AMD's FX-8150 After Two Windows 7 Hotfixes And UEFI Updates

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Au contraire! He was saying that he'd buy one for someone else based only on initial cost, while buying his own based on both initial and operational cost. And even if his logic on initial cost still doesn't make sense, I see a potential customer that AMD needs :)
 
If you want to see the FX-8150 at work, and you have 2+ monitors grab a screen widget called
All CPU Meter v3.7. It's not 100% accurate but it will give you a very good ball park of whats happening on your multi core CPU during computer usage times.

Windows 8 wont help, as it will be to long down the road before release, and new cpu versions are out to "FIX' it anyways.

 
Worst aspect is the mobo manufacturers who claim FX compatibility but whose products don't properly support the processor. Recently had a situation with an MSI board which wouldn't boot with a FX4100 unless it was flashed first, depsite the box carrying an official FX logo. Even after flashing it didn't work properly. In the finish I pulled the thing and fitted an alternative mobo/CPU.
 
It's the first revision of Bulldozer. You can't expect AMD to get it perfect on the dot. Also look at net worth. Intel has much more resources to devote to processor development. Honestly BD isn't a bad platform, even more so when you know that when the next line of bulldozers come around, that they will most likely use AM3+ and you won't have to replace your entire system to do it.
 
[citation][nom]racerx77[/nom]Looking at Skyrim results, I would say this test can not be real. My rig is Phenom II X4 965 with GTX560 Ti, playing on ultra settings with all turned on at 1680x1050, with Vsync and it is very rare to see fps drops below 60. Even on a intense fight outdoors I get around 45-60 fps. So if this test is real, then my 965 cpu gotta be better compared to i5?[/citation]
Recent patch improved Skyrim CPU performance this article was written before Skyrim was patched just FYI
 
I love mine so far. Can encode a video, download a 4GB file all while playing BF3 Online at 60FPS. (running 8120, two 6850's, 990FXA Board and 16GB RAM), cannot do that on my 2600k, let alone my 2500k. Well I can, but not as efficiently, in fact I get mystery packet drops ( super ping spikes) online when trying to run two heavy tasks on my SB rigs. As for regular everyday single tasking uses.. the difference is small, too small to really notice, and far too small to really care. I have a feeling as games use heavier threading we will see more of what BD has to offer. I do not regret my purchases (6100 and 8120) one bit. In fact the 8120 has moved to top spot on the projector for gaming, with the 2600k back in the office. I almost forgot to mention the near obscene overclocking abilities of this chip (5.0Ghz ON AIR)
 
[citation][nom]Gordon Freeman[/nom]Recent patch improved Skyrim CPU performance this article was written before Skyrim was patched just FYI[/citation] My FX-6100 was running Skyrim at a solid 60FPS before the patch. I would have been pissed if a DX9 game didn't run decently.
 
[citation][nom]onetoomanypcs[/nom]My FX-6100 was running Skyrim at a solid 60FPS before the patch. I would have been pissed if a DX9 game didn't run decently.[/citation]
Not maxed out your FX CPU wasn't running Skyrim @ consistent 60fps and how do I know that because my more powerful for gaming at leased CPU Phenom II x4 955 Deneb @ 3.8ghz did and does and never will run Skyrim maxed.Even and Oced 2500K will dip into the 40fps and it runs Skyrim better than any other.
 
[citation][nom]Gordon Freeman[/nom]Not maxed out your FX CPU wasn't running Skyrim @ consistent 60fps and how do I know that because my more powerful for gaming at leased CPU Phenom II x4 955 Deneb @ 3.8ghz did and does and never will run Skyrim maxed.Even and Oced 2500K will dip into the 40fps and it runs Skyrim better than any other.[/citation]

.... Sorry, solid may have been the wrong word there. It did dip.

Just to make sure I am not imagining what I saw, I deleted it off my 6100 and re-installed. I also installed it on my 8120. Without installing any of the Skyrim patches and with EVERYTHING MAXED at 1080p it averaged 60fps on both, with drops into the high 30's/low 40's, and jumps into the 70's. Turn on Vsync and it sticks around 60fps most of the time, with drops in intense sequences. Both have Crossfire setups, however I ran both with no optimisations, so, they were running at about 46% GPU use. The 6100 has 5870's and the 8120 has 6850's. Frankly I do not care whether you believe it or not. I know that it runs just fine. There are also reports around the web of people who have had better gaming experiences with their new FX Chip than their old Denebs or their 2500k. Not sure if there is some that have come off the line better than others, or if there is just the right combination of things in our rigs. I had the X3 unlocked to a full x4, haven't put Skyrim on there.. yet. Maybe worth a try, but the gfx card in there is a little, old (geforce 250). Guess it is time to crack some cases.

