Closed

AMD FX-6100 vs intel i5 2500k

price of amd is cheaper than i5 2500k..amd has 6 cores and the mobo is also cheap..which is best among these..
72 answers Last reply
More about 6100 intel 2500k
  1. If total cost is important, then FX-6100.

    If CPU performance is important, then i5-2500k.
  2. 2500k is better
  3. jaguarskx said:
    If total cost is important, then FX-6100.

    If CPU performance is important, then i5-2500k.

    what about i5 2400..is 2400 powerful than fx 6100
    what about these specs which one is better for gaming..
    cpu..amd fx-6100
    mobo..ASUS M5A97
    ram..corsair 1600mhz 4gb ddr3
    psu..xfx pro series 550w
    gpu..sapphire 6950 1gb
    hdd..seagate sata 500gb
    dvd writer ..samsung dvd writer
    vs
    cpu...intel i5 2400
    mobo..Gigabyte H67M-D2-B3
    ram..corsair 1333mhz 4gb
    psu..xfx pro series 550w
    gpu..msi gtx 560ti
    hdd.seagate sata 500gb
    dvd writer ..samsung dvd writer
    both the specs cost almost same..cabinet is a cheap one with normal quality with good airflow..so which is bst for all round performance like gaming,movies,conversion of videos etc..
  4. Get the 2500k. If you even have to ask this question, you do not know how much better the 2500k is for gaming.

    Bulldozer is VERY slow and bad for gaming compared to i5 2500k.

    Do yourself a favor and spend a few extra dollars to have a cpu u will love in years instead of one that is already out dated.
  5. 2500k!
  6. vishalaestro said:
    price of amd is cheaper than i5 2500k..amd has 6 cores and the mobo is also cheap..which is best among these..


    amd fx is cheap but can not stand a chance against 2500k,
    go with 2500k it is expensive but it have muscles to show some real performance benefits over amd
    if you want cheap then try ph2 x6 1100t or ph2 x4 980, these have more power than fx 6 cores and have powerful cores compare to fx 6 core

    see this link
    http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

    also compare cpu (980,1100t,2500k & fx-6xxx) at this link
    http://www.cpu-world.com/benchmarks/?ind=1&c_part=AMD_HDZ980FBK4DGM&PROCESS=Select+CPU+or+family...
  7. 2500k beat fx-8150 as well then this fx 6100 poor cpu is nothing against 2500k.
    get 2500k anyway.
  8. The i5-2500k is better than the i5-2400 because it can be easily overclocked. It seems many people can get it up to 4.5GHz with the proper heatsink. Non "k" i5 CPUs like the i5-2400 have very limited overclocking potential; probably at most around 300MHz because they do not have unlocked multipliers.
  9. If you really must go AMD get a GA-970A-D3 like i did ( or you can also get the GA-970A-UD3 if you want ) and an FX-8100 CPU.

    I just changed the multiplier and got my CPU running at 4Ghz no problem on stock voltage in an Antec 300 case.

    I also installed a cooler master hyper 212 EVO and have max temps of 28 degrees Celsius with prime 95.....and if you want more just simply start playing with the voltage and raising the multiplier even more.

    I love this CPU it works awesome for video editing.
  10. Go for the FX-8120, only difference between it and a 8150 is clockspeed, and the 8150 IS a better processor then the i5-2500k according to most benches, and is more future-proof. The huge pack of intel fanboys love to defend there i5 but when you actually compare numbers they are VERY close in performance with the edge going to the 8150 because of the compatibility with windows 8.
  11. If you are gaming then this is a no brainer... 2500k FTW
  12. icracked said:
    Go for the FX-8120, only difference between it and a 8150 is clockspeed, and the 8150 IS a better processor then the i5-2500k according to most benches, and is more future-proof. The huge pack of intel fanboys love to defend there i5 but when you actually compare numbers they are VERY close in performance with the edge going to the 8150 because of the compatibility with windows 8.


    [:mousemonkey:5]

    And were still months, if not more than a year, away from windows 8 launching and the developer preview of win8 doesn't give much more performance from win7 with BD. (if you wanted to point at anything for perfomance Edge, you should of pointed at linux that already showing some improvement over non optimized OS. Although it still not as much as people want it to be.) By the time win8 rolls around, AMD next gen cpu will be either out or just on the horizion

    As for the rest of your comment, i would recommend relooking at gaming benchmarks since that what the OP wants....

