Update: I'm reading an old review of the cpu and I am surprised if I'm correct it wasn't much better than the Phenom II X6, sometimes even slower? Is it right?

yes the original FX was a joke, the FX8150 gets beaten by a Phenom Ii X4 in all but a few encoding, and scientifc tasks, its IPC is very bad, you'd need it to OC it to 5ghz to compete with a PHneom II X4 965 in IPC

candle_86 wrote:

yes the original FX was a joke, the FX8150 gets beaten by a Phenom Ii X4 in all but a few encoding, and scientifc tasks, its IPC is very bad, you'd need it to OC it to 5ghz to compete with a PHneom II X4 965 in IPC

So as upgrade from the X3 720 it would be better a classic X6? Maybe only power wattage are better in the FX?

Even the power usage is suspect on the FX chips.... they were known for being power hogs, especially the first gen ones.

LHN91 wrote:

Even the power usage is suspect on the FX chips.... they were known for being power hogs, especially the first gen ones.

😵

So I think the Phenom II X6 will be my next upgrade. 😁

Just looked up a review - the Phenom II is a bit more power usage on idle, but the FX uses more power on load.

Clock-for-clock the Phenom is faster, but the extra two "cores" and a bit more clock speed do give the FX a bit of a boost if you really manage to use all the cores.... which chances are you won't.

the 8150 really isn't great, however, one thing to consider is, that it has support for more modern instructions like AVX, Hardware AES and SSE 4.1/4.2 and a few things more. Depending on the software you intend to use that might make it worthwhile. It is also noteworthy that modern multithreaded optimizations seem to benefit the FX series more than comparable intel CPUS (percentage wise, absolute values are still rather shit for FX)

There are btw modern games being released that use some of those instructions (at least at release, some were patched to not rely on them) which cause these games not to run on phenom IIs despite the power being sufficient otherwise. Examples are Dishonored II (tested myself at release, its supposed to be fixed IIRC) and Mafia III (no idea of its current state, game is shit anyway).

I have 1 PC running on a Phenom II x4 and my main PC runs a FX8350.

Thank! I will consider it depending on the price I'll find the X6 or the FX series in future. I think I'll try to push this 890GX chipset as much as possible.

Koltoroc wrote:

the 8150 really isn't great, however, one thing to consider is, that it has support for more modern instructions like AVX, Hardware AES and SSE 4.1/4.2 and a few things more. Depending on the software you intend to use that might make it worthwhile. It is also noteworthy that modern multithreaded optimizations seem to benefit the FX series more than comparable intel CPUS (percentage wise, absolute values are still rather shit for FX)

There are btw modern games being released that use some of those instructions (at least at release, some were patched to not rely on them) which cause these games not to run on phenom IIs despite the power being sufficient otherwise. Examples are Dishonored II (tested myself at release, its supposed to be fixed IIRC) and Mafia III (no idea of its current state, game is shit anyway).

I have 1 PC running on a Phenom II x4 and my main PC runs a FX8350.

For some reason this reminds me a bit of the difference between Northwood and Preshot.

My main PC is running AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition, I bought it because it was the second best CPU for my board (the best is 1100T BE which cannot be found for reasonable price). With GTX 750 Ti GS it now can run every modern game on highest details (well, except for "Mafia" III, but that is utter piece of s*it, soo... 😁 ).

What my conclusion is? The Phenom II X6 1100T/1090T is the best you can go on AM3 socket and going further in AM3+ is generally not worth it. Yeah, there is slight improvement, but nothing to write home about.

No going to an FX 83xx or 63xx is an upgrade from Phenom II.

Piledriver fixed most of what was wrong with bulldozer, just so long as you run Windows 8.1 or 10, which has a better thread scheduler which understands CMT.

Was looking at much the same, mine is the M4A89GTD PRO/USB3 - according to various posts around, other AM3+ that aren't actually specified may also work with the BIOS, though the FX6300 I was looking at has weird behaviour if overclocked, with drops to much lower speed

Current CPU is the 965BE, slightly overclocked to 3.6Ghz and with 1600 RAM in OC profile.
The auto OC went for 3.6GHz by clock adjust, so I put it to 3.6 by +1 multiplier, also needed a couple of + steps on the CPU NB voltage to stabilize with NB at 2400MHz to balance the RAM