FX Vs Phenom II

[AtenRa]

Interesting how you say the FX is superior at "everything" --- your words--- and then when you show benchmarks, you cleverly switch to showing only heavily multithreaded benchmarks.

Im sorry to say but the Core i3 2120 will be inferior to the FX6100(when OCed) at everything while costing the same. Unless you really want an Intel CPU there is no point to even think of the Core i3.

I know exactly what im saying (bold)

 

[mikeymikec]

To those unfamiliar with certain people on this forum, if anyone can find a situation where Bulldozer shows an advantage over anything else, it'll be AtenRa. Who cares whether BD is overclocked and the i3 wasn't, or that the idle power consumption graphs he was showing had BD using less than SB (of course, not with BD overclocked, that would make it look bad, wouldn't it), then when another is shown with BD using about 10W more*, he changes his tune to "there's hardly anything in it".

* - Which, to be fair, isn't a lot, but it's a somewhat different story to "flagship AMD CPU uses less than lowest SB CPUs".

 

[AtenRa]

To those unfamiliar with certain people on this forum, if anyone can find a situation where Bulldozer shows an advantage over anything else, it'll be AtenRa. Who cares whether BD is overclocked and the i3 wasn't, or that the idle power consumption graphs he was showing had BD using less than SB (of course, not with BD overclocked, that would make it look bad, wouldn't it), then when another is shown with BD using about 10W more, he changes his tune to "there's hardly anything in it".

It is funny that when an AMD CPU is faster than an Intel at the same price or lower then the goalpost goes to power consumption. Then when the AMD CPU is better again in power usage we dont care about OCed CPUs and a few watts could make all the difference in the world.

You dont want to buy an AMD CPU ?? that's fine by me. But when the AMD CPU is Superior in that price point i have to say it and clearly the FX6100 at $125 is the better choice.

Edit: Oohh, and even if you OC with default voltage, the CPU at idle will have almost the same power usage as before because of the power saving states.

 

[mikeymikec]

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/363?vs=434

The i5-2400 and the FX-8150 are £150 each in the UK, give or take about £3. If you count up the benchmarks, the i5 wins more than half. BD tends to do better on heavily multi-threaded stuff.

Of course, counting benchmarks doesn't give a useful impression of how the processor will perform for a particular person's needs, I'm just countering your sweeping "FX is better than SB at the same price point" statement which most people who have taken the time to generate an informed opinion on the topic knows is a load of rubbish.

You talk of shifting goalposts - you included the power consumption statistics, I took you up on that point, as well as you talking about comparing an OC'd BD to a stock SB.

 

[pcsavvy]

I'm looking to upgrade my PC soon. I'm wondering about what AMD has to offer. I heard Bulldozer was very disappointing and that a Phenom can beat it. I'm wondering if this is true? I'm looking for something in the FX 6100 range. Not sure what the Phenom equivalent is called though. Should I go for a Bulldozer, Phenom or wait? I've already asked about the i3 in another thread, but right now I want to research AMD CPUs.

BTW, I do everything with my computer. That includes video editing, game playing (would gladly settle for 720p), and web surfing

.

Wow, op wanted some more info on AMD cpu's and the old intel vs amd fan club raises its ugly head.
It basically comes down to the op's budget, what computing needs he has, and to o/c or not to o/c.
I have gotten to the point there is no future proofing your computer gear at all. Changes in cpu's and m/b's and gpu's are always advancing every other year or more often.
If you have money burning a hole in your pocket then sure upgrade every 6 months to a year with the latest and greatest.
If you are on a tight to supertight budget then it comes down to how much are you willing to spend at this time on each item and what are you willing to sacrifice either cpu performance or gpu performance or certain m/b features.
Really how much more does it cost annually to run an AMD rig vs a similiar Intel rig. I am getting tired of the old "the non o/c Intel is better than the o/c'able AMD because blah blah blah.....
I would really like to see a real world comparison of a 2500k full set up vs a BD full set up and see what the actual results are, using it as a mainstream set up. I bet the difference is not as dramatic as some people assume it to be. Benchmarks can be manipulated just as statistics are.

 

[AtenRa]

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/363?vs=434

The i5-2400 and the FX-8150 are £150 each in the UK, give or take about £3. If you count up the benchmarks, the i5 wins more than half. BD tends to do better on heavily multi-threaded stuff.

Of course, counting benchmarks doesn't give a useful impression of how the processor will perform for a particular person's needs, I'm just countering your sweeping "FX is better than SB at the same price point" statement which most people who have taken the time to generate an informed opinion on the topic knows is a load of rubbish.

I was specifically talking about FX6100 vs the Core i3 2120 at the same price point of $125.

But if you will like to compare the Core i5 2400, you should do it against the FX8120 which is cheaper and can OC the same as the FX8150.

You talk of shifting goalposts - you included the power consumption statistics, I took you up on that point, as well as you talking about comparing an OC'd BD to a stock SB.

