AMD FX-8120 - FX-Series Zambezi 8-Core 3.1 GHz Socket AM3+ 125W Desktop Processor - FD8120FRGUBOX

Pros: Great Price...the other chip maker should consider the same. The more I use my computer the faster it seems to respond. No issues what so ever with installation, use, or performance. AMD is in stride to become number one again.

Cons: None so far for me...AMD pricing may be a negative for them. With the price of the other chip maker's 6 core processor being just over $1,000.00 and AMD presenting its 8 cores starting at $199.00, those that do not know the quality of AMD's processor may wonder why so cheap, what is wrong with their chips. The answer is nothing is wrong, they just have realistic pricing.

Overall Review: When comparing price of this processor and the other chip maker processor this one is affordable to all that wish to have greater processing power at their fingertips if they desire to use it. AMD has always been in my opinion a consumer minded chip maker (affordability). Their share in the chip maker market should improve with their affordable chips...I hope they continue to keep the typical consumer in mind with their pricing...why pay nearly $1,200.00 for a CPU that has 6 cores when you can get one with 8 for less than $200.00. Continue the great work AMD.

Pros: When it did work, I did see an improvement at stock when compared to my 1090t at stock. Gaming just felt smoother. Also, thanks to Turbo-Core this usually sits at around 3.4Ghz as opposed to 3.1Ghz it's advertised as, which is VERY impressive, unlike the 1090t that would only turbo up from the 3.2Ghz to 3.6Ghz when an app used 2 or 3 cores. Being a failed chip didn't effect my machine as badly as other processors that ended up being failed chips.

Cons: Errors all over Windows. It kept going between using Aero and then the gross basic version of windows 7. Stressed tested it using AMD OverDrive at stock speeds and the program would crash out and close. Then tried OCCT to stress test and after 3 minutes it would fail at Core 0 and Core 3.

Overall Review: This concerns me as the 8120's are chips that didn't have what it takes to be the 8150. So if AMD is indeed using failed chips as 8150's I believe their overclockability should be in question. I got a chip that can't be used at the stock speeds, so I would imagine that AMD would likely mark this as an 8100 or 6100, but if 3.1Ghz stable is not possible on this chip, I would imagine that going any higher on other chips would also be subject to limitations.

I will review this again when I get my RMA back and see if it's stable at stock then OC it to see if I can at least get 4.6Ghz out of it. I hope it's just a bad overall chip and that AMD is not just Hocking the unoverclockable chips into the 8120 pile while putting the ones that can overclock in the 8150 pile. This would help explain the disparity in price between the two.