Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

If AMD FX-8150 selling at the same price as i5-2500K...

Last response: in CPUs
Share

If the price for AMD FX-8150 is the same price level as i5-2500K. Which one will you buy?

Total: 89 votes (13 blank votes)

  • INTEL i5-2500K
  • 81 %
  • AMD FX-8150
  • 20 %
a b à CPUs
March 3, 2012 6:36:12 AM

This is a marketing discussion ....

If the price for AMD FX-8150 is the same price level as i5-2500K...say $209 US

Will you switch to AMD ?

Assume you need to buy the MB at the same time...
Assume you looking for new system now...
:sarcastic: 
a c 186 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 3, 2012 9:17:08 AM

Once you go sandybridge, you can never go back! :lol: 
Related resources
a c 82 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 3, 2012 10:04:30 AM

2500k is selling for $225 on newegg, $180 at microcenter.
fx 8150 is selling for $250 on newegg, $260 at microcenter.
amd will have to lower prices quite a bit for their top of the line, top binned cpu like the i7 cpus represent intel's top of the line cpus. they are unlikely to lower 8150 prices anytime soon. amd positioned 8150 between 2500k and i7 cpus, not behind the 2500k.
pricewise, the 8120 is closer to i5 cpus in general. fx 8120 is selling for $200 at both newegg and microcenter.
in the end, the decision would be no, 2500k would still be the better buy imo. however, other people might disagree with my choice.
a b à CPUs
March 3, 2012 2:39:32 PM

....ohhh.. first 8 hour ...75% still support i5-2500K... Out of my expectation....I assume will be 50/50...Let's see what's going on...

First ..see wheather we can gather 100 people in the poll to make some conclusion..
a b à CPUs
March 3, 2012 3:15:13 PM

de5_Roy said:
like the i7 cpus represent intel's top of the line cpus. they are unlikely to lower 8150 prices anytime soon. amd positioned 8150 between 2500k and i7 cpus, not behind the 2500k.
pricewise, the 8120 is closer to i5 cpus in general. fx 8120 is selling for $200 at both newegg and microcenter.
in the end, the decision would be no, 2500k would still be the better buy imo. however, other people might disagree with my choice.


I understand the position of FX-8150....if I use FX-8120 as compare I will assume people support i5-2500K will still support....

becausye not that significant on the performance different.... But FX-8150 should be better than i5-2500K by most of the review....
AMD is loss the market now... and is so confuse with all the FX / APU...

If AMD can put FX-8150 in i5-2500K Position ... can they gain back the market position....

a b à CPUs
March 3, 2012 3:21:37 PM

sonexpc said:
I understand the position of FX-8150....if I use FX-8120 as compare I will assume people support i5-2500K will still support....

becausye not that significant on the performance different.... But FX-8150 should be better than i5-2500K by most of the review....
AMD is loss the market now... and is so confuse with all the FX / APU...

If AMD can put FX-8150 in i5-2500K Position ... can they gain back the market position....


IMO this is more of a flamebait thread than a useful one.. But if by the above you mean the 8150 performs better than the 2500K, you should note that Tom's is an enthusiast site - lots of gamers here - and most of the reviews around the web show the 2500K as being much superior to the 8150 in gaming. Sure, some of the AMD fans trot out the anomalous review here & there but those are fairly few and far between. Given the current price advantage for the 2500K, there really is no controversy left for this thread to usefully explore..

If you really want the truth, buy both systems and then bench according to what you use..
a b à CPUs
March 3, 2012 4:28:30 PM

I really mean is for the hardware specification FX-8150 VS i5-2500K
CPU : FX-8150 -VS- i5-2500K
Core Frequency: 3.60 GHz -VS- 3.3 GHz
No. Of Cores: 4 Modules , 8 Cores -VS- 4 ( 4 Hyperthreads)
Cache Organization: 4 x 2MB L2, 8 MB L3 -VS- 6 MB Intel Smart Cache
Turbo Frequency: 4.20 GHz ( 4 Cores), 3.90 GHz ( 8 Cores) -VS- 3.7 GHz
TDP Rating: 125 Watts -VS-95 Watts
Lithography: 32 nm -VS- 32 nm
Integrated Memory Controller: DDR3-1866 -VS- DDR3-1333

http://compare-processors.com/amd-bulldozer-peformance-...

how come that good hardware specification on FX-8150 still canot beat i5-2500K in most of the GAME Benchmark Review.....


Here is the more review compare the FX-8150
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FX8150/

It show FX-8150 is not loss to i5-2500K in each of the benchmark...Actually in some benchmark FX-8150 is very good..

But what cause the overall performance like that...?
a b à CPUs
March 3, 2012 4:50:27 PM

Unless your main use is multicore/multithreaded oriented the SB will kill any
AMD available. I expect that the final poll results will be 80%-20% for SB because this is a enthusiast/gamer site.

The main reason for the SB advantage is the design which provides enhanced graphics performance over the AMD design. It's funny that AMD, which is a major GPU producer should have a CPU design that produces inferior graphic support.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 3, 2012 5:11:34 PM

sonexpc said:
I really mean is for the hardware specification FX-8150 VS i5-2500K
CPU : FX-8150 -VS- i5-2500K
Core Frequency: 3.60 GHz -VS- 3.3 GHz
No. Of Cores: 4 Modules , 8 Cores -VS- 4 ( 4 Hyperthreads)
Cache Organization: 4 x 2MB L2, 8 MB L3 -VS- 6 MB Intel Smart Cache
Turbo Frequency: 4.20 GHz ( 4 Cores), 3.90 GHz ( 8 Cores) -VS- 3.7 GHz
TDP Rating: 125 Watts -VS-95 Watts
Lithography: 32 nm -VS- 32 nm
Integrated Memory Controller: DDR3-1866 -VS- DDR3-1333

http://compare-processors.com/amd-bulldozer-peformance-...

how come that good hardware specification on FX-8150 still canot beat i5-2500K in most of the GAME Benchmark Review.....


Here is the more review compare the FX-8150
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FX8150/

It show FX-8150 is not loss to i5-2500K in each of the benchmark...Actually in some benchmark FX-8150 is very good..

But what cause the overall performance like that...?


What looks good on paper, does not always result to good in the real world. BDs paper looked great. CMT looked like a great idea. But it doesn't always translate to good in the real world. HyperThreading looked great on paper for the Pentium 4. But in most cases it made the CPU perform less. Maybe it will take a few iterations for CMT to work well.

As for why the performance, clock speed and memory speed is almost pointless these days. Thats why when the BD was overclocked to 8+GHz, I just ignored it. BD has lower IPC than Core does and that hurts performance a lot. Even with higher clock speed it only keeps up with it.

Memory, while faster is nice, doesn't mean anything. I build a lot of Intel and AMD systems and even with 1866MHz RAM, AMDs memory bandwidth is always lower than Intels. Probably a IMC thing but still it doesn't mean anything. There is soooo much memory bandwidth that you can have 2x the bandwidth and most DT apps wont care. Its the same reason why Phenom I couldn't beat Core 2 Quad even with a IMC. In server applications though a IMC with more memory bandwidth helps a lot.

Still I voted for the 2500K and went and bought one too. Its a very good CPU. Plus I don't want to overclock the CPU and use half of my PSUs power for it.
a c 186 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 3, 2012 5:57:54 PM

Some guy is seriously using passmark to compare processors??? :non: 
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 3, 2012 6:25:01 PM

If your going the bulldozer route get the fx-8120
a b à CPUs
March 3, 2012 7:35:00 PM

Went with the Intel i5-2500k. And my choice is more governed by the better MB chipset and driver support from Intel. As for "CPU speed", Both are faster than what I need.
And I'm Not a gamer.
a c 186 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 3, 2012 7:37:21 PM

I would get an fx-8150 just for rendering, but then power usage from the wall is insane :/  and microcenter didn't offer the motherboard deal with the fx. So i5-2500k was a better deal at the time.
a b à CPUs
March 3, 2012 8:29:16 PM

sonexpc said:
I really mean is for the hardware specification FX-8150 VS i5-2500K
CPU : FX-8150 -VS- i5-2500K
Core Frequency: 3.60 GHz -VS- 3.3 GHz
No. Of Cores: 4 Modules , 8 Cores -VS- 4 ( 4 Hyperthreads)
Cache Organization: 4 x 2MB L2, 8 MB L3 -VS- 6 MB Intel Smart Cache
Turbo Frequency: 4.20 GHz ( 4 Cores), 3.90 GHz ( 8 Cores) -VS- 3.7 GHz
TDP Rating: 125 Watts -VS-95 Watts
Lithography: 32 nm -VS- 32 nm
Integrated Memory Controller: DDR3-1866 -VS- DDR3-1333

http://compare-processors.com/amd-bulldozer-peformance-...

how come that good hardware specification on FX-8150 still canot beat i5-2500K in most of the GAME Benchmark Review.....


