Posted 15 February 2012 - 09:05 PM
In the first post, the OP said, "I have a current build made replacing those all for about $332 with ASrock 970 Extreme3 mobo." That RAM suggestion is for that motherboard.
Synthetic benchmarks are mostly useless as they don't account for actual performance in real-life situations. FX looks like it will be around for several more years, at least with socket AM3+. The current 8150 CPU's are part of the Bulldozer platform and have the code name Zambezi. The upcoming AMD FX CPU's are part of the "Piledriver" platform and are code named "Vishera." The one after that is "Steamroller" being on the "Indus" platform. All of these use Piledriver-based cores, thus allowing for AM3+ to continue to be used at least through 2013. By then, AMD is probably going to be in the process of switching to APU-based CPU's called "Excavator." Keep in mind that Intel does like to go through sockets rather frequently, so several years of potential upgrades isn't as likely as with AMD.
In all honesty, most people don't need four cores as most games are not written to use more than two. Content developers, renderers, and other scientific applications, however, may make use of the additional cores. Depending on how the application is coded, having two physical cores bound together may lead to better performance gains. I think that most people who have those 2500/2600 CPU's, would be just as happy if you replaced them with a 8120/8150 and didn't tell them about it. Not all, however. Games are more dependent on the GPU, with the CPU having less of an effect on game performance. It's still important, but not as critical as you might think. Look at CPU reviews that use actual gaming resolutions of 1920 x 1080 or 1920 x 1200 to see what I mean. There are differences, of course, as every game is coded differently.