• 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.

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

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
BD231 said:
How is telling you Bulldozer takes more power to achieve the same performance a lie? Your own graphs prove that.
Click to expand...

Nobody said anything about performance, but nice try at moving the goalposts. The 8120 uses less power. Period. You lied, your lie has been proven, and now you try to cover it up by changing the question.

Nice try but you failed.
 
Chiropteran said:
Nobody said anything about performance, but nice try at moving the goalposts. The 8120 uses less power. Period. You lied, your lie has been proven, and now you try to cover it up by changing the question.

Nice try but you failed.
Click to expand...

BD231 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Stupid confirmed
 
Here you go Chiropteran just to shut you up.

2500K
Idle 75W
Load 151W

FX 8120
Idle 96W
LOAD 244W

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8150fx_8120fx_6100_and_fx_4170,7.html

Then you can spend a little time reading the rest of the article, and watch your beloved 8120 getting kicked to death in almost every single test by the 2500K.

Not that is will change anything you will come back with something along the lines of "but this test was done on a tuesday and nobody said anything about tuesdays!!!"
 
BallaTheFeared said:
lol this guy is awesome.


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


[regarding the 95W]
I knew about it 6 months ago when gigabyte leaked the sku's
Click to expand...


So I have to assume you were either lying again, claiming there is no 95W part, or you are just stupid enough that you had no idea it existed and just now discovered it and are trying to cover that fact up. Either way you lose.
 
Chiropteran said:
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.
Click to expand...

Probably having to do with Linux. Every other review featuring the Phenom II X6 and FX-8 series have the FX consuming more power. But another thing you conveniently forgot is that you're comparing the highest-end Phenom II X6 processor to the lowest-end FX-8 series processor.

Chiropteran said:
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.
Click to expand...

There's a 5-10W difference under load between the 8120 and 8150. Big freaking whoop!

Also, more intellectual dishonesty again. The difference in power consumption between the 8120 and 8150 is an order of a magnitude lower than the difference between the 2500K and 990X.

Chiropteran said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's not a ridiculous chart; it's completely factual. That's what an FX-8 series CPU consumes on a Prime95/IntelBurnTest load when overclocked near its limit. Now, I'd agree if you were saying it consumes a ridiculous amount of power.
 
durrr.jpg
 
Chiropteran said:
That info is BS, made up, FAKE. AKA, more lies from Puppies04.

Here is some accurate info, notice power usage is about HALF what you just posted. Nice try though.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-8120-6100-4100_8.html
Click to expand...

Read the test setup (which most normal people will do) and you will realise they tested a full range of software synthetic and real world aswell as games in the article I linked hence the fact the same GPU was installed on each rig easily explaining the elevated power draw on both the intel and AMD systems.

Now that link you just posted contradicts every other test setup I have seen. If anyone is posting dodgy links then it is you Mr.
 
Chiropteran said:
That info is BS, made up, FAKE. AKA, more lies from Puppies04.

Here is some accurate info, notice power usage is about HALF what you just posted. Nice try though.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-8120-6100-4100_8.html
Click to expand...


Here is anands test setup including a 5870. Call his results lies if you dare.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/9

I5 2500K
Idle 76
Load 133

FX8150
Idle 85
Load 229

As your made up link shows a 1W difference between the 8150 and 8120 at load I will be kind and let you subtract 10W (10 times as much) from the 8150 to get a good 8120 estimate....

Still roughly 86W more on the AMD rig.

Edit.

I think you need a bigger shovel, that hole is getting deep.
 
Chiropteran said:
So I have to assume you were either lying again, claiming there is no 95W part, or you are just stupid enough that you had no idea it existed and just now discovered it and are trying to cover that fact up. Either way you lose.
Click to expand...

The 95W SKU has measly availability and costs more than the 125W SKU.
 
Wait people are saying BD draws less power than sandy now?

Its really hard to rec a BD over a sandy,even with the 30-60 in savings,its not worth it.I cant justify any reason even with price involved to buy a BD,you can easily buy there older cores for half the price and in most cases beat there own new chips.

The ceo jumped ship the second intel released sandy bench marks and he sold all his stocks.

What the heck does that tell you about a company,there fan boys care more then there ceo.
 
Chiropteran said:
So I have to assume you were either lying again, claiming there is no 95W part, or you are just stupid enough that you had no idea it existed and just now discovered it and are trying to cover that fact up. Either way you lose.
Click to expand...
Would you be so kind and point out where this mythical 95W 8120 SKU is available? AMD doesn't list it. Newegg doesn't have it. I checked two retailers in Germany, nada. So, while it may have been announced, it never reached the market... I wonder why?

