Which is better?? FX or Phenom

[J.B.west]

Im a noob when knowing which of those 2 are better....so which is the best of the 2?? I should mention Im looking for better gaming performance

[---TK---]

I would go with the P2 over Bulldozer. the gaming experience is almost dead on. its not a very good upgrade

[J.B.west]

I have a P2 quad 965BE right now, I probably wont upgrade

[---TK---]

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx...cessor-review/

[sykozis]

If better gaming performance is your goal.....switch to Intel or wait to see how Piledriver does when it gets released next year... I wouldn't spend the money on Bulldozer for gaming.


In Hilbert's review, which ---TK--- linked to, look at the FarCry2 and Crysis2 benchmark. The FX-8150 is only 10-15% faster than an older, lower clocked Core i5 661...

[IcE]

Phenom is actually better. Especially Thuban.

[polyzp]

For OC'd gaming performance, AMD CPU rankings

AMD FX 8150 + Patch (4 Module)
AMD FX 8120 + Patch (4 Module)
AMD Phenom II X6 110t,1090t,1075t (6 core)
Phenom II X4 960t (4 core)
AMD FX 6200 (3 Module)
Phenom II X4 980/975/970/965 (4 core)
AMD FX 6100 (3 module)
Phenom II X4 955 (4 core)
AMD FX 4170 (2 Module)
Phenom II X4 940, 945 (4 Core)
AMD FX 4100 (2 Module)

[IcE]

Originally Posted by polyzp

For OC'd gaming performance, AMD CPU rankings

AMD FX 8150 + Patch (4 Module)
AMD FX 8120 + Patch (4 Module)
AMD Phenom II X6 110t,1090t,1075t (6 core)
Phenom II X4 960t (4 core)
AMD FX 6200 (3 Module)
Phenom II X4 980/975/970/965 (4 core)
AMD FX 6100 (3 module)
Phenom II X4 955 (4 core)
AMD FX 4170 (2 Module)
Phenom II X4 940, 945 (4 Core)
AMD FX 4100 (2 Module)

I'm sorry but you seriously can't argue that an FX is better than a Thuban in gaming performance. Not only does Thuban have higher per thread performance but it also doesn't have a crippled amount of FP processors. Just because there's very little spread in benchmarks as of now doesn't mean anything. I'm sure in BF3 MP with 64 players, a 1090T would get a higher bench at the same clocks as an 8150.

[Keitosha]

Originally Posted by polyzp

For OC'd gaming performance, AMD CPU rankings

AMD FX 8150 + Patch (4 Module)
AMD FX 8120 + Patch (4 Module)
AMD Phenom II X6 110t,1090t,1075t (6 core)
Phenom II X4 960t (4 core)
AMD FX 6200 (3 Module)
Phenom II X4 980/975/970/965 (4 core)
AMD FX 6100 (3 module)
Phenom II X4 955 (4 core)
AMD FX 4170 (2 Module)
Phenom II X4 940, 945 (4 Core)
AMD FX 4100 (2 Module)

Lol, nice to see you outside of your own thread for once. As for the 960T, if you're lucky it can be unlocked to an X6.

[DarthElvis]

For the applications and games out today, PhII. For the applications out at some future, unknown point in time, maybe FX. But by the time software catches up, FX may be woefully out of date.

Right this second, unfortunately I can not recomend anything AMD with a good conscience. And that is reflected in my advice to my clients. If you can, wait for Piledriver (and god knows when thats coming) in the long term, or jump ship to Sandy/Ivy Bridge in the short term. Your looking at roughly the same cost.

If you have to get a new mobo due to socket change (eg: from AM2 to AM3+), it's an incredible waste of money to go AMD. As someone who has stuck by AMD since the T-bird, it pains me to say that.

Edit: just looked at your rig. Keep your 965, you'd have to get a new mobo for an FX.

[IcE]

Originally Posted by DarthElvis

For the applications and games out today, PhII. For the applications out at some future, unknown point in time, maybe FX. But by the time software catches up, FX may be woefully out of date.

Right this second, unfortunately I can not recomend anything AMD with a good conscience. And that is reflected in my advice to my clients. If you can, wait for Piledriver (and god knows when thats coming) in the long term, or jump ship to Sandy/Ivy Bridge in the short term. Your looking at roughly the same cost.

If you have to get a new mobo due to socket change (eg: from AM2 to AM3+), it's an incredible waste of money to go AMD. As someone who has stuck by AMD since the T-bird, it pains me to say that.

Edit: just looked at your rig. Keep your 965, you'd have to get a new mobo for an FX.

The only time it's a good idea to upgrade to AMD is if you have a board that supports a Thuban and an outdated X2 or Athlon processor. In that case it's probably a good idea. Any other time though, nope.

[sykozis]

Originally Posted by DarthElvis

For the applications and games out today, PhII. For the applications out at some future, unknown point in time, maybe FX. But by the time software catches up, FX may be woefully out of date.

Right this second, unfortunately I can not recomend anything AMD with a good conscience. And that is reflected in my advice to my clients. If you can, wait for Piledriver (and god knows when thats coming) in the long term, or jump ship to Sandy/Ivy Bridge in the short term. Your looking at roughly the same cost.

