Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I-5 2500k or FX-8120

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 21, 2012 5:59:16 PM

Not sure how close or far apart these are there similar in pricing now is all I am aware of and looked at some benchmarking with the fx slightly higher than then i-5
Would be using it in a new machine for mostly gaming, videos etc nothing like video editing or anything just thought I would ask and will it fall once the Ivy comes out or is the 2500k just a staple now ?

More about : 2500k 8120

March 21, 2012 6:38:17 PM

go with the 8120 if you need to save money. yes the intel chip is better than the fx or amd in that matter. but i have the fx-8120 paired with a gtx 570 superclocked and my gaming is really good.

last thoughts, go intel if you have the money. amd falsely marketed the fx 8120, 8150 as 8 cores, but they are not true 8 cores. i went with amd cause they never done me wrong and i needed to save money. either way imo is a good choice! hope this helps.
m
0
l
Related resources
March 21, 2012 7:11:35 PM

Thanks guys
m
0
l
March 21, 2012 9:41:22 PM

Go with AMD because you can save money on the motherboard and todays games will play fine with all these CPUS.
This is the real fact.
Get a better GPU for the money you save.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 21, 2012 9:47:25 PM

I think your whole computer experience would be better with the Intel - small amount more but at least if you want to go Ivy down the road that option will be open to you. Intel is more efficient clock for clock which means every thing will work better/faster. Also the 2500k overclocks very well without using excessive power. The AMD cpus will overclock but efficiency goes down the drain.
-Bruce
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 21, 2012 9:53:40 PM

There is a reason Intel has most desktop market share - the cpus are just better.
-Bruce
m
0
l
March 21, 2012 9:56:59 PM

ya, ya CPU are just better?
Dude all the games deliver 30 FPS or more for all the CPUs of Intel and AMD (Mid and High) ones.
So why then why go with a expensive build?
You can get better graphics for that.
This is a fact.
m
0
l
March 21, 2012 10:07:19 PM

MellowOut said:
Not sure how close or far apart these are there similar in pricing now is all I am aware of and looked at some benchmarking with the fx slightly higher than then i-5
Would be using it in a new machine for mostly gaming, videos etc nothing like video editing or anything just thought I would ask and will it fall once the Ivy comes out or is the 2500k just a staple now ?

I would expect you to get better performance from the Core i5. Even a stock Core i5 2400 can outperform an FX-8120 overclocked to 4.2 GHz in gaming according to these benchmarks. Those benchmarks do use an overly expensive GPU, but show the capabilities of each processor. Check out this article for a straight comparison of an i3 2100 to an FX-4100 with more realistic graphics card options.
m
0
l
March 21, 2012 10:08:25 PM

Quote:
Subjectively speaking yes they are but how does 10-15% boost in performance that Ivy will bring such a deal when most people are still not even close to maxing out the capabilities of an i5 2500K

Ivy bring 10-15 %
and Pile Driver brings 15-30 % in single core which were AMD lacks.
So who is the boss now?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 21, 2012 10:11:41 PM

I too have a 955BE in the computer I am using right now - Epenis - get real. The previous generation AMDs were better gaming cpus that Bd. Have you looked at any of the Tom's recommended gaming systems lately? AMD is absent!!!! It's not about benchmarks - it's about hardware that works well, and is more efficient - Intel has been moving forward - AMD - sideways?/ backwards???
-Bruce
m
0
l
March 21, 2012 10:12:00 PM

Isaiah4110 said:
I would expect you to get better performance from the Core i5. Even a stock Core i5 2400 can outperform an FX-8120 overclocked to 4.2 GHz in gaming according to these benchmarks. Those benchmarks do use an overly expensive GPU, but show the capabilities of each processor. Check out this article for a straight comparison of an i3 2100 to an FX-4100 with more realistic graphics card options.


The game starcraft uses only two cores and obliviously intel wins but look you get a average of 30 FPS more and when the software evolves for multi threaded apps , then the fx will dominate.
Your eveys cannont see any difference more than 30 FPS.
FACT FACT
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 21, 2012 10:23:39 PM

MellowOut said:
Not sure how close or far apart these are there similar in pricing now is all I am aware of and looked at some benchmarking with the fx slightly higher than then i-5
Would be using it in a new machine for mostly gaming, videos etc nothing like video editing or anything just thought I would ask and will it fall once the Ivy comes out or is the 2500k just a staple now ?

8120, i have it but it's EPIC, need 25% performance boost? change the multiplyer to 20.0 (from stock 200 x 15.5) and you got it!
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 22, 2012 12:16:04 AM

Quote:
AMD is really it's just that Intel owned all the hype and Fanboys plus they payed off more publications/reviewers Not saying that Intel sucks just that there is an option thats just as good .



Haha dont even start on the FanBoy crap. You are unreasonably biased, these people are making statements and you ignore them and post your own rubbish. Intel is better yes. We can agree on that, the debate is whether it is worthwhile spending more for it or will the FX be fine. So if you are not going to contribute something worthwhile troll elsewhere please.

I love AMD, last build was a Intel because it was better, i tried really hard to justify AMD but couldnt. Phenom II were awesome, but Intel is currently better, FX is meant to be full utilised with Win8 but looking at the previews, I would stick with 7.

