• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

How does the FX series do in real world stuff?

S

Smoblikat

Diamond Member
So i have a 2500K but desperatley want to upgrade tos omthing with more cores, since i run a lot of servers off of my computer. I was going to get the 2600K, but the huge pricetag is scaring me, plus its not a true 8 core. The 6100 and 8120 are the other two on my list. I know that neither perform that well in comparison to the 2500/2600, but that doesnt mean that theyre bad, just that theyre not the best. But how do they actually compare to the 25/26K for real world everyday usage. Will i even notice a difference? Im not looking to score huge in benchmarks, as long as i can play my games and run my servers im fine.

EDIT - After some brief research, the 1090T is now a contender for my money.
 
Last edited:
The 8120 is a major hit for cheap virtual machine servers, thats all i know from system builders that build and sell them fast and reviews from the internet.
 
Smoblikat said:
So i have a 2500K but desperatley want to upgrade tos omthing with more cores, since i run a lot of servers off of my computer. I was going to get the 2600K, but the huge pricetag is scaring me, plus its not a true 8 core. The 6100 and 8120 are the other two on my list. I know that neither perform that well in comparison to the 2500/2600, but that doesnt mean that theyre bad, just that theyre not the best. But how do they actually compare to the 25/26K for real world everyday usage. Will i even notice a difference? Im not looking to score huge in benchmarks, as long as i can play my games and run my servers im fine.

EDIT - After some brief research, the 1090T is now a contender for my money.
Click to expand...


I played BF3 on both my systems with the same graphics card (GTX 560)

On my 2500k I play at 1920x1080 at low settings, never dips below 65 fps. On the FX 6100 it dips into the low 50s. Strange thing is the CPU usage doesn't spike. I don't get it, it just performs bad.
 
fixbsod said:
3930k
Click to expand...

Im complaining about a 320$ pricetag, why would i get somehing double teh price?

grimpr said:
The 8120 is a major hit for cheap virtual machine servers, thats all i know from system builders that build and sell them fast and reviews from the internet.
Click to expand...

That makes sense, i also run virtual machines. What i usually run is at least one minecraft server, appache server, i would like to run (but cant due to lack of cores) is a TF2 server, BF2 server, TS server, more minecraft servers, more powerful FTP server.

Ferzerp said:
Buying either of those two would be a downgrade in games. Don't do that.
Click to expand...

I understand that they will be a downgrade, but what im getting at is that is it that big of a deal? I dont mind dropping from 300 FPS to 200. See what im getting at, just because it isnt the best or the fastest doesnt mean that its not good enough. Will it perform well enough to maintain steady FPS in games, while running a lot of servers?
 
Rvenger said:
I played BF3 on both my systems with the same graphics card (GTX 560)

On my 2500k I play at 1920x1080 at low settings, never dips below 65 fps. On the FX 6100 it dips into the low 50s. Strange thing is the CPU usage doesn't spike. I don't get it, it just performs bad.
Click to expand...

Excellent, thats the kind of info im looking for. Thanks. So BF3, a heavy CPU game performs badly even with extra cores. Were both at stock clocks? Did you notice any other games have this problem, it could just be BF3.

EDIT - Im assuming that youre using the systems in your sig. So if you have extra time, put both at teh same clocks with the same amount of RAM and see what the results are. Although, if BF3 is on an SSD fro one system and an HDD for teh other that could play a factor. If you want to/have the time, please try to get both systems as closely built as the other and see what you can see.
 
Last edited:
The FX chips from AMD need about 4.5ghz overclocks to be competent in games, specially older single/dual threaded games. For your multiple server needs, an overclocked 8120 would serve up right for the job, multiple VMs and heavy multithreading are its forte.
 
Smoblikat said:
Excellent, thats the kind of info im looking for. Thanks. So BF3, a heavy CPU game performs badly even with extra cores. Were both at stock clocks? Did you notice any other games have this problem, it could just be BF3.