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-19.html



    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-20.html



    2 sets from tom's showing cpu bound games at Max resolution (which is almost the most you can do to be running strictly on the GPU)..... Care to say why the core i5 is at the top instead of the FX? Only GPU bound games allow the FX be near, at, or slightly above the core i5 cpu.....


    Now were BD does win in is Productivity and Media software that can USE all 8 cores.






    If it doesn't well it's another story...






    Overall, unless you can use all 8 cores, BD is not the cpu you would pick instantly for running games and with core i5 able to use a little bit less power than the FX, My recommendation would be the the core i5K


    Hopefully, AMD will fix the IPC issue the BD has with there next cpu, "piledriver".
  13. jaguarskx said:
    The i5-2500k is better than the i5-2400 because it can be easily overclocked. It seems many people can get it up to 4.5GHz with the proper heatsink. Non "k" i5 CPUs like the i5-2400 have very limited overclocking potential; probably at most around 300MHz because they do not have unlocked multipliers.


    My second system has an i5 2400. It's overclocked by 400MHz, which isn't that bad at all. It reaches 3.8GHz on turboboost with 1 thread. Seems to sit at 3.7 in most situations.

    Yes, it may not be top of the range, but man what a beauty this thing is. Crazy fast, and runs dead cool.
  14. icracked said:
    Go for the FX-8120, only difference between it and a 8150 is clockspeed, and the 8150 IS a better processor then the i5-2500k according to most benches, and is more future-proof. The huge pack of intel fanboys love to defend there i5 but when you actually compare numbers they are VERY close in performance with the edge going to the 8150 because of the compatibility with windows 8.


    The 8150 is more future proof? Not sure on that. The 2500K runs LGA1155 which will support Ivy Bridge, coming out next year.

    As for the Windows 8 comment, as far as I checked any CPU is compatible with Windows 8, including ARM based CPUs. And from what we have seen with the developer preview so far, 8 does not increase performance enough to make it better than the 2500K performance wise, especially in games.

    As for the OP, yea there are cheap AMD mobos out there. But you can get a P8Z68 for $150-$200 depending on variation and most AMD mobos of that quality also cost $150-200 depending on variation. You can always go with a cheaper Intel mobo but why go cheap on a very integral part of the system? Get a decent $150ish mobo for any build, that way you have a decent part with a ton of new features and better compatibility.

    If I had the money to buy a system right now it would be the 2500K and a P8Z68-V Pro or Deluxe, depending on how I felt. And thats based on the performance of the chip for the buck. The 2500K is just amazing performance wise and overclocks very well on air cooling. Plus its around $200ish normally.

    Also, don't cheap out on the PSU either. Get a Corsair, Sea Sonic or the like. The cheaper the PSU, the better your chance of frying other parts.
  15. jimmysmitty said:
    The 8150 is more future proof? Not sure on that. The 2500K runs LGA1155 which will support Ivy Bridge, coming out next year.

    As for the Windows 8 comment, as far as I checked any CPU is compatible with Windows 8, including ARM based CPUs. And from what we have seen with the developer preview so far, 8 does not increase performance enough to make it better than the 2500K performance wise, especially in games.

    As for the OP, yea there are cheap AMD mobos out there. But you can get a P8Z68 for $150-$200 depending on variation and most AMD mobos of that quality also cost $150-200 depending on variation. You can always go with a cheaper Intel mobo but why go cheap on a very integral part of the system? Get a decent $150ish mobo for any build, that way you have a decent part with a ton of new features and better compatibility.

    If I had the money to buy a system right now it would be the 2500K and a P8Z68-V Pro or Deluxe, depending on how I felt. And thats based on the performance of the chip for the buck. The 2500K is just amazing performance wise and overclocks very well on air cooling. Plus its around $200ish normally.

    Also, don't cheap out on the PSU either. Get a Corsair, Sea Sonic or the like. The cheaper the PSU, the better your chance of frying other parts.

    Do you think fx sucks because of windows? I believe the cpu architecture and the actual cpu itself sucks :(
  16. fx 8150 is a power hog, 2500k uses much less power.
  17. i5 is better CPU by itself but AMD is wiser choice. i5 is more expensive along with the motherboard will cost you at most $160 extra. If budget becomes an issue then you can think about the Phenom II x6 1100T ($169 on amazon I bought yesterday) on a 990FX Am3+ (asus m5a97 $69 on tiger) and put the money saved on your new GPU or an SSD.... that can be the difference between a GTX570 and a GTX580! guaranteed you will have much better gaming performance for the money, and better investment longevity till Windows 8, then you can think about slipping in a 8+ core next gen CPU without changing anything else.
  18. jimmysmitty said:
    The 8150 is more future proof? Not sure on that. The 2500K runs LGA1155 which will support Ivy Bridge, coming out next year.

    As for the Windows 8 comment, as far as I checked any CPU is compatible with Windows 8, including ARM based CPUs. And from what we have seen with the developer preview so far, 8 does not increase performance enough to make it better than the 2500K performance wise, especially in games.

    As for the OP, yea there are cheap AMD mobos out there. But you can get a P8Z68 for $150-$200 depending on variation and most AMD mobos of that quality also cost $150-200 depending on variation. You can always go with a cheaper Intel mobo but why go cheap on a very integral part of the system? Get a decent $150ish mobo for any build, that way you have a decent part with a ton of new features and better compatibility.

    If I had the money to buy a system right now it would be the 2500K and a P8Z68-V Pro or Deluxe, depending on how I felt. And thats based on the performance of the chip for the buck. The 2500K is just amazing performance wise and overclocks very well on air cooling. Plus its around $200ish normally.

    Also, don't cheap out on the PSU either. Get a Corsair, Sea Sonic or the like. The cheaper the PSU, the better your chance of frying other parts.

    i think 6100 is a future proof because it has 6 cores nearly equal to 2500k according to benchmarks and not surely greater than 2500k..as u said 2500k is a 1155 socket to which i can change to ivy bridge but i had to sell the 2500k processor and then buy a ivy bridge cpu..so it costs double the amount of a fx 6100..so will it be good enough to buy a fx 6100 for future proof processor because todays apps demand more cores...which will be satisfied by amd fx 6100 or 8150
  19. Today's app's demand more cores? In gaming maybe 20% of all games actually use ALL 4 cores. Wait 4 years and maybe it'll become 6.
  20. take a look at this

    http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150--8120-6100-and-4100-performance-review/10

    you can consider ph2 x4 980 which is also cheap
  21. samuelspark said:
    Today's app's demand more cores? In gaming maybe 20% of all games actually use ALL 4 cores. Wait 4 years and maybe it'll become 6.

    just before i saw the specs of ivy bridge released by tomshardware..it is said that ivy bridge is arriving at q2 2012..should i wait for ivy bridge and buy that or buy a core i5 2500k..
  22. see the 1st link in my 1st reply of this topic
    you can go for that but you will need a big budget
    also see this
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-overclocking,3077.html
  23. vishalaestro said:
    i think 6100 is a future proof because it has 6 cores nearly equal to 2500k according to benchmarks and not surely greater than 2500k..as u said 2500k is a 1155 socket to which i can change to ivy bridge but i had to sell the 2500k processor and then buy a ivy bridge cpu..so it costs double the amount of a fx 6100..so will it be good enough to buy a fx 6100 for future proof processor because todays apps demand more cores...which will be satisfied by amd fx 6100 or 8150


    Fail argument is Fail. It doesn't matter how many cores you have, if they are slower, you have a slower processor then one that uses fewer cores.

    *Notes that the 6100 only has "three" full cores, one less then the 2500k*
  24. gamerk316 said:

    *Notes that the 6100 only has "three" full cores, one less then the 2500k*


    what do you mean
  25. he is going crazy..
  26. i thought that fx 6100 has 6 cores with three modules but true genius is saying something different cant understand...
  27. which post
  28. truegenius said:
    what do you mean


    Just like Intel Hyperthreading, the second core of a BD module is NOT a full core. Its a SMT implementation, just like Hyperthreading is. So just like a i7 2600 only has four full cores [despite having eight register stacks], a 8xxx BD has four full cores, despite the fact most of the hardware is duplicated. Granted, AMD's CMT implementation is more powerful then Intels HTT, but it still carries a ~20% performance penalty.

