Dear forum members,
We are delighted to inform you that our forums are back online. Every single topic and post are now on their places and everything works just as before, only better. Welcome back!
Discussion on Article:
AMD FX-8120, AMD FX-6100 and AMD FX-4100 CPUs Review
FX-8120 consumed almost 60W more at load than 2500 did and lost in most benchmarks. Once overclocking was taken into account, the 2500k pulled away even more. Good thing the power consumption figures for the FX-8120 @ 4.6ghz weren't provided since you'd need a separate 500W PSU just for that:
At 4.6ghz, FX-8100 series consumes 275W more ower than 2500k does at 5.0ghz.....
And considering at 4.6ghz, Bulldozer already bottlenecks modern graphics cards, that means it's going to be obsolete once next generation 28nm GPUs launch within a month:
And the best part? Socket AM3+ has no upgrade path, unlike S1155 which can do an Ivy Bridge drop in.
In regard to FX-4100 and FX-6100 series, those can't even beat the previous generation Phenom II X6, nevermind an i5-2400.
Most people would be perfectly fine with using a Core 2 Duo from 2006 for 99% of their tasks and just getting a $100 SSD for OS; so what's your point about FX CPU being "good enough for 99% of consumers?
Why would anyone pay the same (FX-8120) or more (FX-8150) over 2500k for less performance and horrendous power consumption and a dead socket? Why would anyone get an FX-6100 over Phenom II X6 or i3-2120? Why would anyone get FX-4100 over Phenom II X4?
Nice try. Stop trolling. Bulldozer is a huge failure for now, even worse than Phenom I or II were. It's easily the worst CPU since the Pentium D unless you need a 2nd heater in the winter.
Maybe you should read this review and others on the Internet. i5-2500 was 72% faster in Starcraft II than a similarly priced FX-8120. FAIL!
The best thing about Bulldozer is the tin-can packaging.
530w radiator :D.
Shouldn't 99+% of consumers buy Pentium in that case. Should they?
We all know bulldozer fails vs sandy bridge in synthetic single-threaded tasks, I don't see the point in endlessly banging on about it. Having six or eight cores available on the cheap is attractive to people who do a lot of multitasking.
Assuming that people only ever perform one task at a time is a bit silly.
As for the anti-virus thing, there are countless computer illiterates that have their anti-virus at default settings, which is likely to suddenly start a full scan without notice every 24 hours. This can be much worse in the workplace in large organisations where each PC has a bajillion security things running.
Just blaming Bulldozer Micro architecture again & again?
We've already seen bunch of these reviews and things that should be said have said.
With respect for this tough review for Ilya but it was not necessary, perhaps you archive these benchmarks for when review them again after Microsoft Patch for Bulldozer.
FX-8150 is more of a Core i7 870 competitor, not the modern Sandy Bridge architecture. So please don't accuse Xbitlabs of bias.
Sure, there will be binned CPUs that they can still sell at even lower prices, but why disable perfectly good modules just to artificially manipulate the price?
If FX-8120 costs between USD 140 and 150, I might buy it over an i5-2500K, especially for my VM server. I am an AMD fan, but i5-2500K sure does look good right now.
1. Newegg has a DIY combo that they have the price reduced $137, basically like getting the processor for free Total cost was 380.
2. I use photoshop CS5 all day every day, with lots of zipping and have around 20+ open windows usually. Also for the GA out there, this does similarly well on Ai and Id so you can be graphics manipulating happy.
3. I have a i7 920 which owns this is every way shape and form, but hey i paid around a grand for that setup 2 years back. for 380.... I am way happy.
4. I fire up steam on this every now and then and roll some L4D2 and it keeps pace, more on my embedded cheap graphics card then anything else but hey its playable. (not with 20+ windows open however)
5. I at first had this as a hypervisor'd box and it was actually very solid, not a bad idea for server builds on budgets.
