HardOCP: FX8150 vs. 2500K with 2-way/3-way SLI

[apoppin]

lol, like i said in the other thread, this cpu is trash no matter how you put it.

As i said in my article, it is useful for a gamer who already has an AMD3+ MB and an older Phenom II. FX is not "trash" as it keeps up with the Phenom II in gaming and scales with clockspeed better than the older architecture (if you have a big PSU and a watercooler).

The issue keeping FX-8150 from being a decent CPU is price. Drop it to $199 and i think you can make an argument for it. And a FX-8120 with identical overclocked performance for $149 might be a good buy for a AMD3+ MB
:whiste:

 

[exar333]

As i said in my article, it is useful for a gamer who already has an AMD3+ MB and an older Phenom II. FX is not "trash" as it keeps up with the Phenom II in gaming and scales with clockspeed better than the older architecture (if you have a big PSU and a watercooler).

The issue keeping FX-8150 from being a decent CPU is price. Drop it to $199 and i think you can make an argument for it. And a FX-8120 with identical overclocked performance for $149 might be a good buy for a AMD3+ MB
:whiste:

I don't recall the PhII having the extreme fps highs and lows that BD shows though. The average fps may end-up being similar, but I would rather have 55min/60mean/65max than 30min/65mean/85max. That's just me though.

 

[apoppin]

i am not getting the extreme highs and lows you describe once BD is sufficiently clocked to match the graphics.

The most glaring fault is that at stock clocks, BD is very underwhelming. And to get the clocks one needs to be competitive, you need extreme power requirements.

 

[Lex Luger]

AMD FX Bulldozer cpus have worse peformance per watt and performance per clock than Phenom II

There is no redeeming value to any of them, and anyone saying they are good should shut up.

Saying that its a good chip once you clock it to 5 ghz is beyond retarded, not to mention expensive once you factor in the cooling and electric bill. (good luck running bulldozer cpu in summertime)

 

[Udgnim]

This graph cracked me up pretty badly... LOL

bookmarking this image lol

perfect example of how average FPS numbers without a graph backing them up can be deceiving

 

[Rvenger]

Those spikes just seem like it would make the game unplayable.

 

[exar333]

bookmarking this image lol

perfect example of how average FPS numbers without a graph backing them up can be deceiving

QFT. The BD was only ~5% slower in average FPS, but the picture tells a WHOLE other story...

 

[Kaekae]

2500K all the way!!!!!

 

[Ferzerp]

We don't really need a graph. Just give us the standard deviation. It's just another number, and we know that lower means more consistent.

 

[lehtv]

True, it'd be great if reviews that investigated the average fps of graphics cards and CPUs gave us the average FPS and a standard deviation, rather than average FPS and minimum FPS. St.Dev is a basic statistical tool that is employed by scientists every day to find out "the truth", which is what reviewers seek to find out presumably.

 

[apoppin]

AMD FX Bulldozer cpus have worse peformance per watt and performance per clock than Phenom II

There is no redeeming value to any of them, and anyone saying they are good should shut up.

Saying that its a good chip once you clock it to 5 ghz is beyond retarded, not to mention expensive once you factor in the cooling and electric bill. (good luck running bulldozer cpu in summertime)

It does not have worse performance per clock than Phenom II in gaming

FX-8120 basically is a downclocked FX-8150 for fifty dollars less and the only thing that makes sense *is* to overclock it (if you happen to have an AM3+ MB). If AMD dropped the price fifty dollars to below $200, an FX-8150 might start to make sense for AMD owners over Phenom II.

Not to mention, this Winter i will be nice and toasty playing my video games with HD 6970-X4 QuadFire and a watercooled FX-8150
- who needs a space heater? Not me!
:whiste:

 

[TakeNoPrisoners]

As i said in my article, it is useful for a gamer who already has an AMD3+ MB and an older Phenom II. FX is not "trash" as it keeps up with the Phenom II in gaming and scales with clockspeed better than the older architecture (if you have a big PSU and a watercooler).

The issue keeping FX-8150 from being a decent CPU is price. Drop it to $199 and i think you can make an argument for it. And a FX-8120 with identical overclocked performance for $149 might be a good buy for a AMD3+ MB
:whiste:

If my motherboard was AM3+ capable I still wouldn't buy Bulldozer, it really is that bad.

 

[Ferzerp]

True, it'd be great if reviews that investigated the average fps of graphics cards and CPUs gave us the average FPS and a standard deviation, rather than average FPS and minimum FPS. St.Dev is a basic statistical tool that is employed by scientists every day to find out "the truth", which is what reviewers seek to find out presumably.

In fact, in certain situations, we, as humans, are incredibly awful at determining what a graph actually represents when it is widely varied. The standard deviation gives us a quantified value that is not open to subjective bias.

 

[lehtv]

Well said :thumbsup:. In fact, why don't we email HardOCP and suggest calculate St Dev in their reviews, in addition to the graphs they provide?

 

[LoneNinja]

I've been using AMD since Athlon Xp, unless Piledriver can show massive improvements over Bulldozer, I'll be building my first Intel desktop next year. I don't want a massive power bill just to match my Phenom II X6 in performance.

 

[apoppin]

If my motherboard was AM3+ capable I still wouldn't buy Bulldozer, it really is that bad.

Well, i did get mine for evaluation directly from AMD along with the ASUS Crosshair V.
:$ It is a very nice MB.

However, for gaming, i would much rather run my FX-8150 (in Winter) at 4.4GHz than my Phenom II 980 BE at 4.3GHz - the highest stable OC on air for each respective processor.

Next i am going to watercool each of them to see how far i can go and i will test each of them with HD 6970-X4 QuadFire to see how they scale. And the natural comparison would be with my i7-920 at 4.0GHz.

 

[Silverforce11]

bookmarking this image lol

perfect example of how average FPS numbers without a graph backing them up can be deceiving

And the heathens ridicule [H] for being a bad review site.

As far as I'm concerned, it's my #1 site for hardware review followed by AT.

 

[Rifter]

Yes, this article proves that with just 12% more performance that bulldozer would be competitive, and the only reason that bulldozer lost is that Intel paid game developers to take advantage of the 2500k's hyperthreading.

If you are serious you are an idiot.

 

[Revolution 11]

If you are serious you are an idiot.

I think you and ExarKun need to check your sarcasm meters. :hmm: