Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

AMD Bulldozer FX 8120 VS Intel core i5 2500k

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 4, 2011 12:27:27 PM

Hi everyone !

i cant decide whether to choose AMD Bulldozer FX 8120 or Intel core i5 2500k.

plz help me to decide !!

i do mostly Application development and gaming freak !!!!

and also want system future proof for 4-5 years !!!!


plz help me to get sort of it !!!!
a c 850 à CPUs
a c 140 å Intel
a c 330 À AMD
December 4, 2011 12:33:34 PM

Gaming the I5 2500K a clear winner!
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 4, 2011 12:51:40 PM

I dont know what kind of applications you use for development but they are probably going to be heavily threaded and the FX 8120 is going to perform better there.As for games the 2500k wins because games usualy use 3 or less cores.As for future proofing the bulldozer's arhetecture is ahead of its time so you can expect it to perform better and better compared to the 2500k as time goes on.
Score
0
Related resources
a c 80 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
December 4, 2011 12:52:49 PM

the intel core i5 2500k is the better of the two cpus for gaming. most of today's games use 2-4 cores and most of them dont use 4 cores that efficiently.
best gaming cpus for the money: november 2011
fx efficiency compared to other cpus
fx review
if you oc your 2500k, get a z68 motherboard with it. make sure you have a good 80+ psu with enough amps on the +12v rail(s). and get a good cpu cooler like cooler master hyper 212 plus or evo.
Score
0
a c 80 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
December 4, 2011 1:01:25 PM

i made this a seperate post because i am uncertain about it.
if you want to use dual x16 cfx/sli on the cheap, get an amd zosma cpu (e.g. ph ii x4 960T) with a 990fx motherboard. i don't know if anyone has run dual x16 with a zosma cpu on a 990fx mobo. this combo will be less power efficient than the sandy bridge combo. and the ph ii will be slower than the 2500k in cpu intensive gaming tasks. if you use the 8120 instead, it too, will use more power than the 2500k.
some z68 boards offer dual x16 or x16+x8 or x16+dual x8 but those are costlier. the best you can get (with native support) with a z68 board is dual x8 configuration - which most people are satisfied with. make sure your motherboard supports x8+x8 configuration.
for a gaming system with a single powerful card with no cfx/sli - the core i5 will be better.
Score
0
December 4, 2011 1:13:24 PM

2500k rules, miles ahead in gaming than 8120
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b å Intel
December 4, 2011 1:56:13 PM

You probably will enjoy either, in terms of performance, but my vot goes to the I5-2500k.

1) as to cost - to factors, initial cost and long term operating cost. Long term energy cost. 30 watts At idle and almost 100 watts at peak means that for the FX you would need to add $50->$100 to the FX cost.

2) As long as the CPU does not bottleneck the GPU, gaming performance is primarily determinded by the GPU.

3) outside gaming, performance tends to favor the I5-2500k with some exceptions depending on software. You should look at the benchmarks for the specific software you run - BUT factor in how often you use that software. Nr of Cores only matter for select software.

4) The CPU is not the only consideration - the platform (ie MB) plays a significant role. How well the MB chipsets perform with other components such as USB 3 devices and How well Sata III (6) is implimented. This is important as SSDs become more mainstream. Remember the slowest element is HDD performance. Here Intel leads, see below for reason.

5) AMD has some problems that will effect improving performance downstream (ie 3 to 4 years). They have indicated that they will NOT be concentrating on desktop computers CPUs. They have a "people" shortage and what the have is spread a little thin (Check financial reports). This is also born out looking at the problems AMD has had over the past year. How long it took amd to get a "working" ahci driver for SSDs, Also Still have a problem with co-utilization of a Dedicated GPU and using a IGP affecting the ability to switch which Graphic processor to use when swithing between 2D and 3D graphics (primarily effects laptops running Intel SB Processors).

I5-2500k will also have some problems long term as Intel shifts it's concentration to IvyBridge.

