 |
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||
Today AMD is launching for the first time its new FX processor series based on the Bulldozer microarchitecture. Designed from the ground up, these new processors are geared towards mainstream users. The range will include processors with up to eight cores, while six and four core models will also be available...
Bulldozer is a codename that has been tossed around for years now and finally we get to find out what’s behind the name. The Bulldozer-based desktop processors are based on the "Zambezi" 32nm architecture and will feature up to 8-cores. This means it features the world’s first 8-core desktop solution which has been designed from the ground up.
AMD is kick starting the new FX line-up with seven new processors, which include 8-core, 6-core and 4-core models. The flagship processor is the FX-8150 which features a base clock of 3.6GHz with a Turbo Core clock of 3.9GHz and a Max Turbo clock of 4.2GHz. The FX-8150 has a TDP headroom of 125 watts and of course it features 8-cores. However it also features an 8MB L2 cache along with an 8MB L3 cache, which is standard across all 8-core processors. Accompanying the FX-8150 is the FX-8120 and FX-8100 processors, the FX-8120 features a base clock of 3.1GHz while the FX-8100 works at 2.8GHz. AMD has set the MSRP of the FX-8150 at just $245, which is only slightly more than the asking price of the Core i5-2500K, while it is considerably less than the Core i7-2600K. The FX-8120 is cheaper again at just $205, which is amazing given this 8-core processor is cheaper than the Core i5-2500K.
Along with the three 8-core processors is a single 6-core known as the FX-6100, which comes clocked at 3.3GHz with a Turbo Core frequency of 3.6GHz and a Max Turbo clock of 3.9GHz. While the L3 cache remains the same at 8MB, the L2 cache has been reduced to 6MB as 1MB is allocated per core. The FX-6100 features an MSRP of just $175, which seems like an incredible deal given the Phenom II X6 1100T currently costs $190 and the Core i5-2600K even more at $220. Finally there are three 4-core models, which include the FX-4170, FX-B4150 and FX-4100. These quad-core parts feature a 4MB L2 cache along with the full 8MB L3 cache. The FX-4170 is the highest clocked Bulldozer processor with a standard operating frequency of 4.2GHz, that said the Turbo Core feature is disabled and the Max Turbo frequency is just 100MHz above the base clock. Bulldozer is designed to provide the perfect balance between performance, cost and power consumption for multi-threaded applications. It focuses on high-frequency and resource sharing to achieve optimal throughput for next generation applications. As mentioned previously, the AMD FX processors offer up to eight power-efficient cores. These represent the first generation of a new execution-core family from AMD (Family 15h). The Bulldozer concept is based on a 2-core design which shares latency-tolerant functionality, smoothes bursty/inefficient usage, and provides dynamic resource allocation between threads. Each core has its own 16KB L1 cache along with a 1MB L2 cache, while the L3 cache is shared. The other units are now effectively shared between two cores and include: Fetch, Decode, Floating point pipelines, and the L2 cache. So how does the new Bulldozer architecture perform and can it stand up to Intel’s latest Sandy Bridge processors? When testing we will be focusing on how the FX-8150 flagship processor compares to the Core i5-2500K and Core i7-2600K processors. Finally, we will be evaluating how the new FX processors compare not only in terms of performance, but more importantly value. |
|||||
|
|
ProX |
Posted on: 10/12/2011 03:25 AM
wow that's really disappointing. Can't see many Phenom II owners making the move to FX right now. I for one will stick with my Core i5-2500K  |
|
drbaltazar |
Posted on: 10/12/2011 09:50 AM
i am sorry to say:seeing the number here,amd should have just shrunk the 980 and 1100 and create a 8 core based on those.no sense rewriting history when you got number like the phenom serie,,as for the 8150 and all most program you used are probably niot optimised for it! and sad to say in computing program rarelly do ubless it is big jump.now we know why amd made them so inexpensive.so when is amd shrinking the 980 & 1100 to 32 nm? |
|
hanks |
Posted on: 10/12/2011 10:57 AM
What a joke, slower than previous generation in half the tests. What was AMD thinking? Anyway nice review, very well done and certainly one of the best I have read today. I do agree with your closing thoughts, FX might get better, but for now it sucks. |
|
Big V |
Posted on: 10/12/2011 01:13 PM
Any thoughts on virtualization? Specifically running vmware or virtual box and proving the virtual machine 4 cores. |
|
tiger |
Posted on: 10/12/2011 05:34 PM
I must say it's very disappointing. AMD is throwing cpus on the market that no games or applications are optimized to handle and the result looks like a disaster. To bring a new generation of cpus on the market which are slower and more power hungry than the old ones is simply stupid. |
|
PanzerGrenadier |
Posted on: 10/12/2011 06:08 PM
AMD fails this time round, fails miserably. It's a joke that they launch something slower than the predecessors!!!! Anyway, thanks Steve. Best review yet, better than other sites. Intel must be having a good laugh now! |
|
Stroov |
Posted on: 10/12/2011 09:13 PM
Certainly a disappointing release from AMD. Thank you for the honest review. |
|
LukaZ |
Posted on: 10/12/2011 09:44 PM
I really wanted to believe in Bulldozer, but that performance for THAT much power usage? well I can say I was patient but in the end its another 2500k sale over here. btw thanks for the review, best FX one yet imo. |
|
Steven Walton Posts: 104 Joined: 2010-02-08 |
Posted on: 10/12/2011 10:12 PM
Thank you for all the great feedback guys. Unfortunately this has been a disappointing launch and AMD knows it, it will be interesting to see where they take it from here. |
|
SaveA$ |
Posted on: 10/13/2011 01:45 PM
You people are weird and propably very rich. Definitely you have no ability to comprehend the meaning of what you read. A 245$ product is compared to a 307$ product (thus 25.3% more expensive), and comes short in terms of performance by a percentage between 3-20% (you can all do the math maybe)but more importantly the cheaper product comes on top of the more expensive by 6.5-17.2% when comparing performance on serious software where a good processor is really needed (Maya-Solidworks). If you add the AMDs platform overall benefits (ease of use, severall graphics configurations, overclockability, lower price) then i think they did a pretty good job and definitely there is a good basis for improvement. |
|
Steven Walton Posts: 104 Joined: 2010-02-08 |
Posted on: 10/13/2011 10:30 PM
@ SaveA$ - I am quite certain you will find the Core i7-2600K is $300+ and not the Core i5-2500K. The Core i5-2500K is what we compared the FX-8150 with, its cheaper, faster and uses less power. So you see its not about being "rich" and you are not saving a buck! |
|
SaveA$ |
Posted on: 10/14/2011 05:29 AM
Thanks for the reply Steve. The price i use as base for comparison is the official intel-announced (its in their site) just because it is possible for everyone to search and find several prices on the market. I for once, live in Europe and not the U.S. and the actual price tag for 2600k ranges between 278 Euros (381$ !!!!) and 300 Euros (412$ !!!!!!!) according to availability, while the AMDs FX-8150 just came out at 252Euro (345$) for no availability but special advanced purchase (meaning that this is the highest it will get, and in a weeks time the price will lower). What you actually did was to run tests on several processors which is good (and that is why i read your reviews, but inevitably when you line up several ranging ammounts of anything, the comparison happens between the higher (2600k)and the chosen ammount (for me and i think many others fx8150, if the case would be to compare fx6100, then everyone should be very happy with amd since the cpu clearly rocks). The 2500k is cheaper but is definitely not better so i don't believe the comparison stands since in that case many things works the same but with 2500k in the place of fx8150! And that, i consider is an interesting remark for all of us that spend time and money for pcs. Both companies seem to price tag their products in some kind of symmetry to each other. Anyway as far as for performance, fx8150 is better than the competition in heavy software and 2000k series are certainly better for gaming. But as i said i don't understand why AMD failed, in which way and on what operational basis. |
|
Steven Walton Posts: 104 Joined: 2010-02-08 |
Posted on: 10/14/2011 07:20 AM
What I can tell you for certain is that the FX-8150 is competition for the Core i5-2500K and not the Core i7-2600K. More over the Core i7-2600K wipes the floor with the FX-8150, that’s just a fact. The FX-8150 should be compared to the 2500K and as I just said it is more expensive, slower and uses more power than the 2500K. There are very few instances right now where the FX-8150 outperforms the 2500K and when it comes to gaming almost every game out there will run better with the 2500K. Perhaps one of the biggest ways AMD failed was in their effort to design an entirely new architecture that in the end is more often than not clock-for-clock as fast as their previous architecture. That in itself is more of a concern than how it compares to the Core i5-2500K. |
