Which AMD CPU is best for gaming?

Matthais · 20 Jan 2012 at 16:22

I have heard that current games and future games aren't working with AMD Bulldozers this time around, so to speak. So any CPU above 4 core and with new threading is pointless because the games only use 2-4 cores. So the other cores are useless and because you have lower GHZ your Bulldozer 6 and 8 cores are worse than the phenom II's 4 and 6 cores for gaming? Is this true? Which AMD is best for gaming i'm looking between £100-£160 but some tests show the 8120 doing really well while others show it doing horribly, is this just Intel bias/paid bribing?

I have a personal vendetta with Intel. I will not be led misinformed by their bribed benchmark website/program scores, it is getting ridiculous, you can tell all but a few of the benchmark test/reviewers have had money slipped in their front pockets by Intel. So please don't suggest the i5 2500, just AMD please gentlemen and ladies.

Martini1991 · 20 Jan 2012 at 16:29

Games are working with Bulldozer as of now (The ones which work, such as Deus Ex with a BIOS update)
Also, it's not really the frequency that's making them slow, it's the lack of IPC, if clocks were another few hundred MHZ higher, that'd rectify the stock performance, but it's still poor IPC.

You can get an 8120 in that price range.... Probably your best bet.. But do note, in gaming it will bottleneck before a measly 2120 would bottleneck for those games which don't use the 8 threads (Majority)

MOOGLEYS · 20 Jan 2012 at 16:34

I would go with a 960T excellent CPU for gaming and superb value for money. Shame you hate Intel so much as the 2500k really is a superb CPU.

Hagar · 20 Jan 2012 at 16:37

I currently have a 1055T hex core at 3.5Ghz, and like you if I was buying now would probably go 8120. As far as I am aware most if not all games run perfectly well on an AMD CPU, the limitations are generally with your GPU at normal resolutions and single card setups. The AMD may not be bleeding edge but it should perform acceptably.

rowedogg · 20 Jan 2012 at 16:45

the intel i5 2500k one.......

Matthais · 20 Jan 2012 at 16:54

it's really looking like i need to let my past issues from 2004 down. The AMD processors look terrible for gaming. I can see the 8 core bulldozer working like a 60pound processor on most games because only 2-4 cores will be used and the cores are not very powerful/genuine. I don't know what is going on with the bulldozer we need answers, i can see it being left out of software designers and updates and being left to die at the side of the road.

Lordgrayone · 20 Jan 2012 at 17:13

Im using a fx8120 @ 4.5ghz and it is faster than my 1090t was @4GHz
I do think I did not really need to upgrade it as the difference isn't that much

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 20 Jan 2012 at 17:15

Matthais said:
it's really looking like i need to let my past issues from 2004 down. The AMD processors look terrible for gaming. I can see the 8 core bulldozer working like a 60pound processor on most games because only 2-4 cores will be used and the cores are not very powerful/genuine. I don't know what is going on with the bulldozer we need answers, i can see it being left out of software designers and updates and being left to die at the side of the road.

I would check the reviews I linked to in this post:

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=21042479&postcount=31

Have a look at them.

Also,the FX8150 is around the same speed as a Core i7 920 with an HD7970:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970_CPU_Scaling/

A Phenom II X6 1090T should be around the same or slightly better IMHO.

The only game in which an FX8150 and Phenom II X6 1100T is faster than a Core i5 2500K is in Rage which uses the idTech 5 engine:

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTKzhzh50AxLQ3lpPwl-QfDwrlWx1VehY0iUEGV8hcWupWUU1wtrg

http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/RageVT.png

Generally speaking I would look at the 95W Phenom II 4 960T for under £100. The 95W Phenom II X6 1045T can be had for around £108 if you shop around.

It is based on the Phenom II X6 and has a decent chance of being unlocked to a six core CPU. Since it is based on a Phenom II X6,it actually runs relatively cool as a quad core and is generally a decent CPU for overclocking. It also has the improved memory controller of the Phenom II X6.