6) Another factor I consider is 3rd party support. For many software/hardware there is not difference in performance. But this does become a consideration occassionally. Intel - 70 % market share vs AMD's 20% (APPROX). When software, or hardware is developed. and if there is any difference: quess which way the optimazation will favor.

Score
0
December 4, 2011 3:15:22 PM

Yeah go with a 2500k and a decent cooler and OC it a bit. It's hard to recommend AMD FX to an enthusiast. Even if the 8120 beats out a 2500k on a few things it will be very minimal, but the performance increase with a 2500k on some games is pretty large (very noticeable).
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 4, 2011 9:53:11 PM

Kamen_BG said:
I dont know what kind of applications you use for development but they are probably going to be heavily threaded and the FX 8120 is going to perform better there.As for games the 2500k wins because games usualy use 3 or less cores.As for future proofing the bulldozer's arhetecture is ahead of its time so you can expect it to perform better and better compared to the 2500k as time goes on.



So much fail in this post.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 4, 2011 11:15:04 PM

Kamen_BG said:
I dont know what kind of applications you use for development but they are probably going to be heavily threaded and the FX 8120 is going to perform better there.As for games the 2500k wins because games usualy use 3 or less cores.As for future proofing the bulldozer's arhetecture is ahead of its time so you can expect it to perform better and better compared to the 2500k as time goes on.


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ah1RjWG9Z0...

Unless he does a TON of rendering then there is no point in getting a Bulldozer 8120 over a Corei5 2500K. If you want to see just how bad of an architecture Bulldozer is for gaming... http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/11/03/amd_fx8150_mu...

As you alleviate the GPU bottleneck... you begin to see just how inferior Bulldozer is when compared to the competition. Evidently not many people go Tri-Fire or Tri-SLI but many go SLI and CrossfireX.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 5, 2011 12:28:03 AM

It depends what "application developement" uses for coding.

If you use FMA4 code, the 8120 is most likely a clear winner over anything Intel*.
http://www.overclock.net/t/1142384/bulldozer-being-prop...

I don't know how long it will take or if games will ever use Bulldozer's full instruction set array, but it does show promising results from FMA code.

Bulldozer can only improve as games increase the number of threads, but the 2500k can also still improve(it's already better than the 8120) as games don't quite use 4 threads yet either. Plus if AVX code ever gets used in games(I don't know if they could, but I would assume so) than the 2500k improves more than the 8120 when using AVX; this also goes for FMA4 code in games.

About power consumption... When it's colder than room temperature outside, it doesn't matter how much power the comp uses as that is just helping to heat up your house/office/etc. The only time you pay for it is when you have the A/C on. Bulldozer does use about 10-20W more at idle(based on platform it varies), and 70-90W more at load.

Edit: *Price for Performance.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 5, 2011 12:41:40 AM

ElMoIsEviL said:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ah1RjWG9Z0...

Unless he does a TON of rendering then there is no point in getting a Bulldozer 8120 over a Corei5 2500K. If you want to see just how bad of an architecture Bulldozer is for gaming... http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/11/03/amd_fx8150_mu...

As you alleviate the GPU bottleneck... you begin to see just how inferior Bulldozer is when compared to the competition. Evidently not many people go Tri-Fire or Tri-SLI but many go SLI and CrossfireX.

The first time I saw that multi-gpu performance review; I wondered why Bulldozer's performance can be so consistently inconsistent.

Could branch prediction be so bad along with the pipeline being longer that the games keep up the peaks and valleys? I haven't found anything else on multi-gpu performance after that review... I also would like to know what ram they used as Bulldozer seems to be affected by memory speeds more than SB.
Score
0
December 13, 2011 9:43:54 PM

Its a new architecture that is ahead of its time and not optimized for windows 7. Windows is suppose to have a patch for the new architecture and is suppose to increase performance by like 20% or something which is a significant increase and then with windows 8 it will take this new architecture even further. Even this new architecture isnt performing as it was intended it is still a huge step in CPU processing and once the kinks are worked out it will truly shine and change the way CPU's are made. It took eddison 10,000 tries to make the lightbulb, same thing applies here. you learn more from mistakes than wins.
Score
0
a c 146 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 13, 2011 10:31:46 PM

BadTrip said:
So much fail in this post.