|
SaveA$ |
Posted on: 10/14/2011 01:00 PM
I disagree with your view. What is clearly evident is that a totally new and cheaper architecture is on par ( i consider 3-20% performance difference and >25% price difference to verify that) with a more expensive, as far as performance is concerned. I myself and propably many others , am not an avid gamer but an occasional one and small framerate differences (2600k/68.7fps-FX8150/64.4fps, 2600k/36.9fps-FX8150/33.6fps, 2600k/92.4fps-FX8150/92.3fps) mean nothing, nor they are of deciding value for a product, hence a generalisation regarding a cpus gaming ability does not seem of importance. So if the comparison is about better gaming performance then yes intels cpus are generally better but still not cheaper. By the results of your test is clearly evident that 2600k is left behind fx8150 by a cosiderable performance percentage, which combined with the higher price tag leaves intels processor even in a worse position, in some occasions of course and not in all. What should be critical then for deciding whether one or the other is better, is the actual use that one needs each processor for. And that is my point from the first comment and still is my point. It is undeniable (supported by your results) that FX processors just rule on professional software which is more demanding in processing power and accuracy, and far far more expensive than 50$ games. The only actuall fact that is against amds new series is the processors power consumption when opperating on full load, which is actually an issue in my opinion since it raises considerably any systems power needs. I am not convinced thought that this should render FX series as failures since up to now intels cpus were much less power productive than amds and no one cared. |
|
Steven Walton Posts: 104 Joined: 2010-02-08 |
Posted on: 10/14/2011 08:21 PM
I’m sorry but you seem delusional, there is not a single real-world test where the FX-8150 is faster than the 2600K. Meanwhile it is also slower than the 2500K in almost every real-world test, often much slower. I agree that gaming is not a serious issue but the fact remains for gaming the 2500K is faster, cheaper and uses less fuel in the process. Posted by SaveA$ on 10/14/2011 02:00 PM
I am sorry but what review were you reading? There is not a single FX-8150 review on the Internet that shows that. |
|
Makaveli |
Posted on: 10/14/2011 09:41 PM
Lol the reason he seems delusion is because he is an AMD Fanboy who is cheap trying to defend his loyalty plain and simple. Who in their right mind would say the fx8150 is faster than the 2600k? do yourself a favor Save as just stop responding you're just making yourself look dumb and totally bias. |
|
ProX |
Posted on: 10/15/2011 01:44 AM
@ SaveA$ - What are you smoking? As Steve said the FX-8150 has a tough time competing with the cheaper 2500K. The 2600K is far superior so its a stupid comparison. The FX range might become more appealing in time but right now it makes no sense to buy into the platform. |
|
Steven Walton Posts: 104 Joined: 2010-02-08 |
Posted on: 10/15/2011 01:48 AM
Posted by Makaveli on 10/14/2011 10:41 PM
While I agree with what you are saying about the FX / Core i7 comparison I have to say I was not going for dumb or totally bias. I was simply trying to back up my conclusion which happens to align with the other 20 – 30 made on launch day. I any case I have made my point regarding the comparison and I had no plans to peruse it further. |
|
Henryl |
Posted on: 10/15/2011 07:13 AM
By reading the reviews, I agree it's kinda disappointed or maybe we should blame the software developers. I found these products useful at least for video encoding/transcoding atm. Can't wait to see how they perform while running 2xGPUs in crossfire/SLI mode. |
|
SaveA$ |
Posted on: 10/18/2011 10:00 AM
