AMD Bulldozer FX 8120 VS Intel core i5 2500k

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.

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.

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.

So much fail in this post.

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.

My thoughts exactly. BUZZ WRONG!!!!!! try again Kamen.

AMD FOR LIFE

http://www.techpowerup.com/156844/ [...] soft..html

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.

Wow as someone said already just so much wrong info

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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..

IIRC that was the incandescent light bulb, not fluorescent or even 'florescent' .. And Edison only improved upon existing designs, he didn't invent the light bulb although he was popularly credited with it at the time.

+1

i wonder what happened to the OP.........

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.

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..

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)

Intel and the Z68 motherboard allows you to have an upgrade path like AMD and having AM3+ motherboard.
and FYI, AM3+ motherboard is the last of it's kind there will be no AM4.
so look into your statement further before you say one can do this while the other can't..

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?

my god, what have you had in the past, Intel P4.?

I lol'ed