My thoughts exactly. BUZZ WRONG!!!!!! try again Kamen.
Score
0
December 13, 2011 10:36:04 PM

LOl what i find funny about this post is its full of intel fan boys. The amd 8120 might loose a couple times to the 2500k but it also beats the 2600k in some test. And that was at stock speeds if you overclock the cpu like it was mint for its a hole new beast.
Score
0
December 13, 2011 10:40:29 PM

AMD FOR LIFE
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 15, 2011 10:36:36 PM

I'd go with a 2600K.
Score
0
a c 83 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 16, 2011 12:50:22 AM

smokeymicpot42 said:
LOl what i find funny about this post is its full of intel fan boys. The amd 8120 might loose a couple times to the 2500k but it also beats the 2600k in some test. And that was at stock speeds if you overclock the cpu like it was mint for its a hole new beast.


It beats the I7 in very few tests while clocked higher. The I7 will gain more performance from an overclock while consuming much less power. FX 8150 even overclocked to it's limit is still a severe bottleneck for multi GPU set ups, there is almost no performance gain going from SLI GTX 580 to TriSLI GTX 580 while an I5 2500K pulls way ahead. This miracle patch for Win7 is already out, and gives a small performance gain, not some magical mystical 20% gain, nor will Win8. The performance gain is from allowing windows to properly schedule 2 threads to 2 cores on the same module instead of 2 cores on 2 separate modules. This allows the unused module to power off allowing the used module to turbo clock higher giving better clock speed and higher performance. There won't be any performance gain from this if you overclock and disable turbo core, and there won't be a performance gain if you peg your cpu near 100% utilization running multiple programs or a well threaded program because you won't be getting the benefit of turbo core. This was explained in the FX 8150 launch review article.


This thread is full of AMD fanboys. Myself included as I own 5 AMD desktops and no Intel currently...but anyone with a brain can see how AMD failed to deliver with Bulldozer and their marketing team repeatedly lied about Bulldozer.
Score
0
December 16, 2011 1:47:47 AM

FX8120 because down the road applications will have support for more threads and when overclocked it beats the i5 2500k, honestly the i5 is not a "clear winner" the difference is minimal (~2%) in pretty much all games, and the future of the FX 8120 seams brighter with windows 8 then the i5. I am tired of having intel fanboys just trash on the bulldozer platform. Some of it is deserved because of AMD's bragging, but really it is cheaper then the i5 and there will come a day where it will pull away from the deadlock and win.
Score
0
a c 146 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 16, 2011 2:39:01 AM

Wow as someone said already just so much wrong info :pfff:  :pfff:  :pfff: 

icracked said:
FX8120 because down the road applications will have support for more threads.

Yes games and other programs in the future will start to use more cores and will need a heavy threaded CPU but thats still a ways off. By the time we get to that point the Bulldozer will be outdated and obsolete

icracked said:
and when overclocked it beats the i5 2500k, honestly the i5 is not a "clear winner" the difference is minimal (~2%).


What are you smoking. Do you seriously believe all the garbage AMD throws out there. An overclocked FX beats an I5...yea right. BUZZ wrong try again. Even overclocked to it's limit is still can't and won't beat out an I5 or I7. Its architecture is slower than the I5.


icracked said:
in pretty much all games, and the future of the FX 8120 seams brighter with windows 8 then the i5..


Once again what are you smoking. The future does not look good for the Bulldozer with Windows 8. First they complained that it was a Windows 7 and they launched a miracle patch that was suppose to make everything better but guess what it didn't do jack. It gives only a little better performance no where near the awsome 20% gain they threw out there. No Windows 7 patch or Windows 8 is going to make the Bulldozer have an awsome 20% or more gain. Keep dreaming.

icracked said:
I am tired of having intel fanboys just trash on the bulldozer platform. Some of it is deserved because of AMD's bragging, but really it is cheaper then the i5 and there will come a day where it will pull away from the deadlock and win.


