should i get an i5 2500k or amd fx 8120 8 core??

[Chiropteran]

Yes. Yes I do actually. Have fun reading, oh and by the way unless the 8120 uses 100% less power than the 8150 then maybe you need to go have a look round the internet instead of accusing people of "pulling information out of their butt" as you so politely put it.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-power-consumption-efficiency,3060-12.html

I see a 63W difference. Also, that is the 8150, not the 8120. Consider yourself marked off as one of the many who spout lies as facts and try to back them up with lies.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Cinebench R11.5 64 bit Power Consumption FX 8150 vs 2600K/2500k

Overclocked, bulldozer doubles the total system draw of the i5-2500k while producing nearly the same performance.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Cinebench R11.5 64 bit Power Consumption FX 8150 vs 2600K/2500k

Overclocked, bulldozer doubles the total system draw of the i5-2500k while producing nearly the same performance.

The only way you can get decent efficiency out of Bulldozer is if you leave it at stock clocks and undervolt or if you overclock AND undervolt.

 

[Chiropteran]

Overclocked, bulldozer doubles the total system draw of the i5-2500k while producing nearly the same performance.

Yes very good. Now please point out where the OP asked about overclocked 8150? He didn't. He is considering the FX-8120.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Yes very good. Now please point out where the OP asked about overclocked 8150? He didn't. He is considering the FX-8120.

The FX-8120 draws nearly the same amount of power, so I don't know why you're so hellbent on that.

In the most stressful application (Prime95), the one which would show the biggest differences in power consumption, the 8120 draws a measly 11W less than the 8150. In normal multi-threaded applications that difference would be roughly 5W. Big whoop.

 

[Puppies04]

I see a 63W difference. Also, that is the 8150, not the 8120. Consider yourself marked off as one of the many who spout lies as facts and try to back them up with lies.

Single threaded as that is exactly what you were trying to call me out on.

I5 2500k 65.6w
FX8150 133.7w

Difference 68.1w

So yes I was wrong it is more than 100% difference.

I will mark you down as one of the many who talk rubbish then when proved wrong try to bluff your way out of it with false accusations and dodgy maths.

 

[Chiropteran]

The FX-8120 draws nearly the same amount of power,

The post I responded to was showing the 8150 overclocked pulling 406W. The graph you posted shows the 8120 drawing 244W.

If 244 and 406 are "nearly the same" to you, I think we are done here.

 

[BD231]

Yes very good. Now please point out where the OP asked about overclocked 8150? He didn't. He is considering the FX-8120.

Just admit you were stupid enough to purchase a bulldozer and stop patronizing everyone, the 8120 is an 8150 with slightly lower clocks and identical voltages. I get the same performance out of an x6 under a better power envelope and I paid $80 bucks for it well over a year ago.

 

[Chiropteran]

I5 2500k 65.6w
FX8150 133.7w

8150 is not the 8120.

I'm not pulling up power usage figures for Pentium D CPU because we aren't talking about them, thus you should do the same and quit bringing up 8150 power usage figures.

You also specifically said the power difference was going to cause the OP to spend more money on a power supply, negating the $40 cheaper pricetag. Can you please show me a real scenario now where the extra 60W will require a power supply at least $40 more expensive?

I suspect you won't, and instead do a lot of backpedaling and talking about how even if you don't spend more on a power supply you spend a few extra pennies each month on the electric bill and after X years it adds up.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

The post I responded to was showing the 8150 overclocked pulling 406W. The graph you posted shows the 8120 drawing 244W.

If 244 and 406 are "nearly the same" to you, I think we are done here.

What are you whining about?

The chart I just posted compares both the 8150 and 8120 in power consumption at stock in the most stressful scenario. The difference is a measly 11W, and if you overclock at the same voltage and same clocks they'll consume exactly the same because they're exactly the same silicon as far as functioning parts go.

 

[Puppies04]

Yes very good. Now please point out where the OP asked about overclocked 8150? He didn't. He is considering the FX-8120.

As far as I recall the OP didn't ask about very much, you asked me for single threaded power consumption. I then provided you test results which show the 8150 pulling more than 100% more than the 2500k and you called me a liar (and proved you can't do simple maths in the process)

You seriously need to start reading the links properly. You bounce around from trolling/flaming me until I prove you wrong then you simply ignore my response and start trolling/flaming someone else.....

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

8150 is not the 8120.

I'm not pulling up power usage figures for Pentium D CPU because we aren't talking about them, thus you should do the same and quit bringing up 8150 power usage figures.

You also specifically said the power difference was going to cause the OP to spend more money on a power supply, negating the $40 cheaper pricetag. Can you please show me a real scenario now where the extra 60W will require a power supply at least $40 more expensive?

I suspect you won't, and instead do a lot of backpedaling and talking about how even if you don't spend more on a power supply you spend a few extra pennies each month on the electric bill and after X years it adds up.

You must be blind...?

 

[Chiropteran]

Just admit you were stupid enough to purchase a bulldozer and stop patronizing everyone, the 8120 is an 8150 with slightly lower clocks and identical voltages. I get the same performance out of an x6 under a better power envelope and I paid $80 bucks for it well over a year ago.

That is fascinating.

http://phoronix.com/forums/showthre...-II-X6-1100T-versus-FX-8120-Performance-Guide

The 8120 uses less power than the X6 in every test of that review. But I guess you must have received a magical X6 that uses less power and poops out rainbows.

 

[Chiropteran]

As far as I recall the OP didn't ask about very much, you asked me for single threaded power consumption. I then provided you test results which show the 8150 pulling more than 100% more than the 2500k and you called me a liar (and proved you can't do simple maths in the process)

You are a liar because you said you could prove the 8120 uses enough power to require such a stronger power supply to negate the $40 price advantage. When asked for proof, you passed off graphs of the 8150 as if they were the 8120. That is deception, lying, dishonesty. Understand now why you are being called a liar?

If I posted graphs of i7-990x power usage and claimed it was proof that the 2500k used more power than the 8120, I'd be the liar. But I am not doing that.

 

[Chiropteran]

The chart I just posted compares both the 8150 and 8120 in power consumption at stock in the most stressful scenario. The difference is a measly 11W, and if you overclock at the same voltage and same clocks they'll consume exactly the same because they're exactly the same silicon as far as functioning parts go.

Yes, which is completely different from the chart posted by BallaTheFeared which I was replying to. Try to follow the thread, please. If you are going to respond to my comments, at least take note towards what they are responding to.

BallaTheFeared posted some ridiculous chart showing highly overclocked 8150 power usage, which I was responding to.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

If I posted graphs of i7-990x power usage and claimed it was proof that the 2500k used more power than the 8120, I'd be the liar. But I am not doing that.

Is there any reason to respond to this person, any rational reason at all


I posted stock and overclocked, covering all the bases. Even at stock the 8150/8120 are a joke, a sad, sad joke played on everyone who bought a AM3+ board in anticipation for the RETURN OF FX lol derp.

 

[BD231]

That is fascinating.

http://phoronix.com/forums/showthre...-II-X6-1100T-versus-FX-8120-Performance-Guide

The 8120 uses less power than the X6 in every test of that review. But I guess you must have received a magical X6 that uses less power and poops out rainbows.

Yeah never mind the fact that you'd have to OC that 8120 to match stock thuban performance , you're a joke.

 

[Chiropteran]

I posted stock and overclocked, covering all the bases.

Except, you never actually posted the power usage of the cpu we were actually talking about, LOL. Maybe follow the thread and pay attention? 8120 isn't 8150. I know the numbers are similar but you wouldn't want to give someone a $50 when you only owe them $20, so try to pay attention in the future. Good luck.

Yeah never mind the fact that you'd have to OC that 8120 to match stock thuban performance , you're a joke.

So you admit you were lying about the power usage? Good to know. Another admitted liar to add to my ignore list.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Yeah the 8120 isn't the 8150, it's still a 125w part though isn't it derp?

I guess the 8120 is more like a jet ski, while a i5-2500k is more akin to a 980x, right?

Why do you guys argue with these zealots?

/turd

 

[Puppies04]

8150 is not the 8120. I'm not pulling up power usage figures for Pentium D CPU because we aren't talking about them, thus you should do the same and quit bringing up 8150 power usage figures.

You asked for figures I found you some. I can't find any 8120 power draw results in single threaded. They belong to the same family, have the same internal architecture and will have similar power draw.

You also specifically said the power difference was going to cause the OP to spend more money on a power supply, negating the $40 cheaper pricetag. Can you please show me a real scenario now where the extra 60W will require a power supply at least $40 more expensive?

You asked specifically about single threaded power draw, go to the next page and look at multi threaded power draw and you will see the difference jumps to over 80w difference. How about you go find out what the diffence in PSU cost is as you move up to higher capacity units. I'm neither your fact finder nor employee and for the 5th time also take into consideration I never said you will save the whole $40 instantly on a PSU but when coupled with a 2/3 year run time and the increased power cost over that period. All You have to do is save $40.01 and the BD chip is not only slower but works out more expensive at the same time. Quite an achievement I am sure you won't agree.

I suspect you won't, and instead do a lot of backpedaling and talking about how even if you don't spend more on a power supply you spend a few extra pennies each month on the electric bill and after X years it adds up.

No I won't because you have proved you won't listen to facts, you asked for proof I gave it you. I explained why I felt that way, you deliberatly misquote me and pick at holes in my arguement that don't exist. You go find me 2 PSU's with the same spec from a reputable manufacturer with the same price where one is rated for 80w more capacity and we can talk.

Then go read the "power consumption idle/load" page on the article I linked you and realise that with 2 identical setups including a HD6850 the difference between a 2500k and FX8150 setup rises to 103W more in intels favour.

You keep asking for proof and keep getting provided with it. How about you go find some facts to back up the drivel you are spouting.

 

[Chiropteran]

Yeah the 8120 isn't the 8150, it's still a 125w part though isn't it derp?
=

If you don't even know, why are you in this thread trying to pass along information? You don't really know anything except how to google, do you?

Here are some terms to try: "fx-8120 95w"

Learn something new every day. Now please quit trying to spout off like you know what you are talking about when you obviously don't.



He didn't even know about the 95W 8120, LOL.

 

[BD231]

So you admit you were lying about the power usage? Good to know. Another admitted liar to add to my ignore list.

How is telling you Bulldozer takes more power to achieve the same performance a lie? Your own graphs prove that.

 

[Chiropteran]

You asked for figures I found you some. I can't find any 8120 power draw results in single threaded.

That is what I thought. You also have no clue about that which you are arguing about. Just another one of the sheeple following the popular "derp bulldozer uses lots of power derp". You come in here making claims without even having ANYTHING AT ALL to back them up.

Please quit posting in bulldozer threads, since you have now admitted you don't know anything.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

lol that is a $230-$240 part and the only place that really "supposedly" carries it is Provantage.

I knew about it 6 months ago when gigabyte leaked the sku's, you new bro?

 

[Puppies04]

Except, you never actually posted the power usage of the cpu we were actually talking about, LOL. Maybe follow the thread and pay attention? 8120 isn't 8150. I know the numbers are similar but you wouldn't want to give someone a $50 when you only owe them $20, so try to pay attention in the future. Good luck.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about? The 8120 is the same piece of silicon clocked slighly lower. It performs even worse than the 8150 which is already getting pwnd by the 2500k In almost any scenario. The power draw will be 10-15% lower but so will the performance (maybe a hell of a lot more in tasks like gaming which require one very storng single core). The power draw difference isn't going to go from 100%+ more on the 8150 to much less than about 80-85% more than the 2500K.

Then overclock the chip to 8150 stock speed and we are right back at square one, it is still slower than a 2500k nearly all of the time and will be drawing 100% more power again. This scenario only gets worse as you push the AMD chip further into OC territory.

You lose at stock.

You lose even more once overclocked.