View Single Post
Master Guru
windwithme's Avatar
Videocard: P55/DDR3-1600/8GB
Processor: Intel Core i5-750
Default 12-26-2011, 05:19 | posts: 556

1100T Full Speed - 238W
LinX 0.6.4

FX-8120 Full Speed - 166W
LinX 0.6.4

When enter to OS desktop, FX-8120 power consumption is 7~10W lower.
When both CPU work at multi-core full speed, FX-8120 power consumption is 72W lower.
FX-8120 in default mode, no matter temperature or power consumption, it all shows 32nm advantage.
In the premise, itís only for default mode. I shared FX-8120 OC status in my previous review.
Even itís 95W FX-8120, when I OC over 4.3GHz, the power consumption bump up to over 380W.
FX-8120 temperature is also rise a lot.

3D Test
msi N560GTX-Ti Twin Frozr II
3DMark Vantage => P21867 CPU SCORE => 54346

3DMark Vantage => P19559 CPU SCORE => 46417

StreetFighter IV Benchmark
1920 X 1080 => 242.92 FPS

StreetFighter IV Benchmark
1920 X 1080 => 223.66 FPS

1920 X 1080 => 4018

1920 X 1080 => 3538

1100T in 3DMark Vantage, the 3D performance is 11.8% higher and CPU score is 17.1% more.
In StreetFighter IV and FINAL FANTASY XIV, 1100Ts is also 8.6% and 13.6% higher than FX-8120.
You can see for Game, CPU execution performance is very important. Also, most games just need 2~4Cores.
For real 3D requirement, core number is not the most important factor. I suggest you to choose higher performance CPU.

1. The price segment is entry level in 3 major brands.
2. It has 4 PCI-E X16 and supports 2-Way ATI CFX and nVIDIA SLI technology.
3. IO provides 8 USB 2.0 and 2 USB 3.0 interface. Including front USB, user can have 14 USB 2.0 devices.
4. Built-in 6 native SATA3 support many RAID modes.
5. BIOS provides plenty items and wide voltage range which is good for OC or fine tune performance.

1. Heat sink is a little small and no pipe.
2. Itís no front USB 3.0 Port.
3. BIOS is not UEFI interface.

Performance ***9733;***9733;***9733;***9733;***9733;***9733;***9733;***9733;***9734;***9734;
Components ***9733;***9733;***9733;***9733;***9733;***9733;***9733;***9733;***9733;***9734;
Specification ***9733;***9733;***9733;***9733;***9733;***9733;***9733;***9733;***9734;***9734;
Appearance ***9733;***9733;***9733;***9733;***9733;***9733;***9733;***9733;***9734;***9734;
C/P Value ***9733;***9733;***9733;***9733;***9733;***9733;***9733;***9733;***9734;***9734;

After so many comparisons, you can see both CPU has their own strength and weakness.
As default mode, no matter single core or multi-core performance, Phenom II X6 is all better than FX-8120.
FX-8120 has obvious advantage in temperature and power consumption. Itsí CINEBENCH OpenGL page is also very good.
Also, FX CPU DDR3 bandwidth wins X6 a lot. This is Bulldozer structure main strength for performance.

Maybe many readers think the benchmark is just numbers. They prefer to know the performance in real use environment.
I use so many benchmark software, applications or games to test. I think the score is also consultative.

In the AMD market, if you are looking for better performance, you can choose Phenom II X6 CPU with 970X or entry 990FX.
If you need more cores, better temperature, lower power consumption, latest AMD platform and donít care the lower performance, you can choose FX-8120.
However, the current price is a little bit high.
Bulldozer structure introduces 8-Cores to PC market, but the structure and performance is not good enough.
If AMD would like to break through the performance bottleneck currently, I suggest they can move Phenom II X6 to 32nm.
Also improve Bulldozer structure to be more efficient and launch FX II to win back the users confidence.
Above is windwithme sharing for AMD new platforms. As a smart users, for mainstream CPU, what your choice will be?

Finally, Happy HolidaysÖ Letís countdown to 2012.
Reply With Quote