Its compleatly deserved because the Bulldozer is a joke. It doesn't touch the I core processors and it can't even compete with the old Phenom, thats just sad.
Score
0
December 16, 2011 2:43:10 AM

2500K + a GEN3 mobo (i recommend Asus P8Z68-V PRO/GEN3) will definitely be the best bet and it gives you upgradeability to ivy bridge in the future.
Score
0
December 16, 2011 2:51:43 AM

See what yall are forgetting is that the FX line is NEW technology. So therefore it will have it kinks. And apparently its not doing too bad since it is sold out everywhere. Yall need to start thinking about the big picture and not omg my i5 has 4 cores at 5.7ghz and is so fast omg. Need to start thinking about what improvements AMD's new architecture can make for silicon processors as a whole.

Everyone knows that it isnt optimized for windows 7 and even Microsoft confirmed that.They have patched it and now we will see what the BD is capable of. Which the Bulldozer was made to be the most optimized for windows 8. It's not about AMD or Intel. It is about technology as a whole and if half of you had any education at all you would understand that mistakes = improvement.
Score
0
a c 146 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 16, 2011 3:00:10 AM

What its really made of..? it's still not that great even with the patch. It only gives a small performance gain again nowhere near the 20% claimed.
Score
0
December 16, 2011 3:05:52 AM

You never know, it could totally blow minds.

Also up until a few years ago AMD had the fastest performing CPU's and after Intel's many failed attempts of toppling them they did. Thus the Core i series of CPU's. That is how technology works. You fail,fail,fail and fail some more until you get it right. That is what causes technological advances.

Amd is doing something with this new architecture that has never been done before so of course they will fail but if they dont puss out they could make something extraordinary. Took thomas eddison 10,000 tries to make a florescent light bulb.
Score
0
December 16, 2011 7:26:09 AM

What i find funnny is every one saying your going to get a ivy chip in those z68 or p67 boards even intel said you will have a buy a new board. Its even in the road map. I have yet to see a test of a 8120 oc to 4.1 and a 2500k at 4.1 tested. At best i have seen a 3.8 oc vs stock 2500k and the k win't down. And who needs tri sli there is not one home system that needs that. If 2 gtx 590 Isn't enough for you than you need to just step away from the pc world. I only have one 580 and nothing slows it down.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 16, 2011 8:08:38 AM

mourice12 said:
You never know, it could totally blow minds.

Also up until a few years ago AMD had the fastest performing CPU's and after Intel's many failed attempts of toppling them they did. Thus the Core i series of CPU's. That is how technology works. You fail,fail,fail and fail some more until you get it right. That is what causes technological advances.


Funny, that's what Intel did - take a chance on a new architecture - with Netburst. Unfortunately their branch prediction & OoO was not good enough at the time to overcome the stallout problems due to the long pipeline. However, both Sandy Bridge and Bulldozer use some ideas from the P4..

Quote:
Amd is doing something with this new architecture that has never been done before so of course they will fail but if they dont puss out they could make something extraordinary. Took thomas eddison 10,000 tries to make a florescent light bulb.


IIRC that was the incandescent light bulb, not fluorescent or even 'florescent' :p .. And Edison only improved upon existing designs, he didn't invent the light bulb although he was popularly credited with it at the time.
Score
0
December 16, 2011 9:32:33 AM

An observation from the results obtained by the HARDOCP site.

However a quick scan of the test article reveals the reason and rationalization for the test and does not equate to the behavior of Bulldozer in modern games, only in relation to the multi-gpu setup of Nvidia GPU's.......

quote: "The idea of going with two and three GPUs is that as the GPU count increases, the CPU must be able to keep up and provide enough performance for SLI to remain efficient. We have chosen specifically to use the GeForce GTX 580 for this because we have tested with absolute certainty in the past that CPU performance affects GTX 580 SLI and Tri-SLI more than it does Radeon HD 6970 CFX and Tri-Fire."