While i already stated several times that 2600k is generally faster, and tried to make a point about a new product that is not FACTUALLY as much as failure as many people believe, You seem to be in some kind of panic and instead of making a conversation where you prove your sayings by facts (which I did, using your test results), you say unsuported statements while being insulting towards me. Well since i do not understand what your problem is, i come to the conclusion that you are simply rude and possibly suffer some mental handicap, which is fine, i wish you allways be like that!!! Well if i am delusional you must be as well. More importantly you must be absent of your own test. As i already mentioned several times i am refering to Maya and Solidworks, serious software!!! Your test your results!!! So unless you are also illiterate, which seems the case, then: “By the results of your test is clearly evident that 2600k is left behind FX-8150 by a cosiderable performance percentage, which combined with the higher price tag leaves intels processor even in a worse position, in some occasions of course and not in all.” IS A FACT not gibberish talking like yours!!!!!!! With regard to my previous comment, YOU state the following: """"The Maya benchmark delivered similar performance trends. Again the AMD FX-4170 delivered the best performance, while the FX-8150 was not far behind. When compared to the Phenom II X6 1100T the FX-8150 was 55% faster, while it was just 7% faster than the Core i7-2600K""" and then with regard to your other statement: """"I’m sorry but you seem delusional, there is not a single real-world test where the FX-8150 is faster than the 2600K"""" Well the answer is THOSE tests, YOURS!!!!!!!!!It is obvious that unfortunatelly i am reading your test and you are reading others! Good for you, you might learn a thing or two. Start reading again and when you manage to understand what you read, you might figure that 2500k is not faster in anything but in memory read/write index [you hopefully will learn in the future that the amount of data being transfered at a given time period (speed is generaly called) is not an indicator of absolute performance, which is actually measured by the amount of data that are actually being processed (computation is generally called) at that given time period], and a few good-for-nothing benchmarks that usually fill tests with unimportant statements. Plus when FX-8150 is faster, then it is REALLY faster and definitely BETTER no matter what your ignorance might state. About real world tests. Since YOUR test seems inaccurate, by your conflicting saying , you seem to be unable to make serious statements about anything. If you are so much energy sensitive as you seem to be then i suggest you carve a wood abacus out of a used wood plank, turn off and stop using your computer!!!! |
|
ProX |
Posted on: 10/18/2011 11:30 AM
Do you know what the title "Synthetic Performance" means? Those are SPEC tests, not real world tests. You are still delusional LOL |
|
Vapor |
Posted on: 10/19/2011 02:17 AM
The real reason that Bulldozer did not stack up in the benchmarks is the compiler used for for each of the benchmarks. All of these closed-source benchmarks are compiled on the standard Intel compiler with the Intel libraries. It is not optimized to support any instructions beyond SSE3 for any processor other than Intel chips. SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, and FMA4 significantly increase the floating point performance of AMD processors, but are not used by code compiled on an Intel compiler. Intel was sued for this and settled rather than fix it. If you look at the integer performance of the benchmarks, AMD almost always out-performs the intel chips and shows a 15-30% increase in performance over the Phenom II x6 processors. If the compiler used was completely optimized for both Intel and AMD, floating point performance would also show similar gains. Lastly, under full load where all of the threads are being used, the Intel chip is not physically capable of beating the AMD chip. 4 cores that complete one instruction each per cycle cannot physically beat 8 cores completing 1 instruction each per cycle, when threads are continually running. Lets compare My favorite to Intels best as it is easier to see the elephant in the room. AMD fx-4170 4.2ghz 1866mhz RAM 12mb Cache total. 1mb L2 per core Intel 2600K 3.6ghz 1333mhz RAM 9mb Cache total. 1mb L2 for all cores Intel Fanboys will say it supports 1600RAM but it will run at 1333 unless you overclock it and AMD can overclock RAM to 2500 easy so lets compare fairly. Also intels Hyperthread causes stuttering. It requires ineffiency in order to gain a boost, by having gaps in code it threads other processes in those gaps. Being ineffective makes hyperhthread run well, but since it only has 1mb L2 cache having to store any extra data to hyper-thread creates stuttering I would also like everyone to understand many of these benchmarks online are biased. Some were re-re-posted before final silicone was ever in existence. Some have obvious falsehoods like showing hyperthread on a 2500's CPU-Z readout. They usually fix them when you comment on this too |
