AMD Bulldozer FX 8150p vs Intel i7-2600k for gaming

?

do you think that AMD bulldozer FX 8150p will beat i7 2600k in gaming performance

Poll closed Oct 13, 2011.
  1. yes

    7.1%
  2. yes , but only in heavly multithreaded games like GTA eflc

    14.3%
  3. no

    78.6%
By SKYSTAR
Oct 3, 2011
Post New Reply
  1. red1776

    red1776 Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe Posts: 5,884   +77

  2. Mizzou

    Mizzou TechSpot Enthusiast Posts: 930

    I'll need to see reviews from some reliable sites before I abandon ship. Seems like we should be well past the engineering sample phase. While it wouldn't surprise me to see the 2600K hold an edge I still expect Bulldozer to at least be in the chase.
  3. dividebyzero

    dividebyzero trainee n00b Posts: 4,809   +642

    Monstru (Lab501) obviously fully deserves all the plaudits for his overclocking exploits (MSI 2011 etc.). He is virtually the only reviewer to achieve 5GHz on these chips. 4.6G seems about the limit for air or all-in-one water loop...maybe your H100 would have better luck. Personally I'd say BD isn't worth the effort - and it's definitely an affront to the "FX" nameplate

    Tom Logan (OC3D FX-8150 review)
  4. SKYSTAR

    SKYSTAR TechSpot Enthusiast Topic Starter Posts: 250

    horrible gaming performance , AMD rest in peace (like the undertaker said )
  5. tweakboy

    tweakboy TechSpot Maniac Posts: 518

    I would say Sandy for Gaming. 8 Cores is pointless in gaming... thx
  6. tweakboy

    tweakboy TechSpot Maniac Posts: 518

    Well, games don't need 8 cores to run.

    Games barely take up 2 cores of a quad processor. About 70 percent usage in Crysis 2

    What matters is how fast the Bulldozer cores are and Sandy cores are simply faster as shown in benchies.

    2600k any day over bulldozer. Ill take the 4 logical cores over 4 physical cores.
  7. Sarcasm

    Sarcasm TechSpot Enthusiast Posts: 342   +20

    That pretty much sums up why Bulldozer's gaming performance isn't as high as everyone expects, because games barely use 2-4 threads (not even cores) at this point.

    So would it be interesting to think that the more games use more and more threads, bulldozer's gaming potential will keep rising until 8 full threads are useable?

    Heck, it's probably the same reason why the i7-980X doesn't blow the 2600K out of the water for this reason.

    While I'm sure we're a LONG way off before games start actually use more than 4 threads minimum, we're heading in that direction starting with BF3.
  8. red1776

    red1776 Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe Posts: 5,884   +77

    you should look up game performance reviews over the lasy year. you might be surprised how few use only two cores. Also how many games perform significantly lower, or are unplayable on dual cores.

    Crysis 2 CPU
    [​IMG]

    From Techspot review of Crysis 2:
    Dirt 3 CPU:
    [​IMG]

    BFBC2 CPU:
    [​IMG]

    its because at higher resolutions the vast majority of games are GPU dependent.
  9. LNCPapa

    LNCPapa TS Special Forces Posts: 4,284   +262

    Red - your last post has given me a good idea for a new thread... 2 new threads actually, one for CPU(s) and one for GPU(s). Time to waste a bunch of bandwidth!
  10. red1776

    red1776 Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe Posts: 5,884   +77

    Hehe, I'm in. I graph CPU and GPU on every game anyway. the 800 x 600 may be a deal breaker for me though :p:wave:
  11. LNCPapa

    LNCPapa TS Special Forces Posts: 4,284   +262

    800x600 is the size of the taskman cap, not the game. But after looking at a few of these in a row I may adjust that to a smaller size anyway.
     


Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...


Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.