Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by Shambles1980, May 6, 2014.
Can you tell us anything else us from the future, most exalted seer?
i just want to reiterate i dont see the amd 8xxx as 8 cores. i really think of them as quad cores with a amd version of hyper threading.
so really its kind of an i7 but only manages to play ball with lower end i5's for most part but can compete with 2500k in some situations (not single threaded though) and if i think of them like that then they do seem very poor in comparison..
But they do have enough grunt to power decent gpu's and can definitely allow me to play the games i want to play how i want to play them.
i wont achieve higer than needed maximums "although that is never what i care about" what i do care about is the minimum fps. all i want to do is game at a constant 60fps. vsynk on double/tripple buffer tweak the settings and the res just right. and never go below 60fps.
I may need to up the gpu a bit i'm yet to find that out. but im pretty sure that the cpu has enough of what is needed to keep me ticking over at what i want to do.
and at the least i will have some ddr3 ram now. so thats one less item on the things needed to upgrade list.
i may well get a 2500k or similar when 14nm tech arrives.
what i have done here is basically swapped my old board cpu and ram for this board cpu and ram, which gives me one less item i need to upgrade later bringing my costs down. and the money for the q6600 setup is about the same as the money spent on this..
No need to be insulting now.
The Q6600 is a good CPU, yes. But it's also old. The X4 760k won't do a good job for an upgrade. At LEAST a FX-6300 for an upgrade would work. If you want to go higher, then pick an i5 and up.
still waiting for the OP to find that his 8120 is slower than the q6600 (@ 3.8) for games. Bulldozer is horrid.
I only mentioned the 760k as its cheap, a sidegrade that would get him faster and more ram, newer mobo etc
i ran a X4 760K setup for the price of it, it perform kinda good for nearly all game i played with it (and a R9-270 followed by a GTX580 and then a R9-270X) i tested the 6300 and saw near no difference game wise with the 760K
actually i test a A10-7700K (since i had my X4 760K on a FM2+ A88X mobo ) off course my E8500 paired with a R9 270X do well (heck even with the R7 240 it has actually ) also had a i7 920 and a SLI setup paired with a Xeon E3-1275V2
yet if it was a Q9650 and not a Q6600 i would say wait the next gen, as it would be pretty much a capable quad (Q9550 OC 4ghz is near a i5 760 on the perf level and it's a pretty capable cpu even for actual games)
in the end i choose the cheaper solution and still all my games run smooth... damn: money you are a pain you ruins everythings!
upgrading for me isnt a quick deal with a wife lol..
my next upgrade will probably be slower than this one.and most likely will be an i3 + mother board. which i will help fund by selling this board and the 8120..
But then i will have DDR3 ram not ddr2 ( from this "for all purposes free" upgrade) an a board that will support the i5 2500k (and/or better depending what i see for the prices)..
and then im just a cpu away. from where you guys think i need to be.
having spread the cost out. whilst still being able to game. and inevitably spending less money.
its the same method i used to upgrade from a p4 486 to a q6600. via pentium d. lga 775
i really cant just say thats what i want so il just buy all those parts now.
back then i didnt have a wife. but i was young and broke. so the basic premiss is still the same. spread out the costs and get what i can when i can.
Who knows though the 8120 may well be fine and i dont want to upgrade. but atleast i do have the ddr3 ram now and a system to use.
and i will probably find an i3+board for a similar price to what i can sell the 8120 + board for.
but i would not have found an i3+board+ram for the same price i could sell my q6600+ddr2 ram for..
im working on the premis that a 8core system will hold its value more (on ebay) than a quad core..
I can see that, and updated memory and whatnot would be a good start for an upgrade. I've looked around and saw that L3 cache is really good in games, which most (if not all) Athlons lack. But for budget gaming? I can see that happening. My X4 620 just ran AC4 @1080p at around 40-45 fps paired with a 660.
The 620 was a Propus, essentially Phenom II (Deneb) without L3. Current Athlons also lack L3, they are similar to a 4300 but without L3. 620 was a true quad core, whereas the current Athlons are dual module. You are right that the L3 does help.
Since we're discussing a CPU from a gaming standpoint I thought I'd throw this in to consider.
thanks now i have the confirmation that a Q9650 to replace the E8500 for my DC7900 is a good idea if i can find one cheap, that is...
Not strictly true. The Bulldozer isn't much slower than the Piledriver. The Piledriver is a small update. To say Bulldozer is horrid is to say Piledriver is also horrid.
Also, Bulldozer FX 8120 reviews were done in 2011. The Bulldozer would stand a much better chance at newer games from 2014 onwards than the Q6600.
The 8350 does have 8 cores. You obviously have no clue about technology. It's Intel that have virtual cores.
Looking at that review the FX 8350 actually wins a fair few and is quite competitive on others. You obviously cant read where it says "lower is better"
It is not a traditional REAL 8 Core though. Each module has 2 cores. It is hardware based you're right, not like intel's virtual.
Its just two different ways of going about a multi threaded CPU architecture.
Really the debate about it, and how good bulldozer is or isn't is like beating a dead horse. Atleast from what I could see from the last page or 2 of this thread.
AMD has already faced that fate, and is planning to release new CPUs, without this module architecture.
