8150 first hand

sun_bean said:
I agree with OP. AMD's new FX 8350 is the way to go, you can save over $100 for comparable INTEL cpu and used that towards other parts.
Click to expand...

Hahahah save? good joke.

AMD

CPU
MB
RAM
PSU
CASE

Cooler

HDD

GPU

AMD total = 862$



Intel

CPU
MB


All of the other parts are same for both configuration.

Intel total = 872$

Omg! huge 10$ savings insane stuff.


buttons said:
I would say 90% is generous. my best guess would be more like 99.9%

Both can play every game except red orchestra smooth as butter (30fps+), both can encode movies very well, both can surf the web well, what else is there?
Click to expand...

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1039476755&postcount=21
 
Last edited:
You could have gotten the 8320 for $145 from Amazon this week. Just saying.
 
And the OEM i5 2500K was $139 at micro center last week as well. And this time it was not limited to in store sales.
 
Last edited:
So you have 2 processors that can run anything that you can throw at them with ease. Then you're saying that buying the Intel is a better idea because it scores better at single threaded applications that are going the way of the Dodo bird? And that Intel requires motherboard manufacturers to make better motherboards for them than AMD does. Going to write a letter to ASUS and complain about them make shit motherboards for AMD and ask them to use better quality parts.

Got ya!
 
cageymaru said:
So you have 2 processors that can run anything that you can throw at them with ease. Then you're saying that buying the Intel is a better idea because it scores better at single threaded applications that are going the way of the Dodo bird? And that Intel requires motherboard manufacturers to make better motherboards for them than AMD does. Going to write a letter to ASUS and complain about them make shit motherboards for AMD and ask them to use better quality parts.

Got ya!
Click to expand...

It's more like, Intel ALWAYS does single threaded a LOT better, and beats AMD in multi-threaded stuff more often than not, and if it does fall behind in those small number of MT tasks, it does so by a small amount... If you're going to be condescending, at least try and be accurate. In the interest of not having this thread go too far off topic, I'll be glad to PM you some links to refresh your memory on how Intel and AMD compare. I'll even throw in a WINRAR and Cinebench benchmark to make you feel better about FX. Your point falls flat on its face until more than an extremely small handful of applications (threaded or otherwise) perform like those two aforementioned applications.
 
cageymaru said:
So you have 2 processors that can run anything that you can throw at them with ease. Then you're saying that buying the Intel is a better idea because it scores better at single threaded applications that are going the way of the Dodo bird?
Click to expand...

The problem with that theory is the 8 core FX is not generally better at multithreading. Since each AMD core is slower than each Intel core by a large margin the AMD multithreaded benefit that comes from having 2 times the cores only comes in to play when more than 4 threads are making good usage of the cores.
 
Here's how the thread went:

OP: I got a new proc, even though I know it wasn't the best. I did it because I wanted to and I also helped out family. It works pretty well all things considered.
psyside: You are wrong, and shouldn't have done that.
RamonGTP: You are wrong, and shouldn't have done that.
Pro-OP Posts: Actually, OP knew what he was doing, and just decided to share. We welcome this.
RamonGTP: You are still wrong, and shouldn't encourage wrongness. Shame on you!

You're right, this is a public forum. And you are also correct in that people have the right to say what they want. BUT (and I can't stress this enough) when you come in and shit on the original post because YOU think it's prudent, in that moment you've violated the etiquette.

Comprende?
 
stealthy123 said:
why do intel guys insist on thread crapping?
Click to expand...

For me (a person who has purchased over 100 AMD processors over the years including a FX chip) the reason is try to combat statements that I believe to be false, misleading or ridiculous.
 
ClariorHincHonos said:
Here's how the thread went:

OP: I got a new proc, even though I know it wasn't the best. I did it because I wanted to and I also helped out family. It works pretty well all things considered.
psyside: You are wrong, and shouldn't have done that.
RamonGTP: You are wrong, and shouldn't have done that.
Pro-OP Posts: Actually, OP knew what he was doing, and just decided to share. We welcome this.
RamonGTP: You are still wrong, and shouldn't encourage wrongness. Shame on you!

