS! that is like finding a tomshardware benchmark and saying that they are trying to kick up a fuss saying Intel performs better than AMD in games! they are just stating the facts, just like i did!!! how is this so hard to wrap your head around? this whole damn thing is so stupid!

yes, he said he is on a tight budget and AMD would better suit his build. (even though in benchmarks a 80$ Pentium G2120 is better/the same as the FX8xxx series) i understand that. my edit was for you, not for him. it's not in any way, shape or form related to him and yes, is useless to him. who said it was? who said it has to be? anyway, you get the point. i replied to you asking for proof of the obviously fake info, then later on explaining how what you said was impossible, and asked where you were getting your info from. that's all. i was just ASKING. that is it. i was discussing with you, not trying to cause an argument. i can't have a friendly discussion with you? you still haven't told me where you got that info from, which leads me to think you are just an AMD fanboy, which would explain why you completely exploded when i said Intel performs better in gaming and asked for your proof, which again, i still don't have. hell, i could have been wrong. if you did have some proof, i would have looked at it, and said i was wrong. big deal. i learned something new. it's not like i'm going to deny the fact that AMD beat Intel! AMD and Intel are both great! it's just that Intel is WELL known to be better at gaming than AMD, AND THAT IS ALL I SAID!

no, your system doesn't get a 60+ fps constantly. the 7850 is like a more efficient gtx 570, which absolutely does not sit a 60+ FPS constantly. sure, at calm moments, they will obviously get 70+ FPS. that's normal. but the dip is what matters. they both have dips down into the 30s at intense moments all the time. even my gtx680 overclocked out the a** dips down to the high 40s, but usually runs at around 120FPS. and this is running on a 3770k, which is roughly 1.5-2x faster than a 5800k. get over yourself. again, i'm not defending Intel or Nvidia. just stating facts. but, your system is awesome. that is a pretty highend gaming rig and is fully capable of running the most intensive games on the market maxed out.

i'm not so sure what you were trying to get at with the last bit you said... i think you were trying to imply that it will be cheaper for you to upgrade your AMD based build than my Intel based build. yes, it will be cheaper. when you upgrade i will cost much less than me because you will be using the same socket motherboard. but, i won't be upgrading to the next generation Intel CPUs, because my 3770k is twice as powerful and has twice as many threads as your 5800k, so there really is no need. and who knows, maybe my 3770k will still be even more powerful than what you upgraded to. if AMD progresses as slowly as they are right now, my 3770k will definitely still be much faster than what you upgrade too. i simply don't need to or want to upgrade to the next generation, where you might want to because of how far behind AMD is when it comes to clock performance. so when i do finally upgrade, it will be about 500$+.

so you want to upgrade to the next gen. that is lets say 130$ for the upgrade. you spent 130$.
my 3770k is still kicking a**, i skip the generation. i spent 0.

AMD will most likely have a new socket. that is about 275$ for a new mobo and CPU. and if they don't, lets add 150$ for the CPU. you have now spent a total of 405$ if AMD has a new socket and 280$ if they don't have a new one.
i still don't really need to upgrade because my cpu is still keeping up with games, but it's struggling a bit. i can hold out for another year.

by now, AMD has got to have changed their CPU socket. 300$ for CPU and mobo. that's a total of 580$ if they didn't change it last year, (which is the most likely) and 705$ if they changed it again.

i'm due for an upgrade. i spend 530$ for a new mobo and CPU, and we are back in the same position. i have a CPU around 1.5x-2x faster than yours, and i don't have to swap parts around every year. and best of all, i save money which can be put towards a better GPU, and my system is still overall better than yours.

so, yes. amd is cheaper to upgrade. but since you need to upgrade so damn much to keep up with highend gaming, you end up spending more.


i know, i went WAY too overkill, but seriously. the stupidity and ignorance in your reply just drove me crazy and i can't sit back and watch this nonsense happen. you had no reason to freak out on me. i was just having a normal everyday discussion with you about AMD vs Intel when it comes to gaming. i didn't even imply i owned a Intel CPU, so i don't know where you got me trying to brag about my CPU being faster than yours. (even though it is, but that is besides the point and doesn't matter AT ALL).

by the way, i still wait for that proof. unless you just pulled that out of your a** to defend AMD. :lol: 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 31, 2012 7:18:59 AM

marshal11 said:
really? hm. could you send me a link?

