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

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

  3. no

By SKYSTAR ยท 85 replies
Oct 3, 2011
Post New Reply
  1. red1776

    red1776 Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe Posts: 5,224   +164

  2. Mizzou

    Mizzou TS Enthusiast Posts: 823

    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: 4,891   +1,264

    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)

    SKYSTAR TS Enthusiast Topic Starter Posts: 207

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

    tweakboy TS Guru Posts: 467

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

    tweakboy TS Guru Posts: 467

    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 TS Guru Posts: 367   +46

    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: 5,224   +164

    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

    From Techspot review of Crysis 2:
    Dirt 3 CPU:

    BFBC2 CPU:

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

    LNCPapa TS Special Forces Posts: 4,276   +461

    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: 5,224   +164

    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: 4,276   +461

    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.

Similar Topics

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...