[ssjwizard]

Originally Posted by Knufire

Phenom II X6s would be GREAT chips for the money if it was easier to get a hold of BE ones.

I find that AMDs existing(still current) HT reference design to be extremely mature and overclocks crazy well. Given you will need slightly more vCore for a purely ref clock OC its very possible to get into 4+GHz territory without an unlocked multiplier, it just isn't point and click stupid simple. A lot of testing(at least with BD, I imagine this effects PH-II also) has that your highest performance will come from an OC which included an elevated HT Ref, so


@OP
The FX design is hard to quantify fully, its got a lot of advancements that will not come into play for several years to come. This is almost exactly what happened during the first reign of the FX when C2D hit the ground running. AMD had a laundry list of technical advances that Intel hadn't implemented yet, the result AMDs chip in raw power scored less, but long term owners reaped the benefits of the chip as time and OS advanced.

The current generation of FX is in a similar position. The marketing guys call it an 8core but we all know its not really an 8core. I cont cores by the number of complete sets of computation resources. That makes the FX 8120 a 4 core with actual hardware to back up its 4 additional threads. Add in the ability to run 256 bit FLOPS, and 128 bit IntOPS features that you wont find outside of a VERY VERY advanced and expensive datacenter environment. On that premise you might say "we just got to 64 bit" or "so what I cant access that SW/feature so who cares?", but I say to you 128 bit + is ALOT closer than people think.

As to the comment about PCIe 3.0 that's a meh factor I can tell you that going from my 990Xa-UD3 using 8x,8x to the 990FXa-UD3 on 16x,16x any increase my 3DMark scores is well inside the margin for error... Almost all 990FX boards have at least 2x 16 slots without including a resource spreading chip as is done on Intel motherboards. The FX also offers 42 PCI-E lanes SB gives you what 24...

Now I am not an AMD loyalist though my 2 main desktops at the moment are running AMD products, but people are blowing the MINOR backstep in ICP combine with the terrible marketing decisions way out of proportion. IMO "The worlds first 8 core desktop CPU" should have been presented as "The worlds most advanced quad core" or something to do with changing the way you look at CPUs with an "ALL NEW DESIGN"....

Best of luck with your new rig, don't get frustrated get educated. Learn more about your motherboard, CPU, and associated parts then get out there and TUNE, TUNE, TUNE, before you know it you will be surprised how well your system performs.

[bulldog1963]

Originally Posted by Knufire

Gaming-wise, no, there isn't a huge difference, since games aren't particularly CPU reliant. My comments were more in terms of raw computational power than of gaming performance. A OCed Bulldozer isn't going to perform significantly worse than a OCed Sandy in games.

Phenom II X6s would be GREAT chips for the money if it was easier to get a hold of BE ones.

I woulda gone with a Phenom 1100T if I could afford one. Still about 190-200 when they make an appearance. Every once in a while Fry's has them but they go fast.

I went with the 8120 cuz it was cheaper than the 8150 and it overclocks nice and it is only a 95 watt CPU vs the 125 so I was thinking cooling (I was on air when I got it). Not only that, I look at the bulldozers as being intentionally "hobbled" and bringing them to their real potential comes from OC. Actually, when I look at the comparisons, the 4170 is the 2500k of the FX-series. It really games like a beast.

I also have to admit that I've only had AMD since the 386SX clone computers came out (CompuAdd computer). I have always found the Intel prices to be way out of line. Like buying a DeLorean, to me. Just my point of view, though.

[>HyperlogiK<]

Originally Posted by ssjwizard

This is almost exactly what happened during the first reign of the FX when C2D hit the ground running. AMD had a laundry list of technical advances that Intel hadn't implemented yet, the result AMDs chip in raw power scored less, but long term owners reaped the benefits of the chip as time and OS advanced.

Reaped what benefits? K8 was a lot slower than NGMA at launch and it has been slower ever since, the same goes for K10 vs Nehalem and Bulldozer vs Sandy Bridge. AMD has done an amazing job even by not quite keeping up with Intel considering that they have 1/20th the operating income, but you have to be wearing green tinted glasses to claim that they have reaped the benefits of anything which they have done as a company in the last 7 years.