• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

What is the FX-8120 comparable to these days ?

JPB

Diamond Member
Jul 4, 2005
4,036
82
91
It has been a long long time since I have upgraded. I know Ryzen / Intel current CPU's will be a absolute huge upgrade over the cpu I have now. This thing has ran at 4.0Ghz for a hair over 5 years now..

But anyway, what is the newest most comparable CPU on the market these days that is "equal" to an FX-8120 ?

Why do I get the feeling, even the Ryzen APU's are faster than this now ? I have looked extensively for reviews that has both, to no avail.

So, Say I went to something like a 2600X......What would be the performance improvement ? And also, I am considering a 2400G for an HTCP.

So, thoughts on how the Ryzen APU's and 2600X compares to my current FX-8120 ?

Thanks
 
  • Like
Reactions: ryan20fun

PeterScott

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2017
2,605
1,540
106
It has been a long long time since I have upgraded. I know Ryzen / Intel current CPU's will be a absolute huge upgrade over the cpu I have now. This thing has ran at 4.0Ghz for a hair over 5 years now..

But anyway, what is the newest most comparable CPU on the market these days that is "equal" to an FX-8120 ?

Why do I get the feeling, even the Ryzen APU's are faster than this now ? I have looked extensively for reviews that has both, to no avail.

So, Say I went to something like a 2600X......What would be the performance improvement ? And also, I am considering a 2400G for an HTCP.

So, thoughts on how the Ryzen APU's and 2600X compares to my current FX-8120 ?

Thanks
4core Ryzen (3.2Ghz) vs FX-8350(4Ghz):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKp9h3SXmgs
And how much gains you can get from OC the 4core Ryzen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQAz-CiUHOc

So even the 4Core APU will blow away FX when overclocked to about 4GHz.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arkaign

Zibi

Junior Member
Sep 19, 2018
3
1
41
Ryzen 3 2200G have overall the same or slighty better multi thread performance and about 70-80% better single thread performance

Ryzen 5 2400G have overall 50% better multi thread performance and about 80-90% better single thread performance
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Arkaign

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,681
1,227
126
Even the slowest current i3 or Ryzen sku will be a drastic improvement over an 8xxx FX in effective performance. In fact, useful speed on a Pentium G5400 would be better in most cases than an 8120, because the single thread performance is so much better, along with all of the modern QOL stuff like improved SATA and USB performance, PCIe nvme SSD compatibility, etc. To say nothing of massive improvement in power efficiency/thermals.

A Ryzen 2600x would be a crazy amount of improvement. They are awesome.

The APUs I'm not really sold on, the igpu is not quite fast enough for 1080p gaming at good framerate/details, so combining a low profile 1050ti or so is better, though for standard h.265/4k streaming and video playback basically every current CPU with igpu is fine. To add to this, to even get the best performance from the APUs requires you to get as fast as you can afford in DDR4, as cheap 2133/2400 really hurts it compared to running 3200 and beyond.

How much of a current system would you reuse? What is your budget? What do you want to do with a new build or builds?
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,681
1,227
126
Ryzen 3 2200G have overall the same or slighty better multi thread performance and about 70-80% better single thread performance
Yep, and because it's fairly difficult/rare to fully load 8 cores in normal use outside of encoding, the gap will feel much bigger thanks to modern Zen ripping through tasks that aren't heavily multithreaded. Eg; booting windows, opening apps, scrolling through dense web sites, running games/PDFs/etc.
 

UsandThem

Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 4, 2000
14,939
5,616
146
It's tough comparing such an old CPU to current models, as most sites don't do that. So what you have to do to get an estimate is read older reviews, and then compare it to the speed increase of the following generation. That's a lot of work, so I'll just give you the quick and dirty, and you can research it if you wish.

The i5-2400 (Sandy Bridge) CPU pretty much destroyed the FX-8120 in most tasks. So now that we are 6 generations from when that was released, and with each generation netting in the neighborhood of a 10% performance increase (Intel), the 2600X would give you about 60% overall better performance based on it's performance against current Intel CPUs.

I normally don't use these "compare" sites, but it is in line with what I expected when roughly calculating the differences:

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-2400-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-2600X/803vs3956

Edit

I missed the comparison site had the FX-8120 in their data base for some reason, so they actually have a larger than I expected increase going to the 2600X:

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-5-2600X-vs-AMD-FX-8120/3956vsm173

They have the overall performance increase at 108%. :eek:
 
Last edited:

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
13,599
2,690
126
It's tough comparing such an old CPU to current models, as most sites don't do that. So what you have to do to get an estimate is read older reviews, and then compare it to the speed increase of the following generation. That's a lot of work, so I'll just give you the quick and dirty, and you can research it if you wish.

