So, I'm helping another person with their build, and they are on a budget ($700), and my go to is the FX-6300, but then I found the FX-8120 for $130! $130!!! That's $3 cheaper than the FX-6300. Now, this CPU has great reviews from Neweggers, but I just have trouble recommending it for gaming because of all the flack it got from review sites EVERYWHERE. I guess it's a case of if you tell a lie enough, it becomes the truth. Basically, I want some hard confirmation that Bulldozer is a capable, at least more so than the FX-6300 when it comes to gaming. Any updated reviews/benches with Bulldozer?
Personally, I know I'd get it, disabe one core per module, and be done with thread scheduling, and OC the snot out of it, but I don't think people asking for help on their builds would want to do that. Any thoughts on this?
FX-6300 has better single thread performance so it'd be better for gaming, the only thing you'd see improvement on is video rendering or extreme multitasking with things that would use all 8 cores. Go for the 6300 though, it's currently the best price to performance processor out mah negro.
I suppose I wasn't clear on this, but I specifically wanted HARD CONFIRMATION or disapproval (as in back up your statement with updated reviews/benches), not random opinions relating to how bad Bulldozer, but I suppose I did ask for thoughts, though I meant pertaining to the value.
The overall verdict for Piledriver, according to most popular benchmarking sites, was a step in the right direction, but still can't beat Intel in gaming, and Logan (amongst other non-biased/funded reviewers) have shown Piledriver can not only hold its ground against the Core i7, but actually beat it in gaming. According to AMD's estimate, Piledriver is about 15% faster than Bulldozer; 7% of that is due to IPC, while the remaining is due to increase clockspeeds/better turbo. If Bulldozer is only 7% slower than Piledriver in gaming at the same clock speed (I mean, who gets an FX and doesn't OC it?), then I'd think it's a worthwhile recommendation, especially at $130.
Again, can anyone confirm or deny this claim with a recent real-world benchmark/review? So far MisteryAngel is the only who provided such confirmation, but that's only one game.
yea i found that movie on youtube, benchemarks on a website only with numbers dont say me much, but those kind of videos where they battle in real, like logan did too.
This compares the fx 6300 and 8150 which only differ in clock speed by .1 ghz: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/699?vs=434 . The 8120 can easily be overclock to 8150 stock clocks. As you can see multithreaded apps favor the eight core chip, where less threaded apps favor the 6300.
So, I guess the answer to your question is if you use a lot of highly multithreaded programs and and plan to overclock the 8120 is a good cpu at that price. If you are just gaming the 6300 is probably better.
Anecdotally, I have a machine with a 8120 that easily overclocked to 4.5ghz and can handle anything I throw at it.
This may help you. My fx 6100 with the gtx 560 ti runs crysis 3, I honestly dont remember what settings it was on, but looked great, played fine. This machine I am on which has fx 8350 with the gtx 660ti runs crysis 3 on high settings, and I could max out the setting if I fiddled with it a bit. Hight settings on crysis 3 looks really great, runs smooth.
Depending on your video card, both chips will run fine. I would go with the 8120. Sweet thing about amd, The mother board should support the next gen cpu. Just don't drive yourself crazy trying to make a choice. the 8120 getting great reviews from new egg users, its cheeper, I would go that route.