CPU/Mobo Cheapest Possible Motherboard For Fx 8150/20

nitinchamp

nitinchamp

Disciple
hey guys m planning on a new pc n definatly wanna go with 8 core cpu

cause will be doing a lot video conversions n 3d stuff

so whats the cheapest i could get a mobo for ? i knw buldozer is recommended with 990fx chipsets but apart from tht any cheaper alternative ?
 
Your FX 8150 is 14.5K at smc..... The 990FX draws out the best from this proc and the most expensive [I guess from 10-17K]..... optimised best in dual GPU set-up. Among other AM3+ socket motherboards you need to check availability of the other chipset series here in India.

A quick search on newegg place's the AM3+ mobo's from $50 to $200 .... and just 2 mobo's over $200
 
nitinchamp said:
hey guys m planning on a new pc n definatly wanna go with 8 core cpu

cause will be doing a lot video conversions n 3d stuff

so whats the cheapest i could get a mobo for ? i knw buldozer is recommended with 990fx chipsets but apart from tht any cheaper alternative ?
Click to expand...

Still I suggest you go for a Intel Core i7 2600 OR AMD Phenom IIx6 [Thuban], the Bulldozer chips have a very inconsistent lead and draw more power than the Intel Sandy-Bridge architecture based processors.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/10/12/amd-fx-8150-review/1,

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Apart from the idle power draw of the FX-8150 – which we’ll point once again is an excellent achievement by AMD considering that the FX-8150 is a high-performance desktop part and its rival Core i5-2500K and Core i7-2600K are both essentially power-efficient laptop processors that have been beefed up a little for desktop PCs – the results show AMD’s latest CPU to be awful at everyday, consumer applications.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It’s a lack of single-threaded performance that holds the FX-8150 back – its efforts in our single-threaded image editing test were dire compared to every other processor on test. Even worse, this supposedly 8-core CPU running at 3.6GHz was hardly much faster than a six-core Phenom II X6 1100T running at 3.3GHz in heavily multi-threaded applications that saturate all available execution cores. In Cinebench R11.5 and WPrime – applications where a 8-core CPU should dominate a 6-core (let alone a quad-core) – we saw a lack of performance.[/font]
Click to expand...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043.html,

[font=Verdana, Tahoma,]Toss a single-threaded app at the processor, though, and it underperforms Intel's three-year-old Core i7-920 running at its stock 2.66 GHz. AMD’s architects say they shot to maintain IPC and ramp up clock rate, but something clearly went wrong along the way.[/font]

[font=Verdana, Tahoma,]Ironically, consistent, scalable performance is one of the attributes that AMD claims it gets from its Bulldozer module. The issue we see over and over, though, is that it relies on software able to exploit scalability in order to compete. When it doesn’t get what it wants, performance steps back relative to the previous generation. As a result, even though AMD implements a more advanced version of Turbo Core to help improve single-threaded performance, the difference between what you get in lightly- and heavily-threaded [/font][font=inherit !important][font=inherit !important]applications[/font][/font][font=Verdana, Tahoma,] is anything but consistent.[/font]
Click to expand...

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]We finally have a high-end AMD CPU with power gating as well as a very functional Turbo Core mode. Unfortunately the same complaints we've had about AMD's processors over the past few years still apply here today: in lightly threaded scenarios, Bulldozer simply does not perform. To make matters worse, in some heavily threaded applications the improvement over the previous generation Phenom II X6 simply isn't enough to justify an upgrade for existing AM3+ platform owners. AMD has released a part that is generally more competitive than its predecessor, but not consistently so. AMD also makes you choose between good single or good multithreaded performance, a tradeoff that we honestly shouldn't have to make in the era of power gating and turbo cores.[/font]
Click to expand...

If you can wait, then hold your purchase till the advent of the Ivy-Bridge CPU's and their corresponding X79 chipsets.

That is my call, put in your budget and we'll see what we can do for you Sire.

Hope this helped, Cheers!!
 
