Amd Fx Series Fx-8150 3.6ghz 8x Black Edition Opiniones
Hi there its my first time here, im from spain, so sorry for my bad english, and i have a AMD FX Series FX-8350 4.0Ghz 8X Black Edition. But in order to use it i need to upgrade my motherboard and wanted to upgrade my graphic card too. I was using this web to decide but dont know if i can trust it so read somewhere that tomshardware is the best place to ask. Looking at that web decided on this mobo: Asrock 970 Pro3 R2.0 and this gpu Sapphire R7 265 Dual-X 2GB GDDR5, cause of my budget couldnt look for anything too much expensive, oh and wanted to now a nice cooler for my cpu too, thxs. Oh and i forget to add that i want my pc mainly for gaming, got my cpu from a friend but i dont have much budget so picked that mobo cause it was only like 80 dollars in the web i use to buy, and the gpu its like 190 dollars aprox cause my prices are in euros. Any advice then on the mobo if that one isn good for overclock having in mind that budget of aprox 300 dollars?
Buy AMD FX-8150 Zambezi 8-Core 3.6 GHz. Combine an AMD FX CPU with an AMD 9-series chipset motherboard and AMD Radeon HD 6000 series graphics cards to create. HotHardware takes a detailed look at the new AMD FX-8150 eight. The flagship processor in the new FX-Series line-up is the FX-8150. FX-8150 / 3.6GHz (base.
And thxs for the answering, looking for that cooler now. For the motherboard, when using an 8350 on a budget I recommend the Asus M5A99X Evo R2.0. It ranges between 105-115 euros which should be just a tad over or should be in your budget. What power supply do you have? Sorry have been busy these days, but maybe i can have some more budget, so i see some of you say GIGABYTE GA-970A-UD3P would be the best chipset 970 mobo for my cpu and so, but if i can afford a litle more and go for this Asus M5A99X Evo R2.0 like shin said, or there is another better for my cpu beside that one btw those 2 or aprox in the budget like this asus.
Now that i have more budget would love to know what mobo suits perfect for my cpu and what gpu would be a nice combo to get too plz. Thxs for all the help. Sorry have been busy these days, but maybe i can have some more budget, so i see some of you say GIGABYTE GA-970A-UD3P would be the best chipset 970 mobo for my cpu and so, but if i can afford a litle more and go for this Asus M5A99X Evo R2.0 like shin said, or there is another better for my cpu beside that one btw those 2 or aprox in the budget like this asus. Now that i have more budget would love to know what mobo suits perfect for my cpu and what gpu would be a nice combo to get too plz. Thxs for all the help. Ultimately the best motherboard for your CPU is the Asus Sabertooth 990fx rev.2. The best GPU combination would be a 280x or a GTX770.
Even getting the Asus M5A99X Evo R2.0 cant afford for those gpus. So its better to go for a chipset 970 mobo to afford for a better gpu like a 270x then? I already have the cpu its cause i asked about this one, got it really cheap from a friend but its hard for me to buy things that combo well with it.
Looked through shops and seen this one Sapphire R9 270X Dual-X 2GB GDDR5, should be nice enough if i reduce the mobo to 970 chipset? Yeah, get the ga-970a-ds3p and if you can try and find an MSI 270x Gaming TwinFrozr in your budget as they have quite a large overclock and they're cooler + they have functions to reduce dust.
. Pros Excellent multithreaded performance. Attractive price. Unlocked multiplier for simplified overclocking.
Cons Not always faster than competing Intel or AMD CPUs. Sluggish with single-threaded workloads. High power usage under load. No integrated graphics. May require new motherboard. Windows 8 required for some features. Bottom Line AMD threatens to make a dent in Intel’s performance leadership with its FX-8150 CPU, the first to use the company’s completely redesigned Bulldozer core architecture, but stumbles in a few key areas.
For years now, those scoping out a system (or just the parts to build one) have had a simple choice to make when it comes to processors: Do you want the best performance (Intel) or do you want the best value (AMD)? With its new FX series of CPUs, AMD is proposing that maybe you don’t have to choose after all.
The first desktop member of the family we've seen, the AMD FX-8150, which is due for release later in October, may offer Intel cause for concern down the line, but shouldn't worry the company quite yet. The FX-8150's eight processing cores (the first consumer chip so equipped), performance with multithreaded applications, and $245 list price are solid, the chip's hunger for power and struggles with single-thread workloads keep it from unseating Intel in the midrange space—at least for now. The FX-8150 is based on AMD’s “Bulldozer” core design, the company’s first major hardware rethink in years. Each individual dual-core Bulldozer module is designed to optimize resources, with functions with high utilization (such as integer pipelines and Level 1 data caches) dedicated in each core and everything else (fetch, decode, floating point pipelines, and the Level 2 cache) shared, which lets it both use a higher-performance function unit and reduce the overall die area on the CPU itself.
Amd Fx-8150 3.6ghz
AMD claims that this design offers improved “scalability and predictability” on multithreading applications, with its threading method superior to one in which two threads share a single core. (This is, ahem, the Intel method.) AMD has also implemented a number of instruction set extensions, such as for SSE 4.1 and 4.2 and Advanced Vector Extensions (AVX), though not all of these will deliver much benefit until Windows 8 comes out.
But that’s all on the inside; from the consumer standpoint, the FX-8150 appears considerably more conventional. Though it's based on a newer 32nm production process that replaces AMD's 45nm process, on the exterior it's of an identical design to AMD’s previous chips, with its pins on the bottom (as opposed to Intel’s method of putting the pins are in the socket rather than on the chip itself). Just don't assume your existing motherboard will work with it: It must use the relatively new AM3+ socket, though in accordance with AMD’s dedication to backwards compatibility, you’ll still be able to use your older chips in the newer board. The FX-8150 has a 3.6GHz base clock that can be increased to 3.9GHz when each processing core is taking advantage of AMD’s Turbo Core functionality.
If they’re all maxed out, the chip’s speed rockets to 4.2GHz. In case this still isn’t enough speed for you, the FX-8150 has an unlocked multiplier; AMD insists that all chips in the FX family will.
(This was a benefit previously reserved for the company’s higher-end “Black Edition” processors.) The L2 and L3 caches each measure 8MB, and the chip can use up to DDR3-1866 RAM. One thing this CPU is missing: integrated graphics, like those you’ll find on its Llano-based APU cousins, like the and, so you’ll need at least one discrete card in a Bulldozer system. If you want to use two, the FX-8150 supports 2x16 CrossFireX, so both of your linked video cards will operate at higher speeds. Performance and Power Usage All this helps the FX-8150 in terms of performance, even when compared with AMD’s last flagship CPU, the six-core, though not as much as you might expect—and certainly not in every situation. When multithreading was involved, the results were nice: The FX-8150 earned 6.01 in our CineBench R11.5 rendering test; the 1100T managed 5.88. When converting a video clip to iPhone format using the open-source program Handbrake, the newer chip finished the task in 1 minute 44 seconds, and the 1100T needed 1:48. The new instructions helped the FX-8150 make a major leap in our TrueCrypt 7.1 cryptography test, rising from 176MBps with the 1100T to 224MBps.
We saw a smaller improvement in the Futuremark PCMark 7 full-system benchmark test (2,949 for the 1100T and 3,017 for the FX-8150), and slightly more when running Futuremark 3DMark 11’s CPU-based Physics test (a frame rate of 16.91 on the 1100T rose to 19.66 on the FX-8150). When we used our FX-8150–based test system to apply a dozen filters to a large image using, its time of 4 minutes 12 seconds was superior to the 4:16 the 1100T required, but with one wrinkle: the Smart Blur effect. The 1100T actually finished this task 18 seconds faster than the FX-8150, so ignoring that one filter would give the newer chip an even greater lead. We asked our AMD contact about this, and he responded, “There will be some instances where calculations will be faster on the Phenom II X6, to do with threadedness, thread scheduling, types of calculations, etc.” We’re still waiting to hear more specifics, and when we do we’ll report them, but the takeaway is that the FX-8150 will not always be faster than its predecessor, something that's troubling for a CPU at the forefront of its company's line. These patterns continued against Intel’s current-generation chips. The FX-8150's multithreaded CineBench R11.5 score fell somewhere between the ’s 5.46 and the ’s 6.94; but it proved much better at Cryptography in TrueCrypt (the Core i5-2500K earned 143MBps, the Core i7-2600K 196MBps). On the other hand, both Intel chips turned out superior frame rates in the 3DMark 11 Physics test (20.37 for the Core i5-2500K and 26.15 for the Core i7-2600K) and better overall results in PCMark 7 (3,471 and 3,649). In terms of media handling, there was no contest: They plowed through Photoshop in 3 minutes 4 seconds (the Core i5-2500K) and 2 minutes 43 seconds (the Core i7-2600K), and each finished Handbrake in 1 minute 11 seconds—more than half a minute less time than the FX-8150 required.
(Note: This is with a discrete video card in all cases.). But take away the multithreading, and major problems emerge for the FX-8150. When running CineBench R11.5 in single-core mode, its score was pathetic: 0.96, not just well behind both the Core i5-2500K (1.49) and Core i7-2600K (1.54), but even AMD's own last-generation 1100T (1.10).
This shows that, unless the software you use is dependent on multithreading, the FX-8150 is not a wise choice. Nor is it ideal if power usage is a significant concern.
We measured the full draw of our test-bench system using an Extech Datalogger and discovered that, at idle, the FX-8150 used 155.9 watts compared with the 1100T's 145.6. That's not too bad, but under load the FX-8150's usage skyrocketed up to 250.2 watts, whereas the 1100T topped out at 178.5 watts. The FX-8150's performance is simply not remarkable enough against the 1100T's to justify that extreme a difference. If you're determined to build a midrange-or-better AMD computer, the AMD FX-8150 is in no way a bad choice, particularly if you regularly depend on multithreaded software to wrap up your daily tasks before the beginning of the next century. But the 1100T is overall a better value if you're not in desperate need of additional threads.
If, on the other hand, you're platform agnostic, the choice is easier. Intel's chips put up a fierce fight, particularly in terms of media manipulation and gaming, and won't draw as much power under load, and those qualities will make them a superior choice for many users. The good news is that AMD's new FX line shows the company takes its competition seriously, and is laying the groundwork for more exciting innovations in the years to come. There's every reason to believe that AMD can make this gambit work and steal away the price-performance crown from Intel, which captured it with its sizzlingly placed Core i5-2500K. That time may not be far away, but the FX-8150 shows it's not here yet. More CPU Reviews: .