Mod: We should rename this thread the "Sonny & Cher" thread cause the theme is " the beat goes on"
To those unfamiliar with certain people on this forum, if anyone can find a situation where Bulldozer shows an advantage over anything else, it'll be AtenRa. Who cares whether BD is overclocked and the i3 wasn't, or that the idle power consumption graphs he was showing had BD using less than SB (of course, not with BD overclocked, that would make it look bad, wouldn't it)...
The P4 was also better than K8 if applications used optimized code and heavily depended on SSE. We are still waiting for that to happen.
FX will just be worse with time since the weak CPU will be more and more exposed as its not "good enough" anymore.
I'd be more worried that at some point you'll no longer be able to game on a dual core CPU and you're stuck with a 2 core chip.
Something that doesn't cease to surprise me is how the intel fans are always using very old benchmarks, and how the claims of "better for gaming" are always backed up with benchmarks run at very low res and low details. But if that is how they enjoy the games, oh well.
I propose the FX over PhII, and over the intel. Lower power consumption at idle / low usage, even lower than the i3 / i5s.
Future proofing? Isn't BD the most forward thinking architecture of them all? It can only get better as more apps learn on how to deal with the unorthodox 1 core/2 module approach.
Competent in games run at real life settings, meaning 1920 x 1080 high detail. Even in the exceptions like SC2 and skyrim, it is playable, 90 vs 78 fps matter little. In contrast, all those preaching an i3, why don't you go and grab one and tell us how enjoyable it was on BF3 multiplayer on a 64 player map. Frostbite 2.0 engine games do very well on BD. All those preaching an i3 are those who don't own it.
But the main kicker is this one. You get a better system for the same money. Most of you are thinking on "savings", and that is the wrong mindset. You don't have to "save" $60 or $70, you have already allocated money for the build, and going AMD CPU will allow you to add SSD if you didn't have one, or jump to a different class video card. I know that even the most ardent fanboys (if they are reasonable of course) have to admit that a FX + SSD will cream a i5 + HDD for daily usage, or a Fx + stronger GPU will beat a i5 + weaker GPU in games. Granted, as you keep going higher and higher in price, the $60-$70 help less, but at $600 they can have a big impact.
The machine for the OP is an all around machine, and an FX6100 with a SSD will do great. Video encoding? Use VCE if you have AMD GPU and quality is not crucial, or use a good software encoder (and being good, is well threaded) if quality is key. The intels have quiksync, but if you are into video, you already know speed is its selling point, not quality.
It is a complete system, not a CPU + mobo only.
You buy your 'forward thinking' CPU now and suffer. In a year or two, you will be able to buy a better CPU for $50 than current BD offerings. Your argument is a little silly.
Oh, then please overclock the i3 so we can compare them.
PS: Also, I would recommend trying to find a Pentium II instead of the Bulldozer. Why? Because the Bulldozer has red color on its box, and that is a very bad omen in my culture. A Pentium II will get you through safe and sound. Also it is Intel.
You Intelots are a funny bunch.
For starters, I'm running a Phenom II X4 960T, and I used AMD for nearly a decade as they made a reasonable amount of sense for someone on a tighter budget.
I was merely pointing out that AtenRa was comparing the performance of an OC'd AMD CPU to a stock Intel CPU, then when it came to comparing the energy efficiency, he switched back to a non OC'd AMD CPU. If you think that's a fair thing to do, then sorry, we're not going to see eye-to-eye. I think it's best to compare two OC'd CPUs or two stock CPUs, not mix and match, but he went one further.
As for your "PS", what the hell. If you think I was making an inaccurate statement or my logic was flawed, please point it out and how it was inaccurate/flawed. Otherwise, it looks like you're trying to mock in lieu of arguing a point with substance.
If you are gaming there is absolutely no sense in going amd at this point, but if you just want to support AMD for some personal reason go for the 8120.
Something that doesn't cease to surprise me is how the intel fans are always using very old benchmarks, and how the claims of "better for gaming" are always backed up with benchmarks run at very low res and low details. But if that is how they enjoy the games, oh well.
FX over PhII, I'll grant you that even though it doesn't always beat it, but you'll need to cite sources to substantiate your point about the FX having lower power usage than SB. On load power usage is almost as important though because that affects the PSU choice and the user's electricity bill.I propose the FX over PhII, and over the intel. Lower power consumption at idle / low usage, even lower than the i3 / i5s.
Time will tell. It might be the case that a "golden age of PC gaming" comes along where decent hardware really shines, but with the current industry culture of typical console-to-PC ports, I doubt it.Future proofing? Isn't BD the most forward thinking architecture of them all? It can only get better as more apps learn on how to deal with the unorthodox 1 core/2 module approach.
That's a debatable point, does everyone have a =>1080p monitor these days?Competent in games run at real life settings, meaning 1920 x 1080 high detail.
As long as the FPS rate is consistent, it could be lower still as far as a lot of people are concerned IMO.Even in the exceptions like SC2 and skyrim, it is playable, 90 vs 78 fps matter little.
If BF3 is the end of the OP's rainbow, then he should pay more attention to BF3 benchmarks. Another question I would pose is whether the OP is likely to regularly buy games in future, and if so what sort of games (based on past purchases). It might be the case that he plays a load of console port games that would benefit from a stronger CPU at single-threading work.In contrast, all those preaching an i3, why don't you go and grab one and tell us how enjoyable it was on BF3 multiplayer on a 64 player map. Frostbite 2.0 engine games do very well on BD. All those preaching an i3 are those who don't own it.
You didn't seriously say that just now. It's like saying "anyone knows that an FX on broadband will get faster download speeds than an SB on dial-up. Long live AMD!".I know that even the most ardent fanboys (if they are reasonable of course) have to admit that a FX + SSD will cream a i5 + HDD for daily usage
And again.or a Fx + stronger GPU will beat a i5 + weaker GPU in games.
If I were the OP, I would trawl forums for the software the OP wants to use to find out the most relevant performance information for the software in question. Considering that some games perform better on certain bits of hardware than others, I'm sure the same applies for professional data processing work.The machine for the OP is an all around machine, and an FX6100 with a SSD will do great. Video encoding? Use VCE if you have AMD GPU and quality is not crucial, or use a good software encoder (and being good, is well threaded) if quality is key. The intels have quiksync, but if you are into video, you already know speed is its selling point, not quality.
It is a complete system, not a CPU + mobo only.
I was merely pointing out that AtenRa was comparing the performance of an OC'd AMD CPU to a stock Intel CPU, then when it came to comparing the energy efficiency, he switched back to a non OC'd AMD CPU. If you think that's a fair thing to do, then sorry, we're not going to see eye-to-eye. I think it's best to compare two OC'd CPUs or two stock CPUs, not mix and match, but he went one further.
Obviously you didnt understand what i said,
The FX6100 may consume more power at full load than Core i3, but because it is faster than the core i3 it will be less time in full load than core i3. That makes it consume less overall power than you think.
Now, If you Overclock the FX6100 with out raising Voltages(default voltages) you will gain even more performance and you will spend even less time at full load to finish the same job, that will make the FX6100 even more power efficient.
If the Core i3 could be OCed i would have no problem compere it to an OCed FX6100, but it is Intel that doesn't allow us to OC the Core i3 not me.
Ok, then pick some benchmarks for games that anandtech/techreport already used for their FX reviews, at higher resolutions so I can see what you're saying.
That's a debatable point, does everyone have a =>1080p monitor these days?
The Valve hardware survey suggests that 1080p is the most popular resolution, but 25% is hardly the lion's share of the market. The breakdown shows 1366x768 having 18% and 1280x1024 having 10%. That suggests to me that resolution usage is still quite varied.
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/
If I were the OP, I would trawl forums for the software the OP wants to use to find out the most relevant performance information for the software in question.
Processor usage will depend on the game, and so therefore will the power consumption.
If you're gaming, you'll play for the same length of time regardless of the CPU.
The two MT benchmarks (Adobe Premier and x264) used was to illustrate that FX6100 is faster in MT apps even when at default clocks against the Core i3. I illustrated this because the OP said he will use the CPU for Video editing. At those applications the FX6100 is faster even at default and it will only get even more faster if OCed.
Being faster means working at full load less time thus returning to power saving mode earlier than the Core i3. That makes it consume less power overall.
About single thread, being faster in SpuerPi is irrelevant, the OP will not take part in a SuperPi competition.
Wow, let the venom fly.....
Once again someone asks a simple question about an AMD cpu and it is like let loose the dogs of war time around here.D:
I appreciate everyone having their own opinion about these things but gee does it have to get so personal. These types of tirades can end up hurting the forum rather than being constructive. There are some people who are not interested in having the fastest thing on the internet, they want to find the best balance of performance/affordability based on their budget. Going into a tirade about how Intel beats AMD due to this or that, doesn't seem to productive to me. Besides we have heard it all before. How about answering the op's question straightforwardly and if you have stats or reviews to back up your opinion fine then post them but please keep this on topic.
I am really getting tired of all the overboard negativity.
Pardon me moderator if I am stepping on anyone's toes.
We were talking about CPUs, not GPUs. Also, I was running a 1280x1024 monitor with a 5770 before the monitor died, then I went to 1080p. I knew that a monitor upgrade was on the cards at some point. My overall point is that the choices that people make according to their budget might not go together with your reasoning, and possibly for good reason.Even at 1366x768 you may be GPU limited with lower end GPUs. You not going to buy a GTX670 or HD7970 GE for 1366x768 resolution gaming.
Are you not contradicting yourself? You said BD was faster in "everything" when overclocked, but now admit it is not, but what it is not faster in is "irrelevant".
You are grasping for straws, i was recommending the FX6100 over the Core i3 for the usage the OP asked and said that an OverClocked FX6100 is faster than Core i3 at everything the OP is looking for.
I understand what you are saying. However, it seems that questions are posted over and over in slightly different words that are determined to show AMD in a good light and refuse to consider intel. And certain members of these forums are determined to pick a benchmark or scenario that favors AMD, and they continue to do it on topic after topic. I think that is why there are a lot of harsh words thrown about.
Im sorry to say but the Core i3 2120 will be inferior to the FX6100(when OCed) at everything while costing the same. Unless you really want an Intel CPU there is no point to even think of the Core i3.
This is what you said, a direct copy/paste from post # 17. But now apparently you were only talking about a limited usage scenario. Even then I am not sure the FX is faster. It depends on the game, how much you overclock it, and how much power you are willing to use.