OC'd FX-8150 or OC'd i5 2500k?

[Beitzel15]

Using the computer for pretty much Youtube/Web browsing and Gaming...

Which do you think would be the best option to go with the AMD FX 8150 @ 4ghz or the i5 2500k @ 4ghz

Which ever one I get will be liquid cooled with a corsair h100, so as far as gaming use/temps...etc, what would you choose?

 

[amuffin]

Oc'ed i5-2500k, clock for clock the i5-2500k outperforms the fx 8150.

 

[xaira]

the 8150 is the first octocore cpu ever available for the desktop market, would go with that hands down, the best intel has to offer is only a six core, also the base clock for the amd requires a lower multiplier to get to your desired frequency of 4.0 ghz, the intel would require double the multiplier to get the same frequency, make he right choice...

 

[clutchc]

For web work, either one is overkill. For gaming, go with the i5-2500K. Even at stock clock it's faster at gaming. If video editing is in your future, the more cores the better. The octocore would excell there. Modern games rarely make use of even 4 cores efficiently. And the Sandy Bridge processors are faster than the Bulldozers at gaming... at least for now.

 

[Beitzel15]

Well, Im trying to build a machine to last a few years...

So for 1-2 years down the road, does the i5 still seem like a better choice for gaming?

From what I've seen the i5 and bulldozer are fairly close in benchmarks.. neither are "killing" the other one as far as scores go.. but do you think games will start using more than 4 cores withing 1-3 years?

 

[xaira]

everything is going multicore and software is being more and more optimised for parallel processing where more lower clocked cores win over all

 

[clutchc]

Well, Im trying to build a machine to last a few years...

So for 1-2 years down the road, does the i5 still seem like a better choice for gaming?

From what I've seen the i5 and bulldozer are fairly close in benchmarks.. neither are "killing" the other one as far as scores go.. but do you think games will start using more than 4 cores withing 1-3 years?

Use this comparison to gauge what is most important for you.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=288

 

[Beitzel15]

Use this comparison to gauge what is most important for you.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=288

like I said, they are very close in most gaming test's... but for futures sake, would it be better to have 8 cores for a system to last a few years?

I realize the i5 comes out ontop.. but what i've seen, the dozer can easily hit 4.5ghz at a lower temp. than the i5.. so surely, OC'd they'd both be more than enough?

 

[clutchc]

like I said, they are very close in most gaming test's... but for futures sake, would it be better to have 8 cores for a system to last a few years?

I realize the i5 comes out ontop.. but what i've seen, the dozer can easily hit 4.5ghz at a lower temp. than the i5.. so surely, OC'd they'd both be more than enough?

Even not overclocked, they'd both be enough. But you were asking for a comparison.
Remember, gaming is mainly about the graphics card(s).

 

[sykozis]

everything is going multicore and software is being more and more optimised for parallel processing where more lower clocked cores win over all

The FX8150 is not a "true" Octocore. It's actually a quad core with hardware SMT, which does not...and never will perform anywhere close to what a true Octocore is capable of.

like I said, they are very close in most gaming test's... but for futures sake, would it be better to have 8 cores for a system to last a few years?

I realize the i5 comes out ontop.. but what i've seen, the dozer can easily hit 4.5ghz at a lower temp. than the i5.. so surely, OC'd they'd both be more than enough?

Yes, it would be better to have 8-cores. The problem here is the fact that you're getting 8 integer cores and only getting the resources of a quad core. As I said, the FX8150 is not a true Octocore. It's a quad-core with hardware SMT. Each pair of integer cores shares resources.

 

[rage33]

you should get the FX-8120, same chip as the 8150 just clocked at a lower frequency. I was able to overclock my 8120 to 4.2GHz stable with out touching the stock voltage, plus I picked mine up on newegg for $200

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Productcompare.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007671%2050001028%20600213780&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&CompareItemList=343|19-103-961^19-103-961-TS%2C19-103-960^19-103-960-TS

 

[Deleted member 217926]

The FX8150 is not a "true" Octocore. It's actually a quad core with hardware SMT, which does not...and never will perform anywhere close to what a true Octocore is capable of.



Yes, it would be better to have 8-cores. The problem here is the fact that you're getting 8 integer cores and only getting the resources of a quad core. As I said, the FX8150 is not a true Octocore. It's a quad-core with hardware SMT. Each pair of integer cores shares resources.

^ This is correct.

The i5 2500k is a much faster processor.

"The flagship eight-core CPU in the FX family, AMD FX-8150, in most cases can’t catch up even with the quad-core Core i5-2500, performing well only in few selected applications for 3D modeling and during video transcoding.

Slower eight-core modification, AMD FX-8120, looks even less convincing, because it has significantly lower clock frequencies. In terms of performance, this processor ranks even below the quad-core competitor solutions. Moreover, FX-8120 is also slower than the top previous-generation AMD CPU – Phenom II X6 1100T."


"It turns out that the only one who may benefit from the upcoming migration from Phenom II to the new FX family is AMD. Bulldozer microarchitecture allows the company to stop using old manufacturing process for their semiconductor dies and move on to the new cores with lower production cost. However, the end users won’t win in this situation. FX CPUs that are coming to replace the good old Phenom II processors are not faster or cheaper than their predecessors. Therefore, until processors on new Piledriver microarchitecture come out, the new FX are of no real interest to AMD fans and Phenom II owners. FX CPUs are also hardly appealing for the new systems: Intel’s Core i5 and Core i3 processors can offer better combination of price and performance in a wide range of tasks with only a few exceptions such as video transcoding in x264 codec and selected 3D rendering applications."


http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-8120-6100-4100_10.html

 

[esrever]

the FX is only good for rendering and video editing.

for gaming the i5 will be better, also 8 cores will not be needed for a long time going by the rate software is moving at the current point. We are just starting to use more than 2 cores and it has been 6 years since the first quad cores.

 

[de5_Roy]

i5 2500k is cheaper, offers better overall performance for price, is much more efficient compared to fx.
http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0354589 @$180
8150's power-performance efficiency goes down with overclock, stock performance is worse compared to 2500k.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-power-consumption-efficiency,3060.html
undervolting improves slightly.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/bulldozer-efficiency-overclock-undervolt,3083.html
there are windows 7 patches out, that improve overall performance for fx by 1-2% (amd's figures).
at 4 ghz, 2500k > 8150. unless you're running 4 simultaneous vms and using pov rendering 24/7.

 

[13thmonkey]

the base clock for the amd requires a lower multiplier to get to your desired frequency of 4.0 ghz, the intel would require double the multiplier to get the same frequency, make he right choice...

Which has what to do with anything exactly?

Why water, cheap air beats basic water almost all of the time, and there's nothing to go wrong with air.

 

[jdwii]

^ This is correct.

The i5 2500k is a much faster processor.

"The flagship eight-core CPU in the FX family, AMD FX-8150, in most cases can’t catch up even with the quad-core Core i5-2500, performing well only in few selected applications for 3D modeling and during video transcoding.

Slower eight-core modification, AMD FX-8120, looks even less convincing, because it has significantly lower clock frequencies. In terms of performance, this processor ranks even below the quad-core competitor solutions. Moreover, FX-8120 is also slower than the top previous-generation AMD CPU – Phenom II X6 1100T."