You're right, this is a public forum. And you are also correct in that people have the right to say what they want. BUT (and I can't stress this enough) when you come in and shit on the original post because YOU think it's prudent, in that moment you've violated the etiquette.

Comprende?
Click to expand...


The Pro-OP posts were more like: Opinions against AMD are not allowed here. This thread didn't get shitted on until the anti-opinion crowd got upset. Kind of like how (and I can't stress this enough) your anti-opinion post shitted on the thread even further.

Comprende?
 
RamonGTP said:
The Pro-OP posts were more like: Opinions against AMD are not allowed here. This thread didn't get shitted on until the anti-opinion crowd got upset. Kind of like how (and I can't stress this enough) your anti-opinion post shitted on the thread even further.

Comprende?
Click to expand...

Pretty sure the fucking AMD forum is gonna be pro-AMD.

And holy hell, he didn't spread incorrect info, just HIS experience. But some folks couldn't let that be? Who the hell are you people? The internet police?!
 
ClariorHincHonos said:
Pretty sure the fucking AMD forum is gonna be pro-AMD.

And holy hell, he didn't spread incorrect info, just HIS experience. But some folks couldn't let that be? Who the hell are you people? The internet police?!
Click to expand...

So you agree with what I said and don't want opposing opinion on the AMD forum is what I'm seeing here... Like I said previously, you'll just need to get used to the fact there will be opposing views. I'm not sure why you think the AMD sub-forum is immune to that. Getting upset and lashing out isn't going to stop anyone from publicly disagreeing with you. It will just turn the thread into shit, as you've so eloquently proved right here.
 
cageymaru said:
So you have 2 processors that can run anything that you can throw at them with ease. Then you're saying that buying the Intel is a better idea because it scores better at single threaded applications that are going the way of the Dodo bird? And that Intel requires motherboard manufacturers to make better motherboards for them than AMD does. Going to write a letter to ASUS and complain about them make shit motherboards for AMD and ask them to use better quality parts.

Got ya!
Click to expand...

It scores better on most things for a lot less power. It is also a superior platform aside from pure CPU usage. I recently was tasked with having to upgrade my PC. My mobo was old and having problems and needed to be replaced. I had to look at upgrading and could have gone either AMD or Intel. And believe it or not, despite what this forum would have people believe I found the Intel was cheaper and provided better all around performance.

There tends to be more discounts on Intel processors for whatever reason and for me I was able to take advantage of Microcenter savings. The 3570k was $170 compared to the 8350 which was $190. The most comparably priced AMD processor was the 8150 which in terms of performance is a blowout for the 3570k. On top of that I received $40 off on the motherboard combo bringing the price down further. An additional $30 for RAM and I was done. Even without the $40 discount on the mobo I would have still had a better performance/price ratio going Intel. On top of the getting more performance for less money up front I am on a better chipset/platform and will be saving monthly on my electric bill. For my usage I estimate I will be saving at least $18 annually. I had my last CPU for about 4 years so that's another $75 or so I'll be saving over the life of my system effectively making my processor an additional $75 cheaper than a comparable AMD CPU. Came to $210 for the CPU+Mobo before the $75 in power savings. Think you can build a comparably priced AMD system that comes remotely close in performance? Highly doubtful.

So for the original poster who got a great deal on the processor and wanted to tinker around.. Great job to him. I'm glad they're happy with their decision. But, for the typical person looking to build a system Intel is definitely a viable approach and in many cases will save you money. Especially if you look at the 2500k deals going on for $140 right now which is less than most places are selling the 8120.

It's also important to note that even in multi-threaded applications the Intel outperforms or holds it own within the price range I was looking at. And single-threaded applications are not going the way of the dodo bird. They will always be around. Most processing tasks make sense to be single threaded. If you think about it before you can compute Y you have to compute X. If you're moving from X to Y there is no reason to schedule the task on a new core if you've completed X. It is faster to keep running along on the same core. Things like file compression and video rendering make sense to multi-thread because you can break up the large task into pieces and send each piece to a core. But for most applications individual tasks should remain single threaded for optimal performance.
 