And, just for the record. when we look at decent resolutions, the lead between most of the chips (in most games) drops to within 5fps or one anther, in Skyrims case it drops to FRACTIONS of a frame. So saying "Better for gaming" becomes a little bit false... unless of course you play at low 2005 resolutions. Further, my 2500k runs Skyrim at higher frames than posted in the benchmarks above, without the Skyrim patches, and slightly faster than my 8120. So racerx's point still stands.
 
[citation][nom]onetoomanypcs[/nom].... Sorry, solid may have been the wrong word there. It did dip.Just to make sure I am not imagining what I saw, I deleted it off my 6100 and re-installed. I also installed it on my 8120. Without installing any of the Skyrim patches and with EVERYTHING MAXED at 1080p it averaged 60fps on both, with drops into the high 30's/low 40's, and jumps into the 70's. Turn on Vsync and it sticks around 60fps most of the time, with drops in intense sequences. Both have Crossfire setups, however I ran both with no optimisations, so, they were running at about 46% GPU use. The 6100 has 5870's and the 8120 has 6850's. Frankly I do not care whether you believe it or not. I know that it runs just fine. There are also reports around the web of people who have had better gaming experiences with their new FX Chip than their old Denebs or their 2500k. Not sure if there is some that have come off the line better than others, or if there is just the right combination of things in our rigs. I had the X3 unlocked to a full x4, haven't put Skyrim on there.. yet. Maybe worth a try, but the gfx card in there is a little, old (geforce 250). Guess it is time to crack some cases.And, just for the record. when we look at decent resolutions, the lead between most of the chips (in most games) drops to within 5fps or one anther, in Skyrims case it drops to FRACTIONS of a frame. So saying "Better for gaming" becomes a little bit false... unless of course you play at low 2005 resolutions. Further, my 2500k runs Skyrim at higher frames than posted in the benchmarks above, without the Skyrim patches, and slightly faster than my 8120. So racerx's point still stands.[/citation]
Well your statement is a bit misleading and false by just a tad little bit and averaging 60fps is not 60fps and anything after 60fps is completely redundant in short 60fps min or rather V-Synch is a perfect gameplay experience and is the gold standard to achieve a perfect gaming experience which is not achievable in Skyrim even on the best rig which AMD FX is not.
 
[citation][nom]Gordon Freeman[/nom]Well your statement is a bit misleading and false by just a tad little bit and averaging 60fps is not 60fps and anything after 60fps is completely redundant in short 60fps min or rather V-Synch is a perfect gameplay experience and is the gold standard to achieve a perfect gaming experience which is not achievable in Skyrim even on the best rig which AMD FX is not.[/citation]

I already said that I was wrong saying SOLID 60fps. It does drop. Or did you choose not to read that. Further, I also said my 2500k beats my FX (in Skyrim) but just barely. Also, 60fps in Skyrim is completely achievable, I have done it on 3 of my rigs (FX 6100, FX 8120 and i5 2500k). Haven't tried on my Deneb yet. While you are correct that anything after 60fps is pretty much redundant, that just further proves my point of what "better for gaming" is. Especially with games like BF3 that actually utilise BD a lot better. So YES the FX can run Skyrim at an AVERAGE of 60fps. How do I know this? I actually own two BD rigs, unlike you. So, until you put one together and try it yourself your opinions are just that, your opinions. Sorry your Deneb (which is better for gaming) cannot run Skyrim at 1080p max settings, at an AVERAGE of 60fps. Maybe you should buy a better videocard, or RAM, or whatever is slowing you down.