    So when AMD markets the "worlds first [consumer] 8 core CPU", they are doing typical marketing spin.
  29. so that means amd fx-8xxx have only 4 cores, but marketed as 8 core (i.e, 8c/8t), but in fact it is a quad core (4c/8t)

    and a 4 core intel i7 have 4 core and marketed as a quad core and is really a quad core , but can process 8 thread i.e, 4c/8t

    looks like amd is playing a game
  30. I will say this: Intel HTT is about 20% effective, AMD CMT is about 80% effective. But the fact remains: the second core of a BD module is NOT a full core, and its ironic after playing this down prior to the BD launch, AMD is complaining that Windows actually USES that second core, costing performance. [Hence the "Windows 8 will fix BD" talk thats going around now...]
  31. vishalaestro said:
    i think 6100 is a future proof because it has 6 cores nearly equal to 2500k according to benchmarks and not surely greater than 2500k..as u said 2500k is a 1155 socket to which i can change to ivy bridge but i had to sell the 2500k processor and then buy a ivy bridge cpu..so it costs double the amount of a fx 6100..so will it be good enough to buy a fx 6100 for future proof processor because todays apps demand more cores...which will be satisfied by amd fx 6100 or 8150


    No such thing as "future proof"
    The 6100 will be obsolete before games can utilize 6 cores.
  32. icracked said:
    Go for the FX-8120, only difference between it and a 8150 is clockspeed, and the 8150 IS a better processor then the i5-2500k according to most benches, and is more future-proof. The huge pack of intel fanboys love to defend there i5 but when you actually compare numbers they are VERY close in performance with the edge going to the 8150 because of the compatibility with windows 8.


    Oh dear.
  33. i would say, go for the 8120 or 6100 if you do not care about your electricity bills, they uses tad more power in loads than the i5 or i7, infact in full load, they do not use that much power.
    i5 2500k imo is the best price to performace ratio cpu for best performance and still using far less power than amd.
  34. so finally whats the suggestion guys..
  35. 2500k FTW!
  36. no doubt in this get 2500k
  37. I just Completed my FX6100 w/ 990FXA-G65 and ran PASSMARK 7 against i7 2600k. The results were as follows in the CPU test:

    i7 2600k @3.40 Ghz 3400
    FX6100 @4.0 Ghz 3300

    With that said, i havent even begun to hit this processors potential. With water cooling I am running a cool 28 C. at 4.0 Ghz!!!
    I will submit screenshots if your not satisfied.
  38. Mathiesin said:
    I just Completed my FX6100 w/ 990FXA-G65 and ran PASSMARK 7 against i7 2600k. The results were as follows in the CPU test:

    i7 2600k @3.40 Ghz 3400
    FX6100 @4.0 Ghz 3300

    With that said, i havent even begun to hit this processors potential. With water cooling I am running a cool 28 C. at 4.0 Ghz!!!
    I will submit screenshots if your not satisfied.


    Now compare with a 2600k overclocked to 4.0ghz.
  39. Homeboy2 said:
    Now compare with a 2600k overclocked to 4.0ghz.

    that's just not even fair LOL
  40. get an i3 2100 with a z68 board, and spend the extra saved money on the highest end ivy i7
  41. Mathiesin said:
    I just Completed my FX6100 w/ 990FXA-G65 and ran PASSMARK 7 against i7 2600k. The results were as follows in the CPU test:

    i7 2600k @3.40 Ghz 3400
    FX6100 @4.0 Ghz 3300

    With that said, i havent even begun to hit this processors potential. With water cooling I am running a cool 28 C. at 4.0 Ghz!!!
    I will submit screenshots if your not satisfied.


    you seem to have wrong info
    checkout the passmark here
    http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
  42. vishalaestro said:
    so finally whats the suggestion guys..


    if you want very high end cpu then go for sandy-e lga2011 and forget about upgrade (high priority)
    otherwise wait for ivy and then buy it or buy sandy now and upgrade it to ivy later if you want to (but their will be no need of it)
    but do not go for that bd
    or wait for pd and get yourself a window 8
  43. Im giving you my clock specifications, numbers don't lie. Also to note, i7 2600k has a very difficult time getting up to 4.0 unless you have a very high end mobo, but even then stability is a coin toss.

    I'd say 4.3 and im sitting at i7 2600k. I am comparing my system build to whom ever posts the scores online (primarily CPU) Im still sitting nice at 28C. I have 20C. more before I have to stop, we'll see where this goes. ^_^

    I will admit that the single thread is a bummer, however I am looking to make up for that short coming, and it looks like I am becoming more successful.

    Keep in mind there are three types of BD 6 Core Processors.

    FX6100 XUMB - 4.0Ghz
    16Gb - 1600 Corsair
    MSI FXA990-G65
  44. Mathiesin said:
    Im giving you my clock specifications, numbers don't lie. Also to note, i7 2600k has a very difficult time getting up to 4.0 unless you have a very high end mobo, but even then stability is a coin toss.

