55 replies to this topic

[Meldarth Sunphot]

Vulpesveritas - I'm running the 8120 - I've tested at different speeds; trust me it does make a difference......small one but does - but if he's looking to same some money.......1600 won't be bad......

6100 with a good cooler will overclock nicely

[Vulpesveritas]

Meldarth Sunphot, on 06 June 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

Vulpesveritas - I'm running the 8120 - I've tested at different speeds; trust me it does make a difference......small one but does - but if he's looking to same some money.......1600 won't be bad......

6100 with a good cooler will overclock nicely

1600mhz CAS 8 vs 1866mhz CAS 9. No performance difference with standard CPUs; (note the AMD RAM I suggested was CAS 8)
http://www.bit-tech....-sandy-bridge/6

[Bullseye69]

This one

http://www.newegg.co...st=Combo.956253


Or this one.

http://www.newegg.co...st=Combo.956204

Then add ram and happy gaming.

Newegg sometimes price matches so shop around for the best price on that processors.

I do like this motherboard better.

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16813157262

I would still go with the 8120 processor instead of the the 6200 processor for 10 more at newegg in price and the 8120 will clock up to the 8150 level in terms of speed.

I was hoping you were running a am2+ mainboard some of those would take the quad athlon 2 cpu but no joy on the mainboard you have.

There running a 10 dollar off prom sale right now. If you ever order or register with the sight you get access to great deals ever day.

Today deal had a crucial m4 240 gig ssd going for $209.99

Edited by bullseye69, 06 June 2012 - 07:04 PM.

[Brotherchaplain]

bullseye69, on 06 June 2012 - 06:49 PM, said:

I was hoping you were running a am2+ mainboard some of those would take the quad athlon 2 cpu but no joy on the mainboard you have.

Its alright, I know its obsolete and apparently has been for a while, I just never knew how bad. I'm looking hard tonight and tomorrow at my options, see what the weekend deals are then I'm going to make my move.

Thanks everyone for all the help, Truly appreciate all the time and effort everyone has taken to educate your less tech savvy brethren.

Means a lot to me that you all took the time to help out. If everyone can play this nice when the game comes out we will have a truly great community.

Thank you all,
Truly,
Chap

[Stranaton]

Don't go AMD unless you plan on using 8 physical cores. Intel holds the high end game market because their systems are what the industry develop for. That said, AMD systems tend to just go and say "screw efficiency" and brute forces everything. Perfect for encoding.
I own the lower model fx 8 core, BTW. Dont even think of using the stock fan, even temporarily.

[Barbaric Soul]

To all the people saying go Intel, have you actually tried using a FX based system? My primary rig is a I7 2600k based system, and my back-up/secondary system is a I7 860 based system. Over the past two days, I built a FX6200 system for my cousin. To be perfectly honest, I did not notice a difference in speed between my I7 systems and the FX6200 system. Intel may be faster, but AMD does offer good performing CPU's and the FX6200 is definently one of those CPUs.

My Primary System-

CPU- I7 2600K OC'ed to 4.4ghz
MB- MSI Z68A GD80 (gen3)
RAM- 8gb Corsair Vengence DDR3 1600
GFX- 5870 crossfireX

Secondary System-
CPU- I7 860
MB- Gigabyte P55 UD3R
RAM- 2gb G Skill DDR3 1600
GFX- GTX560

FX build-
CPU- FX6200
MB- ASUS M5A97 EVO
RAM- 8gb Patriot Signature DDR3 1600
GPU- HIS IceQ X HD6870

[Oderint dum Metuant]

I still maintain that the average Joe user, won't notice any major difference between either brand.

[Lakevren]

I honestly recommend Intel systems even over AMD including for multitasking.

For gaming? The i3 2100 can beat an FX-8150 in the majority of benchmarks.

[Catamount]

Lakevren, on 07 June 2012 - 06:54 AM, said:

I honestly recommend Intel systems even over AMD including for multitasking.

For gaming? The i3 2100 can beat an FX-8150 in the majority of benchmarks.