Zeed · 20 Jan 2012 at 17:18

Lordgrayone bet it eats allot more power than 1090T :/

Matthais · 20 Jan 2012 at 17:25

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
I would check the reviews I linked to in this post:

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=21042479&postcount=31

Have a look at them.

Also,the FX8150 is around the same speed as a Core i7 920 with an HD7970:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970_CPU_Scaling/

A Phenom II X6 1090T should be around the same or slightly better IMHO.

The only game in which an FX8150 and Phenom II X6 1100T is faster than a Core i5 2500K is in Rage which uses the idTech 5 engine:

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTKzhzh50AxLQ3lpPwl-QfDwrlWx1VehY0iUEGV8hcWupWUU1wtrg

http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/RageVT.png

Generally speaking I would look at the 95W Phenom II 4 960T for under £100. The 95W Phenom II X6 1045T can be had for around £108 if you shop around.

It is based on the Phenom II X6 and has a decent chance of being unlocked to a six core CPU. Since it is based on a Phenom II X6,it actually runs relatively cool as a quad core and is generally a decent CPU for overclocking. It also has the improved memory controller of the Phenom II X6.

Interesting thanks, viewed each link to its entirety. I think that When/If? Games start to use more cores the bulldozer 8 core will beat the i5 2500 by around 10%, so i think that it may be worth buying the bulldozer with my fingers crossed that it will nudge its way into games design in the future. OR play it safe and guaranteeing with the i5, it all comes down to which can run the cheapest motherboard with 2x PCI-E's and the new bios really

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 20 Jan 2012 at 17:35

Matthais said:
Interesting thanks, viewed each link to its entirety. I think that When/If? Games start to use more cores the bulldozer 8 core will beat the i5 2500 by around 10%, so i think that it may be worth buying the bulldozer with my fingers crossed that it will nudge its way into games design in the future. OR play it safe and guaranteeing with the i5, it all comes down to which can run the cheapest motherboard with 2x PCI-E's and the new bios really

A Core i5 is a safer choice of course. OTH,what do you have know?? I would definitely wait for Piledriver and by then Ivy Bridge will be out too.

Martini1991 · 20 Jan 2012 at 17:41

Matthais said:
Interesting thanks, viewed each link to its entirety. I think that When/If? Games start to use more cores the bulldozer 8 core will beat the i5 2500 by around 10%, so i think that it may be worth buying the bulldozer with my fingers crossed that it will nudge its way into games design in the future. OR play it safe and guaranteeing with the i5, it all comes down to which can run the cheapest motherboard with 2x PCI-E's and the new bios really

By the time games use more threads, both the 2500 and BD as we know it will be redundant.
Far better off going for the consistent performance today which is the 2500k.

PCZ · 20 Jan 2012 at 18:02

Matthais said:
I have heard that current games and future games aren't working with AMD Bulldozers this time around, so to speak. So any CPU above 4 core and with new threading is pointless because the games only use 2-4 cores. So the other cores are useless and because you have lower GHZ your Bulldozer 6 and 8 cores are worse than the phenom II's 4 and 6 cores for gaming? Is this true? Which AMD is best for gaming i'm looking between £100-£160 but some tests show the 8120 doing really well while others show it doing horribly, is this just Intel bias/paid bribing?

I have a personal vendetta with Intel. I will not be led misinformed by their bribed benchmark website/program scores, it is getting ridiculous, you can tell all but a few of the benchmark test/reviewers have had money slipped in their front pockets by Intel. So please don't suggest the i5 2500, just AMD please gentlemen and ladies.

You do realise that what you have said is libelous.
I am very surprised the mods have not deleted this thread.

Anyhow you could not be more wrong.
Intel wouldn't need to bribe anyone to post favourable reviews of the SB chips. They are excellent CPU's.

Bulldozer in comparison is very poor.

How do i know this, personal experience of owning and using SB, P2 and BD CPU's.
I don't need to go by reviews i can test them myself.

