• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD FX 8120, acceptable gaming performance?

Tuvoc said:
Well, look at all the glowing reviews of the Bulldozer quad gaming system
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=FS-210-OK&tool=3

I agree with the original poster. If you don't have really high end gaming needs, then Bulldozer will do the job for you. I'm not recommending that that is what you should buy, but if you do then chances are you'll be happy with it
Click to expand...

Up until recently that system included an AMD Athlon II X4 640 so most of the feedback is for that, it's OCUK's lowest end gaming system says it all...
 
title says it all really, the 8120 is 'acceptable' for games. I wouldn't want to spend £150 on a cpu that was only 'acceptable'. im not saying its a bad chip because I haven't used one, but more and more threads seem to use 'acceptable' or 'it does the job' which does seem a little worrying.
 
paradisiac said:
title says it all really, the 8120 is 'acceptable' for games. I wouldn't want to spend £150 on a cpu that was only 'acceptable'. im not saying its a bad chip because I haven't used one, but more and more threads seem to use 'acceptable' or 'it does the job' which does seem a little worrying.
Click to expand...

problem is acceptable is a load of rubbish, its perfectly fine its just so many think that these non-real world gaming benchmarks translate into the real world, where you won't notice the difference in a ton of games, at normal gaming settings between a 8120, a 2500K or even a Q6600 the vast majority of times.

just so happens the biggest deal in the world at the moment, single thread performance isn't Bulldozer strong point, in-fact quite the opposite. ;) also worth noting the the massive massive majority of the world doesn't clock their processors past stock speeds, so in judging how 'successful' Bulldozer is or isn't you absolutely cannot take that into account.
 
I was just wondering will a FX-41xx be able to give about the same fps in games as FX-81XX will? This in case the graphic card is the same, something like 6950 2GB or 7850. My wondering is because the games do use that many cores anyway.
 
cmndr_andi said:
Here is a performance review of the FX-4100 in games.

As you can see, you would be much better off getting an Intel i3 2100/2120 for similar money.
Click to expand...

unless they already have an AM3+ mobo.

I think this is most peoples opinions on the AMD chips, if you already have existing hardware and are just upgrading the CPU then it is an ok purchase, but if you are doing a complete build, then intel offer better value for money.

unless I have completely miss understood, which has been know
 
paradisiac said:
unless they already have an AM3+ mobo.
Click to expand...

I guess, but if they have an AM3+ motherboard and mainly want to play games then a better upgrade would be a Phenom II X4 or X6 CPU. As these tend to have higher single threaded performance than bulldozer (ie faster for games - as show in the above review link) and are pretty cheap to buy if you know where to look.
 
yasen78 said:
I was just wondering will a FX-41xx be able to give about the same fps in games as FX-81XX will? This in case the graphic card is the same, something like 6950 2GB or 7850. My wondering is because the games do use that many cores anyway.
Click to expand...

It depends how they bin the chips, if the FX-4 is only two modules (rather than 4 modules with one core per module disabled) then an FX-8 should perform slightly better because it won't be sharing as many resources.

I don't really know if there's any order to the binning or if it's just random per chip depending on which are the best cores to leave enabled?
 
Last edited:
mmj_uk said:
It depends how they bin the chips, if the FX-4 is only two modules (rather than 4 modules with one core per module disabled) then an FX-8 should perform slightly better because it won't be sharing as many resources.

I don't really know if there's any order to the binning or if it's just random per chip depending on which are the best cores to leave enabled?
Click to expand...

Pre the scheduling update they'd have been pretty much the same, but after the update, the FX8 should be a little better.
 
I am more into the idea of getting a cheap BD like 41xx and the upgrade to Piledriver. But maybe is better with intel 2100 and then to a IvyBridge - same socket. I think Haswell will be different socket :(

FX 41xx so far are only with 2 modules. Have not heard of model or stepping with 4M/4C :(
 
I own an fx 8120 and it performs very well in more modern games that I played (skyrim,dead island etc...) it's also cheaper than the i5
 
I would love to have one of the new 4170 chips to have an overclock session with but so happy with my 1055T @ 4ghz its just not worth toying with. Im hoping AMD stick with 990FX for a while and they release an updated model as I don't want to sell my Sabertooth board any time soon.
 
The 6100 isnt bad either. I picked up my 6100 and a 970 MB for just under what a i5 alone is and frankly it has been great for me so far. I dont have any benches or anything but I can tell you coming from my Phenom 2 940 clocked at 3.8 this 6100 stock is smoother and I got higher and frames in TOR and a couple other games running it at stock.

Ill clock down the road here when I get more free time but so far it has been a good upgrade. the 4100/6100 at least here in the states make great budget builds but the 8 series are just to high and slow when you got the i5 there.

AMD has a pretty good track record with refining architecture so I am not to worried about upgrading down the road.
 
opethdisciple said:
When is Pile Driver rumour to be coming?

I don’t understand why AMD don’t just implement a Tick Tock CPU process of their own.
Click to expand...

They do tick/tock don't they? They just don't have the same capabilities as Intel.
Piledriver won't be till after Ivy, we're more likely to start hearing about Haswell soon also.

The FX processors aren't bad, but that's all they are, there's better processors though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom