I have no idea what you are going to do with it
So why are you offering senseless advice?
OP, it depends on what you're doing, how much energy consumption matters to you, and how much the chips are going to cost you.
There is an extremely valuable comparison of the FX-8120 and the 2500K over at OC.net. That should help you make up your mind. Essentially, they're similar performers, with the 2500K having a single-threaded advantage and the 8120 having a multi-threaded advantage (in workloads that use all eight cores). You can see from the specific benchmarks how they trade blows. The major drawback of the AMD chip is that its power consumption is substantially higher.
If you live near a Microcenter, you can get a higher-end board for free with an 8120 - that alone would make me go AMD if budget was a concern.
You're kidding, right?
I will be getting an FX6100 tomorrow. If you want to hold off this week, I can overclock it and run some tests on it to show you its performance/power consumption. I am really curious to see if this CPU is really as bad as others perceive it to be, plus it will give you an idea where FX sits. I can even run a side by side against my 2500k.
Did I mention this CPU can be found on Superbiiz for $135?![]()
Nice. I am interested in this, especially at maybe 4Ghz or wherever the Performance/PowerConsumption trade off really happens. I figure (roughly) that a BD core needs to have a ~20-25% clock speed advantage to beat a Thuban. So, that would put it squarely in the realm of the 1090t/1100t w/no OC. If it can do that without needing a bajillion watts of power then I can feel better about missing out on all the sweet x6 deals at MC over the past few months. I just finally get going on it and the best deals are over
If you have some tests you'd like run on a 1045t @ stock speeds for a comparison of AMD's ~$130 95W CPUs, let me know and I'll gladly spend some time running them. My gut feeling is the 6100-FX is pretty close to it...
Put me down as "subscribed to your thread"![]()
I am really curious to see if this CPU is really as bad as others perceive it to be
Get the i5. I have no idea what you are going to do with it but avoid BD.
I'm not a huge BD fan, but damn a $90 8-Core processor sure sounds good![]()
BullDozer is not an 8 core processor.
Lol, really? So Newegg should change their description then?
AMD FX-8120 Zambezi 3.1GHz Socket AM3+ 125W Eight-Core Desktop Processor FD8120FRGUBOX
Ignore Gigantopithecus. I don't know why he constantly keeps to recommend fx 8120 and the linked site is a joke. AFAIK he doesn't work for AMD.
Because the data speak for themselves. The i5-2500K is not that much faster than the 8120 in single-threaded applications, the two trade blows through most benchmarks, and the 8120 isn't that much faster in multi-threaded apps and workflows. As I said, aside from power consumption, the 8120 is not a completely inferior CPU.
Again, as I said, if you live near a Microcenter, right now you can get an 8120 + a nicer board for $200. A 2500K + a nicer board are going to set you back at least $250-300 depending on what sales you can get. That's a cost increase of 25-50%. The 2500K is not 25-50% faster.
Many of this forum's posters need to put the Kool-aid down. If you can't interpret benchmarks, then you're just bleating like sheep.