|
leexgx Posts: 9 Joined: 2010-03-29 Location: UK |
Posted on: 10/31/2011 05:29 AM
@vapor really love that post trying to defend an CPU that is not meant to beat the 2600k (Stock clocked that is as well, as an small overclocked i7 second gen can beat it or the 2700k for example my i7 920 mite even be able to match it at 3.8ghz) not comparing it to an i7 SB, clock for clock the BD cpu is 5-20% slower in most cases then an Phenom II CPU (forget about the amount of 4/8 cores it has) only in rare cases is it faster then an 2500-2600k and that's under very special loads http://www.anandtech.com/print/4955 DDR3 bandwidth at best affect total system performance by less then 1%, an small overclock in CPU offers better performance increase the L2 and L3 cache is what is most likely making BD lose out its 2x as slow as intel L2 and L3 (the L2 Size is not every thing), other note BD its 2mb per module (cache does not stack) with 8mb L3 and intel its 256KB L2 per core with 8mb of L3 bulldozer just makes me think of intel P4 with HT, hot and bit under performing slower then last gen cpus (at least it was not 50% slower like P4 was), unless its doing certain loads (like 7zip or par2 and some other media stuff) sure that's not the ATI cards you got in CF that's making the stuttering happen? never had an issue with that on my i7-920 and other intel based systems, the issue tends to be sometimes in rare cases SLI setups and not so rare with ATI CF cards have an look at this http://www.anandtech.com/print/4955 or http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested (same thing just you need to press next page) as they tend to offer best overview of this stuff http://www.anandtech.com/print/4955 |
|
Mike T. |
Posted on: 11/01/2011 06:01 PM
Test were performed using AMD's new instruction code smoked intel where intel couldn't even run it |
|
dodger |
Posted on: 11/01/2011 11:04 PM
I LOL at you Mike T, very loudly! |
|
MENA |
Posted on: 11/27/2011 02:55 PM
like vapor says, the compiler impact the performance results. i was assembler programmer for one of these software. |
|
ProX |
Posted on: 11/27/2011 10:12 PM
But its a stupid point. So all the software that you want to use it optimized for Intel processors. That alone would make it hard to invest in an AMD processor. Your point seems to be that the fight is over before it even starts. |
|
Alpha |
Posted on: 12/03/2011 07:01 AM
Heh, interesting thing happened on thanksgiving. While building a price-efficient unit for a friend during the week of thanksgiving, I purchased a bulldozer fx-6100 from frys (I know, I should've got the 1100t for $169 (or intel), but read the rest first). I originally intended to buy a 955BE AMD at the value of $119, but this cpu(fx-6100) caught my eye at a value of $99 so I decided to "try it". Currently it's not too bad, and although people talk about how bad this product(FX) or amd's chain has fallen, I personally think it was "good" for its sales-value/performance of $99/3.3ghz-6core. It certainly outclocked my 5 years old 2.2ghz 9550 phenom 1; with the fx-6100 being 3.7ghz overclocked on air with oc-genie(stock settings, yeah..yeah..bios ftw, not software, but it was pretty easy for this newbie). Anyway, I say: if the bulldozer's fx-6100 offically become stocked at the price of $99 dollars, it would be an awesome sale. Don't you agree? It may not win in performance but it feels good spending less than $200 on a decent rig(3ghz-6cores). My BlackFriday PriceStalking: $99 -> fx-6100; $119 -> phenom 955BE; $139 -> Sandy Bridge 2130k; $169 -> phenom 1090t; $189 -> phenom 1100t; $239 -> Sandy Bridge 2500k; $339 -> Sandy Bridge 2600k; So in my situation, the affordable price was: $99 fx-6100 or $119 955BE. I the fx-6100 was both cheaper, higher clock performance, and more cores... I think this might be going somewhere... Affordable Prices == More Favorable by the PEOPLE (thats what I believe AMD has always been good at). But, hopefully they up next generations performance(another 5years..) Other than that, if the price drops enough, this product might become famous with the price-watching amd-fans who want to try out 6-cores and 8-cores. And hopefully you can pick one up for under $100 dollars. *Though they arent true 6-8 cores, apparently they are accepted by the mass as 6-8 cores* |
|
OldTechy |
Posted on: 12/06/2011 06:40 AM
thanks Alpha I also took advantage of FRYS 'BF' specials ... i.e. the $99 special on AMD FX1600. but, Alpha forgot to mention the added bonus from FRYS for buying an AMD processor ... ... 20% OFF ANY Mother Board... too cool. I bought the GB 880ga-ud3h ($95 less 20%) to match-up to the FX-1600 I can honestly say, ... super price for the mobo/CPU bundle ... but, ... I DO NOT reccomend either item to anyone . AMD FX-1600 is a dog ... G.B. : 880-ga-ud3h 1) needs BIOS update ( w/AM3 CPU) to work with the (AM3+) processors ( false advertising ) 2) primitive BIOS relative to ASUS 3) poor FAN speed control options. O.T. |
|
elingeniero |
Posted on: 12/27/2011 05:52 PM
First of all compare apples it apples. By your logic pentium 4 has higher clock speeds 3.4 ghz lower power consumption and that 3 gens ago not one. All you guys are not rich but intel fan boys. The fx 8150 is real octacore the 2500 k is quad core. You should compare the 4100 with the 2500k . the 4100 is $70 cheaper it has a faster base clock speed 3.6 faster turbo 4 x as much L2 cache 30% more L3 cache and supports faster RAM and the same power consumption compareed to the 2500k I would say that is a good deal. Now its true most software can't use 8 cores. You basicly give up performance for more cores but if you software uses it then it is far better than the 2500k |
|
IT GUY |
Posted on: 01/01/2012 11:25 PM
Let me just inform you all that the fx 8150 a comlex 4core. It has four (bulldozer) modules with each containing one floating point core and two integer cores, technically speaking amd is correct but they have built the processor so each core only has shared resourcesbut this is all just a pathertic way of making them seem as though the are residing at the top with 8 cores. |
|
toctoc |
Posted on: 02/11/2012 02:52 PM
The test dates from 2011 while FX 4170 is taken out in 2012 wholesale trades fake of the site. Fake test FX 4170. |
|
ProX |
Posted on: 02/11/2012 08:58 PM
@ toctoc - LOL idiot, that is all  |
|
abc |
Posted on: 02/20/2012 03:30 AM
my conclusion.. Intel = expensive, generate more heat when play game..sucks!! AMD = cheaper, less heat than Intel when play game and better overclocking..marvelous!!hahaha.. |
|
quilciri |
Posted on: 03/16/2012 06:23 AM
It looks like a stock 4170 performs slightly worse than an i3-2100, as far as gaming. However, being multiplier unlocked, it *might* be able pull up alongside a stock speed 2500k if the 4170 is heavily overclocked. That would justify the $140 price over the $125 i3. ...though of course processor price isn't the whole story between intel and AMD. An LGA 1155 motherboard on average runs $30-40 more than an AM3+ with the same features; possibly because you're forced to buy intel's intergrated solution |
|
BHayles |
Posted on: 05/20/2012 05:26 PM
When folks talk performance of the AMD FX series, the assumption ALWAYS seems to be that the whole world of cpu quality revolves around gaming. You know, there ARE people out here who actually use their computer to WORK...and if you are looking for video editing/encoding/rendering, it is cores that rule, the more the better. Run all the tests you want, but IN REAL LIFE the Bulldozer series, or at least the Asus Sabretooth FX990 combined with the AMD FX6100 is a tremendous platform for video production. Also (and I may be remembering this from another forum) folks seem to have an issue with the additional heat generated by the AMD 3+ chips. I've seen complaints it gets WAY up there...55-60 degrees. Chill out...unlike the PhenomII, etc chips, TjMax on the Bulldozers is not 60 degrees...it is 90. |
|
SandyB |
Posted on: 05/23/2012 03:02 AM
@ BHayles - Umm did you look at the page titled "Encoding Performance"? The Core i5 (Sandy Bridge) smoked the Bulldozer processors. In fact gaming is probably where the FX series looks best as the games are primarily GPU limited, not CPU. |
|
Alpha |
Posted on: 10/16/2012 12:36 AM
Contestants: 10-2012 New Egg prices: AMD: (highest/most expensive end of their series) FX-4170 is $119.99 FX-6200 is $139.99 FX-8150 is $189.99 Intel: (lowest/least expensive end of their brand(this gen)) i5-2310 SB is $179.99 i5-3470 IB is $189.99 (i7s are out of range, stop comparing them...) i7-3820 SB is $299.99 i7-3770 IB is $299.99 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gaming knowledge: Any casual gamer would know that 60 fps is nearly perfect and that: the human eyes may not even perceive anything greater than 60 fps, let alone 100 fps; UNLESS your special your not going to need anything more than 60 fps. Ivy, Sandy, and FX: can all achieve 60 fps with good GPUs and the numbers will certainly be higher with extreme GPUs. -With $300+ GPUs both will play the newest games fine; possibly over 60+ fps. How much of a gap difference, I do not know, but certainly both will be playable at the highest