Originally Posted by neliz
Actually, the benching we've done in-house did show some very bad scenarios in games, but generally the performance was right where it should be for the price.
The power consumption however, is a different story. it's not uncommon to at 50W or 100W extra for the use of an Asus board versus that of an other brand.
Graphics performance with an AMD graphics card is better than the same card on an Intel board and a BD can actually provide beter results in games/benchmarks than a i7-2600K. it just seems AMD didn't think this launch out quite as well.
the performance is where it should in which scenarios? in some heavily multi threaded file compression, rendering and all I agree, is mostly above the 2500k, on many less threaded softwares it's much worse,
as for gaming, on CPU limited gaming all I saw was big gap in favor of the 2500k, so the price is correct depending on the application, but in general is a less competitive product than the 2500k and uses more power,
as for higher performance with AMD cards!? I see tests where this is not the case!? xbitlabs and others,
on GPU limited tests is quite common to see the FX and any other CPU with basically the same result, with some very small variation... if one CPU is 1-3% faster than the other on this cases, it's very irrelevant and many times hard to explain, but when you drop a CPU limited case we are talking about huge differences (more relevant!), and there is a clear winner,
I found very disappointing the way some reviews present you with gaming tests, when they ONLY compare a 2600k to the FX, on a clearly GPU bottlenecked test, IF your intention is to show that the FX is enough to match the other CPU at this case, OK, but then you should also show how other CPUs do in this case, in most cases I'm sure all the other PII X4s, i3s would be very close indeed.
if you want to present the FX as a gaming option, please test it in more situations and games, lowering the resolution here and there is also a fair way to simulate a faster graphics card, and valid to compare CPUs
comparing CPUs on games at 2560x1600 with the VGA struggling to keep 20fps is ridiculous, it says nothing that is not already known,
what is the point of the FX keeping up with any CPU in these conditions, if a cheaper 2500k can achieve the same there and a much higher result in other games for less money?!
the FX 8150 can be a good option for some cases, but it's far from the logic choice for gaming,
as for the Asus MB, seriously?
all the test I checked under similar conditions showed the same performance,
please, don't compare different tests from different reviews to say something is wrong with the one that doesn't suit your expectations... and please stop using tests that only show the limit of the VGA performance, without considering how the i3, X4 955, i3 2300 and others perform there, and don"t give so much attention to 1-3% of variation, when in other cases you can see as much as 40% or more for the other side..
in my humble opinion the FX 8150 needs to be priced slightly more aggressively, for the normal desktop workload the advantages over the 2500k are to small to justify a higher price,Edited by HMBR - 10/16/11 at 1:25am