Exactly. Yeah, the FX series is still decent when all of its eight threads are being utilized, but Bulldozer's IPC is significantly worse than anything else on the market. I would venture to bet that my OC'd Pentium Dual Core is faster per core than an FX-8120. The FX series does have the advantage that it's overclockable, though. That is one thing that really annoys me about Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge.PI is testing per core, mine is testing when all cores work together. The 8 core amd is doing great in multithreaded but singlethreaded?
The 8120 is a POS, slower than an i3 and is just rubbish. But this thread is not about the low end, shall i say it again, read the title. At the high-end as the OP requested, AMD suck.
Dang...yeah, I saw some,tests already from a vishera SE chip, they were very dissapointing....
yeah, I saw some,tests already from a vishera SE chip, they were very dissapointing....
You are the most fanboy person here
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=289
I can get an 8120 system for the same price as an i3 at microcenter and other than gaming id be way better off, and it games perfctly fine.
As per the usual for AMD these days. It's a shame.yeah, I saw some,tests already from a vishera SE chip, they were very dissapointing....
Shame that AMD's 'high end' chips get beaten by Intel's mid-range quad from the previous generation.And if you compare the 8120 to a 2400 then they arent that far apart really.
^ Exactly.again, the question of the dang thread is the "difference between highend Intel and AMD" a 2400 is upper middle. 2600/3770/3930 are highend. 3960x is top end. Really all you are doing here is trying to make them equal. Highend from both lines do not compare. Intel is far better.