Search
Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Closed

FX-8150 vs. i7-2600K; Can't Decide

Last response: in CPUs
Share

OK, I am having a really hard time deciding between these 2 architectures. I am a Heavy Gamer but I also do Video editing. I also plan on Running
3-way SLI, GTX 580 eventually with upgrading with a 1200w PSU.

FX-8150, ASUS Crosshair V Formula
Pros:
8 Cores
Raw Power
Superior Overclocking Potential
Superior Productivity
Upgrade to later AM3+ CPUs
Cool Box (LOL)

Cons:
Huge Power Consumption
Less Performance per core
Lack-Luster Benchmarks

i7-2600K, ASUS Maximus IV Extreme-Z
Pros:
Superior Benchmarks
Great Overclocking
Upgrade to Ivory Bridge
Lower Power Consumption
Superior Gaming Performance

Cons:
Lack-Luster Packaging? (IDK)



So I know the 2600K seems like the obvious choice but I am still wondering if the productivity boost is enough to justify the FX-8150, especially with Huge Power Consumption that may be balanced out by Possibly Superior Overclocking Potential.

What do you guys think?

More about : 8150 2600k decide

Register or log in to remove
CPUs Master

The productivity boosts aren't good enough to justify purchasing the FX 8150 over the i7 2600k. In other words, get the i7. On a side note, anything above two video cards is a massive overkill. Especially when we are talking about the high end stuff like the GTX 580. Two way SLI is more than enough.
CPUs Authority
Overclocking Expert

^yep. The 2600K is better in almost every way.
What resolution are you going to play at? If it's not more than 1920x1080, 3-way SLI is an absolute waste, but if you really want to max games on three or five screens, 3x may be a possibility.
Related ressources
Ask the community

3-Way SLI isn't a Waste when upgrading over time on multiple monitors possibly above 1920X1080 when working with Real-Time 3D Editing Programs. On that Note I plan on upgrading over time and the extra power is justified by newer games and my line of work as well as having a future proof system for the next few years.

I would rather buy another $500 GPU every other year than spend $2000 on a new system or purchase a newer card that would have less performance than 2 previous gen cards in SLI.

Other than that the 2600K does seem like the way to go but I still am looking at the FX-8150.

The GTX 580 Drivers are garbage right now which has led to a lot of bias reviews with the 8150.

Hardware Heaven's review is one of the only reviews not using a 580
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1285/pg1/amd-fx-8...
CPUs Master
Overclocking Expert

Read the benchmarks test for the Bulldozer then read the benchmarks for the I7. It won't take long to see the Bulldozer was a failure and can't compete with the I7 and I5 for gaming.
CPUs Master

I would suggest the i7-2600k as well.

Don't go for the i7-2700k since there is only a 100MHz increase over the 2600k. That's less than a 3% increase in performance, but the price difference will be higher than just 3%.

Reading over some other tests and Benches the CPU isn't at all bad, just lacking compared to the 2600K not not outclassed by any means.

Both would do what I want them to with the FX route being slightly cheaper there isn't a huge difference for what I am going to be doing as the end user for just gaming.

Both offer logical upgrade paths and Contrary to Popular belief, Bulldozer was NOT a Failure but simply over-hyped.



CPUs Expert

SecretCobraz said:
Reading over some other tests and Benches the CPU isn't at all bad, just lacking compared to the 2600K not not outclassed by any means.

If this is what you got, then you're looking at the wrong benches.

LOL, how am I trolling? I am not "Pro" anything. I have never used or worked with AMD CPUs/Systems other than for server based systems. I have used both Nvidia and Radeon cards and I am probably the only PC Gamer that doesn't hate Macs or Apple.

These actuation's are baseless and they contribute absolutely nothing.

cuecuemore said:
If this is what you got, then you're looking at the wrong benches.


You better be looking at benchmarks that are either using older drivers with the 580 or a different card without the garbage BF3/Rage Drivers used in the Test System.
CPUs Authority
Overclocking Expert

Evidence for the 580's "garbage" drivers? I've never heard anything like that. That's the way to go for the kind of performance you seem to be after, which is the maximum possible.
Nobody said the FX is terrible; the 2600K is just better. With 3-way SLI, the difference will matter.
I don't hate Apple! ^.^ They're just crazy expensive.
CPUs Master

I7 2600 beats the FX 8150 in almost every thing at stock clocks, and it can gain more from overclocking while consuming much less power. Bulldozer is complete fail, even though it's 32nm it's less efficient than the 45nm Phenom II. This is coming from a guy who currently has a Phenom 9850, Phenom II 940, Phenom II 965, Phenom II 1090, and an Athlon II 640.

kajabla said:
Evidence for the 580's "garbage" drivers? I've never heard anything like that.
Nobody said the FX is terrible; the 2600K is just better. With 3-way SLI, the difference will matter.
I don't hate Apple! ^.^ They're just crazy expensive.


Both Rage and BF3 have serious driver issues with both Radeon and Nvidia cards. With both of these games having poor optimization from the get-go drivers have been constantly having problems.

Both Boards will support 3-Way SLI/Crossfire running at 16X,8X,8X with the FX-8150 having a native 32 Lanes and the nForce 200 chip balancing this out for Sandy Bride and Z68.

Filtering out bias benches can be hard but in some tests the 2600K is leading just outside the Margin of error while in others the FX-8150 is right on par.

(Also Apple Hardware is Propitiatory, it is expensive but by definition it is not overpriced. Thats why so many PC Gamers Hate Apple.)


spentshells said:
I would have to say get a 2500k everything else is jist a waste when it comes to gaming


Not when you are rending, encoding, and creating 3D Content in Real-Time.
CPUs Expert

Lol! You came to us for help, and several of us have given you the same answer. If you now willfully make the wrong choice, we will all have a good laugh, as that's all we can do at this point.
CPUs Master
Overclocking Expert

Quote:
first of all that's one set of charts on games that are designed for multiple core usage.
doesn't depict ALL real world scenarios.
it seems your AMD leaning anyways because every-time you get an i7-2600K you shout back pro AMD..
so just get what your going to get.

me personally would also get the i7-2600K and some of the reasoning are that AMD will be releasing
a new stepping revision to the Bulldozer line and other chips will be but on the market,
so why there is a FX-8150 now there will/might be a FX-8190 on the new stepping.
performance increase might only be minimal but there are lots of changes in Bulldozer to make it what it needs to be.
so with knowledge of the new stepping why go Bulldozer now.?
at least with Intel and the i7-2600K you can get a Z68 board that will also be Ivy compatible.
as stated it seems your pro AMD and only trolling with this thread of yours..

another thing is that GTX 580 drivers are not garbage, might be operator error.
explain what the problem is there and when it gets fixed that will not be an excuse.
nVidia drivers are far better than Radeon's so I do not know what you speak of, what driver version are you on and
do you know or use drive sweeper.?
and Bulldozer IS a failure but to the enthusiast desktop gamers.
it seems good for heavy multi-taskers and server environments.

one might say that Bulldozer is ahead of it's time and Win 8 will be the start of it's rise.
I have AMD and Intel units and my AMD is AM3+ that is Bulldozer ready.
I'm holding firm with my 965BE and then see what the new stepping is like.
but with that being said I'm more excited about the Ivy Bridge than Bulldozer..


Exactly what I was thinking. He seems already convinced the Bulldozer is just as good as the I5 and I7 even though most benchmarks will show the opposite. As kajabla said "Nobody said the FX is terrible; the 2600K is just better."

cuecuemore said:
Lol! You came to us for help, and several of us have given you the same answer. If you now willfully make the wrong choice, we will all have a good laugh, as that's all we can do at this point.


There is no "Wrong" choice in the discussion. It's like choosing between an Pineapple and a Tangerine.

I didn't come to this Forum for help, I came to this forum to get insight on the community's thoughts and have an intelligent discussion.

http://youtu.be/c211yCCZdJY
CPUs Authority
Overclocking Expert

SecretCobraz said:
Both Rage and BF3 have serious driver issues with both Radeon and Nvidia cards. With both of these games having poor optimization from the get-go drivers have been constantly having problems.

Both Boards will support 3-Way SLI/Crossfire running at 16X,8X,8X with the FX-8150 having a native 32 Lanes and the nForce 200 chip balancing this out for Sandy Bride and Z68.

Filtering out bias benches can be hard but in some tests the 2600K is leading just outside the Margin of error while in others the FX-8150 is right on par.

(Also Apple Hardware is Propitiatory, it is expensive but by definition it is not overpriced. Thats why so many PC Gamers Hate Apple.)




Not when you are rending, encoding, and creating 3D Content in Real-Time.

Right: *both* AMD and Nvidia had Rage problems. That was a Rage issue, not a 580 issue. Don't knock the king card :D 
Apple runs the same hardware as PCs. Same processors, same GPUs. You're paying for the design and the OS, which are debatably worth it.

Quote:
read my post, we have a becoming AMD fanboi...