    I'd say 4.3 and im sitting at i7 2600k. I am comparing my system build to whom ever posts the scores online (primarily CPU) Im still sitting nice at 28C. I have 20C. more before I have to stop, we'll see where this goes. ^_^

    I will admit that the single thread is a bummer, however I am looking to make up for that short coming, and it looks like I am becoming more successful.

    Keep in mind there are three types of BD 6 Core Processors.

    FX6100 XUMB - 4.0Ghz
    16Gb - 1600 Corsair
    MSI FXA990-G65


    fx6100 is not a six core . it is a 3 core (module) but process 6 threads and so works as a 6 core using multi threading.
    their ai'nt not 6c bd
    fx-8xxx is a 4c/8t processor
  45. It has 6 integer units and 6 floating points, Its has 6 physical cores, however its uses resources differently than say standard coded quad core. Everyone needs to focus on the end potential of this CPU, Windows 7 will be receiving an update with micro coding for the FX series, this alone is supposed to increase performance by 10% +. Also I would like to point out what happened with Pentium M, Nehalem Chip!!! Exact same shoes AMD is in now, Look how popular, and successful that chip has become.

    AMD is in the same exact footsteps as Intel once was, This processor is already showing excellent potential; I am 100 points behind an i7 2600k. Now granted there aren't a lot of applications to take advantage of the MT, but everything comes in due time.

    I believe AMD is going to get away from K10 with this tech, its only a matter of time, and when they do This thing will be a Beast.
    Once the standard programming for the chip goes into affect, it will Eclipse the 1100t.

    I will say that i am happy that with all the negativity my underdog fell short of an i7 2600k by 100 points, I am not complaining one bit, all I ask is that you look at this situation with some critical thought. It makes me wonder what performance I would get with the new micro code?!

    FX6100 XUMB - 4.0Ghz - 27C.
    Corsair 16Gb RAM - 1600Mhz
    MSI FXA990-GD65
  46. so we need to wait for that patch or win 8
    but i7-39xx have double the performance than that of fx6 and fx8
    so when you have $$$ and wondering performance then i7-39xx is a great option
  47. i7-3960 is over $1000, a decent mobo will run you roughly $300+, now referring back to what I said earlier, the micro code isn't even complete on the CPU, on top of that the standard coding isn't released.

    Focusing back on our main topic, my FX6100 is 100 points behind i7-2600k (3300/3400) With the update, it will boost performance by 10%+, which will naturally push my beyond the i7-2600k.

    I am sitting at 28C standard operation, playing games and running my programs. This leaves tons of head room to push this system to the max. Don't be so quick to cut and run, this chip has got some series performance hidden away.
  48. Mathiesin said:

    AMD is in the same exact footsteps as Intel once was, This processor is already showing excellent potential; I am 100 points behind an i7 2600k. Now granted there aren't a lot of applications to take advantage of the MT, but everything comes in due time.

    I believe AMD is going to get away from K10 with this tech, its only a matter of time, and when they do This thing will be a Beast.
    Once the standard programming for the chip goes into affect, it will Eclipse the 1100t.

    I will say that i am happy that with all the negativity my underdog fell short of an i7 2600k by 100 points, I am not complaining one bit, all I ask is that you look at this situation with some critical thought. It makes me wonder what performance I would get with the new micro code?!

    Stop trying to fool people with Passmark results.

    Check out these reviews and see how uninspiring the FX6100 is.

    http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150--8120-6100-and-4100-performance-review/1

    http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8150fx_8120fx_6100_and_fx_4170,1.html
  49. You can't base my Setup with their setup for starters, second there is no "pulling the wool" over anyone's eyes. Passmark is used by all major leading benchmark testers for setup and comparison. Considering your urgency in calling me a liar I will assume your an Intel Fanboy, and I will advice people who are open minded to keep your comments from their consideration.

    There is no denying what high potential this architecture has, nor the fact that my build is getting close to i7-2600k builds, you'll find my system in the top 20 setups ( as of 8 hours ago) So before you come in swinging Chad Boga, I will reiterate that there are 3 different types of the 6 Core BD, I will also reassure that no two chips are the same.

    Who are you to say what this processor is capable of, all you have is hear say, you havent tested it, you were not present during the "tests you posted." All you have is circumstantial information, that for all we know was posted by people much like yourself.

    Granted at stock speeds the BD doesnt compare, but with proper OC, and adjustments on timings, an AMD user can get very close to the i7-2600k (minor discrepancies aside) The potential of this CPU is undeniable. I have no reason to lie to anyone, I am simply bringing my observation, and physical hands on experience in on this forum.
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs AMD Intel i5 Product