...so if you use Bulldozer, then use AMD GPU's and high performance memory. Systems need to be built for best performance, not compared with parts for which they were not specifically designed. This was a a test bed on which system the Nvidia 580 ran best on, not the overall performance of Bulldozer. Of course the AMD GPU's have better optimization to perform with Bulldozer CPU's, they are after all from the same company.

So then is the problem with the CPU or the GPU?

We don't know, because it was not tested. Maybe if the same test had been carried out with 6970's the results may have been considerably closer.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b å Intel
December 16, 2011 12:01:34 PM

A couple of points:
1) It’s not just about the CPU. CPUs require chipsets and drivers.

2) Look at the financial reports from money managers – AMD has ceded the High end desktop performance to Intel. They have spread themselves out to much. This probably has contributed to their problems optimizing drivers - ie look how long it took them to optimize their driver for SSDs. Look at the software/driver for SB notebooks to provide switching between IGP and GPU when switching between 2D and 3D applications.–AMD not so good, Nvidia works much Better. AMD is shifting more toward ARM processors.

3) Optimizing their GPUs for AMD systems sounds smart, but really is not, as it will drive users to Nvidia. Face it 70->80% of desktops are Intel, if there is a difference in performance, you optimize for the largest market share. PS - I have always, and still do, use ATI/AMD desktop GPUs.

4) “I have yet to see a test of a 8120 oc to 4.1 and a 2500k at 4.1 tested” This would only show which CPU is most efficient – I think the I5-200k wins here. For OCing, what should be tested is @ the typical (Average, NOT MAX) OC for both CPUs. A 4.1 OC for an I5-2500k is not realistic as (A) Why Bother and (B) Most who OC an I5-2500k reach 4.6 very easily.

5) “2500K + a GEN3 mobo…….upgradeability to ivy bridge in the future.” If I was building a new I5, I would probably go for the “Gen3” MB, But NOT with the thought of upgrading to IB later. I would buy that MB because it probably has better features. When I move to a “New CPU (ie SB->IB), I want the Newest MB available as the “features” are generally better. My Motivation to Upgrade is generally determined by the MB, not the CPU.
Score
0
a c 80 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
December 16, 2011 12:17:52 PM

i wonder what happened to the OP......... :sleep: 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b å Intel
December 16, 2011 12:35:24 PM

He read the responces, an fled in .....
Score
0
December 16, 2011 3:24:23 PM

RetiredChief said:
A couple of points:
1) It’s not just about the CPU. CPUs require chipsets and drivers.

2) Look at the financial reports from money managers – AMD has ceded the High end desktop performance to Intel. They have spread themselves out to much. This probably has contributed to their problems optimizing drivers - ie look how long it took them to optimize their driver for SSDs. Look at the software/driver for SB notebooks to provide switching between IGP and GPU when switching between 2D and 3D applications.–AMD not so good, Nvidia works much Better. AMD is shifting more toward ARM processors.

3) Optimizing their GPUs for AMD systems sounds smart, but really is not, as it will drive users to Nvidia. Face it 70->80% of desktops are Intel, if there is a difference in performance, you optimize for the largest market share. PS - I have always, and still do, use ATI/AMD desktop GPUs.

4) “I have yet to see a test of a 8120 oc to 4.1 and a 2500k at 4.1 tested” This would only show which CPU is most efficient – I think the I5-200k wins here. For OCing, what should be tested is @ the typical (Average, NOT MAX) OC for both CPUs. A 4.1 OC for an I5-2500k is not realistic as (A) Why Bother and (B) Most who OC an I5-2500k reach 4.6 very easily.

5) “2500K + a GEN3 mobo…….upgradeability to ivy bridge in the future.” If I was building a new I5, I would probably go for the “Gen3” MB, But NOT with the thought of upgrading to IB later. I would buy that MB because it probably has better features. When I move to a “New CPU (ie SB->IB), I want the Newest MB available as the “features” are generally better. My Motivation to Upgrade is generally determined by the MB, not the CPU.


