[Solved] AMD FX 8120 VS Intel Comparable processors

I am considering buying this processor VS an intel core equivalent. I mostly play Skyrim Elder Scrolls on high settings and may be getting into other games. Saving money is important and this is the fist decision in the rest of my build. I already have an ATI/AMD 5870 to pair with it, so please keep this in mind when formulating a response.

Thanks! :bounce:

[url=http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0375765][/url]

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to engineiro

From Microcenter site :
i5 2500k 180$ is cheaper than FX 8120 Black Edition
Motherboard : http://www.microcenter.com/single_ [...] id=0364085
memory : http://www.microcenter.com/single_ [...] id=0354611
The motherboard price is 160$ but if you buy witk 2500k in my shopping cart is on 110$

Message quoted 1 times

------------------------------ i7 2600 , AsRock P67 Extreme 6 ,2x4GB Corsair Vengeance 1600 , MSI 6950 2GB , HDD WD 640 AAKS , Corsair 620HX 620W , CPU cooler Zalman CNPS10X Performa , CoolerMaster 912, Philips Led 22"
Reply to sosofm

sosofm wrote :

From Microcenter site :
i5 2500k 180$ is cheaper than FX 8120 Black Edition

Cheaper and much, much better.

Reply to bwrlane

Going to have to recommend you get an I5 2500K instead, it's one of the best gaming chips available, better than anything AMD. Microcenter has $50 off motherboard with purchase of it right now too.

FX cores are weaker than Phenom II, it gives you 8 weak cores good for the limited software that can utilize those cores, but most tasks including games performance suffers. It's really a server designed CPU, it's the type of work load it does well at.

Gaming benchmarks.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-8120-6100-4100_6.html#sect0

Skyrim
http://www.techspot.com/review/467-skyrim-performance/page7.html

Reply to loneninja

Oops should have mentioned that I have a $50 off coupon for the microcenter cpu, so I'd pay $150. Cpus in this range?

Although the bundled price for the 2500k looks attractive, not sure if I wanna drop an extra $30.

Yeah, I agree loneninja about your 8 core comment. hm reconsidering.

Reply to engineiro

Pair a 2500k with a P67 motherboard. You don't really need z68 unless you want SSD caching.

Don't bother with the AMD FX series for gaming (I can't believe I'm saying that!).

Reply to larkspur

Just spend the extra 30 dollars and get the I5. It it's definitely worth it in the end.

------------------------------ Silverstone TJ07, I5 2500K, Gigabyte Z68 UD4-B3, Gigabyte Radeon 6970, Corsair Vengence DDR3 1600 8GB, Seagate Barracuda 1TB HDD 7200rpm, Samsung 128 gb SSD, ASUS SATA DVD drive, Seasonic 850X Gold 850W PSU, Windows 7 Home 64bit, Custom Watercooling loop
Reply to Rds1220

All of our 2500k recommendations are assuming that you will overclock. If you aren't at all interested in overclocking then a regular 2500, 2400, 2300 (without the K) will do great. See: http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 077-5.html

If you aren't going to overclock ever, then you can get a much less expensive motherboard like H61. But it is very easy to overclock the 2500k and if you are gaming this makes a big difference.

Reply to larkspur

Overclocking will make a difference and with good air cooling there is no reason you shouldn't be able to hit 4.5GHz pretty easily.

------------------------------ Silverstone TJ07, I5 2500K, Gigabyte Z68 UD4-B3, Gigabyte Radeon 6970, Corsair Vengence DDR3 1600 8GB, Seagate Barracuda 1TB HDD 7200rpm, Samsung 128 gb SSD, ASUS SATA DVD drive, Seasonic 850X Gold 850W PSU, Windows 7 Home 64bit, Custom Watercooling loop
Reply to Rds1220

engineiro wrote :

.I already have an ATI/AMD 5870 to pair with it, so please keep this in mind when formulating a response.

Thanks! :bounce:

[url=http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0375765][/url]

So the FX will be enough with this card and if it is within your budget.

Reply to pat

Best answer

I will give a quick EZ answer then one for you to ponder.

I5 2500 is currently your best choice for gaming. Games in general don't use a lit of cores. The i5 is best.

Now the one to ponder

In the next couple of years I would imagine games will utilize more cores. Intel is best in the per core market right now. AMD is not. Based on price and performance AMD is better in the multicore market. That being said I am going to build an FX setup to help "future proof" myself. Yes bad term to use, I know. Windows 8 will help AMD due to core assignment issues right now. And looking at the results in benchmarks I am fine with AMD VS I5 2500.

think about it this way. Example i5 plays a game at 100 fps the 8150/8120 plays it at 80 fps.
Look at both games and you will see no difference. That's my view. The numbers are real. I5 2500k kicks the AMD FX 8150/8120 in the balls on gaming. But at such a high fps rate. You won't be able to tell.

As for future proofing for games (my opinion) the more cores/threads the better. So I'm my eyes it is a i7 2600k (4 cores + 4 threads) vs 8150/8120 (4 modules = 8 cores) comparison on the build. AMD is less expensive with those comparisons and with Windows 8 coming out which will help with the current bulldozer chips and more so the piledriver (we hope). It only makes sense to me to go AMD.

Core assignment is
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
But should be
1,3,5,7,2,4,6,8

For info on the core assignment issue check out the other Toms forums or Google it. Basically its like hyper threading gone wrong in a nut shell. Or you can wait on ivy bridge to come out then compare.

So much to think about. Blah!
I have gone on long enough. Let the yelling and arguing begin. :-)

Message quoted 3 times

Reply to kenmore81

Where did you get the 50 dollar off microcenter coupon from?

------------------------------ Overclocked Intel HD 3000 Performance: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/ [...] e#t1978730
Thermal Paste Removal/Installation Guide: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/ [...] emoval-ins
Reply to amuffin

Real fast here is a comparison with the brand new AMD gpu which is the fastest there is. Last 2 pages give you the final info if you don't want to see all the comparisons. Kinda interesting tho if you look at them all. Also I don't believe they are running Windows 8. Keep that in mind as well. http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews [...] U_Scaling/

Reply to kenmore81

kenmore81 wrote :

In the next couple of years I would imagine games will utilize more cores. Intel is best in the per core market right now. AMD is not. Based on price and performance AMD is better in the multicore market. That being said I am going to build an FX setup to help "future proof" myself. Yes bad term to use, I know. Windows 8 will help AMD due to core assignment issues right now. And looking at the results in benchmarks I am fine with AMD VS I5 2500.

If you added something like video editing to uses for your system then I *might* accept a BD chip as an acceptable gamer. But right now Zambezi just doesn't make sense for either performance or value. In 2 years AMD will have long since replaced Zambezi with better chips (God let's hope so). There are Intel chips now that beat Zambezi both on price and performance, imagine what the Intel chips 2 years from now will do to Zambezi. My point is buying a processor now that *might* get better in 2 years just doesn't make sense when something already better (indisputably at gaming) is already available.

Here are the gaming benchmarks from a $1000 Zambezi system - note the clear difference between the Intel CPU based system (previous month's system) vs the Zambezi system. Ouch. But maybe that's an unfair analysis and we should wait 2 years to re-evaluate.

http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 98-10.html

Message edited by larkspur on 01-11-2012 at 01:19:05 AM

Reply to larkspur

kenmore81 wrote :

I will give a quick EZ answer then one for you to ponder.

I5 2500 is currently your best choice for gaming. Games in general don't use a lit of cores. The i5 is best.

Now the one to ponder

In the next couple of years I would imagine games will utilize more cores. Intel is best in the per core market right now. AMD is not. Based on price and performance AMD is better in the multicore market. That being said I am going to build an FX setup to help "future proof" myself. Yes bad term to use, I know. Windows 8 will help AMD due to core assignment issues right now. And looking at the results in benchmarks I am fine with AMD VS I5 2500.

think about it this way. Example i5 plays a game at 100 fps the 8150/8120 plays it at 80 fps.
Look at both games and you will see no difference. That's my view. The numbers are real. I5 2500k kicks the AMD FX 8150/8120 in the balls on gaming. But at such a high fps rate. You won't be able to tell.

As for future proofing for games (my opinion) the more cores/threads the better. So I'm my eyes it is a i7 2600k (4 cores + 4 threads) vs 8150/8120 (4 modules = 8 cores) comparison on the build. AMD is less expensive with those comparisons and with Windows 8 coming out which will help with the current bulldozer chips and more so the piledriver (we hope). It only makes sense to me to go AMD.