EDIT - Im assuming that youre using the systems in your sig. So if you have extra time, put both at teh same clocks with the same amount of RAM and see what the results are. Although, if BF3 is on an SSD fro one system and an HDD for teh other that could play a factor. If you want to/have the time, please try to get both systems as closely built as the other and see what you can see.
Click to expand...


Both systems have SSDs and its only going to affect game start up time. I did check both at the same clocks, and rendered no difference in my results. BF3 uses about 4gb of memory and my SB system is overkill so I don't think pulling 8gb out of my intel would be worth the time.
 
grimpr said:
The FX chips from AMD need about 4.5ghz overclocks to be competent in games, specially older single/dual threaded games. For your multiple server needs, an overclocked 8120 would serve up right for the job, multiple VMs and heavy multithreading are its forte.
Click to expand...

Awesome, thanks. I dont even play that many games (though the ones that i do play are old games 😛) so i think it will be exactly what i need.

Rvenger said:
Both systems have SSDs and its only going to affect game start up time. I did check both at the same clocks, and rendered no difference in my results. BF3 uses about 4gb of memory and my SB system is overkill so I don't think pulling 8gb out of my intel would be worth the time.
Click to expand...

OK, thank you for doing that. I assumed games that use a lot of cores would benefit from SB over FX anyway, but i dont play many of those. I only infrequently play BF2 (yesterday was teh first time i played it in months) so i think itll be fine.

Now my other question is future proofing. Right now im not too worried about the 8120 doing everything i want it to, but in the future how is it looking as far as handling its own for games and multiple apps?

Also, im having trouble finding a motherboard that has what i need it to have. Im looking for 2133mhz memory, a good amount of quality VRM/power phase. At least 3 PCI-e, at least 8 SATA ports and at least one internal USB3 header. Dual gigabit LAN wouldnt hurt either. Ive found motheroards that have what i want seperatley, like the MSI GD-80
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130600
or
GA-990FX UD5
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128509
But neither have exactly what i want from them. Plus teh UD5 doesnt have enough PCI slots. Anyone know of a good motherboard for AM3+? Id even take an AM3 board with AM3+ support.
 
Last edited:
The more heavy threads, the better for FX. Friends of AMD here at Anandtech wisely stay away from BD due to its high power consumption and await the arrival of the FX2 cpus on Piledriver cores that are according to rumours, more power efficient with a litle more ipc and higher clocks, due to Q3 on AM3+ socket.
 
Last edited:
Smoblikat said:
Awesome, thanks. I dont even play that many games (though the ones that i do play are old games 😛) so i think it will be exactly what i need.



OK, thank you for doing that. I assumed games that use a lot of cores would benefit from SB over FX anyway, but i dont play many of those. I only infrequently play BF2 (yesterday was teh first time i played it in months) so i think itll be fine.

Now my other question is future proofing. Right now im not too worried about the 8120 doing everything i want it to, but in the future how is it looking as far as handling its own for games and multiple apps?

Also, im having trouble finding a motherboard that has what i need it to have. Im looking for 2133mhz memory, a good amount of quality VRM/power phase. At least 3 PCI-e, at least 8 SATA ports and at least one internal USB3 header. Dual gigabit LAN wouldnt hurt either. Ive found motheroards that have what i want seperatley, like the MSI GD-80
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130600
or
GA-990FX UD5
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128509
But neither have exactly what i want from them. Plus teh UD5 doesnt have enough PCI slots. Anyone know of a good motherboard for AM3+? Id even take an AM3 board with AM3+ support.
Click to expand...

I got one recommendation for AMD motherboards, ASUS. The asus m5a97 evo and the sabertooth 990fx are great boards for the money.
 
grimpr said:
I got one recommendation for AMD motherboards, ASUS. The asus m5a97 evo and the sabertooth 990fx are great boards for the money.
Click to expand...

The sabertooth looks decent except that the RAM is kinda slow, and ive heard that its a cheap gimmiky board. But please prove me wrong, i just want teh best i can get for the money.