LOL_Wut_Axel said:
The 95W SKU has measly availability and costs more than the 125W SKU.
Click to expand...
So, it actually is available - where? I can find no listing at all for the EU (using price search engines of Heise.de and Geizhals.at). Is there any shop where it actually is in stock? Or was that just another PR stunt by AMD, seeding a few hand-selected 95W samples to give the impression that Bulldozer can be efficient, while it is impossible to mass-produce a 95W 8120?
 
Last edited:
wow I just read all 7 pages of this thread.

Didn't know we had so many delusional people on this forum.

And answer to the OP question is simple.

If you cannot see it may god help your soul lol.
 
Wriptire said:
Would you be so kind and point out where this mythical 95W 8120 SKU is available? AMD doesn't list it. Newegg doesn't have it. I checked two retailers in Germany, nada. So, while it may have been announced, it never reached the market... I wonder why?


So, it actually is available - where? I can find no listing at all for the EU (using price search engines of Heise.de and Geizhals.at). Is there any shop where it actually is in stock? Or was that just another PR stunt by AMD, seeding a few hand-selected 95W samples to give the impression that Bulldozer can be efficient, while it is impossible to mass-produce a 95W 8120?
Click to expand...

In the kingdom of the united we have one place that may sell it :awe:

http://www.advancetec.co.uk/acatalo...-Core-AM3-16MB-Cache-FD8120FRGUBOX.html#a0180

Of course they don't say its in stock and ive never heard of that website so it may be a scam site like hardwareking or MOcustoms, we have a scam site problem in the UK 😡
 
Puppies04 said:
I think you need a bigger shovel, that hole is getting deep.
Click to expand...

I think my point has been made. You keep going on and on, yet you still haven't posted any direct evidence of your claim that an 8120 would require a significantly more expensive power supply than an i5 2500k.

Does the 8120 use more power? Yes, I've never denied this. I've merely argued about how much more, and whether or not that number is really all that significant.

You are now basing your numbers off interpolated data assuming the 8150 and 8120 power usage is a simple direct relationship, and even assuming it's accurate enough your worst case scenario has the 8120 using about 86W more than the i5. At 2 hours a day of usage, it would take 5 years before the power cost even equalized the $40 price difference, much less started to make the i5 a better deal.

For less than $35, you can get a nice budget 500W power supply, which is more than enough for either system.

Example-

http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0365237

Given this, I'm awaiting your example of a cheaper power supply which could run the i5 but not the 8120 which would save you more than $40.
 
Go with the AMD if,,,

you use HT 64bit apps. like premiere and photoshop etc DAW.... I think it would like the cores rather then threads... gl
 
Wriptire said:
Would you be so kind and point out where this mythical 95W 8120 SKU is available? AMD doesn't list it. Newegg doesn't have it. I checked two retailers in Germany, nada. So, while it may have been announced, it never reached the market... I wonder why?


So, it actually is available - where? I can find no listing at all for the EU (using price search engines of Heise.de and Geizhals.at). Is there any shop where it actually is in stock? Or was that just another PR stunt by AMD, seeding a few hand-selected 95W samples to give the impression that Bulldozer can be efficient, while it is impossible to mass-produce a 95W 8120?
Click to expand...

Here. $220 and OEM.
 
I already posted that, costs as much as the worst price you can get an i5-2500k for, and doesn't even include a heatsink or gpu.

Who knows if it's even legit, or if you'll be placed on a pre-order, out of stock waiting list for ages...

I like how he assumes the OP wouldn't overclock, I didn't see that in his posts so I'm going to assume like any ration person seeing free performance that he will.

In which case the difference just jumped to 200-250 watts at load, that's the $45 difference between a TX650 and a TX850.

Let's not forget while trivial the cost difference of running the 8150 will be twice that of the sandy setup, while offering little to no additional performance in MT, and terrible single and lightly thread workloads such as gaming.

Why exactly is anyone recommending a $230 OEM cpu, that draws twice as much power, costs more, doesn't come with a gpu, nor a heatsink over a faster more efficient cpu that costs less, performs better, and includes a gpu for whatever your hearts desire?

We can discuss the difference between the 125w 8120 and the 95w 8120 when you can actually locate a review of the processor that doesn't actually exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top