Last edited:
Point is, no NEED to buy inferior platform, if you buy from scratch, because prices are very similar as you can see in my previous posts.

If your fanboy, then ok, if you can get 8350 it for 100$ then again ok, but don't forgot the platform benefits! stop comparing only pure cpu power, there is alot more going on period.
 
I completely agree that these are better than given credit for. I picked up a FX-6100 and a ASUS M5A97 board for $130 bucks and it is nice cheap gaming setup that I paired with a $100 5870. It doesnt bench for crap and is a sort of pig at stock speed, but a quick effortless OC to 4.3Ghz with 2400HT and NB, and it runs games just as well as my 2500K GTX680 rig.
 
Exeodus said:
I completely agree that these are better than given credit for. I picked up a FX-6100 and a ASUS M5A97 board for $130 bucks and it is nice cheap gaming setup that I paired with a $100 5870. It doesnt bench for crap and is a sort of pig at stock speed, but a quick effortless OC to 4.3Ghz with 2400HT and NB, and it runs games just as well as my 2500K GTX680 rig.
Click to expand...

This is more indicitive that you have a broken 680 if your 5870 can game just as well.
 
Exeodus said:
It doesnt bench for crap and is a sort of pig at stock speed, but a quick effortless OC to 4.3Ghz with 2400HT and NB, and it runs games just as well as my 2500K GTX680 rig.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the laugh.
 
RamonGTP said:
That may or may not be true depending on the individual. This "move" would make some sense if the OP was doing a lot of encoding where the FX does quite well.

Lets put all the fanboy arguments aside for a moment and stick with facts. The OP knowingly spent money on a system that under-performs his existing system for the uses he described. Take the brand names out of it, and if a friend of yours tells you "hey, i'm going to go spend money on a new computer that is slower at what I use it for and consumes more power than what I currently have" you'd probably try and talk that person out of it, and if he did it anyway, you'd probably say he was leaning on the stupid side of the spectrum.
Click to expand...

You're the fanboy/fangirl here. EVEN IF his new system "underperforms" his old system for the "uses he described," what is most important is that OP built a system system and is satisfied with it. Put the shoe on the other foot, and then put your foot in your own mouth. If the OP bought a lower-performing Intel CPU and made the exact same post in the Intel forum, would you still have the insensitivity to call someone else "leaning on the side of stupid?"
 
wurmy said:
You're the fanboy/fangirl here. EVEN IF his new system "underperforms" his old system for the "uses he described," what is most important is that OP built a system system and is satisfied with it. Put the shoe on the other foot, and then put your foot in your own mouth. If the OP bought a lower-performing Intel CPU and made the exact same post in the Intel forum, would you still have the insensitivity to call someone else "leaning on the side of stupid?"
Click to expand...

Yes I absolutely would. Heck, even if someone goes from a 2600k to a 3770k I'd say that wasnt too smart of an upgrade. But at least it IS an upgrade. I'd say what I said to anyone who forks out cash on a replacement system that uses twice as much power and offers lower performance for your troubles. You're confusing your brand name fanboy feelings with my performance fanboy mentality.
 
It's nice to see how much Kool Aid the Intel fanatics are drinking. Like I said. Install any game onto an AMD 8350 or Intel 3570K and then explain to me how the miraculous name on the chip made you the best gamer in town. It would seem to me that if we're running the same settings on both systems for the game, and neither of us are experiencing lag, slow downs, or stuttering, then both systems are doing what they are designed to do.

Or is there something else I'm missing? Enlighten me please as I really don't understand. Does the Intel system get you a few more fps? Of course it does. Is it light years faster no. Does it allow you to run higher settings? No. How's about more headroom for the future? Maybe so but I contend that the damn games run so well on the AMD processors that it's irrelevant. Developers aren't pushing PC hardware at all. So what's the difference in the two chips? The name on the box is all as both can run anything you throw at it with ease. Anything and everything.

Do I care about how hot my AMD system gets? Yes, when it's 107F outdoors I care. I have air conditioning so I could care less otherwise. I do see where it is limiting my OC so I want to invest in a custom watercooling system to see how much more fun I can have with my PC. Do I care about how many watts it pulls? No, I can pay my electricity bill just fine thank you very much. But seriously don't you care about how many watts it pulls? Only when I'm trying to get a few more MHz and I'm thermal capped do I care. So yes I do care when I'm tweaking my system.

My PC is OC'd and has run 24/7 everyday except for the hurricane that knocked out power to my area last year for 3 days. I really like my chip with the exception of the mounting area for aftermarket coolers. I have some old monstrosities from my Q6600 days that I'd like to attach to the 8120, but they won't fit due to the cramped space around it.

And as far as Microcenter goes the closest one is 4 1/2 hours away. And while I'm happy that some of you'll have some close enough to grab $180 3570 chips from there, they don't exist in my neck of the woods. So Microcenter is as irrelevant to this conversation in general unless you can buy it off their website. When they get as prevalent as Best Buy I'd consider them a possible source for upgrading. Even Best Buy is 2 hours away.
 
RamonGTP said:
Yes I absolutely would. Heck, even if someone goes from a 2600k to a 3770k I'd say that wasnt too smart of an upgrade. But at least it IS an upgrade. I'd say what I said to anyone who forks out cash on a replacement system that uses twice as much power and offers lower performance for your troubles. You're confusing your brand name fanboy feelings with my performance fanboy mentality.
Click to expand...

So, in an Intel forum, you'd CHOOSE the words "that wasnt too smart of an upgrade" but in this AMD forum in response to an OP who wasn't bragging on AMD, you CHOSE to use the words "leaning on the side of stupid?" See the difference?

Also, please explain to us all how an entire "replacement system" can draw "twice as much power" because it's using an "orange" cpu vs. a "pear" cpu, I'm sure we'd all like to learn from your post. Please point us to the benchmarks or a tests that you actually did yourself to support this statement.
 
Last edited:
To the OP: I am really glad you are happy with your FX 8150! Don't let some of the Intel fan boys ruin it for you and this comes from one who doesn't troll. :) What matters is that you are satisfied with what you purchased.

To everyone bashing his system: Why? Did you spend your money on it? He is simply stating that for his needs he is completely satisfied with it! I'm the biggest Intel fan in the world (I've never owned a single AMD rig) and I am really pleased that he is happy with his FX chip! Don't forget where us Intel guys would be without AMD; anyone remember the 300MHz Pentium II that launched at $2,000?? You can hate AMD all you want, but we NEED them to keep Intel from being that way again! Just keep that in mind.
 
wurmy said:
So, in an Intel forum, you'd CHOOSE the words "that wasnt too smart of an upgrade" but in this AMD forum in response to an OP who wasn't bragging on AMD, you CHOSE to use the words "leaning on the side of stupid?" See the difference?

Also, please explain to us all how an entire "replacement system" can draw twice as much power because it's using an "orange" cpu vs. a "pear" cpu and how you came to this conclusion.
Click to expand...

Well I can't say "not to smart if an upgrade" here can I, since it wasn't an upgrade? If someone downgraded, yes, I'd say the same thing.

Would you like a link showing a 125watt FX CPU drawing 200 watts at default speeds? This same link will have power consumption figures for 75 watt i7s consuming right around 75 watts. One CPU draws more than 2x the other. It's pretty self explanatory.

Actually just check your PM, ill send you the link there.
 
cageymaru said:
.....
Click to expand...


1. Would you decide to keep 10$ and buy 8350 instead of 3750K (Newegg) price?

2. Is the Intel better platform or not?

3. Do you chose to intentionally ignore the platform advantage which we provided info on previously or you really have no clue?
 
Do you comprehend this.

I play Game A on an Intel system. I'm happy and everything is smooth as butter.

I play Game A on an AMD system. I'm happy and everything is smooth as butter.


What's the damn difference? Learn to buy at Amazon as NewEgg pricing is as antiquated as Intel fanboy reasoning sometimes.
 
