Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Intel Core i5-2500K Processor (4x 3.30GHz/6MB L3 Cache) Or AMD FX-8120 CPU (8

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 13, 2011 1:38:26 PM

title cut off - it was

Intel® Core™ i5-2500K Processor (4x 3.30GHz/6MB L3 Cache)

Or

AMD FX-8120 CPU (8x 3.10GHz/8MB L2 Cache)


Video rendering and Gaming, wondering which one is better? I think it's obvious with AMD but also heard intel was better for video rendering by far, so I picked the 2 that were the same price. I understand if a better intel one that is more costly is better than the AMD one but I'm pretty much deciding between these two.
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 1:53:50 PM

My opinion? Go with the i2500k. Will overclock great, run cooler, and give general performance that's better. Keep in mind the higher end FX8150 could barely compete with the i5 in most benchmarks, and that chip is clocked 500 MHZ higher than the FX8120. In some cases that chip was beaten out by the previous generation of Pheom II chips, due to Bulldozer not being a true eight core chip and more of a double threaded quad core with worse performance per core.
Score
0

Best solution

a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 2:33:05 PM

Based on current results, i5-2500k is the way to go. However its very very early days, give it a couple of weeks until more is known about BullDozer and which hardware it works best with before jumping into a decision.

If you cant wait, then i5-2500k is a solid choice and always has been. Its performance doesn't disappoint.
Share
Related resources
October 13, 2011 3:33:52 PM

I'd recommend waiting for the benchmarks/tests for the quad core and hexa-core BD processors. Just because the 8-core one isn't great, doesn't mean the others won't be great. The Phenom II x4 was better for gaming than the Phenom II x6 was, so this might turn out the same way.
Score
0
a c 190 à CPUs
a b å Intel
October 13, 2011 4:06:08 PM

The real issue comes down to the software. Right now very few games can take advantage or more than 3 threads. For this reason the Intel® Core™ i5-2500K hits the sweet for gaming but once you move on to applications like Adobe CS which can take advantage more than 3 threads you find that additional cores can make a difference in performance. So that is why the Intel Core i7-2600K is better at high end multi-threading applications than the Intel Core i5-2500K.

Christian Wood
Intel Enthusiast Team
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 4:30:43 PM

Even though most software sucks for multi-core CPUs including a lot of games, some of the software companies have seen the light and are now finally writing better software to use multi-core CPUs more effectively. Microsucks has also improved Win 8 to properly use multi-core CPUs. It's taken WAY too long IMO, but the software and O/S people are finally buying a clue because it means more revenue for them.

The bottom line is either CPU will work fine for most people for most any applications inspite of piss poor quality software and O/Ss.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 4:41:30 PM

Jyle said:
I'd recommend waiting for the benchmarks/tests for the quad core and hexa-core BD processors. Just because the 8-core one isn't great, doesn't mean the others won't be great. The Phenom II x4 was better for gaming than the Phenom II x6 was, so this might turn out the same way.


I can't really agree with that statement.
BD CPUs today is all about a modular design. If need more multithread performance, add more BD modules. Today line have 2, 3 or 4 modules.

It's way different from the old architecture. Even the Phenon II X4, and thuban X6 don't have the same archictecture if I'm not mistaken. And probably the P2 X4 was better in games than Thuban X6 is cause P2 X4 have a better IPC (single thread performance).

And this happened is this new BD. BD have a bad bad IPC. They exchanged single core optimization for multicores. (Cause that softwares that uses single thread isn't good in BD).

I'm know BD is a future proof hardware IF developers write very well multithread softwares, games, and all. But, when this start happening, will be there other much better cpus than BD.

Conclusion: by the time u would use ur BD (for gaming and GENERAL software.. not encoding) there will be new cpus that will make BD 'kind of obsolet' (slower).

Saying that I would stick for games and general:
from Intel: i5 2500 series
from AMD: Phenom II X4 series

For encoding, rendering:
from Intel: i7 2600 series
from AMD: BD 8 core

edit: u could check guru3d website, they reviewed the 2 and 3 modules cpus as well (4 and 6 cores)
Score
0
October 13, 2011 4:58:56 PM

Vitornob said it best, IMHO.

The 2500K is currently the "sweet spot" gaming CPU, and by the time games take full advantage of hex/octo-cores there will likely already be better products on the market.

If you planned to heavily OC the 8120, in order to achieve higher OC you would actually need to turn of several of the modules. AMD claims that in order to OC past 4.8ghz on the 8150 you would need to turn off three of the four modules. Making the CPU effectively a dual core. So you would likely need to turn off the modules at a lower clock when using the 8120.

BD is still a young architecture, and said architecture is not very well optimized at the moment. The technology has yet to be "proven" and would likely be a bit of a gamble as of right now.

So, personally I think the "smart money" lies with the 2500K or 2600K.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 23, 2012 8:34:09 AM

Best answer selected by mousemonkey.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 23, 2012 8:34:14 AM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
Score
0
!