/goes back to playing Skyrim @1080p Max settings on his FX Rig. :O
 
[citation][nom]onetoomanypcs[/nom]I already said that I was wrong saying SOLID 60fps. It does drop. Or did you choose not to read that. Further, I also said my 2500k beats my FX (in Skyrim) but just barely. Also, 60fps in Skyrim is completely achievable, I have done it on 3 of my rigs (FX 6100, FX 8120 and i5 2500k). Haven't tried on my Deneb yet. While you are correct that anything after 60fps is pretty much redundant, that just further proves my point of what "better for gaming" is. Especially with games like BF3 that actually utilise BD a lot better. So YES the FX can run Skyrim at an AVERAGE of 60fps. How do I know this? I actually own two BD rigs, unlike you. So, until you put one together and try it yourself your opinions are just that, your opinions. Sorry your Deneb (which is better for gaming) cannot run Skyrim at 1080p max settings, at an AVERAGE of 60fps. Maybe you should buy a better videocard, or RAM, or whatever is slowing you down. /goes back to playing Skyrim @1080p Max settings on his FX Rig.[/citation]
Your missing the point of the message and I like AMD and I love BD-FX series but average frame rate does no mean a smooth game play experience thats like saying to someone when they ask a (Q) How much gas mileage does you car get. and in return you (A) oh it gets gas mileage yes. It does not explain much other than what is obvious. I ask what time is it and dude gives me an average time LOL no I want THE time just like how I want to know The MIN frame rates and how long the game stayed in the min frame rates which is what is most important to smooth gaming experience min of 60fps is perfect game play.
 
[citation][nom]Gordon Freeman[/nom]Your missing the point of the message and I like AMD and I love BD-FX series but average frame rate does no mean a smooth game play experience thats like saying to someone when they ask a (Q) How much gas mileage does you car get. and in return you (A) oh it gets gas mileage yes. It does not explain much other than what is obvious. I ask what time is it and dude gives me an average time LOL no I want THE time just like how I want to know The MIN frame rates and how long the game stayed in the min frame rates which is what is most important to smooth gaming experience min of 60fps is perfect game play.[/citation]

You have clearly missed mine.
1) The BD Chips can hit 60fps, and quite comfortably stay there, on Skyrim. With small drops at seriously heavy areas. No more than my 2500k drops in the same areas. So why is TH reporting that even the i5, an arguably superior processor cannot even do it.
2) 60FPS in Skyrim is EASY to achieve. Saying it isn't (like you did) is wrong. Just dead wrong.
3) If you are telling me that if a game runs at 60fps 99% of the time, but occasionally drops, to a framerate that is still smooth, and you probably won't even know it has dropped unless you are running AB or some other overlay in the background, that it is somehow not a smooth gaming experience. Then you sir have to take a look at framerates... and see just where things start getting choppy. On my 52" 120hz screen or on my 120hz Projector on my 110" screen, there is no major "smoothness" drop ever. With Patch 5 the game runs at a SOLID 59.8 FPS on my BDs and 60.7 on my i5. Again, haven't tried my i7 or my old PII 955.

You quite clearly said that since your Deneb cannot do it that the FX cannot. I am quite clearly saying that it can, I have two BD rigs doing it right now.

Also the MAIN point that Racerx made, and I was following. Is that in that benchmark, Skyrim on the i5 2500k runs slower than his deneb. In his experience he has reached a nice solid framerate and is calling into question the benchmark given to us here. Not the chips. You told him it was because of the recent patch, I followed up with I had reached above 60fps before patch on my FX chip. You told me it was impossible. See the point from the beginning, and the only reason I went through the work to delete and recheck a clean Skyrim install, is that the results for even the i5 seem out to lunch. The point wasn't if the Deneb is faster or FX is faster or the i5 is faster. My point again, was that the 6100 and by extension my 8120 and i5 made it above and averaged (which is what those bars in the benchmark up top show BTW, average framerate) 60fps. So yes, the result seem out to lunch.

Oh, and average framerate is nothing like someone asking "How much gas mileage does your car get?" and me replying "Oh it gets gas mileage, yes". It is more like me replying "It averages 19MPG City, and 28MPG Highway". As for time, I will look at my analouge watch and tell you it is about 2:30 instead of 2:33, for the simple fact that the guy right next to me might have 2:32, or 2:34 on his watch.

Most, if not all, bechmarks deal in averages, the number displayed is generally what is shown 90% of the time. In fact, most things in life deal in averages.
 
[citation][nom]onetoomanypcs[/nom]You have clearly missed mine. 1) The BD Chips can hit 60fps, and quite comfortably stay there, on Skyrim. With small drops at seriously heavy areas. No more than my 2500k drops in the same areas. So why is TH reporting that even the i5, an arguably superior processor cannot even do it.2) 60FPS in Skyrim is EASY to achieve. Saying it isn't (like you did) is wrong. Just dead wrong.3) If you are telling me that if a game runs at 60fps 99% of the time, but occasionally drops, to a framerate that is still smooth, and you probably won't even know it has dropped unless you are running AB or some other overlay in the background, that it is somehow not a smooth gaming experience. Then you sir have to take a look at framerates... and see just where things start getting choppy. On my 52" 120hz screen or on my 120hz Projector on my 110" screen, there is no major "smoothness" drop ever. With Patch 5 the game runs at a SOLID 59.8 FPS on my BDs and 60.7 on my i5. Again, haven't tried my i7 or my old PII 955.You quite clearly said that since your Deneb cannot do it that the FX cannot. I am quite clearly saying that it can, I have two BD rigs doing it right now. Also the MAIN point that Racerx made, and I was following. Is that in that benchmark, Skyrim on the i5 2500k runs slower than his deneb. In his experience he has reached a nice solid framerate and is calling into question the benchmark given to us here. Not the chips. You told him it was because of the recent patch, I followed up with I had reached above 60fps before patch on my FX chip. You told me it was impossible. See the point from the beginning, and the only reason I went through the work to delete and recheck a clean Skyrim install, is that the results for even the i5 seem out to lunch. The point wasn't if the Deneb is faster or FX is faster or the i5 is faster. My point again, was that the 6100 and by extension my 8120 and i5 made it above and averaged (which is what those bars in the benchmark up top show BTW, average framerate) 60fps. So yes, the result seem out to lunch.Oh, and average framerate is nothing like someone asking "How much gas mileage does your car get?" and me replying "Oh it gets gas mileage, yes". It is more like me replying "It averages 19MPG City, and 28MPG Highway". As for time, I will look at my analouge watch and tell you it is about 2:30 instead of 2:33, for the simple fact that the guy right next to me might have 2:32, or 2:34 on his watch. Most, if not all, bechmarks deal in averages, the number displayed is generally what is shown 90% of the time. In fact, most things in life deal in averages.[/citation]
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/skyrim-performance-benchmark,3074-9.html and Skyrim is the culprit in this current instance not Intel or AMD but some how I find it hard to believe any FX BD CPU is faster than an i5 in Skyrim being that Skyrim is a game that runs on ONLY two cores and FX has crappy per core performance even my OCed Deneb 955 is more powerful that FX - 8150 in Skyrim cause Deneb is a faster CPU than BD the less cores that are used.
 
[citation][nom]Gordon Freeman[/nom]http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 074-9.html and Skyrim is the culprit in this current instance not Intel or AMD but some how I find it hard to believe any FX BD CPU is faster than an i5 in Skyrim being that Skyrim is a game that runs on ONLY two cores and FX has crappy per core performance even my OCed Deneb 955 is more powerful that FX - 8150 in Skyrim cause Deneb is a faster CPU than BD the less cores that are used.[/citation]

......
Where for all that is good and holy. Did I ever say it was faster. Again, you missed my point. That is thrice now. I never called in to question which was faster, nor did I say that your Deneb is a bad chip. I quite clearly said that my FX's and my i5 can push higher frames than the benchmark here is stating, period. End of story. Maybe if you go back to racerx's comment and work your way down you may pick up what I am laying down. Also if you Deneb cannot match up, check you PSU, your mobo, whatever, but if you have a Deneb on a $50 board you aren't going to get the same performance as I will on a $260 board. That said, I am done with this conversation. Have a great day and try to work on you comprehension skills.

 
[citation][nom]onetoomanypcs[/nom]......Where for all that is good and holy. Did I ever say it was faster. Again, you missed my point. That is thrice now. I never called in to question which was faster, nor did I say that your Deneb is a bad chip. I quite clearly said that my FX's and my i5 can push higher frames than the benchmark here is stating, period. End of story. Maybe if you go back to racerx's comment and work your way down you may pick up what I am laying down. Also if you Deneb cannot match up, check you PSU, your mobo, whatever, but if you have a Deneb on a $50 board you aren't going to get the same performance as I will on a $260 board. That said, I am done with this conversation. Have a great day and try to work on you comprehension skills.[/citation]
LOL dude you paid to much for a MOBO I have an paid $80 msi MOBO and OCed my Deneb to 3.8GHZ stable on 24/7 and its the chip not mobo so much that counts. The same CPU OC on a decent MOBO is not any better or worse on a more expensive MOBO you just paid more for it is all LOL.
 