Hey intel fans, enjoy yourself and your self appointed superiority. It was clear what the original poster was doing and yet you all come in here high and mighty claiming you know everything and those who disagree do not have a clue.

Tell you something, enjoy your self and what you own unless, of course, you cannot without first telling everyone else how great you are for owning intel. (Sounds like insecurity to me but, hey, what do I know.) Oh, and there is no 3750K, maybe you need to do some more research?

Great Job OP, I am pleased with what you have there.
 
RamonGTP said:
Well I can't say "not to smart if an upgrade" here can I, since it wasn't an upgrade? If someone downgraded, yes, I'd say the same thing.

Would you like a link showing a 125watt FX CPU drawing 200 watts at default speeds? This same link will have power consumption figures for 75 watt i7s consuming right around 75 watts. One CPU draws more than 2x the other. It's pretty self explanatory.

Actually just check your PM, ill send you the link there.
Click to expand...

This is the link: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2289809

And it doesn't include the GPU power consumption which is part of the OP's system. Again, show me performance data to back up your claim that his CPU choice doubled his "system" power requirements and I'll shoot a crow just so I can eat it.

Also, when you're measuring with a VOM, who would use alligator clips covered with electrical tape when they could just use micro clips?
 
Last edited:
What the Intel fanboys should be asking is why doesn't my superior processor run games at higher settings than those slow ass AMD chips.
 
wurmy said:
This is the link: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2289809

And it doesn't include the GPU power consumption which is part of the OP's system. Again, show me performance data to back up your claim that his CPU choice doubled his "system" power requirements and I'll shoot a crow just so I can eat it.

Also, when you're measuring with a VOM, who would use alligator clips covered with electrical tape when they could just use micro clips?
Click to expand...

He ran the same tests, with the same GPU (that sits idle during CPU stress tests anyway) and it was pretty clear that IB was using under 75 watts (and rated at 75 watts) and his FX was using over 200 and rated at 125. That's the bottom line. By in large getting worse performance, over double the power consumption, more heat, higher electric bill. Those are the facts, and they will remain facts no matter how much you try and weasel your way out of it, or what you decide to shoot and eat. I'm really not sure what you're trying to prove by replying. If it's to discourage me from posting my opinion when it disagrees with folks in the AMD forum, it should be pretty clear to you that you will fail in that endevour.
 
it never ceases to amaze me that people who have nothing to lose by seeing other people spend their money on hardware fighting to win fans, haha no converts, to their side? do you not feel confident enough in the cpu you chose to buy that you have to go justify it to everyone else? let the man be. he bought a chip, he likes it, so be it. fuck
 
RamonGTP said:
Yes I absolutely would. Heck, even if someone goes from a 2600k to a 3770k I'd say that wasnt too smart of an upgrade. But at least it IS an upgrade. I'd say what I said to anyone who forks out cash on a replacement system that uses twice as much power and offers lower performance for your troubles. You're confusing your brand name fanboy feelings with my performance fanboy mentality.
Click to expand...

YOU chose the words "replacement system that uses twice as much power" in a system that includes a GTX 650 Ti. Back up your information or tuck tail and run.
 
Last edited:
wurmy said:
YOU chose the words "replacement system that uses twice as much power" in a system that includes a GTX 650 Ti. Back up your information or tuck tail and run.
Click to expand...

All the other components are a wash. I fully understand the straw you're trying to grasp on to, but you're better off eating crow, much more satisfying. >200watts and worse performance vs <75 watts. Not a hard decision to make, for most people anyway, and the market share pretty much agrees with this.

Curious why AMD decided to underrate their CPU by so much, aren't you? My guess is if they rated it accurately and board manufacturers/OEM's spec'd their system out to the real power usage, the costs would go up, thereby making AMD even less relavent than they already are.
 
Last edited:
psyside said:
I see you skip the answers one more time, thanks that's all i wanted to know.

BTW, one graph for you.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/6

Yeah, "few fps"
Click to expand...

Thanks for a post that finally has some good information in it!