If you have to get a new mobo due to socket change (eg: from AM2 to AM3+), it's an incredible waste of money to go AMD. As someone who has stuck by AMD since the T-bird, it pains me to say that.

Edit: just looked at your rig. Keep your 965, you'd have to get a new mobo for an FX.

I stayed with AMD from the 486 days up until the original Phenom. The end of AMD being competitive came with the launch of the Core 2 series....and it was a pretty sad day for AMD supporters that knew AMD's reign was over. Currently, the only thing from AMD worth recommending is their APUs for entry-level or multimedia systems. Hopefully Trinity doesn't turn out to be the same flop Bulldozer is...

[Pill Monster]

Originally Posted by polyzp

yup! thats exactly why its placed higher up. But this list is for absolute maximum oc , let me restate with more clarification. Overclocks have an error +- 0.1 Ghz..

Well that list is for CPU's at stock clocks...a 965 @4.0Ghz will be faster than a 980@ 3.7Ghz..

There's no way to tell what the maximum OC will be for a given CPU, no 2 chips overclock the same - my 955 is a prime example of that.

Originally Posted by DarthElvis

Edit: just looked at your rig. Keep your 965, you'd have to get a new mobo for an FX.

No he won't. His board is AM3 and compatible with BD.

[DarthElvis]

Originally Posted by Pill Monster

No he won't. His board is AM3 and compatible with BD.

You sure about that? His board is socket AM3, true, but BD requires socket AM3+. Gigabytes own site says nothing about supporting the FX line. And as a budget 870 chipset, I doubt Gigabyte will enable support in bios, even if you could physically install the chip. He could, however get a Thuban. But he may as well hold on to his 965 and clock the crap out of it. Save his dough for an upgrade in the future.

Personally, I think a graphics upgrade would serve the OP better at this point as far as gaming performance goes.

[polyzp]

Originally Posted by Keitosha

Lol, nice to see you outside of your own thread for once. As for the 960T, if you're lucky it can be unlocked to an X6.

yup! thats exactly why its placed higher up. But this list is for absolute maximum oc , let me restate with more clarification. Overclocks have an error +- 0.1 Ghz.

AMD FX 8150 + Patch (4 Module) @ 4.8 Ghz
AMD FX 8120 + Patch (4 Module) @ 4.8 Ghz
AMD Phenom II X6 110t,1090t,1075t (6 core) @ 4.2/4.1/4.0 Ghz
Phenom II X4 960t (4 core) @ 4 Ghz (Could unlock to 6 cores)
AMD FX 6200 (3 Module) @ 4.8 Ghz
Phenom II X4 980/975/970/965 (4 core) @ 4.3 / 4.2 / 4.2 / 4.1 Ghz
AMD FX 6100 (3 module) @ 4.6 Ghz
Phenom II X4 955 (4 core) @ 4.0 Ghz
AMD FX 4170 (2 Module) @ 4.9 Ghz
Phenom II X4 945, 940 (4 Core) @ 4.0/3.9 Ghz
AMD FX 4100 (2 Module) @ 4.6 Ghz


For Comparison, Tomshardware's list @ stock settings (non overclocked)

FX-4170
Phenom II X6 1100T BE, 1090T BE
Phenom II X4 Black Edition 980, 975
FX-8150, -6200
Phenom II X6 1075T
Phenom II X4 Black Edition 970, 965, 955
FX-8120, -6100, -4100
Phenom II X6 1055T, 1045T
Phenom II X4 945, 940, 920, 910, 910e, 810
Phenom II X3 Black Edition 720, 740
A8-3850, -3870K

Best to worst - top to bottom

Yes so even tomshardware thinks the best AMD gaming cpu @ stock settings is the 4.3 Ghz FX 4170. But i still disagree with this.

[---TK---]

6 core thuban is as good as it gets right now on the amd side. especially at 4ghz.

[Fox102383]

My 6 core Phenom II 6X 1100t BE , is Top dog in games especially overclocked in the AMD world till they can bring me something better!

[airbud7]

Originally Posted by Fox102383

My 6 core Phenom II 6X 1100t BE , is Top dog in games especially overclocked in the AMD world till they can bring me something better!

^Yes it Is Top Dog

[deltatux]

If you're doing heavily multithreaded work then AMD FX would be better. If gaming is your main prerogative, then Intel or AMD Thuban would be better.

deltatux

[deviousdevin]

I just switched from my phenom II x4 to a fx-6100 and I can't believe how much faster it runs. Whatever problems bulldozer had, these new updates seem to have fixed them.

[Pill Monster]

Originally Posted by deviousdevin

I just switched from my phenom II x4 to a fx-6100 and I can't believe how much faster it runs. Whatever problems bulldozer had, these new updates seem to have fixed them.

Orly?

[@renadier]

8120 cpu works only 50% at bf3.

[deltatux]

Originally Posted by @renadier

8120 cpu works only 50% at bf3.

That's because the game isn't properly threaded for more than 4 cores. Since the 8000 series have 8 cores and 4 modules, the OS would think those cores are traditional cores that we've come to know.

It makes sense that it only goes 50% as the game was meant to push 4 cores. The engine isn't really scalable when it comes to the CPU.

deltatux

[---TK---]

bf3 uses all the threads I have 8.

[PinguX]

http://www.guru3d.com/article/battle...nchmark-test/3

According to this review, BF3 has 8 thread support.