Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

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

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 22, 2012 11:44:58 PM

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?

More about : 8150 2500k

a c 184 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
January 22, 2012 11:56:48 PM

Oc'ed i5-2500k, clock for clock the i5-2500k outperforms the fx 8150.
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2012 12:11:12 AM

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...
Related resources
a c 252 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
January 23, 2012 12:48:07 AM

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.
January 23, 2012 12:52:15 AM

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?
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2012 12:57:14 AM

everything is going multicore and software is being more and more optimised for parallel processing where more lower clocked cores win over all
a c 252 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
January 23, 2012 1:03:07 AM

Beitzel15 said:
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
January 23, 2012 1:36:24 AM

clutchc said:
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?
a c 252 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
January 23, 2012 1:44:21 AM

Beitzel15 said:
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).
January 23, 2012 1:54:22 AM

xaira said:
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.

Beitzel15 said:
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.
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2012 3:07:11 AM

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?Submi...|19-103-961^19-103-961-TS%2C19-103-960^19-103-960-TS
a c 218 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
January 23, 2012 5:00:43 AM

sykozis said:
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-812...
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2012 5:39:11 AM

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.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
January 23, 2012 5:40:18 AM

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... @$180
8150's power-performance efficiency goes down with overclock, stock performance is worse compared to 2500k.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-power-consumptio...
undervolting improves slightly.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/bulldozer-efficienc...
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.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
January 23, 2012 5:48:43 AM

xaira said:
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.
January 23, 2012 7:19:56 AM

anort3 said:
^ 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-812...




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?)
January 23, 2012 7:24:20 AM

Beitzel15 said:
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. :kaola: 

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.
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2012 7:28:43 AM

most cpu are close enough that the gpu is the bottleneck in most games.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
January 23, 2012 11:17:07 AM

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.
January 23, 2012 1:58:24 PM

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.
January 23, 2012 2:00:17 PM

st4rkill3r said:
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.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
January 23, 2012 2:02:30 PM

Chad Boga said:
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.
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2012 2:42:13 PM

Beitzel15 said:
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.
January 23, 2012 4:13:14 PM

13thmonkey said:
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.
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2012 4:42:32 PM

st4rkill3r said:
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?......
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
January 23, 2012 4:47:48 PM

st4rkill3r said:
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.


but its more expensive than the i5, and not as good, regardless of core count. So how is it better and cheaper when it is neither.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
January 23, 2012 4:52:39 PM

st4rkill3r said:
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.


As someone whos actually coded games before, I again express my doubt that games, much less any other general user application, will ever scale well beyond 4 cores or so, for various reasons.

And I also note, having 8 slow cores can be significantly worse then 4 fast ones. Core count by itself is not a good enough indicator for performance.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
January 23, 2012 5:01:26 PM

I was thinking that going from 1 to 2 cores was a jump in coding requirements and going from 2 to more than 2 another big jump, and 4 is just many i.e. a hex core will have 6 cores used on BF3, and a quad would have 4.
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2012 5:05:46 PM

the i5 by far
January 23, 2012 6:56:27 PM

Well you might be right, I'm not a coder, but some say that future software will benefit on the extra cores (4-6-8), in my opinion the best gaming CPU is i7 2600k, but the best value CPU is the i5 2500k, the FX is good enough for any game right now and has the extra cores for work and other activities.
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2012 6:57:08 PM

the i7 offers nothing for gaming.
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2012 7:19:53 PM

i7 is good for photo editing but i agree the i5 2500k is by far the best gaming cpu
January 23, 2012 7:45:28 PM

In certain games such as skyrim The I5 will pull ahead in others your GPU will be bottleneck. In rendering and encoding the 8 core will pull ahead if your using software that is heavily multithreaded such as hand break. If all your going to do is game then get the I5 but i can tell you that either will be fine to use for gaming some people make a big deal about 10fps today while both processors are getting over 60fps on usually a gtx580. Not to mention Amd has better boards for the money that do things such as CF. You can get a decent ATX(not micro) board with 4 ram slots and that can do CF for just 110$ and it also comes with USB 3.0 and sata 6GB. But for others stop saying BD is smt that is 100% wrong. CMT and SMT are 2 different things.
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2012 7:55:47 PM

de5_Roy said:
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... @$180
8150's power-performance efficiency goes down with overclock, stock performance is worse compared to 2500k.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-power-consumptio...
undervolting improves slightly.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/bulldozer-efficienc...
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.


First of all, 1.5V at 4.6 ghz is just stupid and unnecessary. This is my 8120 on a multiplier OC.



http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2212932

3dmark physics score 7740

@266 mhz fsb, 3dmark at 8190

cinebench both hits 7.6 scores
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
January 23, 2012 8:10:48 PM

but they are different chip processes, max of 1.5V is intels limit, whats AMD's. They are just different. didn't the power consumption go through the roof when overclocked to that degree, indicating its pullinga lot more current, current makes heat P=I^2xR
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2012 8:34:44 PM

13thmonkey said:
but they are different chip processes, max of 1.5V is intels limit, whats AMD's. They are just different. didn't the power consumption go through the roof when overclocked to that degree, indicating its pullinga lot more current, current makes heat P=I^2xR

Power went through the roof because of the 1.5v. Re-test at 1.344v and see how much difference there is. Its easy to just crank the voltage up to prove your point that if you try, you can draw power ... any moron can figure that one out.

Properly showing what its capable of is a whole different story, after all, no one wants to see the good side of AMD. otherwise not every post where someone asking about cpus would be told to buy Intel for even asking wich AMD cpu to buy.

As for BD's max volts, I have seen where people are pushing 1.6v through bd to reach 5+ghz so BD can handle some juice. Also realize your overclocking 4+4 cores (4 modules) vs 4 cores on intel, of course its going to draw more power, but not as much as Toms wants you to believe.
January 24, 2012 1:03:46 AM

13thmonkey said:
but they are different chip processes, max of 1.5V is intels limit, whats AMD's. They are just different. didn't the power consumption go through the roof when overclocked to that degree, indicating its pullinga lot more current, current makes heat P=I^2xR

Yes, Bulldozer's power consumption skyrockets when overclocked and actually rivals nVidia's GTX480 and 580 for power consumption....
a b à CPUs
January 24, 2012 2:34:06 AM

i have a 8120 and it works just as well as a i5 2500k and can be overclocked really high, theres no way in games you can see a difference beacause no games uses the fx or i5 fully and overclocking might take more power but if you have a good power supply then no problem.
a b à CPUs
January 24, 2012 8:40:01 AM

amuffin said:
:heink:  my i5-2500k @4.5ghz pulls in 7.81

Lol. I will call your bluff. Considering cinebench is very consistent with clock speeds posting the same scores pretty much on every website and every forum, the only I5-2500 at 7.7+ is 5ghz

If that was a typo then I apologize.

25 pages, to look through. http://www.overclock.net/t/668617/cinebench-r11-5-score...

Another 7 pages. http://forums.overclockersclub.com/index.php?showtopic=...

sorry, but I don't see it happening.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
January 24, 2012 8:57:05 AM

did amuffin make a typo? his sig reads i7 2600k...may be another rig...
anyway, don't see how cinebench and 3dmark affect casual web browsing and gaming.
@noob and rage: you guys sorta proved that 8150 is worse for overclocking (with overclocks from your 8120s).
8120 @ 4.2 ghz... that's only 200 mhz over it's max turbo. that's almost similar to oc'ing a core i5 2500 non k. :p 
problem is, fx's overall performance is so darn inconsistent that talking about it has become tiresome. power consumption is far worse.
we should keep in mind that every cpu is different. performance among owners will vary.
the overall best option between overclocked fx 8150 and 2500k is still the 2500k, until amd releases something that changes it.
a b à CPUs
January 24, 2012 9:26:07 AM

Trolololol - lololololol - lolololololol

Moar Flame War.

For the love of god close this thread. Its rediculous.

2500k is the faster CPU Stock and OC'd - Its a known fact.

Its not a case of, this is better here, this is better there, the 2500k is faster in more things, and by a larger margin than the 8150 is vice versa.

There is no need for flame wars, the facts are there and they are simple enough to understand.

And I don't want any of this "YOUR INTEL FAN LOOK AT PIC" - I just like Kentsfield. If you don't know what that is, then look it up.
a b à CPUs
January 24, 2012 9:28:37 AM

de5_Roy said:
did amuffin make a typo? his sig reads i7 2600k...may be another rig...
anyway, don't see how cinebench and 3dmark affect casual web browsing and gaming.
@noob and rage: you guys sorta proved that 8150 is worse for overclocking (with overclocks from your 8120s).
8120 @ 4.2 ghz... that's only 200 mhz over it's max turbo. that's almost similar to oc'ing a core i5 2500 non k. :p 
problem is, fx's overall performance is so darn inconsistent that talking about it has become tiresome. power consumption is far worse.
we should keep in mind that every cpu is different. performance among owners will vary.
the overall best option between overclocked fx 8150 and 2500k is still the 2500k, until amd releases something that changes it.

Thats not my max oc, thats my 49C overclock. 5.0ghz required 1.43v and hit 62C, still lower voltage than toms 1.5v 4.6ghz overclock. Temps were more than I want but 5.0 on the i7's are just as hot if not hotter. 90% of the population are more comfortable at a balanced overclock, wether it be Intel or AMD and that ranges from 4.5-4.8 ghz for both. That 7 pages on overclockersclub didn't have a single verified 5.0ghz sandy brigde posted, even those were 4 out of 41 people.

If that was a typo on the 2600k and not 2500k, then ya, I can easily see that.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
January 24, 2012 9:56:48 AM

i just noticed something (sorry for not noticing it earlier):
4.0 ghz is entirely within fx 8150's limits. it's turbo core speed is 3.9 ghz, max turbo 4.2 ghz.
took another look at the article about fx's efficiency compared to other cpus and the one on 8150's oc efficiency. in the first article, both fx 8150 and the core i5 are running at stock speeds.
during single and multithreaded loads , the 8150 should be running at or near 4 ghz, because fx's turbo core tech is more consistent and effective compared to amd's older cpus. after comparing the figures, the i5 2500K, even at stock, seems like the better cpu.
i hope this clarifies things a bit.
a b à CPUs
January 24, 2012 10:07:03 AM

The biggest issue is unless your spending $1000 on gpus, you won't notice a difference in games. I have yet to find a game where changing my speed from 4.2ghz to 4.7 make any significant difference other than loading times. All situations are basically 100% gpu bottleneck when looking at FPS with my single 5870. Maybe in another 3 years I might notice a difference with the newest video card from the future, but now .. no.
a b à CPUs
January 24, 2012 10:18:58 AM

Call me silly but the 2500K is a bit down on price on the 8150, so if you can afford a 8150 you can easily pay for a 26002700K, in which case the 8150 has absolutely no chance. The 2500K will run the 8150 close across the board it will suffer in highly threaded apps without the assistance of HT, but in gaming and single thread will blow the 8150 out of the water by 15+ FPS at least.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
January 24, 2012 11:04:23 AM

actually, core i7 2600k/2700k costs quite a lot more than fx 8150. only microcenter prices are closer to 8150, still higher. many people do not have microcenter access.
a b à CPUs
January 24, 2012 12:36:56 PM

Well the cheapest I can get a FX 8150 for is R2989 while a i7 2600K comes in at around R3199 and the i7 2700K is about R200 more, all in all R100-300 difference is a small amount to pay for performance over and above the FX8150, in short if you are able to pay for a FX 8150 and matching Mobo, you can afford a i7 SB and in turn there is absolutely no reason to even consider a FX processor right now.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
January 24, 2012 1:57:12 PM

noob2222 said:
The biggest issue is unless your spending $1000 on gpus, you won't notice a difference in games. I have yet to find a game where changing my speed from 4.2ghz to 4.7 make any significant difference other than loading times. All situations are basically 100% gpu bottleneck when looking at FPS with my single 5870. Maybe in another 3 years I might notice a difference with the newest video card from the future, but now .. no.


Provably false:

http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_conten...

Note how OC had no effect on performance? That could be due to some of BDs other defficencies [cache latency, etc].

http://www.techspot.com/review/452-amd-bulldozer-fx-cpu...

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-r...

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review...

Note how the minute resolution is moved down a single notch, how much worse BD does compared to SB. This indicates that BD is JUST powerful enough to keep the GPU happy, and indicates that in CF/SLI rigs, or after the next GPU refresh, BD could look even WORSE as the GPU will be less of a bottleneck.

Hence why the argument that BD has legroom going forward is just silly. BD could very well be a CPU bottleneck if the next generation of GPU's are as powerful as is being roumered.
!