I feel insulted to be called a fanboy in any other area than a Zerg Player. All I am saying is look for non-bias benchmarks. Up until the Trolls showed up I actually though this wasn't a complete waste of time.
CPUs Expert

SecretCobraz said:
Both Rage and BF3 have serious driver issues with both Radeon and Nvidia cards. With both of these games having poor optimization from the get-go drivers have been constantly having problems.

Both Boards will support 3-Way SLI/Crossfire running at 16X,8X,8X with the FX-8150 having a native 32 Lanes and the nForce 200 chip balancing this out for Sandy Bride and Z68.

Filtering out bias benches can be hard but in some tests the 2600K is leading just outside the Margin of error while in others the FX-8150 is right on par.

(Also Apple Hardware is Propitiatory, it is expensive but by definition it is not overpriced. Thats why so many PC Gamers Hate Apple.)




Not when you are rending, encoding, and creating 3D Content in Real-Time.


Overclocked to 4.5 ghz which is pretty easy. Not to say a 2600k wouldn't be faster but if you need more than the 2500k can provide you at that speed. You should look into a workstation machine.
CPUs Authority
Overclocking Expert

Hey all, ease up on the accusations. We have some differences of opinion, not trolling, going on.
@spentshells Tom's uses 2600Ks on even 2-way SLI builds. With three cards, it becomes more significant, and the extra few hundred mhz you can get out a 2600K matter.

kajabla said:
Right: *both* AMD and Nvidia had Rage problems. That was a Rage issue, not a 580 issue. Don't knock the king card :D 
Apple runs the same hardware as PCs. Same processors, same GPUs. You're paying for the design and the OS, which are debatably worth it.


Apple does not run the same hardware, when the majority of core hardware is custom and proprietary. Motherboards, Housing, OS optimization per specific hardware, ect.

Why not knock the King Card? It still has problems like every other GPU, Nvidia Drivers are the Real problem here.

I am really starting to feel like abandoning this thread with all the Trolls Blindly Posting without reading the back-log of a Semi-Intelligent conversation
CPUs Authority
Overclocking Expert

I just mean that Rage had issues with *all* current GPUs, so it doesn't make sense to knock the 580 in particular. You'll have to choose a GPU in the end, and highlighting problems that are shared by all GPUs won't help with that. The same goes for "Nvidia drivers are the problem here." AMD had equal driver problems.
More and More Capitalization Going On Here! lol

The way I see it, both are equally good solutions with with the FX series being tainted by AMD with over-hyped advertising and insane expectations on be-half of the PC Gaming Community which AMD is equally at fault.

I guess I will have to just Pull the Trigger at some point and make a decision based on my personal IT knowledge and Research, while still listening to those who wish to make an Intelligent argument.
CPUs Expert

SecretCobraz said:
Apple does not run the same hardware, when the majority of core hardware is custom and proprietary. Motherboards, Housing, OS optimization per specific hardware, ect.

Why not knock the King Card? It still has problems like every other GPU, Nvidia Drivers are the Real problem here.

I am really starting to feel like abandoning this thread with all the Trolls Blindly Posting without reading the back-log of a Semi-Intelligent conversation



I like that you used blindly, since I was refering to gaming and you respond with modeling.

Why are you saying the hardware in a mac is different than a PC ? It really isn't at all since 2006.

The only difference is software. Thats why you can build hacks for half the price.
CPUs Master
Overclocking Expert

I really don't see how the problem is us. It seems like its a you problem not an us problem. We have told you over and over and over again what we think and we pretty much all said the same thing, the I7 with hyper threading will be the best choice. It will be great for gaming and will do great for video editing. It is by far the best choice for what you want out of your CPU. You blindly go ahead though deadset on the Bulldozer and ignore the advice everyone gives you. If your not going to take our advice then why are you here other then to be a troll and cause problems. All I can say is:

CPUs Authority
Overclocking Expert

SecretCobraz said:
The way I see it, both are equally good solutions with with the FX series being tainted by AMD with over-hyped advertising and insane expectations on be-half of the PC Gaming Community which AMD is equally at fault.

I guess I will have to just Pull the Trigger at some point and make a decision based on my personal IT knowledge and Research, while still listening to those who wish to make an Intelligent argument.

That's the thing. The insane expectations were that FX would be better than SB. It's not better, and they're not "equally good solutions". It's worse. In gaming, it *does not perform as well* as the 2600K, and in video editing it occasionally catches up but mostly falls behind. It does *not* have "superior overclocking potential".
Register or log in to remove
 
Ask the community
Read discussions in other CPUs categories
!