• 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

keithfa26

keithfa26

keithfa26

Associate
Joined
5 Jul 2012
Posts
276
Location
London
So guys what's ur look on this cpu? E.I for gaming recording then editing in something like sony vegas? I've never really used amd since the f 64x2 days and since always been an intel fan but I'm thinking time to change? No fan boys pplease
 
if you have the option go intel all the way loads better and less bottlenecks.

bulldozer isn't that good at all.

piledriver might be better but ive/ sandy will probably still be better.
 
It depends if the applications you're using are that highly threaded, if Intel are out of the equation and you don't plan to overclock then you will be better off with the 1090T or FX8150 (both £150 on OCUK) if the application prefers fast cores over the number of them.

I would imagine game recording will be more bottlenecked by the hard drive.
 
Last edited:
I'd be oc it ofc haha and yes I have an ssd for that I just want more budget on a cpu but will be used for heavy rendering and gaming also want to take advantage of all the cores
 
When u say blow is that in the good way haha? But yes most games don't need more than an i3 but having quad core is always better also I know all 8 cores won't be used but for the future I've also seen some benchmarks showing better performance than the i2500k
 
The FX has a lower IPC than the Phenom IIs, meaning you may hit a CPU bottleneck more often when gaming.

However, for things such as video editing the FX will be better, but even then the i5 seems pretty close.

It's up to you really, if you do mostly gaming, then go for the i5. If you do mostly video editing, then go for the FX. Both CPUs will be fine with game recording.
 
keithfa26 said:
When u say blow is that in the good way haha? But yes most games don't need more than an i3 but having quad core is always better also I know all 8 cores won't be used but for the future I've also seen some benchmarks showing better performance than the i2500k
Click to expand...

Blows in a bad way.
It's very poor for gaming, one of the worst gaming CPU's in 5 years.
Not even exaggerated, Core 2's are like 5 years old.
 
keithfa26 said:
When u say blow is that in the good way haha? But yes most games don't need more than an i3 but having quad core is always better also I know all 8 cores won't be used but for the future I've also seen some benchmarks showing better performance than the i2500k
Click to expand...

I think Bulldozer gets a bad rep not because it's slow and sluggish but because people had huge expectations which in retrospect were perhaps unrealistic on top this AMD made the mistake of overpricing which just compounded the problem (at lunch a FX 8150 cost the same as a 2600K). The FX 81050 is kind of like the Star Wars Episode 1 of CPU's in that regard.

Looking back over the reviews a FX 8150 isn't that bad, in most scenarios it can keep up and even beat a 2500K. As for games yes it's rubbish (you can't spin it any other way) but in its defense your going to hit a GPU bottleneck before you ever hit the limits of the CPU in 9 out of 10 games. Add in overclocking it for me it's less of an issue when considering which CPU to buy.
 
Freddie1980 said:
but in its defense your going to hit a GPU bottleneck before you ever hit the limits of the CPU in 9 out of 10 games. Add in overclocking it for me it's less of an issue when considering which CPU to buy.
Click to expand...

No.
This is one of THE most commonly spouted pieces of misinformation going.
People who keep saying that have never really had a high end GPU set up with an Intel CPU.
I can hold a pretty much 99% GPU usage constantly in games, no AMD CPU could ever, ever, do that with a 7970, and a 7970's end performance isn't even that new seeing as a 6870 Crossfire at sub 200 quid can give the same end performance in none VRAM limited situations.

In most situations an FX8150 certainly does not match or best a 2500k either, day to day browsing etc, sure you wouldn't notice much difference, but why settle for less?
 
Last edited:
Freddie1980 said:
I think Bulldozer gets a bad rep not because it's slow and sluggish but because people had huge expectations which in retrospect were perhaps unrealistic
Click to expand...

Most people including myself just expected it to be a significant improvement on Phenom X6 I think that was a perfectly reasonable expectation, AMD could have just released an 8 core Phenom and I'm sure most people would be running one now (and Intel would have probably reduced the price of 3930K to compete).

They have dropped the ball with Bulldozer really, it's like P4 Willamette was for Intel.
 
Yes I under stand the bottleneck but I hear windows 7 is the reason the cpu isint getting the full use but I've heard windows 8 will support the bulldozer? Also what would be the best AMD cpu for gaming?
 
That problem was fixed with a patch to Windows 7, but it still performed worse than the Phenom IIs.

I would say the Phenom II X6 clocked at 4ghz is the best AMD gaming chip released at the moment, but the i5 from Intel is pretty much 2 whole generations ahead of that.
 
the update in windows 7 only updated to performance by 2% and was ment to be 20% now they say it wont happen till windows 8 also i love my 2500k but im thinking of building a amd gaming system too
 
keithfa26 said:
Yes I under stand the bottleneck but I hear windows 7 is the reason the cpu isint getting the full use but I've heard windows 8 will support the bulldozer? Also what would be the best AMD cpu for gaming?
Click to expand...

Windows 8 isn't a cure all for the Bulldozer performance.
It literally doesn't do much at all.


keithfa26 said:
the update in windows 7 only updated to performance by 2% and was ment to be 20% now they say it wont happen till windows 8 also i love my 2500k but im thinking of building a amd gaming system too
Click to expand...


Just like the magic BIOS, and programs not optimised, it's the same old excuses, the current FX series are not magically going to become 20% better over night at all, it's a fantasy, as consumers people shouldn't buy the FX series as it's their responsibility not to let AMD peddle rubbish onto consumers.

Funny you want no fanboys, yet seems AMD biased regardless.
 
Last edited:
Like i said i want to build an amd system also? And ive not once said amd is better than intel they both have there Advantages and disses But just wanting to know the best amd Cpu for gaming/Rendering
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom