I7 920 vs FX-8150 which way to go?

Justin Cider

Weaksauce
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
67
Given SB 2500k and 2600k seems to trump the FX-8150 quite well (depends on the test I know!) My questions is what about the older I7 processor specificaly the 920.I have read some scattered reports and they seem somewhat even or am I out of my mind.Would it be an worth it to go with the FX-8150 as it is a newer tech or is it a wash?
 
That I would say is a downgrade in my opinion. Wait out for Ivy Bridge at least. You aren't missing anything that is out on the market imo.
 
Do not go FX 8120 at this point in time. The platform is very buggy to the point that some games run slow or don't work at all for some users. It seems to be a bios problem, so keep checking back to see when they work the kinks out and make a decision then.
 
Amazingly enough, the i7-920 is still a very solid and capable processor. I wouldn't upgrade until IB, especially with it overclocked.
 
I doubt you will need to upgrade from an i7-920 for a long time...
 
If you want to give away performance and pay extra for that privilege, by all means, go for it.

I have a 920 too. The only think I'm looking at is the 2011 SB-Es. The low end model looks tempting. Going from the fastest platform money can buy, 1366, why settle for less in the future ? ;)
 
Is this thread a joke? If you want to save money go for the 2600K but if you want to really multitask then the 920 it is...exactly what can BD do that the old(?) 9xx architecture can't?
 
bd seems to be slightly faster and use about the same power wise, not much of an upgrade.
the biggest upgrade you'd be getting is the rest of the platform (usb3, sata6 etc)
 
bd seems to be slightly faster and use about the same power wise, not much of an upgrade.
the biggest upgrade you'd be getting is the rest of the platform (usb3, sata6 etc)

BD should not be classified as an upgrade for any 9xx chip...you get 6 cores/12 threads vs. 4 modules 8 cores/threads, unless you need specific new instruction sets?
 
bd seems to be slightly faster and use about the same power wise, not much of an upgrade.
the biggest upgrade you'd be getting is the rest of the platform (usb3, sata6 etc)

How can BD be faster than an old 920, when a BD is pretty much a performance parity/worse than old phenom IIs and a 900 series is faster than them? x58 chipsets usually come with USB3 and sata 6, unless you have a crappy motherboard, its not that old With the bugs and other things, no reason at all to switch to BD (at least until it's various issues are sorted out and performance increased).
 
BD should not be classified as an upgrade for any 9xx chip...you get 6 cores/12 threads vs. 4 modules 8 cores/threads, unless you need specific new instruction sets?

How can BD be faster than an old 920, when a BD is pretty much a performance parity/worse than old phenom IIs and a 900 series is faster than them? x58 chipsets usually come with USB3 and sata 6, unless you have a crappy motherboard, its not that old With the bugs and other things, no reason at all to switch to BD (at least until it's various issues are sorted out and performance increased).

He didn't mention a 970+ chip, he has a 920.
mainly because the old 9xxx chips don't clock as high as BD or SB, there are still tests(mainly single threaded) where BD will lose to a Nehalem chip, but everything else seems to go BDs way. Pretty much every single test except the synthetic tests, BD is faster than the 920, and it uses much less power @ idle :p and slightly less loaded / oc'd :)

I'm not bashing the 920, I have one, and like I said, it's not much of an upgrade, a slight one, except for the rest of the platform, the aging x58 is well.. old :p

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/10/11/amd_bulldozer_fx8150_desktop_performance_review/7
 
Last edited:
He didn't mention a 970+ chip, he has a 920.
mainly because the old 9xxx chips don't clock as high as BD or SB, there are still tests(mainly single threaded) where BD will lose to a Nehalem chip, but everything else seems to go BDs way. Pretty much every single test the synthetic tests, BD is faster than the 920, and it uses much less power @ idle :p and slightly less loaded / oc'd :)

I'm not bashing the 920, I have one, and like I said, it's not much of an upgrade, a slight one, except for the rest of the platform, the aging x58 is well.. old :p

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/10/11/amd_bulldozer_fx8150_desktop_performance_review/7

Holy Moly! I think that 920 system would use 700+ watts OC'd to BD's 4.6GHz level!!!! The 990X would fare much better but you would choke on the cost...I stand corrected. :D

PS: If you already have the 920 then I would just keep it for now.
 
Epic downgrade. Nehalem is at worst 10% behind SB in IPC and can easily clock to 4 GHz. Not even a contest.
 
Not even a contest.

Not too sure about this.

Regardless, I would still stick with the 920. At max OC on both, you might see some improvements with BD, but the cost really isn't justified.
 
Given SB 2500k and 2600k seems to trump the FX-8150 quite well (depends on the test I know!) My questions is what about the older I7 processor specificaly the 920.I have read some scattered reports and they seem somewhat even or am I out of my mind.Would it be an worth it to go with the FX-8150 as it is a newer tech or is it a wash?

bulldozer ties your chip, at best. and check the steam survey. your chip is still in the probably top 5% of chips. people buying new computers today are basically matching you.

sandy bridge at 4.5ghz is faster. but it doesn't matter.
 
The main reason for the question is that I have a Crosshair V with a 955 that I got a smokin deal on and it has USB 3.0 and SATA 6.0 which my current Gigabyte GA-EX58-UD5 doesn't have.I was thinking of liquidating my I7 920 setup as I would get more back potentialy then selling the AMD setup.Then if Ivybridge is a raging success I will pick one up and might be further ahead.Thoughts?
 
The main reason for the question is that I have a Crosshair V with a 955 that I got a smokin deal on and it has USB 3.0 and SATA 6.0 which my current Gigabyte GA-EX58-UD5 doesn't have.I was thinking of liquidating my I7 920 setup as I would get more back potentialy then selling the AMD setup.Then if Ivybridge is a raging success I will pick one up and might be further ahead.Thoughts?

In this case then, if you plan to use USB 3.0 every week, and have a faster SSD that can use the 6gps port, I would go for it. The sale of your 920 gear will pay for the BD, and cpu-wise you'll have some more fun OC'ing it. I notice a difference in my SSDs performance in a 6gps port over the 3gps port, which is why I say this. In my opinion, even if the cpu is a downgrade (I don't think it will be though), the added speed of the ssd is worth it for me.

Bottom line:
Both cpus will crush stuff. If you have a fast SSD and use USB 3.0, go for it.
 
No not worth it. USB 3.0 and Sata III is not worth going for BD instead of a 920 whatsoever. IB will be a nice refresh, but this isn't a new arch coming don't forget. Intel is not going to be pushing too much also due to AMD's recent flop.
 
I went from a 920 at 4Ghz to a 2500K at 4.5Ghz, and for me, what impresses me the most from the change is how much less heat and the less power consumption of the 2500k. I also have a 2600K at 4.5 Ghz, and it runs noticeably cooler that my 920 did. The scary thing to me about BD is it consumes more power than the 920, yet gets its ass handed to it by three year old tech.
 
I went from a 920 at 4Ghz to a 2500K at 4.5Ghz, and for me, what impresses me the most from the change is how much less heat and the less power consumption of the 2500k. I also have a 2600K at 4.5 Ghz, and it runs noticeably cooler that my 920 did. The scary thing to me about BD is it consumes more power than the 920, yet gets its ass handed to it by three year old tech.

According to Hardocp BD uses less power up to OC of 4.7ish, less power at stock clocks full load, and 50% less power at idle. Also it beats the 920 in most things(synthetics). SB on the other hand is entirely different story.
 
yet gets its ass handed to it by three year old tech.

Why does this seem to be the consensus of the replies here? BD does not get its ass handed to it.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=47

It trades blows. Both can be overclocked, so that is likely a moot point.

They are probably similar in power consumption, though I lack numbers to substantiate this theory. My point above was- don't do it for cpu performance upgrade, you'll not gain anything. The difference of sata 6gps on a good SSD is noticeable though, and if you use USB 3.0 devices it makes it doubly worth it. Out of pocket this guy is not going to spend a whole bunch (net, from the sale of his existing x58+920+955be) if anything. It boils down to what the computer will be used for.

Also I don't really think lga 2011 is a viable comparison, has anyone seen what prices the mobo manufacturers are talking? Asrock low end for $250? Not exactly a fair comparison, of course its going to be faster...
 
Last edited:
Why does this seem to be the consensus of the replies here? BD does not get its ass handed to it.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=47

It trades blows. Both can be overclocked, so that is likely a moot point.
.

i7@ 3,8 will be 900 MHz above turbo speeds and 1100 MHz over stock speeds.

Bulldozer will be 1000-1200 Mhz above stock speeds and around 600 above turbo speed.

So i7 will benefit much more from OC.


If I were op I'd keep his setup till IB arrives and if he really needs USB 3.0 he could get cheap pci-express controller for it.
 
Back
Top