The problem is that any gaming benchmark is going to either be intentionally rigged to bottleneck on the CPU, or represent an irrelevant case.

Barring older DX9 titles with non-meaningful differences in framerates (where one CPU "beating" another might mean getting 180fps instead of 160fps), or games that are run at absurdly low resolutions, which is usually the setup used, there is no case where a game should meaningfully bottleneck on either CPU, barring incredibly powerful GPU setups.

That isn't to say I entirely disagree with recommending Intel. There are definitely cases, especially with gaming rigs, where I would, especially at higher price-points where more disposable income is there for the CPU, but realistically, there's no meaningful difference between most CPUs in gaming these days, and further transition of the gaming market to DX11 (which has massively reduced rendering overhead vs DX9) will only render CPUs more irrelevant. Furthermore, if games ever do meaningfully become CPU-dependent and suck up more computing power, they'll likely do it by taking up more cores more than anything else, because that's what every other sector of software is doing, and it's favoring AMD hugely. The 8150 is overpriced, but the 8120, in most applications, can handily compete with or beat higher-priced Intel CPUs, while, again, being meaningfully no different in gaming, where one is GPU-bound anyways.

No one in their right mind should recommend an Intel CPU over an AMD CPU for multitasking, not unless the budget is there to buy a CPU that's much more expensive than anything AMD is fielding, because right now, I've yet to see anything challenge the 8120 at its pricepoint.

This isn't even considering the fact that right now, AM3+ systems have a much better looking upgrade path into the future. Piledriver is going to use the AM3+ platform, and if AMD remains consistent with their history, there will likely be some limited Steamroller options for AM3+ as well.

The moral of the story is that choosing a CPU is something a lot more complicated than simply saying "buy from company X; they're CPUs are better".


In the OP's case, I'd probably recommend staying away from higher-end CPUs altogether, because a 6870 won't bottleneck on any CPU. If the OP is building for MWO, then the FX-6100 is probably the best choice at the moment, strictly because CryEngine 3 is very multithreaded, and if we're stuck with only DX9 at launch, it'll run very poorly on dual core CPUs, as Crysis 2 does in DX9:

http://www.techspot....ance/page8.html


I'd recommend getting the i5-3570K, but again, the GPU isn't powerful enough to bottleneck on a lower-end CPU (nor is any likely future upgrade involving only single-GPU cards), and that money is something that can be put towards a GPU upgrade down the road (or spent on any number of other things, computer related or not). There's no reason for this to be an expensive upgrade, and if it's not, I'd rather than the FX6100, in general, then what Intel is offering at that particular pricepoint, keeping in mind that you have to add $20 or so to an Intel purchase over an AMD purchase anyways because their boards also cost more (there are only two full ATX 1155 boards on Newegg for less than $80, one has terrible reviews and crippling problems, the other no reviews at all).

Edited by Catamount, 07 June 2012 - 08:15 AM.

[Barbaric Soul]

DV McKenna, on 07 June 2012 - 05:28 AM, said:

I still maintain that the average Joe user, won't notice any major difference between either brand.

Exactly. The only time the I7 or I5 will an show an advantage in gaming is in quad-SLI/tri-crossfireX at very high resolutions(3560*1440 and higher). Now when it comes to computing power.........

[Scilya]

alot of these posters comments are um well silly. and i wont go and rant on at them just say this

1. the FX 8150 is not an 8 core cpu the floating point cores suck and i am an amd fan but i woud never get a fx processor
2. get a 6 core processor and your future profed for a fiew years
3. try getting a 960T a great processor with a chance to unlock all 6 cores for under 100 and even if it dosent you stil gonna
be able to overclock it to about 4GHz

in reality its not the faster your cpu is the better everythig is. if the programe your running only wants 20Ghz of cpu power and you have a combind 40Ghz of processing power its not going to use the extra. only people who do rendering and the like realy need anything more
(altho epeen is a valid reson as well) but for gameing a 960T will serve you verry well

[Barbaric Soul]

The 960T would be a decent option.