Core assignment is
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
But should be
1,3,5,7,2,4,6,8

For info on the core assignment issue check out the other Toms forums or Google it. Basically its like hyper threading gone wrong in a nut shell. Or you can wait on ivy bridge to come out then compare.

So much to think about. Blah!
I have gone on long enough. Let the yelling and arguing begin. :-)

you have a poor understanding of video games and how they use the CPU and your "theory" on future proofing is pure garbage based on a wish rather then actual facts.

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to dirtyferret

not the time to go AMD and FX.
a new stepping revision and then Piledriver to be released I wouldn't now go by an FX-Bulldozer chip now.
so if buying now then go Intel with a Z68 motherboard.

my opinion.

------------------------------ A+, Net+, MCDST, DSCE (Dell)
Reply to malmental

dirtyferret wrote :

you have a poor understanding of video games and how they use the CPU and your "theory" on future proofing is pure garbage based on a wish rather then actual facts.

Agreed, and also looking at benchies the FX setup only beats the i5 on SOME multi tasking tasks with only a very slight performance increase so yea...

2500k is a very good chip, or wait till ivy bridge

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to aaab

aaab wrote :

Agreed, and also looking at benchies the FX setup only beats the i5 on SOME multi tasking tasks with only a very slight performance increase so yea...

2500k is a very good chip, or wait till ivy bridge

if your gonna buy now then buy now do not wait for Ivy, it's not that great of a boost from Sandy.
Haswell seems to be the next logical step to look at after Sandy..

Message quoted 1 times

------------------------------ A+, Net+, MCDST, DSCE (Dell)
Reply to malmental

malmental wrote :

if your gonna buy now then buy now do not wait for Ivy, it's not that great of a boost from Sandy.
Haswell seems to be the next logical step to look at after Sandy..

I just mentioned that as I see that he already plays skyrim on high so I assumed he has a decent computer already and just wants an upgrade. But not too sure on that one hehe

Reply to aaab

If the 2500k outperforms the fx 8150, can we not determine that it outperforms the fx 8120?

------------------------------ Overclocked Intel HD 3000 Performance: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/ [...] e#t1978730
Thermal Paste Removal/Installation Guide: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/ [...] emoval-ins
Reply to amuffin

Skyrim is really CPU dependent game and getting a 2500K for it is the way to go.

------------------------------ Get busy livin' or get busy dyin.
Reply to Tamz_msc

kenmore81 wrote :

think about it this way. Example i5 plays a game at 100 fps the 8150/8120 plays it at 80 fps.
Look at both games and you will see no difference. That's my view. The numbers are real. I5 2500k kicks the AMD FX 8150/8120 in the balls on gaming. But at such a high fps rate. You won't be able to tell.

What about a game that is really CPU dependent? Like something that an i5 runs at 30 fps. 20% drop means that FX will run it at around 24 fps. Now, you will be able to tell.

Reply to jsc

In gaming the 2500k also usually out performs the 2600k. So that is why I said 2500k is best. No, I don't have a good understanding on how games utilize a CPU. That it why I said its something to think about, ie look into/consider. You didn't give any reasoning to support that you know how it works either. Just saying that I obviously don't understand doesn't really help. Maybe you can shed some light as to how it works to help educate. I also linked a site to show how the CPU and gpu combo works with different games, including skyrim. The link shows how well the CPUs work at really high resolution causing lower fps.

I'm not being a jerk, just sharing the info I have found and giving my opinion. As I stated at the top of my first post. The i5 is the best chip to go with. Best one on the market for gaming is the i5. But I added the best now may not be better than another current chip in the future. Hence why I said its something to ponder.

Please share information, if you have it, to help the OP, myself and anyone else reading this. Being helpful is the idea behind these forums.

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to kenmore81

kenmore81 wrote :

In gaming the 2500k also usually out performs the 2600k. So that is why I said 2500k is best. No, I don't have a good understanding on how games utilize a CPU.

the 2500k does not outperform the 2600k in gaming as you can see from the link. Most games out there do not take advantage of the 2600k's hyperthreading (the 2500k lacks it) making the 2600k more expensive for little to no added benefit in gaming. That would be the reason the 2500k is so popular with gamers.

I completely agree with your third statement though.

Games want a CPU capable of performing lots of instructions per clock cycle. This allows a dual core CPU like the intel i3 keep up or beat AMD CPUs like in the phenom II x4/6 and FX-4/6 in gaming.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083 [...] -tested/20

Reply to dirtyferret