The OP already got the 8120 so there's no going back now. So just move along.
Read the gaming benchmarks, the i7 crushes it on those and the OP is a gamer.
Dragon Age Origins - 1680 x 1050 - Max Settings (no AA/Vsync)
Frames per Second - Higher is Better
Dawn of War II - 1680 x 1050 - Ultra Settings
Frames per Second - Higher is Better
World of Warcraft
FRAPS Runthrough - FPS - Higher is Better
You mean its not a traditional microprocessor design. The cores still exist and are physical.
I didn't read the entire thread. Just wanted to reply to the most outlandish comments.
Dude, the Q9550/9650 were awesome chips! My buddy had a Q9550 that did ~500FSB on a Gigabyte UD3P board. He kept that chip for so long.
I like how you ignore the parts of the review where the FX 8350 was spanking the i7 to focus on the gaming section which comprises of only 3 games?
Also 166FPS vs 139FPS, 80.30 FPS v 70.5 FPS, 104.1 FPS v 91.5 FPS is a very small performance gap considering the price point of both CPUs at the time.
Except you're wrong. The Athlon X4 750K/760K are on par for the FX-6300's performance for less than the FX-4300 CPU's. On top of that it's a newer chipset so you get PCI-express 3 for cheap, SATA 3, USB3, and it all uses DDR3--which is handily better than the bottlenecked mess that is LGA775 at this point. I am curious about what most games are, because a lot of the games out there benefit heavily from CPU bumps. Any MMO, any RTS, any Simulation game, and quite a few more. I suppose by any you mean most FPS's, but even the likes of BF3/4 and the Metro series benefit greatly from CPU performance.
Most of the newest AMD quad-cores (APU's being an exception) are on par for Nahelem level Intel CPU's at least, which handily outperformed the Q6600. All of that being said, I would recommend an i3 or i5 over anything AMD has to offer because you can get all the shiney features AM3+ lacks for a decent price and if you don't plan on overclocking can get decent CPU's for solid prices. In GPU bound games an i5 is on par for an FX-8350, and in most CPU-bound games it blows it away--especialyl games that favor Intel's architecture like MMO's and RTS's.
Yes because the OP is a gamer. Not sure what you mean by "at the time", it came out 4 years earlier!
My argument was merely to prove that for gaming, buying a good processor instead of buying a budget processor, pays off in the long run and will save you money. If he buys a bulldozer it will cost him more money in the long run.
For example, he bought a q6600, that chip has last him a long time. If he had bought a budget cpu he'd have already upgraded by now. The Q6600 was launched in 2007 and is still relevant today, 7 years later. Do really you think that an FX8120 will be relevant in 2021?
It is an argument meant as a retort to this comment:
>Thread went from helping OP to the ancient Intel/AMD battle.
Y'all starting to make me regret my FX-6300.
So you're saying a budget AMD can't last a long time? I've had my Athlon II X4 620 since 2009 and it's still going strong. Your point is invalid.
Secondly I have not seen any evidence that a Q6600 Kentfield can outperform an FX 8120 in gaming or otherwise. You needed an Yorkfield Q9xxx just to match the Phenom II X4. Q6600 would stand no chance against a Bulldozer FX 8120. In single threaded performance the Bulldozer was often on par with the Phenom II X4 series, so logically you'd need a Q9xx to hang with a Bulldozer in single threaded gaming on its worst day.
I gotta agree with the 620, and not only does it last long; it's also pretty durable to abuse thrown at it. I've had pins bent. It flying off a heatsink and into a bathroom sink. Heatsinks fall on it. Fan failure while on. The list can go on.
While yes, it does its job and does it well. I wanted something that could give me more of a multitasking boost. (Hence the 6300)
I also have an AMD-based laptop and good lordy, it WON'T die. Even OC'ing it, playing with the voltage. Running it at 100C. AMD has some chips that simply won't give up. But so does Intel.
My old school was running 5-7 year old CELERONS in their desktops. And don't get me started with what idiots do to those school machines.
On the matter of how long a CPU can last, let's just toss that topic out the window until we either see FX-8xxx or i7-3xxx/ i7-4xxx starting to blow up in a few years. My bet will be that AMD has some FX-9750 sitting in their pockets, just waiting to give someone a 250w hug.
(Joke to their FX-9xxx series, which is a big waste of 220w in my opinion)
So with that 620 you are able to run modern games maxed without bottlenecking your graphics card? CPUs rarely stop running "strong", they just become obsolete. i7 920 could max out games in 2008 and can still max out games now. I was posting that to refute claims by the oneandonlymrk.
You're seizing on the wrong argument here. If the Bulldozer is on par with the Phenom II x4, and his Q6600 @ 3.8 gets nearly the same physics score as my Phenom II, then why is he upgrading to a Bulldozer.
Kentsfield and yorkfield aren't all that different. http://www.anandtech.com/show/2362/4
his old system:http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/8304206
my old system: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/5304049
an 8120 and 7850: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/3148764
another 8120 and 7850: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/5000159
doesn't look like an upgrade to me
Utter twoddle read my replys I talk of ffuture games not yesterdays and especially games that favour amd will run better in the future .
Separate names with a comma.