Hey TE experts .... can one explain why 8150 ranks topmost in VFM on cpubenchmarks
<


http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8150+Eight-Core

Are we underestimating it's true potential? While I do agree that on most counts - the i5 is better, however since OP wants to use it for video encoding & 3D tasks - this offers true VFM. Ivybridge & X79 will push the budget up by 30-40% - this money could be utilised in pushing for the best GPU + upgrading RAM to 16GB .... just my tuppence

Also see a 64-bit multi-threaded VP8 video encoding stress sequence test result

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150-processor-review/17

There are'nt too many apps around that can really test fire on all cylinders the potential of this 8 core & cheap beauty.
 
terence_fdes said:
Hey TE experts .... can one explain why 8150 ranks topmost in VFM on cpubenchmarks
<


PassMark - AMD FX-8150 Eight-Core - Price performance comparison

Are we underestimating it's true potential? While I do agree that on most counts - the i5 is better, however since OP wants to use it for video encoding & 3D tasks - this offers true VFM. Ivybridge & X79 will push the budget up by 30-40% - this money could be utilised in pushing for the best GPU + upgrading RAM to 16GB .... just my tuppence

Also see a 64-bit multi-threaded VP8 video encoding stress sequence test result

AMD FX 8150 processor review

There are'nt too many apps around that can really test fire on all cylinders the potential of this 8 core & cheap beauty.
Click to expand...

^^ AMD FX 8150 is not exactly cheap Sire, retails for ~ 14700/- on most online portals, this makes it more expensive than its main competitor the Core i5 2500k, it sucks more power and is completely trashed in single-threaded applications, the more expensive Core i7 2600k [OR non -k version for that matter], with four physical cores and four hyper-threaded virtual cores offers much better performance at the said price-point than BullDozer which falls flat on its face.

Also its performance in multi-threaded benches like Cinebench R11.5 is poor and aggregates to a 6% rise in performance over the Thuban, in my opinion OP will be better off after over-clocking a cheaper Thuban and multi-tasking. The BullDozer architecture is not consistently capable of taking out Sandy-Bridge OR out-running its own predecessor the Thuban cores.

http://www.bit-tech....x-8150-review/1,

http://www.tomshardw...990fx,3043.html,

http://www.anandtech...d-fx8150-tested

[font=arial, sans-serif]We finally have a high-end AMD CPU with power gating as well as a very functional Turbo Core mode. Unfortunately the same complaints we've had about AMD's processors over the past few years still apply here today: [/font]in lightly threaded scenarios, Bulldozer simply does not perform. To make matters worse, in some heavily threaded applications the improvement over the previous generation Phenom II X6 simply isn't enough to justify an upgrade for existing AM3+ platform owners. AMD has released a part that is generally more competitive than its predecessor, but not consistently so.[font=arial, sans-serif]AMD also makes you choose between good single or good multithreaded performance, a tradeoff that we honestly shouldn't have to make in the era of power gating and turbo cores.[/font]
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Also pretty pointless for OP to get 16GB of RAM, unless he is going to do particles in 3D softwares OR audio / video editing on this RIG all the time.

OP will be served better with a Thuban RIG [if under budgetary constraints], else Intel Sandy-Bridge / Ivy Bridge is what he should get.

Hope this helps.
 
mrcool63 said:
the asus m5a97 is the cheapest you can use safely with this board-6k

its better model the m5a97 pro is available for 7k
Click to expand...

me 2 thought of this it also comes in a combo u think it will work without a bios upgrade

n yea guys i knw i7 outperforms buldozer and is better but the overall mobo+ cpu cost goes higher

how far away is ivybridge n mid range 7000 series ?

i5 vs 1100 t
 
Wait a bit, AMD will finally admit defeat and announce price drops. That should make the Bulldozers more reasonable.

If you're desperate then either go all out and buy an i7 combo OR buy an X6 1090T+Good air cooler/i5 2500K+Good air cooler and OC.
 
nitinchamp said:
me 2 thought of this it also comes in a combo u think it will work without a bios upgrade

n yea guys i knw i7 outperforms buldozer and is better but the overall mobo+ cpu cost goes higher

how far away is ivybridge n mid range 7000 series ?

i5 vs 1100 t
Click to expand...

Get this instead of counting on AMD to drop prices OR waiting for Ivy-Bridge to save the day with AMD HD 7000 series cards --

Intel Core i5 2500k ~ 12500/- + Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO ~ 2100/- OR Noctua NH-U12P SE2 ~ 3900/-

ASUS P8Z68V-PRO ~ 13500/-

Corsair XMS3 4GB x 2 OR G.Skill RIPJAWS 4GB x 2 1600MHz modules ~ 3400/-

AMD HD 6950 2GB ~ 17500/- OR GTX 560Ti ~ 13500/-

Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 1TB ~ 5900/-

Seasonic S12II 620W ~ 4600/-

For Intel Core i5 2500k vs. AMD Phenom IIx6 1100T --> http://www.anandtech...duct/288?vs=203.

Apart from highly threaded applications, the AMD processor doesn't perform well in lightly threaded / single thread applications [gaming, day-to-day task, MS Office]. Also it consumes more power while it is at it.

If budget is no bar get the Intel Core i7 2600k in place of the Core i5. Hope this helps, #nitinchamp. Cheers!!
 
Back
Top