When it comes to the FX6100 or FX6200, personally I'd drop the extra cash for the FX6200. The 4.1ghz turbo speed is worth $20 IMHO, that is unless the OP plans to OC it him/her self. The FX6200 at 4.1ghz with stock cooling in the system I just built, all 6 cores full load running WCG for 6 hours, never hit 55'c in a room that was around 23'c.

Edited by Barbaric Soul, 07 June 2012 - 08:20 AM.

[Vulpesveritas]

Scilya, on 07 June 2012 - 08:09 AM, said:

1. the FX 8150 is not an 8 core cpu the floating point cores suck and i am an amd fan but i woud never get a fx processor

1. So because the cores, which the OS calles cores, are the integer cores which do most tasks, and that the floating point unit can act as two floating point units.. that's not close enough to a full core for you? lol. Unless you're running AVX functions, it is simply two floating point units able to act together should the need arise.

[Scilya]

Vulpesveritas, on 07 June 2012 - 09:02 AM, said:

1. So because the cores, which the OS calles cores, are the integer cores which do most tasks, and that the floating point unit can act as two floating point units.. that's not close enough to a full core for you? lol. Unless you're running AVX functions, it is simply two floating point units able to act together should the need arise.

no its not the 1100T is better than the FX8150 and all he crying and whineing in the worl wont change the fact that the archtecture sucks
well it dosent it was just marketed wrong
think of the fx8150 as a 4 MODULE processor the sucesor to the 975 and all the benchmarks make sence.
but no i dont regard it as an 8 core processor

[Vulpesveritas]

Scilya, on 07 June 2012 - 09:17 AM, said:

no its not the 1100T is better than the FX8150 and all he crying and whineing in the worl wont change the fact that the archtecture sucks
well it dosent it was just marketed wrong
think of the fx8150 as a 4 MODULE processor the sucesor to the 975 and all the benchmarks make sence.
but no i dont regard it as an 8 core processor

The architecture sucks because it's brand new and while it has a higher IPC and clock overhead versus K10, it was implemented in it's first generation poorly. Fact is, the athalon 64 based architectures just were reaching the limit of how much more could be improved on, and bulldozer allows for higher IPC, higher clocks, and lower power consumption. Modules consist of two integer cores, a dual unit floating point unit which can run as a single FPU for AVX, dedicated L1 cache, with shared L2 cache in the module. The main issues in bulldozer are the low IPC at the beginning, the front end being to small, high latency cache, and a large amount of leakage. Piledriver fixes the IPC and leakage issues for the most part. Then when 22nm steamroller rolls out hopefully they'll fix the front end and cache.
So the only things keeping it from being two completely separate cores are
1. In AVX functions you only have one FPU, and 2. Shared L2 cache.

Seems more like two full cores than "a core and a half" or "a core with hyperthreading." It's far more than either, and sits in a class of it's own as of this time. It's more like 1.8 cores TBH, which is still closer to 2 than 1.

[Lakevren]

Vulpesveritas, on 07 June 2012 - 09:32 AM, said:

The architecture sucks because it's brand new and while it has a higher IPC and clock overhead versus K10, it was implemented in it's first generation poorly. Fact is, the athalon 64 based architectures just were reaching the limit of how much more could be improved on, and bulldozer allows for higher IPC, higher clocks, and lower power consumption. Modules consist of two integer cores, a dual unit floating point unit which can run as a single FPU for AVX, dedicated L1 cache, with shared L2 cache in the module. The main issues in bulldozer are the low IPC at the beginning, the front end being to small, high latency cache, and a large amount of leakage. Piledriver fixes the IPC and leakage issues for the most part. Then when 22nm steamroller rolls out hopefully they'll fix the front end and cache.
So the only things keeping it from being two completely separate cores are
1. In AVX functions you only have one FPU, and 2. Shared L2 cache.

Seems more like two full cores than "a core and a half" or "a core with hyperthreading." It's far more than either, and sits in a class of it's own as of this time. It's more like 1.8 cores TBH, which is still closer to 2 than 1.

