Amd fx 8150

[2is]

A GTX580 is a bottleneck? At those kinds of resolutions and settings? What planet are you living on?

It is a GPU bottleneck, and that's the problem with using BF3 SP to compare processor performance. It requires very little, where as BF3 MP requires a whole lot.

 

[FalseChristian]

The bottom line is that the GPU is the most important component for gaming. 'nuff said!

 

[SlowSpyder]

Bulldozer performance is a bit disappointing for sure. I still think an 8150 is plenty of CPU for 99% of PC users. But the real problem is power use. I'd be ok with the performance for the price, but that power consumption would bug me as I start overclocking. If you ask me, that is Bulldozer's real achilles heel.

 

[Pilum]

The bottom line is that the GPU is the most important component for gaming. 'nuff said!

That's of course wrong. You can always drop resolution or details on a GPU, but you can't generally reduce the CPU requirements of a game. I'm still happy with my HD5770, but my i5-3550@3.9/4.1 is too slow for my needs - and yes, I mainly play strategy games.

 

[tulx]

you can't generally reduce the CPU requirements of a game.

The point is that most games have quite low CPU requirements. You can play ANY game on max settings with at least 60fps on a 960t, which is a mid-range CPU worth ~100€, provided you have at least two monster graphics cards for ~400€...each (and you'll still probably be GPU-bottlenecked in some games (Crysis 1/2, BF3, Witcher 2)). I guess you see the slight imbalance there...

 

[Yuriman]

The point is that most games have quite low CPU requirements. You can play ANY game on max settings with at least 60fps on a 960t, which is a mid-range CPU worth ~100€, provided you have at least two monster graphics cards for ~400€...each (and you'll still probably be GPU-bottlenecked in some games (Crysis 1/2, BF3, Witcher 2)). I guess you see the slight imbalance there...

With exceptions such as Starcraft 2, Civ V, Sins of a Solar Empire, Guild Wars 2 (of the games I own) and especially in emulation.

Multiplayer games - especially those with large numbers of players - and strategy games both benefit from having higher end CPUs.

I'm sure you can get 60fps in Crysis, but you'll probably be wishing you had something faster in a 64 player BF3 multiplayer game.

 

[Vic Vega]

I'm sort of lost here. My GPU is an AMD Radeon HD 7850, so, I'm not a blind fanboy. How could someone say an FX 8150 is a worthwhile CPU when it fails to keep up with a "quad" core sandy-ivy bridge Intel? How can an "octa-core" modern day CPU not outperform or be on par with a quad core or lesser CPU in ALL tasks? Is the single core performance of the 8150 this bad?

I'm not trying to start a flame war, I'm just curious...

It certainly doesn't appear that way.

 

[2is]

That's of course wrong. You can always drop resolution or details on a GPU, but you can't generally reduce the CPU requirements of a game. I'm still happy with my HD5770, but my i5-3550@3.9/4.1 is too slow for my needs - and yes, I mainly play strategy games.

Exactly, and that's the point I try to bring up when people carelessly dismiss the CPU. Fact is you can get any game to run reasonably well on a GPU as old as an 8800GT at 1080p by simply reducing settings. The same cannot be said about CPU's. If you're having performance issues due to not enough CPU power, you're essentially screwed. You can do things like reduce audio quality, but that generally doesn't' do much AND there are fewer and fewer games with that option.

The other issue is that you can pretty much always put a more powerful GPU in, and even if it's an overpowered GPU you can transfer it to a new system easily enough. If however you skimped on the CPU, particularly if you're in a situation where say you opted for a Core 2 Duo instead of a Core 2 Quad back in the day, you're not stuck in a situation where you ether need to buy and overpriced and quite likely used Core 2 Quad, or spring for a whole new system when you weren't quite ready to.

Bottom line is, don't skimp on the CPU! That includes you guys who think you're getting such an awesome deal by saving $80 going with an AMD FX instead of an Intel i5