FX-8150 Decent?

Of course there are tons of threads out there about the new Bulldozer FX series, however, no matter how many i have read, none of them seem to really answer my question. (been lurking here for a while before I made an account) I am building a gaming desktop, I understand that however AMD is a cheaper way to go than Intel, its a bit like you are really getting what you pay for. Currently looking at FX-8150 Zambezi 3.6GHz 8-core, and i am at the understanding that it is only 4 physical cores. There are lots of mixed things i have been reading as far as gaming. All of them point to intel is the way to go. HOWEVER! I also understand that AMD is slightly better for video editing, photoshop ect. Lets cut to the chase here, I do a bit of video editing for my game recordings, also make a little bit of house music on ableton live. My current rig has an i5 2.53Ghz with 4g of ram. It takes FOREVER to render my goods. I am looking to build on a budget. I have picked out my parts, but im still a little hesitant on the processor.

This is what i am looking at.

As well as for graphics

I need something that can handle games well, and render things quickly. I have also read that the differences in AMD vs Intel is not all that big in reality and that it is all benchmark numbers. That really the only difference is just a few FPS. I would like for someone to shine some light on this and really give me a solid answer. Is the FX fine, or should i splurge a little more munies and buy an Intel?
11 answers Last reply Best Answer
More about 8150 decent
  1. are you able to OC your i5? you could just fit a better cooler and oc saves money and should be much faster
  2. Its in a laptop, its OC but not by much. I need a desktop, mainly cause i can upgrade here and there as games become more graphics intensive.
  3. Best answer
    If you are keen to go down the AMD route, then you are probably better off with the latest generation of FX processors. For the same price you can have a Vishera FX8320
    The clock speed is a little slower but the architecture is a good step forward and if you are comfortable with overclocking it should be just as fast as the 8350 as they are essentially the same chip.

    There's nothing wrong with the graphics card as such, but for a new gaming machine it's a little on the weak side. If your goal is to run modern games at high levels of detail at 1080P (most common resolution these days) then you probably want to be looking at something a little stronger. Depending on your budget, and preference of manufacturer, likely candidates would be the HD7850, HD7870 and GTX660.
  4. well, i can only recommend intel, waiting for haswell would be smart but it's a long wait and i'm sure you don't want that, the i5 should be great for you. i can't recommend amd chips. could i get the amd chip you're looking at and i'll try find out how it performs in editing.
  5. ifail so bad :s

    you know, if you enjoy editing that much an i7 would be a good investment :) but a bit pricey too
  6. I agree with Rammy. It would be a much better choice to get the 8320 over the 8150.
  7. Best answer selected by Dezus.
  8. Sweet! I like the AMD for the budget, and the beauty of a desktop is that you can always change parts! especially if i dont like the AMD. The price is right, and ill probably go with the 8320, going to do some more research though. Thanks for the help!

    One more thing, in real world application how much different, is the 8320 from an i5.
  9. Happy to help. Direct comparisons between CPUs are complicated as they are dependant on both the architecture of the chips, the supporting hardware, and any software. What this means is that it is very easy to bias data in whatever direction you prefer and drawing succinct conclusions is near impossible. Pretty much all CPU based threads here become pointless arguments which helps nobody.

    People tend to view AMD as the "value" brand and Intel as the "performance" brand, but in reality these tags can be swapped around depending on the circumstances. In things like games (and actually, a significant quantity of software), cpus can only utilise a limited number of cores. This can range significantly, but it's only very recently where games have begun to take advantage of quad core CPUs. What this means is that for a gaming PC, a quad core will perform similarly to an eight core equivalent. The 8-core FX processors can't use their potential advantage, so suffer from a lower IPC (Instructions per cycle) than Intels current generation of processors. This tends to mean is that in benchmarks, most Intel processors score higher than even the top end of AMD. What people tend to forget is that benchmarks do not equal real experience. Once you start running various background tasks and processes, running multiple pieces of software, this extra potential can start to be unlocked. Another thing people seem to forget is that while a processor is important, for gaming the key component is usually going to be the graphics card.

    So, basically if you are building a PC explicitly as a gaming machine, Intel is likely to be the way to go. In your case, you are wanting a machine for a variety of tasks including video editing. In this case, you are trading a small dent in gaming performance for a better multitasker, which seems like a fair price to pay. Its likely in a lot of games you wouldn't even be able to notice the difference between the two. Additionally, the FX range is overclockable when very few Intel processors are (only the quite expensive K-series) the only real downside is a higher power consumption, though it's not terrible unless you start overclocking to insane levels.
  10. AMD is cheap and AM3+ platform has a lot of life left tons of Sata and native USB 3.0!, however I would recommend grabbing the Piledriver chip 8350.
  11. whys that? I plan on overclocking btw. everything is the same but the operating frequency.
Ask a new question

Read More