settings with good GPUs. So, obviously it doesn't fail at games... BUT "a few" people do tend to want the best in games... but the CPU is the wrong place to be looking if your already at 4Ghz.. Other things you should consider instead, if you have the money and want to boost your gaming fps or boast to your friends: --- 1) GeForce GTX 690 (1k USD each; heck throw in another one) --- Multiple / higher PPI displays (800+ USD screens at the resolution of 2560×1440 or maybe even those "5-digit-value" screens at resolutions 2048×2560) Your CPU bottle necking at (4Ghz OC) is going to be the least of your concern in modern day games. It may not flow the best but your experience and fun will be a lot better if you focus more on the items that actually enhances the game. If you get BSOD from alt tabbing in a single game with nothing else running, then you might want to debug/reconsider. ----------------------------------------------------------------- General Usage Stats: http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/compare,3143.html?prod%5B5784%5D=on&prod%5B5757%5D=on&prod%5B5764%5D=on All three performs equally with mild in-differences; noticeably 8150 zipping faster with 7-zip... and 3470 encoding faster with ITunes... 2310 Does great for fewer bucks. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Game Performance can be bias: (Some things will always be bias, especially in gaming industry..) Example: based on the release of the 7870 gpu: Crysis 2 Benchmark (early 2012) http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7870-review-benchmark,3148-9.html Mafia 2 Benchmark (early 2012) http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7870-review-benchmark,3148-10.html The charts look "somewhat" inverted and biased; blame either the person doing the benchmark or the software industry, its not solely your processor. AMD, HD Radeon, Nvidia, Intel: Not everything compatible, and possibly hate among themselves. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chips Overall: (Munch Munch) But either way, all three chips are high end and should be able to perform anything the other do. http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html These chips can do more than most people would want or possibly imagine. ----------------------------------------------------------------- EXTRA: A lot of concepts are exaggerated. Many of the FXs reviews were based on its and may is not accurate or appreciated as much as it is now; especially when the item depreciates in value ^^. FX example: (BAD => Boycott => Price drop => Buy => GOOD) (FX $200+ => stay with phenom series => Price drop => Buy and experiment => GOOD) Their original price was a tad-bit high for their performance. Actually it was ridiculous because phenom was just the gen before and did just as good and as some would say "even better"; price per performance that is ^^. |
|
wx |
Posted on: 07/11/2012 02:19 AM
Can't really understand what's disappointing with these results, the fx-4170 retails for 130€ here in portugal, the i7 2600 retails for 275€, similar performance for less than half of the price, this isn't at all disappointing. I have an intel rig now, at the time it was a good cpu for the money, if i were to upgrade now i would buy amd fx-4170. A good gaming processor for 130€ and people call it disappointing, have people gone mental? |
|
cklong46 |
Posted on: 09/06/2012 04:52 AM
this is ridiculous....fighting over the processor..the processor isnt everything in gaming..but GPU is the most important thing..instead of spending towards the processor, u should think twice.. |
|
KGB |
Posted on: 09/09/2012 12:36 AM
I'm a little confused about all this feces throwing. I mean, if you're talking gaming performance. I mean, serious gaming performance. You'll more than likely be running at 1920x1080... To which all of these processors seem to be within a few frames of each other AMD wins some Intel wins some. Clearly anyone looking at gaming should buy which ever of these processors are the cheapest, then focus on quality mobo/ram/gpu. But hey, you guys don't like bananas, you prefer banana flavoured tofu! And your intelligence comes from your electronium hat which harnesses the power of sun spots to produce cognitive radiation. Sean Penn, I am Sam. Went full retard, went home empty handed. /epicfacepalm |
|
So Cold... |
Posted on: 09/11/2012 05:48 AM
Well The Amd 8150 is failing against the i7 and i5's but, you shouldn't forget to consider that games aren't really optimized for amd, and amd is doing fine for rendering and running various editing programs. They all seem to be quite close. |