Here is the more review compare the FX-8150
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FX8150/

It show FX-8150 is not loss to i5-2500K in each of the benchmark...Actually in some benchmark FX-8150 is very good..

But what cause the overall performance like that...?


There's much more to analyze.. you can't compare architectures for example. There's no such comparation like that... like we do with numbers..
5 is higher than 4. This is ok and straight forward.. but how can you compare architecture, pipelines, branch prediction, cycle redundance, resource allocation, memory latency, and a bunchload of stuff that doesn't even need to be write right here?
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 3, 2012 8:54:36 PM

Quote:
If your going the bulldozer route get the fx-8120


Yeah overclocked they perform the same. I really see no reason to get the 8150. There's no advantage to paying more.
a b à CPUs
March 3, 2012 9:21:57 PM

THe first time I used a PC it's an Intel platform way bask in the 90's and it's an Intel 486, then came 586 with DOS(Disk Operating System), then Windows 3.1 then came Windows 95, 98 2000, XP and so on. And then Pentium 1, 2, 3, 4 and beyond. My trust is in Intel and Widows.
a c 117 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 3, 2012 9:40:01 PM

wow some absolute loonacy here... the only time the fx gets anywhere near the 2500k is on apps that use more than 4 cores even then the results are marginal.
the fx has to run faster and use more cores to even be considdered in the same benchmarks... if you go off 4 or less threaded apps there is a huge difference often as much as 50%...
if your gonna compare like for like then you have to set the 8150 up against the 2600k as it to can handle 8 threads and only then will the benches reflect the true differences...
its just a fact that buldozer is not in the same class as the intel parts unless you skew the tests in the fx's favour...
frankly the poll is showing a 75% prefrence to intel... they aint all from intel fanboys just people who prefer to buy the best performing parts for the money...
for gaming the fx cant even keep up with a phenom 2 as its single threading performance is weaker than the P2, so how the hell do you expect it to compare to an intel part... seriously guy its wishful thinking on your part that the 2 cpu's are even on performance....

i know them benches are skewed as they are an amd sponsored. but go to many other independent sites and you will see when they bench the cpu's, they show a totally different story...

if you want to spend your money and get less performance thats up to you but please dont bother trying to sell it to us...

a bag of shite is always gonna smell no matter how much perfume you drown it in.


oh and just for refrence go into the games section and see how many "why is my fx cpu having issues with this game or this gfx card" there are. they are from members who didnt listen to other members when told not to buy an fx part...
a b à CPUs
March 3, 2012 9:59:19 PM

I'm not a gamer, but I would rather have the 2500K between the two. It draws less power for one, and I really don't need 8 cores for my purposes, which includes Photoshop at least once a day.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 3, 2012 10:17:05 PM

runswindows95 said:
I'm not a gamer, but I would rather have the 2500K between the two. It draws less power for one, and I really don't need 8 cores for my purposes, which includes Photoshop at least once a day.


Even when a 2600k is overclocked it barely gets a high in power consumption as the FX-8150 at stock:





A 2500K is even better (206w at 4.6GHz vs 406).

The FX-8150 nearly doubles its power consumption for a 27.7% overclock (4.6GHz). Its actully a 69.1% power draw increase for 27.7% better clock speeds. The 2500K goes from 128 to 206 which is a 60.09% power draw increase for a 39.4% overclock.

Either way you slice it, FX is a power hog.
a b à CPUs
March 3, 2012 10:21:08 PM

Agreed, hence my choice in Intel.
a c 478 à CPUs
a c 120 À AMD
March 3, 2012 10:26:04 PM

Yeah, the Core i5 is the easy choice since it generally performs better and the power consumption is not crazy high especially when overclocked. The only thing that I do which can use more than 4 cores is the occasional video encoding with Handbrake.

Most games don't even use 4 cores and I don't really play that many games. Most of the time (especially when not gaming) the programs I use like FireFox and sometime Word and Excel which only uses one core. Therefore, having 8 cores for me would mean most of the cores will be idling most of the time.
a b à CPUs
March 3, 2012 11:10:46 PM

The only real reason to go with the FX octo is if your main uses can utilize all 8 cores effectively.
a c 117 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 3, 2012 11:48:18 PM

even then i wouldnt. id rather have the inital higher outlay of the 2600k and let the reduced power consumption repay the difference over the first year. after that its intel for the win. reduced cost of running in the uk would make a significant difference on my bills over the lifetime of the cpu saving upwards of £70 a year. currently 1 kw costs between 9p and 21p (night and day prices) on average i use just over 5 Kw per day and 1.5-2 of that is the pc as you can see it costs me about £120 per year just to run my setup you could easily add £70 to that if i was running an fx oc'd to 4.7 end result over say 5 years is a fair wack of £300+ which is way more than the difference in inital price...
i would still be up by over £200 and thats a conservative estimate as the price of electricity has over doubled the last 5 years and is likely to go up by half again over the next 5... it may not seem a lot to some of you but when your on a limited budget it really can make the difference on what cpu to buy...

what im getting at its not just the inital outlay that should sway your decision to buy a certain model, its the overall cost to performance you get...
a b à CPUs
March 4, 2012 4:47:26 AM

First 24 hour..... 80% Support i5-2500K...looks like will keep increase...
March 4, 2012 5:00:34 AM

I will support i5-2500k coz of monthly electric bil ~
and better performance in gaming ~
a c 186 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 4, 2012 5:20:08 AM

I really would like an 8 core for rendering, but too much power usage. Electric bill would go up :(  So thats why I will hold out until intel makes their 8 core chips and get 1 for rendering purposes.
a b à CPUs
March 4, 2012 12:45:37 PM

80 %, seems I've seen that number before, AW yes I remember.
Quote
The latest numbers from IHS iSuppli show that Intel was first for the full year of 2010 in global revenue with 81% of all sales.
End quote
Ref: http://www.dailytech.com/2010+Processor+Market+Share+De...

Then there is Passmark, Not the benchmarks, just the number of people recording their performance. Were close to even in 2006, looks closer to 75%/25% currently
AMD vs Intel Market Share
Updated 4th of March 2012
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/market_share.html
a b à CPUs
March 4, 2012 1:09:52 PM

sonexpc said:
Here is the more review compare the FX-8150
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FX8150/

It show FX-8150 is not loss to i5-2500K in each of the benchmark...Actually in some benchmark FX-8150 is very good..

But what cause the overall performance like that...?


But that suite of benchmarks only shows the 8150 as significantly(10% or more) faster than the 2600K in about 3 benchmarks - WinRAR compression and the Truecrypt codec. How often does a typical desktop user make use of those strengths in a typical day on the PC?

Throwing out the purely synthetic benchmarks and concentrating what a typical desktop user is more likely to do (audio, video, gaming), the 2600K typically outperforms the 8150, sometimes as much as 40% or more.

IMO, the 8150 is a server CPU that AMD has tried to shoehorn into the desktop space, and not too successfully. While it is not a bad CPU, it's also not as good as the competition (and in some benchmark, not as good as the previous Phenom 2 generation). No reason at all to 'upgrade' if you have an AMD P2 or a Nehalem or better Intel system. And for pure gaming, the 2500K is much better and at lower cost than the 8150.

If you need workstation or server capability, then you should be comparing the 8150 to the 6-core Intel SB CPUs IMO, and then deciding if the extra cost of Intel is worth the extra performance.

As I said previously, the buyer needs to figure out his or her primary usage and then decide, or buy both and benchmark for himself :p ..
a b à CPUs
March 4, 2012 1:28:30 PM

aqe040466 said:
THe first time I used a PC it's an Intel platform way bask in the 90's and it's an Intel 486, then came 586 with DOS(Disk Operating System), then Windows 3.1 then came Windows 95, 98 2000, XP and so on. And then Pentium 1, 2, 3, 4 and beyond. My trust is in Intel and Widows.


LOL - with that many computers, I'm sure your wife feels like a widow :D .

My gaming PC is in the basement (typical nerd arrangement :D ), so my wife has to go down 2 flights of steps to fetch me at night :p ..
a b à CPUs
March 4, 2012 1:32:11 PM

All the info posted in this thread has been discussed already, over and over again. Nothing to see here - time to move on, folks...
a b à CPUs
March 4, 2012 2:28:00 PM

@ fazers_on_stun. Much prefer to play with wife than computer game!! Computer located on same floor as Wife.
a b à CPUs
March 4, 2012 3:19:32 PM

RetiredChief said:
@ fazers_on_stun. Much prefer to play with wife than computer game!! Computer located on same floor as Wife.


Well I prefer a bed to the floor, but to each his own :D .. :whistle: 

My wife has no problem talking with her family in Vietnam for hours at a time when she gets home from work in the evenings, no matter what I'm doing or want to do, but when she's ready to go nighty-night and maybe I'm not, then that's a whole different story :p .. But then, when has it ever been different in married life??
a b à CPUs
March 5, 2012 10:17:46 AM

fazers_on_stun said:
Well I prefer a bed to the floor, but to each his own :D .. :whistle: 

My wife has no problem talking with her family in Vietnam for hours at a time when she gets home from work in the evenings, no matter what I'm doing or want to do, but when she's ready to go nighty-night and maybe I'm not, then that's a whole different story :p .. But then, when has it ever been different in married life??


:lol: 
you big (naughty) boys, have fun.
a c 186 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 5, 2012 2:35:36 PM



:pt1cable: 
a b à CPUs
March 6, 2012 3:29:59 AM

After 48 hours.... 80% vote for intel i5-2500K...then the next question want to know is @ what price level you will consider to use FX-8150 instead of i5-2500K?
a c 186 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 6, 2012 3:34:16 AM

$170.
a c 82 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 6, 2012 3:42:06 AM

sonexpc said:
After 48 hours.... 80% vote for intel i5-2500K...then the next question want to know is @ what price level you will consider to use FX-8150 instead of i5-2500K?

$150 or $120 or less
reason: i could use the extra cach to buy a decent lcs (amd recommends one to be used with fx) or a high end cooler like noctua's or phantech's.
a c 117 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 6, 2012 5:02:01 AM

honestly i wouldnt buy 1 ever. i would rather get a turban core and wait till the next issue and see what that brings... if i was given 1 in a setup i would remove it and sell it. you guessed it i would replace it with a 960t...
to me they are a pointless waste of money and time.
a b à CPUs
March 6, 2012 11:07:23 AM

sonexpc said:
....ohhh.. first 8 hour ...75% still support i5-2500K... Out of my expectation....I assume will be 50/50...Let's see what's going on...

First ..see wheather we can gather 100 people in the poll to make some conclusion..


Its simple really: The 2500k is a better CPU. At the same price, the 2500k should get significantly more support.

If BD was $25 or so cheaper, then you'd have close to a 50-50 split.
a c 478 à CPUs
a c 120 À AMD
March 6, 2012 5:13:00 PM

What price? May $150.

Other than the high power draw, most programs I use do not use 8 cores. The only one that can use that many is Handbrake, but I'm not constantly converting a DVD or Blu-Ray using x.264.

Most programs I use are either single core or dual core. The only game I am currently playing that benefits from more than 2 cores is GTA IV because it is such a poorly ported game. However, I am almost finished playing that game.

The only game I'll be playing that uses 4 cores this year is Dragon Age: Origins. However, that's just half of the cores on the FX-8150. The other 2 or 3 games I'll be playing this year do not benefit from more than 2 cores like Skyrim and Mass Effect 3.

So why pay so much for 8 cores if I am not going to be using them all most of the time and only half of them (4) in certain games? I'd rather go for a CPU with 4 strong cores like the i5-2500k rather a CPU with 8 relatively weak cores like FX-8150.

a c 478 à CPUs
a c 120 À AMD
March 6, 2012 5:21:04 PM

Unfortunately, AMD will have to pull another "Athlon XP" trick out of their hat for me to buy another AMD CPU.

The Athlon XP was:

1. A little less expensive than it's comparable P4 counterpart.
2. Consumed less power.
3. Provided a little better performance in most games.

The drawback? Not as good at video encoding like the P4, but that was not a big concern for most people.
!