If you really must have an AMD CPU for gaming, get yourself a P2 960, it might unlock to six cores but dont rely on that.
It will be completely outclassed by a 2500K in gaming though, so don't say you weren't told.

mojojojo1972 · 20 Jan 2012 at 18:28

If I appear stupid sorry, I have been led to believe after many hours of personnel research reading about cpus and gpus that the most limiting factor in games once you reach a certain resolution is the gpu(1920/1080) and the cpu has a very small part to play in 95% of games, have I been looking at it in a very simplistic way and getting it wrong lol, or is a 2500k over say fx 8150 or even most quad Amd cpus performance in games equate to anything more than say 5/10 fps. :confused:

Davefran · 20 Jan 2012 at 19:45

AMD Bulldozer FX-8 Eight Core 8150 Black Edition 3.60Ghz
THIS WEEK ONLY OFFER
was £214.99 inc VAT
£199.99 inc VAT

Versus

Intel Core i5-2500K 3.30GHz
£179.99 inc VAT

If you compare the Game performance They'd have to knock a lot more off the price to make the 8150 worth even considering.

mmj_uk · 20 Jan 2012 at 19:55

If I were buying AMD now I'd probably chance my luck with a 960T unless I could get a 1090T/1100T for the normal ~£130 price, the trouble with X6's now is they are so scarce that I've seen them selling for well over £200 lol.

If you want highend it's hard to recommend anything other than a 2500K, sure it might get beat by a BD in some productivity tasks (you're better off with 2600K/2700K for those sorts of tasks) but in 90% of situations it's a cut above anything that AMD have to offer.

pmc25 · 20 Jan 2012 at 23:55

PCZ said:
You do realise that what you have said is libelous.
I am very surprised the mods have not deleted this thread.

Anyhow you could not be more wrong.
Intel wouldn't need to bribe anyone to post favourable reviews of the SB chips. They are excellent CPU's.

Bulldozer in comparison is very poor.

How do i know this, personal experience of owning and using SB, P2 and BD CPU's.
I don't need to go by reviews i can test them myself.

If you really must have an AMD CPU for gaming, get yourself a P2 960, it might unlock to six cores but dont rely on that.
It will be completely outclassed by a 2500K in gaming though, so don't say you weren't told.

It's not really libelous as he doesn't name or insinuate the involvement of any particular websites.

However ... Intel's "co-marketing payments" (bribes), anti-competitive practice, their rigged compiler (still the biggest reason for any significant gaps in software performance between AMD & Intel) and the fact that several 'respected' benchmarking suites are literally run from Intel offices ... these are all a matter of fact and public record.

Like others, I'd recommend the PII 960t ... unbelievable value. Best bang for buck in any market segment, AMD or Intel.

Seems like recent news is hinting at major performance increases for Piledriver, so that just underlines the point of avoiding Bulldozer for the timebeing.

jennidc · 22 Jan 2012 at 13:35

It really depends on which games you play - for example if your upgrading for Skyrim it only uses 2 cores and 4gb so on the AMD side a quad 955 p2 would be ideal if you can find one.

Some games are more CPU intensive than others.

An i52k is the current best bangs per bucks but don't let that put you off buying AMD.

I would either go with a BD 8120 or a hex 1055T myself for future proofing.

I have a 1055T and it overclocks nicely to 4ghz with my Gellid Tranquillo cooler.

Alkalinepro5 · 22 Jan 2012 at 15:19

MOOGLEYS said:
I would go with a 960T excellent CPU for gaming and superb value for money. Shame you hate Intel so much as the 2500k really is a superb CPU.

The 2500k is still quite expensive, and since anything over a low clocked Phenom II is overkill for games it is still completely pointless unless you use your PC for other tasks.

FoxEye · 22 Jan 2012 at 18:41

Alkalinepro5 said:
The 2500k is still quite expensive, and since anything over a low clocked Phenom II is overkill for games it is still completely pointless unless you use your PC for other tasks.

This. No doubt the 2500 is an excellent chip - even excellent value for money.

But is it necessary? My X3 Athlon-II is still holding up well, although admittedly I don't play Battlefield or SupCom2 or the like.

So either games just really aren't that CPU dependant, or I'm not playing the right games

And admittedly I don't feel the need to run games on max settings most of the time.

But the X3 breezed through Portal2 and Dead Space 2, the most recent FPS games I've been playing.