1) Not all tasks that the general population does requires high speed computational power. The majority of people read email, browse the web to purchase items, read the news, write a few business letter using some form of office suite, run the occasional spreadsheet to keep track of their personal finances, do online banking. For this you do not need a very fast CPU and even there we see High End POWER Laptops sold with Intel I 7 CPU's but these laptops come configured with a 5400 RPM disk drive which essentially kills the machine and the throughput is no better than an equivalent machine with an I3 processor for these type of tasks. It will become obvious later why I say this so please keep reading.
2) Depending on the applications being used by a user the FX may be a better choice if one is using threaded applications such as VMware Workstation. If one is running several virtual machines then more cores is preferred than raw single core processing power. You have more cores to allocate to virtual machines and as a whole you can then run more virtual machines efficiently and potentially faster than a machine with fewer cores where the cores are faster.
3) CPU processing power is one thing, but fast access to disk and data is also extremely important to making sure that data is available from the slow disk subsystem to the CPU to actually do number crunching. (5400 rpm disk drives and a slow bus speed between the disk and the mother board are very good example as to what can cause your CPU to be sitting there with nothing to do)
4) What I noticed is that mother boards based on the AMD chip set tends to have 6 SATA 3 (6Gb/sec) ports than the Intel Chip set which today only supports 2 SATA 3 and 4 SATA 2 (3Gbits/sec)ports . This to me is a big disappointment with the Intel chip set at the moment. (Not good value for the money)
5) The AMD mother boards also tend to have more PCI-E slots than the Intel boards which is also a bonus.
6)I also find that AMD MOBO's have more USB 3 Ports than do the Intel MOBO's at the low end of the price range.
6) the above features make the MOBO for AMD cpu's a much better buy for the same cost of an Intel board.
Therefore from a complete system point of view the AMD system may be a better buy even though the cost may be the same as an Intel system. This is referred to as good value which is what AMD has always tried to do. Therefore the FX chip may not represent the better value compared to the Intel CPU but from a System point of view it may be.
The other point I am trying to make is that every person who buys a computer system must look at their needs, what they plan on using the system for, then decide on what meets the needs. In the example above if you plan on using this system for multi threading applications (running Vmware and multiple Virtual machine such as an FTP server, a Linux server, a Linux Desktop system, possibly another Windows 7 desktop machine to play on the internet and test various apps before implementing them on the Host Operating system, etc...) and require fast access to disks in a raid configuration because of all of the virtual machines running and needing access to the Virtual disks on the real disk subsystem then the FX system may be a much better choice than an equally priced Intel system.
For example if you can have a very fast CPU but it spends most of its time waiting for data to be processed because the Disk I/O subsystem is very slow, then you are I/O bound and not CPU bound and the result is low throughput. A simple case in point is if you are manipulating very large files that reside on disk then you will most likely find the CPU is waiting on the data to be read or written to the disks and it si not being fully utilized. In this case what you need is a faster disk I/O subsystem which will improve the performance drastically. Having more disks and being able to access them over SATA 3 rather than SATA 2 interfaces is definitely a better option than selecting a faster CPU to get more throughput. For those of you who might doubt this theory I would recommend you look at the CPU utilization when manipulating large files and just how busy your disk drive is. Being able to "feed the processor with data from disk will increase the CPU utilization and throughput... not a faster CPU.
Some of you might think that I am an AMD boy, however that is not the case as I have owned both AMD computers and Intel computers. The harsh reality is you need to determine your needs, then determine what is the most efficient and least costly solution. Over the last 25 years my needs for computers has varied, hence the reason for the different purchases.
In conclusion in order to get the desired results of your computer system you need to look at what you plan to use it for and the complete configuration of your computer (CPU speed and performance as well as you I/O disk performance)in order to achieve your desired results. That might be why a lot of people are choosing the FX chip system instead of the Intel system.
Add your Comment
Enter your username and e-mail address. Password will be sent to you.