The i5-2400 (Sandy Bridge) CPU pretty much destroyed the FX-8120 in most tasks. So now that we are 6 generations from when that was released, and with each generation netting in the neighborhood of a 10% performance increase (Intel), the 2600X would give you about 60% overall better performance based on it's performance against current Intel CPUs.

I normally don't use these "compare" sites, but it is in line with what I expected when roughly calculating the differences:

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-2400-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-2600X/803vs3956
Since the OP has its FX8120 OC to 4GHz, I will say that it destroys the Core i5 2400 in the vast majority of MT workloads.
Also in modern games, a 4GHz FX8120 will be very close to Core i5 2400 and in the latest games that need more than 4 threads it will have a much better game play.
 

moinmoin

Platinum Member
Jun 1, 2017
2,755
3,630
136
PassMark wise Ryzen 3 1200 (worst Ryzen available, 4c4t) is slightly better (6757) than FX-8120 (6594). In single thread rating the difference is more significant, 1719 vs. 1216. The worst Zen based chip, Athlon 200GE (2c4t), is 5261 respectively 1682.

I don't know how well turbo worked in FX chips, but FX-8120's turbo was 4GHz as well.
 

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
13,599
2,690
126
PassMark wise Ryzen 3 1200 (worst Ryzen available, 4c4t) is slightly better (6757) than FX-8120 (6594). In single thread rating the difference is more significant, 1719 vs. 1216. The worst Zen based chip, Athlon 200GE (2c4t), is 5261 respectively 1682.

I don't know how well turbo worked in FX chips, but FX-8120's turbo was 4GHz as well.
Single Thread performance of FX8120 is crap by today's standards, but MT performance is still acceptable especially if you OC to 4GHz and up.
 

Hitman928

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2012
3,640
4,066
136
Since the OP has its FX8120 OC to 4GHz, I will say that it destroys the Core i5 2400 in the vast majority of MT workloads.
Also in modern games, a 4GHz FX8120 will be very close to Core i5 2400 and in the latest games that need more than 4 threads it will have a much better game play.
I'm not sure this is true with O.G. Bulldozer. If it were a Piledriver, I'd probably be more inclined to believe you as it had a significant performance advantage in games over the FX-81xx series.
 

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
13,599
2,690
126

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,681
1,227
126
Since the OP has its FX8120 OC to 4GHz, I will say that it destroys the Core i5 2400 in the vast majority of MT workloads.
Also in modern games, a 4GHz FX8120 will be very close to Core i5 2400 and in the latest games that need more than 4 threads it will have a much better game play.
The 8120 can absolutely outpace an i5 2400 with the OC. Hell, encoding with handbrake the 8 core FX actually does pretty solid.

However, the architecture of FX doesn't hold up too well with modern games. My older son has a hand-me-down FX-8320@4.4Ghz, my circa 2012 VM server.

It has :

Asus 990FX Mobo (forgot model, it was $$)
16GB (2x8GB) DDR3-1866
Hyper Evo 212+ HSF, lapped (temps hold under 60c@4.4, used to run it at 4.6 but power consumption was scary with my old 290x)
1200W Corsair PSU
512GB Samsung 850 Pro SSD
4x2TB WD Red in Raid 0+1 (~4TB space, fairly fast for HDD)
LiteOn BD/DVDRW
Cooler Master MidATX with a ton of fans, the one with the handle on top. Nice case!
MSI Windforce 1070 OC
Win10 Pro x64
1920x1080 165hz TN 23.8" + 2560x1600 60hz IPS 12-Bit 30"

I'm keeping an eye on an upgrade for him, because it has some real drawbacks even at 1080p in current games regardless of how much you lower graphic settings. AC Origins, PUBG, Far Cry 5, it all feels a bit worse than with my guest gaming rig running a 1060 6GB with my old 4790k @ 4.8Ghz.

I think for Christmas I'll up him to a Ryzen 2700, or maybe scoop a deal on a 1800x perhaps. It's just a pain to swap out DDR3 for DDR4, reload everything to a UEFI nVME SSD, etc. Then again I have seen deals through work on P500 WS with E5-1680 v3, Quadro P4000 and 32GB quad channel ram for around $500 every few weeks, if I went that route I could gift his old 8320 rig to my youngest son, and not have to do much besides toss a 960 Evo m.2 in.

Anyway, TLDR : FX, even this 8320@4.4, is really feeling its age with current games. Minimums are erratic, probably because of terrible IPC in ST. Everything is fine until some core game process lags due to needing one of those cores to get cracking. I wouldn't expect an i5 2400 to do too much better tbqh. I replaced my 4.8Ghz 4790k with 5Ghz 8700k due to needing better minimums in games like AC:O, and even that's been replaced with 5.2Ghz 8086k due to having 3440x1440 Gysnc. Chasing a low-lag, high minimum framerate experience is expensive :/
 

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
13,599
2,690
126
The 8120 can absolutely outpace an i5 2400 with the OC. Hell, encoding with handbrake the 8 core FX actually does pretty solid.