I honestly do find the performance interesting, as far as Skyrim (one of the few "popular" titles where a 2GB GPU really makes a difference) and Shogun 2 are night and day between the Intel and AMD CPUs.

The only problem I have is that the OP doesn't play either of those games. The OP plays Far Cry 3 and Max Payne 3, and they are not CPU-limited games.

What I do have a problem with is thread crapping on a non-bragging OP just to fit a fanboy agenda that is an embarrassment to the Intel community.
 
RamonGTP said:
All the other components are a wash. I fully understand the straw you're trying to grasp on to, but you're better off eating crow, much more satisfying. >200watts and worse performance vs <75 watts. Not a hard decision to make, for most people anyway, and the market share pretty much agrees with this.

Curious why AMD decided to underrate their CPU by so much, aren't you? My guess is if they rated it accurately and board manufacturers/OEM's spec'd their system out to the real power usage, the costs would go up, thereby making AMD even less relavent than they already are.
Click to expand...

Admit that you chose the wrong words, or tuck tail and run.
 
Oh, I chose the wrong words when I said "system" instead "CPU" I should have said a "system that draws 150 watts more" or a "CPU that draws 2-3 times the power" if it will make you feel better.

The sad part is, the power consumption figures are so one sided that even with that "error," it's entirely possible the SYSTEM would draw twice as much when doing something like encoding, which (typically) doesn't load the GPU and is the one area where AMD does well at.

Lets put aside the fanboyism for a minute. That is a VERY significant difference wouldn't you say? and that's a Piledriver die, Bulldozer is even less efficient. We're talking a difference of a couple 75watt light bulbs, enough for a small-mid sized room to be quite well lit.

You guys can keep calling out "intel fanboys" until you're blue in the face, but that's not reality. Many of us were "amd fanboys" a few years ago, including myself. Heck, I had Socket A Athlons back when the P4 was kicking their ass, but back then I was poor and there was a significant savings going with AMD. Then when the Athlon64 and X2's came along it was a godsend for me (being an AMD fan at the time). When it's reign at the top came to an end, I waited for AMD's "Native Quad Core" that was suppose to be so much better than Intel's dual-dual core chips. On top of that, Intel had not yet moved to an IMC which was suppose to be another huge advantage for AMD.

Needless to say, I was disappointed and ended up getting an Intel CPU. Since then, I've stayed with Intel CPUs, not because I'm an "intel fanboy" but because I'm a fan of better products, provided they are within my budget. It just so happens that it's been Intel for the last many years.
 
Dude, this is the amd section of the forum and you are trolling a post about how happy a guy was with his own money.

seriously, stop with the "I am just trying to educate the ignorant" act.

You are full on trolling a thread you clearly have no interest in beyond your "I am right" bullshit.

Just walk away, go post in the intel section, this isn't the place. Don't be so lost in whatever your point is that you take a shit on the thread and it gets locked, because it's heading that way, and no one seems to know when to stfu and move on.
 
stealthy123 said:
and no one seems to know when to stfu and move on.
Click to expand...

Misery loves company? Is that why you came on here and crapped some more? Seems to me the thread got crapped on becase people like you aren't interested in a reasonable conversation that isn't kissing AMD's butt. Instead, any anti-AMD post is met with posts like "bullshit, stfu, troll, fanboy, etc etc"

What, you think you can just throw insults and someone will just walk away with their tail tucked between their legs?
 
Last edited:
Squashed.

You're sharp in some of your opinions and I found this positive AMD quote from you in the Intel forum:

(quote) RamonGTP - Agreed, if the OP had something that was grossly underpowered, I would certainly not wait around for an upgrade, but the 8120 is a capable chip, not as good as an i5 for the majority of things, but plenty good enough to hold of an investment in a new platform NOW, when the next best thing is 4-6 months away. (end quote)

I have to admit that BD and PD are disappointments for me and I that have an eye on some SandyBridge, but it's not like choosing who you want to marry. It's kind of like choosing to eat fried chicken, rib eye steak, or raw fish. They're all going to kill you, it's just a matter of how much you enjoy it! LOL

Squashed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top