[citation][nom]Gordon Freeman[/nom]LOL dude you paid to much for a MOBO I have an paid $80 msi MOBO and OCed my Deneb to 3.8GHZ stable on 24/7 and its the chip not mobo so much that counts. The same CPU OC on a decent MOBO is not any better or worse on a more expensive MOBO you just paid more for it is all LOL.[/citation]
I know I said I was done with this conversation. But this is so facepalm worthy I have to answer. No, your $80 board WILL NOT perform the same as a $200 board. Period. Your chip in my 990FX-UD7 will bench better and perform far better than in your pissy $80 board. I build systems, all the time for fun and for work, I bench them all the time for fun and for work. Trust me when I say your pathetic excuse for a mainboard is entry level at best and WILL NOT EVER see the performance that a mainstream or enthusiast board will. If that is honestly what you believe, then everything you have said in regards to "better gaming" and "gold standard" is null and void. Go buy yourself a REAL motherboard and see what your Deneb system can do. Pair it with an 880FXA and get a HD5xxx series graphics card and really unlock its potential, not only can your chip see 4.2Ghz Prime95 Stable, but your HTT and NB will run faster as well. Your CPU is only a small part of a bigger puzzle, RAM, Videocard, NB Speed, HTT Speed all have A LOT to do with final performance. Go do some research on boards, there is a reason they use a $200+ board on toms (or any other site) for benching and not an $80 one. I guess to you, that RAM latency makes no difference either, or bus width for that matter.... Rofl.... $80 board just as good as a $200+ board.. (maybe in 4+ years when the $200+ board is $80, in a clearance bin). wow... I am now 100% done with this conversation, as it is clear as day that you have 0 idea about tech whatsoever.

/me is going to stick his 1055T into a MSI 760GM and hope for some great fps in modern games.
 
[citation][nom]onetoomanypcs[/nom]I know I said I was done with this conversation. But this is so facepalm worthy I have to answer. No, your $80 board WILL NOT perform the same as a $200 board. Period. Your chip in my 990FX-UD7 will bench better and perform far better than in your pissy $80 board. I build systems, all the time for fun and for work, I bench them all the time for fun and for work. Trust me when I say your pathetic excuse for a mainboard is entry level at best and WILL NOT EVER see the performance that a mainstream or enthusiast board will. If that is honestly what you believe, then everything you have said in regards to "better gaming" and "gold standard" is null and void. Go buy yourself a REAL motherboard and see what your Deneb system can do. Pair it with an 880FXA and get a HD5xxx series graphics card and really unlock its potential, not only can your chip see 4.2Ghz Prime95 Stable, but your HTT and NB will run faster as well. Your CPU is only a small part of a bigger puzzle, RAM, Videocard, NB Speed, HTT Speed all have A LOT to do with final performance. Go do some research on boards, there is a reason they use a $200+ board on toms (or any other site) for benching and not an $80 one. I guess to you, that RAM latency makes no difference either, or bus width for that matter.... Rofl.... $80 board just as good as a $200+ board.. (maybe in 4+ years when the $200+ board is $80, in a clearance bin). wow... I am now 100% done with this conversation, as it is clear as day that you have 0 idea about tech whatsoever. /me is going to stick his 1055T into a MSI 760GM and hope for some great fps in modern games.[/citation]
LOL 2fps a mobo might gain if you spend $200 more on it is not worth it to me I will keep the $200 and invest it into graphics thanx very much LOL.
 
Yeah, I've seen the reviews are all 1 program, maybe 2 at a time...

Now, Lets try this:

Take an i5, and:
Transcode 1 movie from BluRay to MPEG4
Transcode 1 CD to LOSSLESS WMA
Run Full Scan in MSE
Play a DX11 Game on one other Screen..
While opening new tabs on Google Chrome (Facebook, toms hardware, espn, etc) on the other screen.

and Tell me the system doesnt lag...

I can tell you on my FX-8120 it doesnt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom