As you know, it is the graphics subsystem that determines the performance of the entire platform equipped with pretty high-speed processors in the majority of contemporary games. Therefore, we do our best to make sure that the graphics card is not loaded too heavily during the test session: we select the most CPU-dependent tests and all tests are performed without antialiasing and in far not the highest screen resolutions. In other words, obtained results allow us to analyze not that much the fps rate that can be achieved in systems equipped with contemporary graphics accelerators, but rather how well contemporary processors can cope with gaming workload. Therefore, the results help us determine how the tested CPUs will behave in the nearest future, when new faster graphics card models will be widely available.
AMD FX processors are definitely not cut for gaming. They not only get completely destroyed by Intel’s Core i5 and Core i3, but also yield even to their own predecessors from the Phenom II family. The reasons behind this situation are quite obvious: contemporary games can rarely take full advantage of the multi-core architectures, so the real strength of the new Bulldozer microarchitecture remains in the shade.
In addition to our gaming tests we would also like to offer you the results of the Futuremark 3DMark11 benchmark (Performance profile):
In the meanwhile, Bulldozer’s results in the synthetic 3DMark11 are not that bad at all. This test uses multi-threading, that is why eight- and six-core AMD FX processors manage to break away from their predecessors. The fastest pair, FX-8150 and FX-8120, even manage to outperform their dual-core Core i3 competitor. The six-core FX-6100 in this case performs as fast as Core i3-2120, and the quad-core FX-4100 surpasses Pentium G860. In other words, if the prices of the new AMD FX processors were about 1/3 lower, their 3DMark11 results could be considered adequate.