EDIT: wait, i just re-read that and thought about it. how could the 81xx outperform a 2600k in gaming? the only way that's possible is if the game fully support all 8 cores of the CPU and makes GOOD use of them. there isn't a game on this planet that supports 8 core/needs that much processing power. there is software that supports 8 cores, but definitely not games. if a program supports 8 cores but doesn't support hyperthreading, that is the only way an AMD 81xx CPU could beat an Intel i7. if it did support hyperthreading, then the 81xx would loose against the i7s, shown by many, many benchmarks. i would like to see where you get your info from...


http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1741/14/



man, 6+6 cores from the 990x really kicks the **** crap out of the 2600k's 4+4 ... not a game on the planet eh? looks like that one supports up to 12, maybe more.

you also might want to look into how many cores BF3 will use when you play online. And or the record ITS NOT a single player game.

nothing in the future will ever support 8 cores either. http://www.neoseeker.com/news/14688-cryengine-3-can-use...
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 31, 2012 7:24:14 AM

It was just for BF3, in a game like Skyrim on maxed settings its more around the 35-40FPS average mark, game dependant.

Of the processors he/she is enquiring about neither are intel so its pointless even considering it if the OP has stated that he/she wishes to skip. A decent i5 or i7 rig including Motherboard, RAM, Power supplies and GPU is going to strain $700 and will require some form of skimping to keep the costs down.

I only used the APU as an example that a low cost setup is very capable of delivering gaming performance and is still cheap enough to upgrade regularly and still cost less than a i7. The other issue I raised is yes the i7 is good enough to last for a few years, but in a few years its value will be gone and by the time Haswell versions arrive it will still be slower and less efficient than a new arch, so you essentially lock in. Buying Intel now is not a good idea unless you are happy to be locked into 1155 for some time.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 31, 2012 8:26:56 AM

noob2222 said:
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1741/14/

http://www.legitreviews.com/images/reviews/1741/re5.jpg

man, 6+6 cores from the 990x really kicks the **** crap out of the 2600k's 4+4 ... not a game on the planet eh? looks like that one supports up to 12, maybe more.

you also might want to look into how many cores BF3 will use when you play online. And or the record ITS NOT a single player game.

nothing in the future will ever support 8 cores either. http://www.neoseeker.com/news/14688-cryengine-3-can-use...


i just did some research on the resident evil 5 engine. it can only use quadcores. something is wrong with that benchmark. notice how only the 768P resolution had a noticeable change. that doesn't make any sense.

however, i know for a fact that BF3s engine can use up to 6 cores. but does it use 6 cores effectively? no. like i mentioned before, a pentium dual core G2120 performs better in games (including BF3 multiplayer) than a FX8120. 2 fast cores are more effectively used in todays games than 8 slower cores.

i never knew about cryengine 3 being able to use 8 cores. that is awesome. i already have crysis 3 pre-ordered :D  but again, will it use them effectively? no, because games simply do not need that much CPU power. the weight will just be balanced between the 8 cores. the game will probably run just fine on a fast dual core, depending on how CPU intensive cryengine3 will be. maybe crysis 3 will change things. i hope it does. it's about time software catches up with the hardware.

and i never said that things wouldn't change in the future. i didn't even mention it because i thought everyone already knew games will sometime support 8 cores. i just didn't know it would happen so soon. :p 
Score
0
a c 81 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 31, 2012 2:12:39 PM

marshal11 said:
really? hm. could you send me a link?

EDIT: wait, i just re-read that and thought about it. how could the 81xx outperform a 2600k in gaming? the only way that's possible is if the game fully support all 8 cores of the CPU and makes GOOD use of them. there isn't a game on this planet that supports 8 core/needs that much processing power. there is software that supports 8 cores, but definitely not games. if a program supports 8 cores but doesn't support hyperthreading, that is the only way an AMD 81xx CPU could beat an Intel i7. if it did support hyperthreading, then the 81xx would loose against the i7s, shown by many, many benchmarks. i would like to see where you get your info from...



Is there a particular reason why you're being such a smartass?

At any rate.. heres 3 games

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1285/pg10/amd-fx-...

---

You are also incorrect about no games using all 8 cores of a processor. Both Battlefield 3 and Medal of Honor do (both use the same game engine). How many threads do you see active? Get your little fangers out there and start countin.

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1038216217&postcoun...

---

Direct X 11 is where Bulldozer/PileDriver has a little bit of an edge against Sandy/Ivy Bridge.
Score
0
October 31, 2012 2:30:16 PM

At a $700 build your graphics card is most likely still going to be your bottleneck so your cpu doesn't really matter if your bottleneck is the GPU right?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 31, 2012 2:39:00 PM

Guys and Girls, I used the APU as a good example of minimising costs on Mobo and CPU(or APU) which has enough legs to carry a high end GPU. At the lower cost on CPU(APU), Mobo and RAM it allows a greater budget to the two components that actually make notable performance differences, namely the GPU and SSD.
Score
0
a c 81 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 31, 2012 2:52:36 PM

sheepsnowadays said:
At a $700 build your graphics card is most likely still going to be your bottleneck so your cpu doesn't really matter if your bottleneck is the GPU right?

Correct... Stronger CPUs cannot prop up a weaker video card and make it perform better, and vice versa. Thats why you don't want to go the other extreme and use something like a Celeron with a GTX 670. Its a question of balance, and yes, some of it is guesswork.
Score
0