I don't think because it's a brand new architecture it gives reason for it sucking, and being inferior, IPC-wise, to the previous generation. Shouldn't it be an improvement?

Let's hope it's better for the future CPUs. I remember the original prices for the Bulldozer CPUs, and someone would be insane to buy it for those prices. Not to mention people were waiting to upgrade from a Phenom II to a Bulldozer, only for their hopes to get crushed because it was inferior to their current rig. Those who had an older rig, and were waiting on Bulldozer and hesitating on the i5 2500k were also disappointed, and immediately purchased the i5 2500k.

Sure, AMD might have price advantage. That's about it. But I'm not hoping on anything, because if their future CPUs are as disappointing as Bulldozer, they might as well stick to APUs and GPUs (and even the latter is getting weaker on their end).

As for the OP: you go for AMD for budget, and largely because the i5 2500k and motherboard isn't affordable. If you can afford the i5 2500k (or 3570k, but little more expensive) and the motherboard, go for it.

Stranaton, on 06 June 2012 - 08:18 PM, said:

Don't go AMD unless you plan on using 8 physical cores. Intel holds the high end game market because their systems are what the industry develop for. That said, AMD systems tend to just go and say "screw efficiency" and brute forces everything. Perfect for encoding.
I own the lower model fx 8 core, BTW. Dont even think of using the stock fan, even temporarily.

Funny how that works. AMD used to be the efficient one. Still tries to be, but no longer is.

As for the "what the industry develops for", no I doubt that.

Edited by Lakevren, 07 June 2012 - 09:50 AM.

[Vulpesveritas]

Lakevren, on 07 June 2012 - 09:40 AM, said:

I don't think because it's a brand new architecture it gives reason for it sucking, and being inferior, IPC-wise, to the previous generation. Shouldn't it be an improvement?

Let's hope it's better for the future CPUs. I remember the original prices for the Bulldozer CPUs, and someone would be insane to buy it for those prices. Not to mention people were waiting to upgrade from a Phenom II to a Bulldozer, only for their hopes to get crushed because it was inferior to their current rig. Those who had an older rig, and were waiting on Bulldozer and hesitating on the i5 2500k were also disappointed, and immediately purchased the i5 2500k.

Piledriver 1st gen in trinity without L3 cache has already been shown to be about 5% faster clock-for-clock versus Phenom II/Llano. Vishera will be getting a second edition with L3 as well. One of the issues in it's capabilities is it's front end is smaller than Phenom II's if all cores are in use.

[Scilya]

Vulpesveritas, on 07 June 2012 - 09:51 AM, said:

Piledriver 1st gen in trinity without L3 cache has already been shown to be about 5% faster clock-for-clock versus Phenom II/Llano. Vishera will be getting a second edition with L3 as well. One of the issues in it's capabilities is it's front end is smaller than Phenom II's if all cores are in use.

if buldozer is improved with piledriver and steamroler thats fine but right now i dont see a point to get buldozer it just dosent cut it when the thubans are better. i am an amd fan by the way i was realy hopeing bulzodr was gonna be IT and i wanted an fx8150 for my phase change rig but even tho its a good overclocker i just dont see the point in getting one

[Vulpesveritas]

Scilya, on 07 June 2012 - 02:26 PM, said:

if buldozer is improved with piledriver and steamroler thats fine but right now i dont see a point to get buldozer it just dosent cut it when the thubans are better. i am an amd fan by the way i was realy hopeing bulzodr was gonna be IT and i wanted an fx8150 for my phase change rig but even tho its a good overclocker i just dont see the point in getting one

Umm... well given an FX-8150 is faster in highly threaded workloads... that might be a point..

And it could have been worse. It could have been another pentium 4.

[Scilya]

Vulpesveritas, on 07 June 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

Umm... well given an FX-8150 is faster in highly threaded workloads... that might be a point..

And it could have been worse. It could have been another pentium 4.

yes it could have been worse and if i could get a fx8150 cheep i would do i rather want to try overclocking one to hopefully 6GHz but the T's are still better