+1
Score
0
a c 146 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 16, 2011 3:45:49 PM

smokeymicpot42 said:
What i find funnny is every one saying your going to get a ivy chip in those z68 or p67 boards even intel said you will have a buy a new board. Its even in the road map. I have yet to see a test of a 8120 oc to 4.1 and a 2500k at 4.1 tested. At best i have seen a 3.8 oc vs stock 2500k and the k win't down. And who needs tri sli there is not one home system that needs that. If 2 gtx 590 Isn't enough for you than you need to just step away from the pc world. I only have one 580 and nothing slows it down.


Again...wrong! Z68 and P67 chipset motherboards that have an 1155 socket will be backwards compatible with the new Ivy Bridges. The Ivy Bridges will use the 1155 until they release an Ivy Bridges-E which will use the 2011 socket. I would love to see where your pulling these benchmarks from. All the benchmarks I've seen the I5 beats out the Bulldozer in all but a very few programs. Me thinkith's you are a AMD fanboy that blindly worships Rory Read and all the garbage they feed you. You must live in a fantasy world.
Score
0
December 16, 2011 4:15:25 PM

write now to go market buy i5 2500k with z68 mobo and gtx 560 or gtx 460 come home forget every thing start playing games on 1080p if you are overclocker then overclock i5 2500k to 4.2ghz at stock voltage
Score
0
a c 146 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 16, 2011 4:52:47 PM

Quote:
slow down, only Z68 motherboards are Ivy certified and only a few P67 if any are going to be Ivy compatible.
use spellchecker as well.
as for your thoughts of an i5-2500K vs FX-Bulldozer - I agree the i5 is better..


Yes I know that's what I'm saying. He's saying that no P67 or Z68 motherboards will be compatible with Ivy Bridges. That's wrong info and is untrue. Also as for the spelling thing it's not easy typing on a slow POS I pad.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 7, 2012 1:17:46 PM

swapnilbunty123 said:
Hi everyone !

i cant decide whether to choose AMD Bulldozer FX 8120 or Intel core i5 2500k.

plz help me to decide !!

i do mostly Application development and gaming freak !!!!

and also want system future proof for 4-5 years !!!!


plz help me to get sort of it !!!!


If you want future proof you'll want to go the AMD route because you can keep upgrading your CPU years down the line. If you want raw power you'll want to go the intel route. But yes, in all honesty the 2500K is better than the 8120 for games although that may change in the future as games are developed with AMD's bulldozer in mind. You probably would want to get the AMD processor if you want to keep your computer for a long time though because it will likely be easy to upgrade to a processor much faster than the 2500K a few years down the line. If you go with intel you'll be stuck with what you have... Except you could probably upgrade to the i7 2600K which is better but just a little bit better.
Score
0
February 17, 2012 5:02:42 PM

loneninja said:
It beats the I7 in very few tests while clocked higher. The I7 will gain more performance from an overclock while consuming much less power. FX 8150 even overclocked to it's limit is still a severe bottleneck for multi GPU set ups, there is almost no performance gain going from SLI GTX 580 to TriSLI GTX 580 while an I5 2500K pulls way ahead. This miracle patch for Win7 is already out, and gives a small performance gain, not some magical mystical 20% gain, nor will Win8. The performance gain is from allowing windows to properly schedule 2 threads to 2 cores on the same module instead of 2 cores on 2 separate modules. This allows the unused module to power off allowing the used module to turbo clock higher giving better clock speed and higher performance. There won't be any performance gain from this if you overclock and disable turbo core, and there won't be a performance gain if you peg your cpu near 100% utilization running multiple programs or a well threaded program because you won't be getting the benefit of turbo core. This was explained in the FX 8150 launch review article.