"It turns out that the only one who may benefit from the upcoming migration from Phenom II to the new FX family is AMD. Bulldozer microarchitecture allows the company to stop using old manufacturing process for their semiconductor dies and move on to the new cores with lower production cost. However, the end users won’t win in this situation. FX CPUs that are coming to replace the good old Phenom II processors are not faster or cheaper than their predecessors. Therefore, until processors on new Piledriver microarchitecture come out, the new FX are of no real interest to AMD fans and Phenom II owners. FX CPUs are also hardly appealing for the new systems: Intel’s Core i5 and Core i3 processors can offer better combination of price and performance in a wide range of tasks with only a few exceptions such as video transcoding in x264 codec and selected 3D rendering applications."


http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-8120-6100-4100_10.html

Sorry to say it but your some what wrong CMT is not in anyway like SMT people some times forget that. 8 core bulldozer have 8 integer cores. CMT works better and scales higher then smt does. SMT is about 30% scaling where cmt is 80% scaling. For rendering and encoding the 8 core would be better for gaming it all depends what will age better BD or sandy as of today the 4 core wins hands down but what about 3 years from now? To me i do more then just game i encode and render quite a bit so i would go with the 8 core and OC it i also Feel the 8 core will age like wine while the 4 core will age like milk. The future is more and more multithreaded and less about single-threaded apps. Not to mention Amd has better boards for the money then Intel does.(whats up with micro being close to the only option for boards that cost 100$ or less?)

 

[OOZMAN]

like I said, they are very close in most gaming test's... but for futures sake, would it be better to have 8 cores for a system to last a few years?

I realize the i5 comes out ontop.. but what i've seen, the dozer can easily hit 4.5ghz at a lower temp. than the i5.. so surely, OC'd they'd both be more than enough?

Close? How is that close? The 2500k brutally annihilates the FX in gaming.

AS for the temp thing, the 2500k can stand higher temps than the FX, you gotta look at how far from the tjMax your cpu is when overclocking, not the actual temp. For example, it would be risky to go over 50C with the FX, but 2500k can handle 70C+ easy.

 

[esrever]

most cpu are close enough that the gpu is the bottleneck in most games.

 

[gamerk316]

Core count isn't the only factor; per-core performance matters just as much. The i5-2500k is simply a more powerful processor.

The entire BD line is good for servers, where running multiple applications allows teh chip to scale better, but for the desktop, where only one heavy application is typically running at a time, it simply will not scale well.

 

[st4rkill3r]

At this point there's no big difference in games between those CPUs, but in the (near) future games will surely run better on multicore rigs. In my opinion Intel's > all, but if you want performance at a decent price go for the AMD.

 

[Chad Boga]

At this point there's no big difference in games between those CPUs, but in the (near) future games will surely run better on multicore rigs. In my opinion Intel's > all, but if you want performance at a decent price go for the AMD.

How does that statement stack up when the FX 8150 is dearer than the i5 2500k.

It ain't 1999 any more.

 

[13thmonkey]

How does that statement stack up when the FX 8150 is dearer than the i5 2500k.

It ain't 1999 any more.

You've got a point, but he's got a groovy/scary name, therefore his advice must be better.

 

[outlw6669]

Using the computer for pretty much Youtube/Web browsing and Gaming...

Which do you think would be the best option to go with the AMD FX 8150 @ 4ghz or the i5 2500k @ 4ghz

Which ever one I get will be liquid cooled with a corsair h100, so as far as gaming use/temps...etc, what would you choose?

For basic computing tasks (Web, YouTube, Office, etc.) both processors are plenty powerful enough and I doubt you could tell the difference between them.

For gaming the i5 2500k is, hands down, a much more powerful processor.

 

[st4rkill3r]

You've got a point, but he's got a groovy/scary name, therefore his advice must be better.

What's wrong with my statement? He said he wants the cpu future proof, so I recommended the AMD, given the fact it has more cores than the i5 and it's cheaper than the i7.
Your name is super "awesome" compared to mine, kid.

 

[rage33]

What's wrong with my statement? He said he wants the cpu future proof, so I recommended the AMD, given the fact it has more cores than the i5 and it's cheaper than the i7.
Your name is super "awesome" compared to mine, kid.

Nothing is wrong with your statement, however you failed to endorse Intel, therefore you must be destroyed. Have you not seen all the synthetic benchmarks showing Intel's pure domination?......