RavenSEAL said:
BD is a good server/VM chip. Can't go wrong for the new upcoming prices if it meets your needs.
Click to expand...

From what ive seen, it meets them and exceeds them.

grimpr said:
The more heavy threads, the better for FX. Friends of AMD here at Anandtech wisely stay away from BD due to its high power consumption and await the arrival of the FX2 cpus on Piledriver cores that are according to rumours, more power efficient with a litle more ipc and higher clocks, due to Q3 on AM3+ socket.
Click to expand...

How bad is power consumption? Because people made a HUGE deal about the GTX 400 series having such a massive power consumption, while the GTX 5XX series literally has the same exact to the watt power consumption. Do you have any pics on comparison of power consumption of an 8120 vs a 2600K. Overclocked of course.
 
Rvenger said:
On a visual aspect they very well may be. I want to see numbers and numbers don't lie when it comes to superior performance.
Click to expand...

Im satasfied with the performance it gives. Ive taken into account teh replies to this post and my research. All i want to know is the actual difference in power.
 
Smoblikat said:
The sabertooth looks decent except that the RAM is kinda slow, and ive heard that its a cheap gimmiky board. But please prove me wrong, i just want teh best i can get for the money.
Click to expand...

I have a Sabertooth, it is a great board - I had some minor issues with the release bios but I'm very pleased with this board. If even I can get decent results, it has to be a good board.

The only thing that I personally think might possibly be 'gimmiky' is the south bridge cooler - looks like someone brought in the seventh grade class to work one day and let them have their way with the design.

My last two boards were Gigabyte, but from what I have read, I'm glad to have stayed away from their AM3+ boards.
 
Smoblikat said:
I see that when overclocked they scale way out of proportion, but kept at stock they seem to be reasonably power effecient.
Click to expand...


Very true but it kind of defeats the purpose to leave it at stock since they tout overclocking.
 
Smoblikat said:
So i have a 2500K but desperatley want to upgrade tos omthing with more cores, since i run a lot of servers off of my computer. I was going to get the 2600K, but the huge pricetag is scaring me, plus its not a true 8 core. The 6100 and 8120 are the other two on my list. I know that neither perform that well in comparison to the 2500/2600, but that doesnt mean that theyre bad, just that theyre not the best. But how do they actually compare to the 25/26K for real world everyday usage. Will i even notice a difference? Im not looking to score huge in benchmarks, as long as i can play my games and run my servers im fine.

EDIT - After some brief research, the 1090T is now a contender for my money.
Click to expand...

The 2500K is pretty much as good as the 8120 for multithreaded workloads...
 
I don't get it.
Why upgrade?

Windows and vms still have their overheard in terms of scheduling, threads don't matter jackpoopynanny in your workload unless your running p4 cores.

Unless your 2500k is running at 80% averagely running all these things, i woudln't bother upgrading at all.

Check your ram usage, and disk usage as well.


I've run several "game servers" , and if your this serious you might wanna consider a dedicated box.

I've yet to see minecraft draw or have need for many threads, or any of the services you mentioned to a point where they choke the cores of any modern cpu.
 
MisterMac said:
I don't get it.
Why upgrade?

Windows and vms still have their overheard in terms of scheduling, threads don't matter jackpoopynanny in your workload unless your running p4 cores.

Unless your 2500k is running at 80% averagely running all these things, i woudln't bother upgrading at all.

Check your ram usage, and disk usage as well.


I've run several "game servers" , and if your this serious you might wanna consider a dedicated box.

I've yet to see minecraft draw or have need for many threads, or any of the services you mentioned to a point where they choke the cores of any modern cpu.
Click to expand...

Very useful insight. Ive always assumed more cores means more servers. When i run my minecraft server and my appache server i usually get 4gb RAM used from the start, and at least 10% CPU. But ive never tried running all the servers i want to on my quad core, because i thought it wouldnt end well. Ill see what my usage looks like with all the servers running. This might change my mind about getting FX.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top