Gaming Performance

Dirt three'due south results appear to be dominated by Intel every bit AMD occupies the bottom half dozen slots. However, if y'all await closer there is a deviation between 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 functioning. Intel conspicuously controlled the 1680x1050 results (where you could say there was less of a GPU clogging) the AMD processors performed better at 1920x1200.

At 1920x1200, the FX-8150 matched the i7-2600K and narrowly defeated the i5-2500K. The FX-8120 was in line with the i7-975 EE, while the FX-6100 kept pace with the i7-920. Despite its 4.2GHz clock charge per unit, the FX-4170 was the slowest processor tested.

Too the Phenom 2 X4 980, AMD again filled the bottom of our graph when measuring 1680x1050 performance. However, at 1920x1200 the FX-4170 was actually the fastest processor tested, delivering 88fps. The residual of the FX lineup rendered between 82 and 84fps, allowing them to deliver similar results to the Cadre i5 and Core i7 products.

We saw mixed results in The Witcher 2 also. At 1680x1050 the FX processors performed poorly, with the exception of the FX-8150 which managed 77.6fps, placing it in the i7-920'south territory.

The FX-8150 delivered roughly 1fps more than than the FX-8120 and FX-6100 when testing at 1920x1200, and although that's in line with the i7-975 EE and 920, it was slower than the Phenom Two X4 980 and X6 1100T.

Crysis 2's operation was besides disappointing for the FX processors as information technology doesn't benefit from having more than four threads available. This allowed the FX-4170 to dominate at 1680x1050, while the FX-8150, FX-8120 and FX-6100 were all slower than the Phenom Ii X4 980.