Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › AMD FX 8120 + Geforce GTX 680 Gaming Performance
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AMD FX 8120 + Geforce GTX 680 Gaming Performance - Page 6

post #51 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by punceh View Post

the bulldozer chips have enough juice to power one of them, move to multiple cards and it simply cant keep up in most games(as shown in hardocp's review). either way im guessing many people that are going to run with dual gtx680/hd7970's are most likely not going to mind to spend an extra 100-200 usd on a 3770k/2600k/3820 for the better gaming performance. either way a fx8120 is still a pretty decent buy for some purposes, i guess..

It depends on the game. I'm guessing you missed the thread of the guy with an FX-8120 (or 8150 can't remember) with dual 6990's running BF3 and showed screenshots of the gpu usage being in the 90% range
post #52 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba Hotepp View Post

applaud.gif
And you have to love how they keep posting the same SLI review to point out how "AMD sucks" and never a crossfire review to see if it's really a problem with CPU power or just simply a problem playing nice with SLI (which by the way is new to AMD chipsets).
3way cfx with X79/Z68/990FX (Click to show)
We do know SLI generally requires a bit more CPU power than CFX does but still, even with CFX you can still see that BD isn't up there. The techpowerup 7970 scaling review has shown that you can also see differences between SB and BD with single GPU setups. To what extent depends on the game of course.

E: also, I'm not a mod in this section but guys please, keep the discussion civil.
 
Benching
(17 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
[i7 5960X @ 4.8GHz] [Rampage V Extreme] [Titan 1400MHz (1500MHz bench)] [Various] 
Hard DriveCoolingCoolingCooling
[250GB 840EVO +2x SpinpointF3 1TB RAID0] [LD PC-V2 SS Phase Change] [XSPC X2O 750 pump/res] [Monsta 360 full copper + EK XT 360 + XT 240] 
MonitorPowerCaseAudio
[Crossover 27Q LED-P 1440p+ASUS 1200p+LG 1080p] [Corsair AX1200] [Dimastech Easy v3.0] [Sennheiser HD558s] 
CPUCPUMotherboardGraphics
FX 8320, FX 8350, Phenom II x2 555BE i7 3930K, i7 860, i7 4770K, 68x Celeron D CVF, commando, 2x RIVE, Z87X-OC Asus 4870x2, Sapphire 4870 
GraphicsGraphicsGraphicsGraphics
2x 5870, 5850, 5830, 5770 2x 3870x2, 3870 GTX Titan, GTX 480, GTX 590 GTX 285, GTX 260, 4x 9800GT, 8800GTX 
RAMHard DriveCoolingCooling
4x4GB vengeance, 2x4GB predatorX, 2x1GB OCZ DDR2 Intel X25-M 80GB LD PC-V2 SS Phase Change OCN Marksman 
CoolingCoolingOSPower
2x old tek slims (GPU) Various watercooling stuff win7, winxp AX1200 
Case
test bench / cardboard box 
  hide details  
Reply
 
Benching
(17 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
[i7 5960X @ 4.8GHz] [Rampage V Extreme] [Titan 1400MHz (1500MHz bench)] [Various] 
Hard DriveCoolingCoolingCooling
[250GB 840EVO +2x SpinpointF3 1TB RAID0] [LD PC-V2 SS Phase Change] [XSPC X2O 750 pump/res] [Monsta 360 full copper + EK XT 360 + XT 240] 
MonitorPowerCaseAudio
[Crossover 27Q LED-P 1440p+ASUS 1200p+LG 1080p] [Corsair AX1200] [Dimastech Easy v3.0] [Sennheiser HD558s] 
CPUCPUMotherboardGraphics
FX 8320, FX 8350, Phenom II x2 555BE i7 3930K, i7 860, i7 4770K, 68x Celeron D CVF, commando, 2x RIVE, Z87X-OC Asus 4870x2, Sapphire 4870 
GraphicsGraphicsGraphicsGraphics
2x 5870, 5850, 5830, 5770 2x 3870x2, 3870 GTX Titan, GTX 480, GTX 590 GTX 285, GTX 260, 4x 9800GT, 8800GTX 
RAMHard DriveCoolingCooling
4x4GB vengeance, 2x4GB predatorX, 2x1GB OCZ DDR2 Intel X25-M 80GB LD PC-V2 SS Phase Change OCN Marksman 
CoolingCoolingOSPower
2x old tek slims (GPU) Various watercooling stuff win7, winxp AX1200 
Case
test bench / cardboard box 
  hide details  
Reply
post #53 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alatar View Post

3way cfx with X79/Z68/990FX (Click to show) We do know SLI generally requires a bit more CPU power than CFX does but still, even with CFX you can still see that BD isn't up there. The techpowerup 7970 scaling review has shown that you can also see differences between SB and BD with single GPU setups. To what extent depends on the game of course.
E: also, I'm not a mod in this section but guys please, keep the discussion civil.

I agree that a higher powered CPU will generally yield better results but that is far from a "failure" by bulldozer. Also I think it's interesting to note that the proper comparison would be a 2500K vs an 8150 and yet those results are vs a 2600K and higher. Still I fail to see how "AMD sucks" at gaming or multi-gpu setups as many have suggested or outright said.
post #54 of 141
click?format=go&key=7777bc3c17029328d03146e0ed767841&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overclock.net%2Ft%2F1267362%2Famd-fx-8120-geforce-gtx-680-gaming-performance%2F50&v=1&libid=1339364799209&out=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.overclock.net%2F6%2F67%2F67660b15_4433_23_x79_z68_990fx_crossfirex_hd_6970_x3_performance_analysis.png&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overclock.net%2Ft%2F1267362%2Famd-fx-8120-geforce-gtx-680-gaming-performance%2F40&title=AMD%20FX%208120%20%2B%20Geforce%20GTX%20680%20Gaming%20Performance&txt=&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13393648580282

Now all the bulldozer guys will say. "Well its over 60fps so who cares" rolleyes.gif
:P
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2500K @ 4.6GHz Asus P867PRO  HD6950 2GB  Corsair 4GB 1333 Cas 9 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Crucial M4 128GB Samsung 500GB F3 Samsung 22X DVDRW Xigmatek Gaia 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Ultimate x64 Acer S220HQL x3 Eyefinity Generic  Antec True Power New 550W 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Razer Absyssus Razer Sphex Sennheiser HD201 / Xonar DG 
  hide details  
Reply
:P
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2500K @ 4.6GHz Asus P867PRO  HD6950 2GB  Corsair 4GB 1333 Cas 9 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Crucial M4 128GB Samsung 500GB F3 Samsung 22X DVDRW Xigmatek Gaia 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Ultimate x64 Acer S220HQL x3 Eyefinity Generic  Antec True Power New 550W 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Razer Absyssus Razer Sphex Sennheiser HD201 / Xonar DG 
  hide details  
Reply
post #55 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtom320 View Post

It's been shown tens of times. And it doesn't really matter what I post because (and especially on this subject) people tend to disregard evidence that doesn't jive with how they feel emotionally about their product.

I think if the intel church could just get over their hardware insecurities, they'd see that the FX line is no where near as bad as people make it out to be. Too often you see the intel camp presenting weighted opinions and emotion as fact. I would suggest they try an FX for themselves, and then draw their conclusions as there far too many biased and unfair reviews out there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by computerparts View Post

It depends on the game. I'm guessing you missed the thread of the guy with an FX-8120 (or 8150 can't remember) with dual 6990's running BF3 and showed screenshots of the gpu usage being in the 90% range

Here.. THIS IS QUAD GPU'S FOLKS!
Quote:
Originally Posted by fg2chase View Post

If she knew just how much this cost!!!
lol specs in Sig
97.jpg
OMG
=O
101.jpg

102.jpg

103.jpg

Got the H100 this morning and ordered the 800D realizing I would have nowhere to put it so its kinda ghetto right now..
100.jpg
well ill be damned... here we are in battlefield 3 usage is as follows in sequence 97% - 89% - 97% - 96%
81FPS!!
It's not bottlenecking me too bad!! the second % is FAN speed

Edited by 2advanced - 6/10/12 at 2:54pm
The Beast
(12 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD 8120 Gigabyte 990FX-A UD5 Diamond HD 7970 G-Skill Sniper 1866 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
OCZ Agility 3 Lite-On Blu Ray Burner XSPC Raystorm Water Block, and custom Bucket Wa... Win 7 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
HannsG 24' HD Monitor Logitech MK700 OCZ ModExtreme 750 Fatal1ty Series Fractal Design Arc Midi 
  hide details  
Reply
The Beast
(12 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD 8120 Gigabyte 990FX-A UD5 Diamond HD 7970 G-Skill Sniper 1866 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
OCZ Agility 3 Lite-On Blu Ray Burner XSPC Raystorm Water Block, and custom Bucket Wa... Win 7 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
HannsG 24' HD Monitor Logitech MK700 OCZ ModExtreme 750 Fatal1ty Series Fractal Design Arc Midi 
  hide details  
Reply
post #56 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by eugenekrabs View Post

click?format=go&key=7777bc3c17029328d03146e0ed767841&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overclock.net%2Ft%2F1267362%2Famd-fx-8120-geforce-gtx-680-gaming-performance%2F50&v=1&libid=1339364799209&out=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.overclock.net%2F6%2F67%2F67660b15_4433_23_x79_z68_990fx_crossfirex_hd_6970_x3_performance_analysis.png&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overclock.net%2Ft%2F1267362%2Famd-fx-8120-geforce-gtx-680-gaming-performance%2F40&title=AMD%20FX%208120%20%2B%20Geforce%20GTX%20680%20Gaming%20Performance&txt=&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13393648580282
Now all the bulldozer guys will say. "Well its over 60fps so who cares" rolleyes.gif

And how does that in any way show how a 2500K is so much better at crossfire than an 8120 or 8150 as many have suggested?

Edit - this is how the typical "spIntel" conversation goes. Someone posts a thread about doing dual Crossfire/SLI on their FX-8120/50 build and literally within hours start getting numerous responses to the effect of "sell your MB and CPU and get a 2500K because it's useless to do Crossfire/SLI on a "faildozer" setup.". And then start posting a link to the same quad sli triple monitor review over and over or better yet like you just did a review pittting the 8150 vs 2600K/3960K clocked at higher speeds and cost significantly more.
Edited by Bubba Hotepp - 6/10/12 at 2:59pm
post #57 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2advanced View Post

I think if the intel church could just get over their hardware insecurities, they'd see that the FX line is no where near as bad as people make it out to be. Too often you see the intel camp presenting weighted opinions and emotion as fact. I would suggest they try an FX for themselves, and then draw their conclusions as there far too many biased and unfair reviews out there.
Here.. THIS IS QUAD GPU'S FOLKS!

BF3 is cherry picked

And we provide reviews,and benches but then the amd guys say "omg its a conspiracy all review sites are lying"
:P
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2500K @ 4.6GHz Asus P867PRO  HD6950 2GB  Corsair 4GB 1333 Cas 9 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Crucial M4 128GB Samsung 500GB F3 Samsung 22X DVDRW Xigmatek Gaia 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Ultimate x64 Acer S220HQL x3 Eyefinity Generic  Antec True Power New 550W 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Razer Absyssus Razer Sphex Sennheiser HD201 / Xonar DG 
  hide details  
Reply
:P
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2500K @ 4.6GHz Asus P867PRO  HD6950 2GB  Corsair 4GB 1333 Cas 9 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Crucial M4 128GB Samsung 500GB F3 Samsung 22X DVDRW Xigmatek Gaia 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Ultimate x64 Acer S220HQL x3 Eyefinity Generic  Antec True Power New 550W 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Razer Absyssus Razer Sphex Sennheiser HD201 / Xonar DG 
  hide details  
Reply
post #58 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by eugenekrabs View Post

BF3 is cherry picked
And we provide reviews,and benches but then the amd guys say "omg its a conspiracy all review sites are lying"

doh.gif

Again...how does that show in any way that the 8120/50 is a failure compared to a 2500K. Don't tell someone they should buy one chip over another and then post results comparing it to a different CPU altogether. How about I start posting results of an 8120 vs an i3-2120 to show how "intel CPU's are inferior"?
Edited by Bubba Hotepp - 6/10/12 at 3:04pm
post #59 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba Hotepp View Post

doh.gif

There are loads of reviews posted above me

But they are all wrong aswell right?
:P
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2500K @ 4.6GHz Asus P867PRO  HD6950 2GB  Corsair 4GB 1333 Cas 9 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Crucial M4 128GB Samsung 500GB F3 Samsung 22X DVDRW Xigmatek Gaia 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Ultimate x64 Acer S220HQL x3 Eyefinity Generic  Antec True Power New 550W 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Razer Absyssus Razer Sphex Sennheiser HD201 / Xonar DG 
  hide details  
Reply
:P
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2500K @ 4.6GHz Asus P867PRO  HD6950 2GB  Corsair 4GB 1333 Cas 9 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Crucial M4 128GB Samsung 500GB F3 Samsung 22X DVDRW Xigmatek Gaia 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Ultimate x64 Acer S220HQL x3 Eyefinity Generic  Antec True Power New 550W 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Razer Absyssus Razer Sphex Sennheiser HD201 / Xonar DG 
  hide details  
Reply
post #60 of 141
There's not a lot wrong with AMD and average frame rates, heck the difference between my 4.1Ghz Phenom 2 x6 and 5Ghz 2500k in Crysis running 5850 crossfire was only 5fps but the minimums showed an improvement of 10fps in favor of the 2500k.

Moving from the Phenom 2 I stopped being CPU limited in most of my games and started being GPU limited under the 2500k.

That's the point that most people don't seem to understand, minimum frame rates are by far the most important factor and Intel provides frame rates that are much higher and much more playable.

Granted there are games that can use 4+ threads ( BF3, Crysis 2... ) and in those games the frame rates are nigh on identical, problem being is that only a handful of games can use 4+ threads and all of the others are limited to 1-2 threads and that's why Intel chips are the only way to go when it comes to gaming.

Personally a high end GPU like the GTX670/680 & HD 7950/7950 will be wasted on Bulldozer and Phenom 2, multi-GPU gaming is simply a stupid thing to run on an AMD platform because they just simply don't have the IPC to drive multiple cards.

If games and drivers were all naturally multi-threaded then Bulldozer would a very good option but in reality we live in a world where true multi-threading support is only just really starting to take off.

Bulldozer should start performing a bit better when the next set of consoles release as you're pretty much guaranteed that all game engines will support 4+ threads.
Edited by Mr Frosty - 6/10/12 at 3:13pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AMD CPUs
Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › AMD FX 8120 + Geforce GTX 680 Gaming Performance