Dont blame me, blame Intel for not letting us OC the Core i3. You can OC the FX6100 and by doing that it gives it a better performance/price value and also making it more power efficient at the same price as the Core i3 2120.

There is no point arguing, the FX6100 when OCed is superior to the Core i3 in every situation.

 

[Ferzerp]

How 'bout the warranty situation?

 

[AtenRa]

How 'bout the warranty situation?

What about it ??

 

[ShintaiDK]

There is no point arguing, the FX6100 when OCed is superior to the Core i3 in every situation.

Thats a bold statement. How much OC are we talking about?

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/62

Here the FX8150 for example gets 77.7fps in a 4 threaded game. The i3 2100 that we need to use in the lack of a 2120 gets 94.1fps. The FX8150 should be faster than the FX6100, right? And the 2100 is slower than the 2120. So that FX6100 needs to get what, 4.4Ghz?

When OC you also need an aftermarket cooler, that kicks up price a notch too. Now you are so focused on that. How much is that cooler you need extra?

 

[AtenRa]

Thats a bold statement. How much OC are we talking about?

When OC you also need an aftermarket cooler, that kicks up price a notch too. Now you are so focused on that.

Not more than 4GHz to 4.2GHz, that is doable with default voltage and default Heat-sink fan. No extra cost for that OC with any FX CPU.

 

[Ferzerp]

What about it ??

The i3 still has a warranty. The OC'ed BD chip does not. Unless you advocate warranty fraud.

Oh yeah, wanna use any other heatsink? No warranty.

Wanna buy OEM? No warranty.

I especially like this part:

This Limited Warranty shall be null and void if the AMD microprocessor which is the subject of this Limited Warranty is used with any heatsink/fan other than the one provided herewith.

http://support.amd.com/us/warranty/Pages/Processorinabox3YearLimited.aspx

 

[AtenRa]

The i3 still has a warranty. The OC'ed BD chip does not. Unless you advocate warranty fraud.

Oh yeah, wanna use any other heatsink? No warranty.

Wanna buy OEM? No warranty.

I especially like this part:



http://support.amd.com/us/warranty/Pages/Processorinabox3YearLimited.aspx

See my post above, no need to change the heat-sink for a mild OC, same goes for Core i5 and Core i7 CPUs.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I know exactly what im saying (bold)

Perhaps, but you didnt address how you are suddenly cherry picking benchmarks when you said the FX was better at "everything". I am sure it is not better at saving power under load, especially when overclocked. And I doubt that it is faster in single threaded apps even when overclocked.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Not more than 4GHz to 4.2GHz, that is doable with default voltage and default Heat-sink fan. No extra cost for that OC with any FX CPU.

Thats not true. You keep avoid all the things that aint funny to talk about as always. And you change whats important like the wind to try sell your beloved FX CPUs.

You made a claim that dont hold true.

77.7FPS for FX at 3.6Ghz. 94.1FPS for a 3.1Ghz i3 in WoW.

i3 2120 is 3.3Ghz, or 6.45% faster. Meaning the 2120 will get ~100FPS.

FX gets around 21,6FPS per Ghz. So you need 4.63Ghz to reach the i3 2120. I was friendly and used 4.4Ghz.

All the PD hopes also slowly seem to fade...

http://vr-zone.com/articles/better-...-not-piledriver-to-be-the-saviour-/17020.html

 

[SlowSpyder]

Cool, an AMD vs. Intel thread. I haen't seen one of these since, well, yesterday.

Semi-on topic, i3's, there is zero overclocking with them? I imagine an i3 at mid 4+GHz would be an absolute monster for the money.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Thats not true. You keep avoid all the things that aint funny to talk about as always. And you change whats important like the wind to try sell your beloved FX CPUs.

You made a claim that dont hold true.

77.7FPS for FX at 3.6Ghz. 94.1FPS for a 3.1Ghz i3 in WoW.

i3 2120 is 3.3Ghz, or 6.45% faster. Meaning the 2120 will get ~100FPS.

FX gets around 21,6FPS per Ghz. So you need 4.63Ghz to reach the i3 2120. I was friendly and used 4.4Ghz.

All the PD hopes also slowly seem to fade...

http://vr-zone.com/articles/better-...-not-piledriver-to-be-the-saviour-/17020.html

In all fairness, I bet a lot of FX chips can hit 4.6GHz. And I'm sure there are plenty that cannot, though. But, in the context of this thread, the OP said he would be happy with 720P gaming, I doubt his monitor wouldn't be maxed with the 77FPS the FX chip can provide.

I know you guys are trying to show AtenRa that the i3 will not be slower in 'every' scenario, but for all practical purposes he might be right. < shrug >

*edit - Let me clarify before I get sucked into this. I'm sure that the i3 may be faster yet in some situations, like Super Pi, I doubt any 24/7 overclock could keep the FX competitive. But, I think for the same money, I would probably take the hexcore over an i3 (if they are not able to be overclocked). The i5 2400 vs. the 8120 is a bit harder of a choice for me, though. Eight threads vs. a quad with great IPC. I'd probably go Intel just for the cool and efficient use of power, but I'd really have to think about that one.

 

[Ferzerp]

OC'ed proc, Intel or AMD has no warranty. Again, advocating warranty fraud?

 

[guskline]

Tomorrow I get my first look at a Bulldozer 8150. After I get it running later in the week, I'll let you know my "unscientific" feelings about it. From all the benchmark reviews, the Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge CPUs are definitely superior.

I just decided that the 8150 had dropped enough in price to make it worthwhile to add one to the stable. I'm not expecting a "world beater" moment like I had with the 2500ks, rather a "Bulldozer, slow and steady-hope it doesn't put me to sleep!".

The last report I read on the AMD Piledriver seemed to indicate that AMD wasn't going to release a CPU that was a big jump from the Bulldozer until the Steamroller in 2014. We shall see.

 

[Mallibu]

The FX is overall crap, but mediocre-to-good in some rare very multithreaded scenarios that 99,9% of people won't ever deal with. All these while consuming a buttload of power.
On the other hand with the i3 you have a good all-around processor that fits the usage you described and if you wanna take the extra step go to i5 2300 and above.
Avoid FX like the plague, too much hassle to deal with.

 

[pcsavvy]

Wow, let the venom fly.....
Once again someone asks a simple question about an AMD cpu and it is like let loose the dogs of war time around here.D:
I appreciate everyone having their own opinion about these things but gee does it have to get so personal. These types of tirades can end up hurting the forum rather than being constructive. There are some people who are not interested in having the fastest thing on the internet, they want to find the best balance of performance/affordability based on their budget. Going into a tirade about how Intel beats AMD due to this or that, doesn't seem to productive to me. Besides we have heard it all before. How about answering the op's question straightforwardly and if you have stats or reviews to back up your opinion fine then post them but please keep this on topic.
I am really getting tired of all the overboard negativity.

Pardon me moderator if I am stepping on anyone's toes.

 

[ShadowVVL]

I think you would make a great mod pcsavvy.

I might put that second line as my sig.

 

[sequoia464]

Wow, let the venom fly.....
Once again someone asks a simple question about an AMD cpu and it is like let loose the dogs of war time around here.D:

Not gonna change, It does get old though.

 

[AtenRa]

Perhaps, but you didnt address how you are suddenly cherry picking benchmarks when you said the FX was better at "everything". I am sure it is not better at saving power under load, especially when overclocked. And I doubt that it is faster in single threaded apps even when overclocked.

The two MT benchmarks (Adobe Premier and x264) used was to illustrate that FX6100 is faster in MT apps even when at default clocks against the Core i3. I illustrated this because the OP said he will use the CPU for Video editing. At those applications the FX6100 is faster even at default and it will only get even more faster if OCed.

Being faster means working at full load less time thus returning to power saving mode earlier than the Core i3. That makes it consume less power overall.

About single thread, being faster in SpuerPi is irrelevant, the OP will not take part in a SuperPi competition.

 

[Magic Carpet]

I do lots of video work (redcine-x) and to be frank... there isn't going to be a day and night difference between the two (especially in consumer apps). But... the i3 will require less cooling and produce less noise as a result, even with the stock cooler. So, unless you can constantly make use of all 6 threads (production box for example) there is little rational sense to go for 6100. And if you're a pro, you will be choosing something else.. anyway

 

[AtenRa]

Thats not true. You keep avoid all the things that aint funny to talk about as always. And you change whats important like the wind to try sell your beloved FX CPUs.

I dont avoiding anything, FX6100 is faster in apps(Video Editing) that the OP said will use. I dont change whats important, the OP specifically asked about Video Editing and as far as i know those apps are MultiThreaded.

I dont try selling anything to anyone, the OP ask about the FX6100 at specific apps. At those apps the FX6100 is better than the Core i3.

On every AMD CPU topic there is one or more people that recommend an Intel CPU that is inferior in Performance to the AMD CPU in the apps that the OP has specifically asking. When it is clear that the AMD CPU is faster, then the goalpost goes to power efficiency and single thread performance.

And although the power efficiency is something the OP is interested for and the FX6100 will be power efficient because it will finish the work quicker, he never asked about Single thread performance.

And then another one comes in a AMD CPU topic and saying about Warranty void when OverClocking is involved because the Intel CPU cannot overclock. I have read countless Intel CPU topics in Anands forums and people even encourage the OP to OC his/her CPU, but i haven't seen anyone saying that you also void your Intel CPU Warranty if you OC.

I dont have any problem recommending an Intel CPU when i believe it is the better choice for the OP and i will do the same for the AMD CPUs as well. In this particular topic the FX6100 is better for the needs of the OP against the Core i3.