This thread is full of AMD fanboys. Myself included as I own 5 AMD desktops and no Intel currently...but anyone with a brain can see how AMD failed to deliver with Bulldozer and their marketing team repeatedly lied about Bulldozer.



with this being said, i play a pretty detailed game that calls for an intel i7 for performance, and im playing it on a baby FX-4100, no lagg and ill leaving running for days on end alt tabing between game and other programs without a glitch( ive only been testing the FX seris for a month now, but way out performs anything ive had in past! and is it true the more you OC a intel CPU the less longer its lifespan is compared to OC AMD(plz dont beat me just wondering)heard something about 1 of them running hotter when you OC it?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b å Intel
February 17, 2012 6:07:18 PM

For the Intel I5-2500k for $25 I can Overclock the Beegees out of it and if it fails within the warantee period I can RMA it, does AMD offer the same protection offer.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 17, 2012 7:45:34 PM

RetiredChief said:
For the Intel I5-2500k for $25 I can Overclock the Beegees out of it and if it fails within the warantee period I can RMA it, does AMD offer the same protection offer.


Your 2500K came with the Bee Gees in it?? Wonder if they sing "Stayin' Alive" when you oc it to 5GHz :D ..
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 17, 2012 8:23:15 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
Your 2500K came with the Bee Gees in it?? Wonder if they sing "Stayin' Alive" when you oc it to 5GHz :D ..


I lol'ed
Score
0
February 18, 2012 12:53:05 AM

fazers_on_stun said:
Your 2500K came with the Bee Gees in it?? Wonder if they sing "Stayin' Alive" when you oc it to 5GHz :D ..


i have never had to RMA a AMD CPU before, why how many have you?and my first and last was some pos lga 775 series i think, none the less, i still have both AMD cpus still running(athlon 3800, 9850) both was capable of playing Total war Empires, but both sucked when multi tasking, while playing game in background(cpu usage would sometimes clock out)but in their defense the are only dual core and the game does state needs an intel i7 for better performance, but wow put this "baby" FX-4100 in the 990fx board for less than 200 bucks,and ultra high settings for first time in 3 years, in last 2 upgrades intel just cost too much to start.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 18, 2012 1:32:25 AM

fazers_on_stun said:
Your 2500K came with the Bee Gees in it?? Wonder if they sing "Stayin' Alive" when you oc it to 5GHz :D ..

Intel probably cheaped out and put Glados singing "Still Alive" in it instead. :whistle: 
Score
0
a c 185 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
February 18, 2012 2:18:01 AM

Save $10 for a much better cpu and mobo that allows you to upgrade to Ivybridge.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 18, 2012 3:34:37 AM

HMMMM, I hesitate to even respond. At times I get so frustrated with these threads and how narrow they can be in terms of who likes what. I will never state that the AMDs' beat Intels' chips... I've seen the benchmarks (synthetic or not they seem to shine) and understand where peoples opinions are coming from. I have a hard time understanding why people consistently dump on the FX 81xx and FX 61xx processors however. I can obviously only speak from my experiences but my FX-8120 is a tremendous performer for me, it dramatically improved my BF3 gameplay over my old (and reliable) AMD Phenom II 945@3.4Ghz. and generally gives me excellent results with all my games. I guess technically I'm running AMD's scorpious platform along with my 8120 I have a ASUS Sabortooth 990FX with two HD 6870's in crossfire. I can run all my games on absolute max settings/ultra settings and get silky smooth frames without a hint of stutter. So I guess my question is that if Intel is so much better, can you even notice? My performance is so good with my setup wouldn't any advantage that Intel has over AMD be simply academic? I also run video editing software and do a little rendering and the FX seems to perform fast in that area as well. I can't be the only one that gets such good performance can I? I appreciate that I have other options in the PC world that doesn't start with "Intel" and end with "Core i". Maybe Intel is the "best" (and i use that term loosely) but is being a couple seconds faster, or having an extra 5 Frames in gaming really that big of a difference, especially considering the capabilities of both options running games well above 40FPS in most situations? In the real world computing experience the differences are not noticeable until you look a the numbers....... which is exactly that, just numbers. You should make your choice based on what you like, there is nothing wrong with choosing AMD if you like their product and what they represent.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 18, 2012 5:49:07 AM

Quote:
me thinks you really have no clue..


