AMD FX - 8120 OCing/Tuning

[lehtv]

I can't really advocate what in my view is little more than corporate welfare (i.e. the purchase of BD processors so that "competition" still exists).

I agree with this. Making a choice based not on the actual value and performance of the product, but on some "higher ideal" of maintaining competition creates false competition, because ultimately, what is competitive should be decided by the value and performance of the product.

 

[lehtv]

Are the posts that go against what he stated even productive? You are just going to post and it is going to be there, but it isn't going to make a difference. It's just a waste of energy.
...
I agree you are free to suggest anything, but in this case it seems you are trying too hard to change something which has already been decided.

I can't predict whether the OP will pay attention to Intel-related answers or not, I'm just accepting that he has the choice not to. I can't know whether he's already made up his mind irreversibly. Of course I would hope and prefer that he did reconsider because that is what I believe to be the right choice based on the knowledge I have. I'm not deterred from sharing my view just because I'm told it might go against someone's pre-existing bias; I've often seen biases vanish when arguments based on reasoned logic are presented.

Plus, it is kind of off-topic.

I would point you towards what I said earlier in the thread; this is why it is not off topic:

You specifically asked no Intel, but you also specifically stated your upgrade was intended for gaming purposes. These are in direct contradiction, so it makes sense to suggest changing your views about upgrading to Intel. You also stated you want your PC to be more energy efficient, which is another thing Intel is objectively much better at than AMD - so again, it makes sense to suggest Intel.

 

[Hatisherrif]

I agree with this. Making a choice based not on the actual value and performance of the product, but on some "higher ideal" of maintaining competition creates false competition, because ultimately, what is competitive should be decided by the value and performance of the product.

That is so wrong.

So, you are telling me that AMD actually CAN make a better product only if it wished so, but until it does, nobody should buy their stuff? Where are they going to get their money then? Charity? How did Intel become so big?

It isn't as simple as saying: until you make something good, you don't deserve my money! You need money to make better products, that's a fact, because you need a lot of resources in the CPU business to make something worthwhile. This isn't a beauty contest because in here, contestants need resources to fabricate something out of them. And it ain't gonna pay for itself.

 

[Ferzerp]

It isn't as simple as saying: until you make something good, you don't deserve my money!

Yes, yes it is.

Wow, you're openly advocating welfare purchases for AMD. Tell me, what other goods should I purchase the worst choice on as well to save some poor, poor corporation? They don't have a good that I want, why on earth would I give them money for making something much worse than their competitor.

edit: I'm done here now that you've openly put your cards on the table. They're nutty cards.

 

[lehtv]

That is so wrong.

So, you are telling me that AMD actually CAN make a better product only if it wished so, but until it does, nobody should buy their stuff?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that purchase decisions should be made based on what product best fulfills the user's needs and budget, irrespective of the company's market share. AMD does have competitive products in the lower end and midrange desktops, but nothing to answer Intel i5/i7. In this particular thread, the user wants a CPU that will outperform his current CPU in games, and there is no AMD CPU that does that, or at least not as well as an i5.

Where are they going to get their money then?

Where are AMD going to get their money? That's not the issue. If AMD can't make a competitive product, the money should go to the company that can.

Charity?

It seems to me that's what you're advocating.

How did Intel become so big?

By making competitive products

It isn't as simple as saying: until you make something good, you don't deserve my money!

Yes it is. And this is also quite off topic

 

[Hatisherrif]

Yes, yes it is.

Wow, you're openly advocating welfare purchases for AMD. Tell me, what other goods should I purchase the worst choice on as well to save some poor, poor corporation? They don't have a good that I want, why on earth would I give them money for making something much worse than their competitor.

edit: I'm done here now that you've openly put your cards on the table. They're nutty cards.

Firstly, it isn't the worst choice if you know what your choice makes. Second, why are you being so egotistical? This isn't about you and what you want, this is about the OP and what he wants, and he stated that clearly, and it doesn't simply come down to raw performance. And again, you are making an invalid point. They need money to make a product, it isn't as easy as presenting a product that is good or bad, they need to come up with money to invest in making money. Currently they are low on it.

I am "advocating welfare purchases" that can make the market a better place for consumers in the end, not because my heart lies with a certain corporation - but only if one is aware what he is getting into. In this case, that is not entirely bad (if at all), so why not help yourself AND the market by making this move? On the other hand, you seem to be fond of Intel, since I haven't seen a single word of praise from you towards some good things from AMD (or you are oblivious of the existence of such things).

Thank you for insulting my point of view so openly. From now on, I shall see to it that your posts get ignored because you clearly either have something involved with Intel, or you are just a very narrow-minded and rude person. Either way, I am done with you for good.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that purchase decisions should be made based on what product best fulfills the user's needs and budget, irrespective of the company's market share.

His needs were clearly stated in the end and we both acknowledged that. They point more towards waiting for the Piledriver than going Intel.

AMD does have competitive products in the lower end and midrange desktops, but nothing to answer Intel i5/i7. In this particular thread, the user wants a CPU that will outperform his current CPU in games, and there is no AMD CPU that does that, or at least not as well as an i5.

or at least not as well as an i5. Which basically means, there is.

Where are AMD going to get their money? That's not the issue. If AMD can't make a competitive product, the money should go to the company that can.

They need money to begin with.

It seems to me that's what you're advocating.

By making competitive products

Yes it is. And this is also quite off topic

I have already explained what I was advocating. And it is off topic, sadly.

 

[lehtv]

His needs were clearly stated in the end and we both acknowledged that. They point more towards waiting for the Piledriver than going Intel.

Being biased to prefer a company for reasons other than the value and performance of the product doesn't count as "a need".

or at least not as well as an i5. Which basically means, there is.

Yes, but is it worth it?

They need money to begin with.

Everyone needs money.

 

[AtenRa]

I am looking for information on the OCing capabilities and speed from a Gamers perspective on the AMD 8120 as I will be upgrading shortly to one from a Phenom II x4 B55. Let me know how it is playing games for you. Commenting about Intel will be ignored I have an AMD chipset and like AMD chips therefor an AMD upgrade will be happening.

PSU is CM RS 460watt and GPU is GTX 560. A cool $160 for the 8120 will be a cheap upgrade and it will drop right in.

If you play at 1080p you will be GPU limited in most of DX-11 games with the GTX560. If you play BF3 the FX8120 at 4.2GHz will be much better than the Phenom II B55.

I would wait for the Piledriver to be released first, see if your motherboard can support it and then upgrade but again at 1080p you wont see much of a improvement in games.

If you really would like to upgrade now then at $160 the FX8120 will be fine but only if OCed at 4.0-4.2GHz, at default 3.3GHz it is too weak.

As for the PSU, ill try to measure the consumption of my FX8150 + GTX560Ti tomorrow and let you know how much it needs at default and OCed and let you know if your PSU is adequate or not.

 

[MentalIlness]

This is the best post in the entire thread. ^ :thumbsup::thumbsup:

But I also believe, you really shouldn't judge a CPU just by review alone. There are so many variables at play in so many different reviews. I can totally understand though, because unless you buy the CPU yourself, you can go "only" on reviews. But how can someone feel so strongly about a CPU they have never even used ?

 

[MentalIlness]

default 3.3GHz it is too weak.

I thought default was 3.11Ghz ?

 

[toyota]

Need a good CPU to help make my games look good and to be able to record real time game play's in which the 8 cores will come in handy or should at leased. I already own to many AMD chipsets and that's why i will stay with AMD plus I will support them with my dollars. OCed 8120 beats an i5 2500K and i7 2600K I have seen it but stock clock they suck I also seen it. Now I want to here from FX - 8120 owners not intel fan boy's. Thanx for you input but read my post i said don't bother talking Intel with me.

how that heck is that logical? an 8120 oced really high would still not beat a stock 2500k in gaming but will use more power than an ENTIRE freaking pc. if you want a better cpu then get an Intel i5/i7. people here dont suggest Intel because they are fanboys. they do so because its the best overall cpu right now. thats reality so deal with it but by all means enjoy your "upgrade" to an oced 8120.