However, the architecture of FX doesn't hold up too well with modern games. My older son has a hand-me-down FX-8320@4.4Ghz, my circa 2012 VM server.

It has :

Asus 990FX Mobo (forgot model, it was $$)
16GB (2x8GB) DDR3-1866
Hyper Evo 212+ HSF, lapped (temps hold under 60c@4.4, used to run it at 4.6 but power consumption was scary with my old 290x)
1200W Corsair PSU
512GB Samsung 850 Pro SSD
4x2TB WD Red in Raid 0+1 (~4TB space, fairly fast for HDD)
LiteOn BD/DVDRW
Cooler Master MidATX with a ton of fans, the one with the handle on top. Nice case!
MSI Windforce 1070 OC
Win10 Pro x64
1920x1080 165hz TN 23.8" + 2560x1600 60hz IPS 12-Bit 30"

I'm keeping an eye on an upgrade for him, because it has some real drawbacks even at 1080p in current games regardless of how much you lower graphic settings. AC Origins, PUBG, Far Cry 5, it all feels a bit worse than with my guest gaming rig running a 1060 6GB with my old 4790k @ 4.8Ghz.

I think for Christmas I'll up him to a Ryzen 2700, or maybe scoop a deal on a 1800x perhaps. It's just a pain to swap out DDR3 for DDR4, reload everything to a UEFI nVME SSD, etc. Then again I have seen deals through work on P500 WS with E5-1680 v3, Quadro P4000 and 32GB quad channel ram for around $500 every few weeks, if I went that route I could gift his old 8320 rig to my youngest son, and not have to do much besides toss a 960 Evo m.2 in.

Anyway, TLDR : FX, even this 8320@4.4, is really feeling its age with current games. Minimums are erratic, probably because of terrible IPC in ST. Everything is fine until some core game process lags due to needing one of those cores to get cracking. I wouldn't expect an i5 2400 to do too much better tbqh. I replaced my 4.8Ghz 4790k with 5Ghz 8700k due to needing better minimums in games like AC:O, and even that's been replaced with 5.2Ghz 8086k due to having 3440x1440 Gysnc. Chasing a low-lag, high minimum framerate experience is expensive :/
Ehm, GTX1070 is too much for the FX ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arkaign

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,681
1,227
126
Ehm, GTX1070 is too much for the FX ;)
LOL probably so, adding a pretty good SSD and high refresh display probably exacerbates the laggy feel from the CPU. With say a 1050ti and 60hz display it probably would be more balanced for sure.

The FX 8C stuff always has, and still does pretty well with things that can really feed all of the cores. Problem is, any time something is depending on high single thread performance, it struggles a bit. Games are tough this way, because it seems like even those that can take advantage of 4-8 cores still tend to have one or two cores that literally max out at 95% or so, while the others float around anywhere between 10-50% (loosely speaking).

It runs Fortnite and CS like a boss though :D
 

SPBHM

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2012
4,998
356
126
well, there is this very interesting test from 2018 with the 8150 which is 3.6GHz + whatever turbo it gets for lower loads
https://www.hardware.fr/articles/965-2/performances-applicatives.html

112% of a stock it 2500, faster than the 2200G (not much) on heavy MT, which means in games it's only 80% of a 2500
https://www.hardware.fr/articles/965-3/performances-jeux-3d.html


also energy efficiency is where it's really bad against most newer things (still it's around the Nehalem stuff), not unexpected
https://www.hardware.fr/articles/965-4/consommation-efficacite-energetique.html
half of the i5 2500 (which is older!) for MT, and the 2200G is even better

so I think it's fair to say that the 2200G performs close in MT but a little behind potentially, yet it demolishes in terms of efficiency and ST.
 

moinmoin

Platinum Member
Jun 1, 2017
2,755
3,630
136
Anyway, TLDR : FX, even this 8320@4.4, is really feeling its age with current games. Minimums are erratic, probably because of terrible IPC in ST. Everything is fine until some core game process lags due to needing one of those cores to get cracking. I wouldn't expect an i5 2400 to do too much better tbqh. I replaced my 4.8Ghz 4790k with 5Ghz 8700k due to needing better minimums in games like AC:O, and even that's been replaced with 5.2Ghz 8086k due to having 3440x1440 Gysnc. Chasing a low-lag, high minimum framerate experience is expensive :/
Minimums are more down to the amount of cores available than high ST which help maximums.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
51,939
6,889
126
I just threw together an FX-6300 rig tonight, with a GT 730 1GB GDDR5 dGPU (that was giving me trouble mining, but otherwise, OK for 2D / 4K UHD 2D work), 2x8GB GSkill DDR3-1600, and a Biostar TA970 board, that I bought 2-3 years ago. Still works!