Intel Core i3-2100 Sandy Bridge 3.1GHz LGA 1155 65W
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
$124.99
ASRock Z68 PRO3 GEN3 LGA 1155 Intel Z68 HDMI
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
$104.99
----------------
$229.98


vs

AMD FX-4100 Zambezi 3.6GHz (3.8GHz Turbo) Socket AM3+ 95W
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
$109.99
ASRock 990FX Extreme3 AM3+ AMD 990FX
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
$129.99
-----------------
$239.98


http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m529/malmental/Averages.png

You do realize AMD doesn't even make a motherboard as weak as that intel you selected right? 1 pci-E vs 3 for AMD. Closest thing to that Intel board is the 970 chips at $89, and those still have 2 pci-e slots as well as 5 full sata 6gb instead of just 2. you just spent $30 more for the I3 and still have a weaker board. Edit : actually the 880G is fairly close, $69. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

But other than that, nice apples to oranges setup.

FX 4100 : 3.6% faster than your I3 2120 http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1766/12/
overclockable?
4100fx yes
I3 XXXX no
Score
0
February 18, 2012 7:24:18 AM

Quote:
:pfff: 
kids..


what is your problem, you comment on every post, your are not a teacher, all i see is that your a expert which therefore means you actually have no life, get some sun you arrogant child
Score
0
February 18, 2012 7:31:34 AM

Quote:
AMD = autonomic malfunctioning design

parts of a review from Newegg:


Outstanding with AES; of course that's kinda like asking about your blind date and the only answer you get is "they play the piano well ..."
Like many of you, I had built a Bulldozer rig in anticipation of the new CPU and ran my Phenom II (965) in it to work the bugs out and get everything tweaked
so all I had to do was swap out the processors and fly.
Well the 8150 seems to be non existent for the normal person
and I wondered why all the benchmarks I saw pitted the 8150 vs. i7 2600k but no one wanted to compare apples to apples.
So I bought this FX-4100 and did my own tests.


1 test rig:
AMD 990FX, 2 SSDs in raid 0 w/64bit Win7 Ultimate, 16Gb DDR3 1600 4x4, 1 5750 video card, and water cooling for the CPU.
2 processors:
FX-4100 @ 3.6GHz and 965BE @ 3.4Ghz.


I ran multiple benchmarks utilities on the rig in stock configuration with the 965 in place (which does run very well) and marked down all the scores


Cons: Next I replaced the 965 with the 4100 in the same config with the exception of the 4100's higher clock and system bus speeds.
I did notice a difference in responsiveness on start up and let windows sort it self out with the new CPU and rebooted before I ran the tests.
I do not have the room to give a complete run down and as it is the same rig most figures are the same, but here are pertinent figures for the processors.
Gops 4100=39.46 vs. 965=43.32


Multimedia processing 4100=102.9Mpix/s vs. 965=74.92 Memory bandwidth: 4100=8.55Gb/s vs. 965=12.05. I mean really?? A Regor 260 does 10 flat.
As to be expected, SSD and video card performance didn't change.


I then kicked the memory up to 1600 (stock for the 965 is 1333) as the controller in the 'dozer' is supposed to support higher speeds,
but got no difference (8.59 vs. 8.55 which is a tolerance thing).


Mark3d; 4100@2600FSB & DDR3 1600=9438 vs. 965@2000FSB & DDR3 1333=11426
(965 w/nVidia 980 chipset=12298)




















you have no life, who would bother to read that lol
Score
0
February 18, 2012 7:34:15 AM

Everyone knows that its all about the AMD CPU Athlon II X2
or Intel CPU Pentium Dual Core THESE CPUS BROOOO are overpowerd for real.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 18, 2012 10:50:09 AM

Quote:



lol, whatever man, just proving my point for me
Score
0
February 18, 2012 11:09:22 AM

2500K with z68 moo
8gb ram
ati 6950 or gtx 560ti

best option these days
Score
0
!