AMD FX-8150 vs Intel® Core™ i5-2500K for future games

Which one do you think I should get for future games?

i5-2500k.

It also has a much better upgrade path.

True. I don't have any allegience to any brand or product, I have used AMD, Intel, Asus, Gigabyte, MSI, Nvidia, ATI and I will honestly say that despite 2011 being a big year for new chips, nobody really has a good product right now. AMD and their issues are well documented, but even Intel are not ideal. They are high priced for a company that is sandbagging the consumers by not releasing products to full potential.

The i3 could have had a higher stock clock, could have been unlocked, and could have had TB. The i5's could have had HT, and the i7's could have been Hex Cores and the SB-e have hidden cores. I know it is smart business and thats how they role, but we are paying a lot for what 70% potential.

That is if you subscribe to the school of thought that the FX 8150 is a Octo-core. The reality is it is a pseudo octo-core, not a true octo core.

seriously doubt games will suddenly need 8 cores.

hard to say way kind of cpu will be in next gen consoles.

the 2500k is the most superior processor for gaming atm. Regardless of the 8 cores the 8100 is just a 4 core with 8 fp its like hyperthreading, the 2500k beats the i7 because games cannot optimize it.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=288

once they get threading down to an art, you will see more situations like BF3 for example

http://www.techspot.com/review/458 [...] page7.html



you can immediately see why toms got a higher fps by disabling HT on the 2600k, HT core 1 is maxing out in single player.



This is where games seem to be heading with multi-theading. the game itself runs on 1-2 cores and the rest handle additional features, in the case of BF3, multiplayer gaming. A dual core runs fine in single player, but going multiplayer, the game takes a big dump on fewer cores. The additional threads handle the additional players while the main threads concentrate on the game itself and the graphics.

Looking at the comparison between the 2600k and the 8150, you can see a bit of % difference, but consider that windows doesn't treat an HT core as 30% but rather 100%, and 3 of those are at 0 usage. The problem with the 8150 on the other hand is that the game cores are pretty high.

What happens in the future? anyone's guess, but If I was to try and design a cpu, id push for 2 fast, strong, efficient cores supported by numerous helper cores.

i think both processors are good(not even 4 cores are fully used for any game),also heard that hyper threading reduces fps in games that does not use them.fx's eight integer cores shares the resources of a four-module design.see this
http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] ,3119.html

go for a high end gpu if u want to be future proof with games.

definitely 2500k are still a successful stuff in every field of use whether it's gaming or programing both are much faster on i5 and too much closest to the i7 2600k.amd cpu's are cheaper but they don't have an acceptable speed for gaming for maxing it out.

I would say i5

if you want to play games, then intel. if you do a lot of high end photoshop then the fx is the better choice...
but dont be fooled by the fanboys the fx isnt a gaming part. its single threaded performance is seriously gimped. it only shows its true colours when all 8 threads are used. if you buy an fx you will be plagued by bottlenecks on games that require 1 or 2 threads. when you pair it with a gfx card bigger than a gtx 460.

it all depends on whats in the next xbox, I say xbox because thats what the lead platform will most likely be. Most games will be on consoles so when they code the game they make sure it works there well. The 360 has 3 core. 1/2 a core is basically dedicated to the dashboard and other background things. This is why 2 cores are pretty good for this gen. If they make the next xbox have more cores then games might be more threaded.

I doubt the next xbox will have more than 4 cores as it will have a powerpc cpu based on probably the power5 architecture. Might have SMT but don't know how well that will be used since its hardly used in the 360.

as for PC exclusives, I doubt they will try to really pull for more cores since 4 cores are more than enough for general cpu computations. More and more things gets loaded to the gpu as game engines advances. Using 4 cores to the max would be hard enough.

By the end of next gen of consoles we might want more than 4 cores but by then intel would have release the die shrink of haswell. Haswell would probably support 6 cores for the consumer market, might as well wait till then to get more cores. The i5 2500k and the FX8150 will both be old tech by then.

like i said on single or dual threaded apps there will be bottlenecks... there are already a few posts in the games section saying as much...
every 1 of them has a stronger than a gtx 460 card. so no pal you can post all the synthetics you want. in the real world people are struggling with there fx cpu's on a lot of current games.

but the blind test said that the fx was better.

2500k /thread

Hmm...

1. If memory bandwidth is such a key issue then why does a Core i5 750 beat a Core i7 920 in those very same titles eh?!

2. Did you check the resolutions? What kind of person is going to play a game with a GTX 460 at 2560x1600?!

I'm not saying the claim of a GTX 460 bottle-necking a 8150 is true... but I am saying that your post is no more realistic than the claim you reference.


EDIT: On another note... did you take into consideration the higher CPU utilization by the AMD Driver Compiler found in the Catalyst Drivers? You see VLIW4/5 architectures require that work be continually sent to the ALU units to keep them saturated. Also... you need the CPU to intelligently manage which resources to intelligently use to process workloads. You can truly see the difference between the AMD VLIW4/5 architectures and nVIDIAs Fermi (for example) when running F@H. You'll notice that the AMD cards demand far higher CPU utilization.

This may also explain why some people can play BF3 with a Dual Core processor in Multiplayer and others cannot. But this is only theoretical... I'd have to test it.

I'll personally choose the Intel i5-2500k. Even though the FX 8150 has "8 cores", which really is a hoax (it is better said as "8-pseudo cores" than "8 actual cores" ), the i5-2500k still blows the FX 8150 out of the water.

But the downside is that if you want to build a gaming rig using the Intel i5-2500k, you'll spend a heck lot than building a rig using the FX 8150.

Go for i5-2500k in any way! Cheers!

2500K - For per core performance and superior IMC
8150 - Balance not spectacular per core performance but superior multithreading performance.

Overall I would rather go with the $190 8120 as it is nothing less than a small clock boost from the 8150 for a good $40 less. Overall having used both the gaming performance is hardly noticeable between the two, the 2500k's core performance gives it the edge when per core grunt is needed ie: gaming. The FX is not premised on being a gaming grunt but a allrounder, if you plan on using the system for rendering and what not then the FX is a real consideration.

Don't be lured by the "blown away" sensationalism, I ran a stock bench on 3dmark11 with my Thuban and stock 6970 and scored 300 points less than a 4.5ghz 2500K with a slight boosted 6950. at the price point the FX 8000 chips are competing, they more than match the 2500K but thats as far as it goes.

As long as that multi-core optomized game only scales up to two threads. Check toms own sub $200 roundup. Intel dual cores out preform amd in jsut cause, starcraft 2 and skyrim, all of which only scale up to two cores. In metro and dirt three, which scale beyond, amd matches or exceeds the preformance on the Intel DUAL cores.

Amd matches or falls a little behind the i3 in those games, but when you said dual core I also was including the pentiums in my previous statement. Note: when i say fx i am referring to the 6 core variant for this comparison. In metro the FX is better the pentiums by 10% for the g860 and 15% for the g630. In dirt the g630 had a higher minimum then the fx but the fx had a higher average, while the g860 beat the fx in minimum and average. So the 6 core is on par with the pentiums, and a little less powerful then the i3 in the benchmarks that were used for that comparison.