Edit: And I built a Skylake Celeron PC the day before. Subjectively speaking, installing Windows 10, felt like it was going a big slower and slightly sluggish on the FX-6300, but that could partially be due to my internet starting to act up for some reason.
 
Last edited:

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
17,803
6,793
136
What is an FX-8120 comparable to these days? Punching yourself in the face. Repeatedly.

Ha! Sorry, had to say it.

If you have the money to throw together a simple Zen or Zen+ based system, do it. The only thing you will regret are the memory prices. Memory is supposed to be getting cheaper though.
 
Last edited:

rancherlee

Senior member
Jul 9, 2000
707
18
81
I have a 8320 @ 4.4 and a 2400G @ Stock (stays at 3.9ghz boost mostly). The 2400g is a little faster (10-15%) in multi thread and the 8320 isn't even close in Single thread. The 2400G/AM4 combo upgraded my Daughter's 7850k box and It over doubled the frame rates in the simple games she plays, Running the iGPU @ 1500. My 8320/ Radeon 7950 will keep me going until Zen 2 comes out (3000 series)
 

qlum

Junior Member
Jul 16, 2017
2
0
11
At work I once decided to build systems based on cheap 6300's and while its multithreaded performance is decent for general desktop use I noticed these where the machines complained most about their slowness while subjectively there where way less complaints about the pentium g4400 I used in newer systems. Which only has 2 cores 2 threads the workload was mostly web browsing and basic office use but going off that I'd say that for general use any current generation desktop processor will perform better.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
51,939
6,889
126
At work I once decided to build systems based on cheap 6300's and while its multithreaded performance is decent for general desktop use I noticed these where the machines complained most about their slowness while subjectively there where way less complaints about the pentium g4400 I used in newer systems. Which only has 2 cores 2 threads the workload was mostly web browsing and basic office use but going off that I'd say that for general use any current generation desktop processor will perform better.
That's basically what I found as well, comparing both of my systems that I built the past few days, the Skylake Celeron with 4GB DDR4 and an SSD, versus the FX-6300 with 16GB of DDR3-1600 @ 1333 and an SSD. Windows 10 on both.
 

JPB

Diamond Member
Jul 4, 2005
4,036
82
91
For the HTPC, it would only be using for video streaming / movies / Netflix ...and possibly wanting to stream 4k where available. Is the iGPU inside the AMD APU's up to that ?

And I figured the 8120 is very dated...and slow compared to todays CPU's. So for my desktop PC, I would like the 2600X at minimum. By the way, the desktop, is for web browsing, videos etc....but will be 90% used for gaming.

So it seems like I am looking at one h3ll of an upgrade. 8120---->2600X.

Just got to decide now, which APU will suffice the best. Probably be 5 years max before I upgrade the HTPC again. As you can see...I ride a long time with the same CPU's. As said, it will be used for movies only.....possibly music. Absolutely nothing else.

So how much faster will my "HTPC" basically be over my current desktop with the 8120 ?
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,681
1,227
126
Tbqh, for purely streaming 1080 and 4k + music, you might even consider using a Roku type device for ease/power efficiency. You can host local files on a network disk if you want to do both local and streaming. Also worth noting, an Xbox One S is super cheap and includes the ability to do all types of local and online streaming, but also plays 4K UHD Blurays. Deals next month will probably be $199 or less again, which is pretty hard to beat. Easy to use with a controller, but also compatible with KBM. Doing any of these would save you money you could either save or put towards a better primary desktop.

As for desktop with 2600x, it would be hugely faster than the 8120 of course. Make sure you get an M.2 nVME SSD for your boot drive. For purely gaming, the i5-8600/i7-8700 stuff is faster. For everything else, the Ryzens are generally equal or better. If you're the type to upgrade your CPU over the life of a system, the AMD 4xx chipset should see at least a couple of new options before being maxed out, while the top chip for current 1150 motherboard is generally 8700k/8086k.

Prices are still pretty messed up on many levels, where I'd even suggest looking at techbargains.com and comparing full build + OS costs to see where you're at. Do you have a current budget?
 

chrisjames61

Senior member
Dec 31, 2013
721
445
136
What is an FX-8120 comparable to these days? Punching yourself in the face. Repeatedly.

Ha! Sorry, had to say it.

If you have the money to throw together a simple Zen or Zen+ based system, do it. The only thing you will regret are the memory prices. Memory is supposed to be getting cheaper though.

I heard somewhere on YouTube they expect DDR4 prices to drop by a massive 5%.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
D CPUs and Overclocking 16

ASK THE COMMUNITY