If you can build it cheaper with a FX and get a better GPU, then why not.

m
0
l
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 22, 2012 12:26:40 AM

Every game that utilizes the cpu more (like sc2) runs much better on on intel than amd. FX is a failure get over it.
m
0
l
March 22, 2012 12:36:08 AM

Take a look at Tom's Hardware's review on FX: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bul...

Conclusion of the review: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bul...

The i5 occasionally outperforms the FX even if 8 threads are being run, and dominates when less threads are being run. FX's performance might increase somewhat with W8, but there aren't any games that use more than four threads.

Take a look at the chart for CPUs that have the best value: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...

(Note: The FX is only mentioned once, the i3 competitor FX-4100, and it only got an honorable mention.)
m
0
l
March 22, 2012 12:39:20 AM

It is my experience that the faster CPU, the faster the data to the GPU...In other words, if you get a AMD CPU, you are wasting a % of your GPU power....check it for yourself....
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 22, 2012 12:39:42 AM

Quote:
Every game that utilizes the cpu more (like sc2) runs much better on on intel than amd. FX is a failure get over it.

Every game that runs much faster on intel cpus are either backed by intel or using intel's havok software. http://game-on.intel.com/eng/games/default.aspx

Wonder what the problem might be...
m
0
l
March 22, 2012 4:45:30 AM

noob2222 said:
Every game that runs much faster on intel cpus are either backed by intel or using intel's havok software. http://game-on.intel.com/eng/games/default.aspx

Wonder what the problem might be...


Try running one of those games on Intel's eight-core Xeon processors, they'll have weaker performance because the Xeon will have lower clock rate due to additional cores. And the reason why they get kneecapped because no game uses more than four cores.

FX has a weaker per core performance than Sandy Bridge. A design gamble gone wrong, as proven by the vast majority of reputable tech review websites.


But if you want to continue your conspiracy theory, feel free to burn your wallet. I think I'll save some money by buying a cheaper Intel SB processor with the same gaming performance of a more expensive AMD FX processor.
m
0
l
March 22, 2012 5:30:12 AM

mitunchidamparam said:
The game starcraft uses only two cores and obliviously intel wins but look you get a average of 30 FPS more and when the software evolves for multi threaded apps , then the fx will dominate.
Your eveys cannont see any difference more than 30 FPS.
FACT FACT

What is your point? I'm not a fanboy for any CPU or GPU side, so don't come after me as though I am trying to tear down AMD processors. I simply look for the best possible price/performance option. The Core i3 2100 obviously matches or beats the FX-4100 (neither of which processor is actually being considered here). If all you truly want is 30 FPS then the fact that the Core i3 outperformed the FX-4100 in some games simply means you can raise the graphics settings in those games and still get acceptable frame rates. That equates to better performance.

When I was building my first computers AMD was the less expensive brand that game equal performance. You were essentially paying for the name when you got Intel. In recent years, however, Intel has been staying at least half a step ahead of AMD in the price-performance department. Sure you can find some super threaded (usually productivity related) applications that perform better with the greater number of Cores provided by AMD, but when it comes down to gaming and everyday use the overall evidence leans in favor of Intel.

Honestly? If you are really into overclocking and being able to OC your CPU is important for you then you probably want to go AMD. From what I read, they are easier to overclock to higher levels. However, if you are looking for a top notch gaming computer then the best price performance combo is a Core i5 2400 (or 2500K if you want a bit of OC freedom) with a ~$250 price range GPU. Couple that level of card with any AMD processor and you will end up with lower performance.
m
0
l
a c 185 à CPUs
March 22, 2012 6:08:10 AM

mitunchidamparam said:
The game starcraft uses only two cores and obliviously intel wins but look you get a average of 30 FPS more and when the software evolves for multi threaded apps , then the fx will dominate.
Your eveys cannont see any difference more than 30 FPS.
FACT FACT

Actually it is 60FPS, fluid motion is 20fps, very smooth motion is 60fps.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 22, 2012 6:25:27 AM

I asked this question 2 days ago (the exact same in fact) and the answer I got was definitely the i5 2500k (or wait for ivy bridge in 3 weeks or so)
I like AMD and think that their motherboards have better specs than intel's however...
* The AMD fx-8120 and 8150 only beat or draw level in benchmarks that can make full use of all the cores, most games now can only use up to 4 max
* The i5 uses less power and therefore less heat, ivy bridge will use even less
* I'd say they overclock equally well from looking at reviews etc...
* I think tom's did a gaming comparrison with low and high end GPUs even the i3 2120 was beating the AMDs all the AMDs performed the same in games because the games couldn't use the extra cores that the higher ones had.
* By that reasoning if you want it for gaming then get an FX4100 but then an i3 is better than that so get and i3 if you just want to game with a lower end GPU, if not then get the i5.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 22, 2012 7:02:38 AM

mitunchidamparam said:
Ivy bring 10-15 %
and Pile Driver brings 15-30 % in single core which were AMD lacks.
So who is the boss now?


oh so when they get 15-30 increase on single core only maybe they might keep up with 2500k if they are overclocked they will still be slower with multitasking by then ivy will be out and, we are only talking about i5's remember there are still plenty of i7's to stomp on the poor little amd's not to mention new gens by the time piledriver comes out!
sorry to flame but he said "whos the boss now"

:kaola: 
m
0
l
March 22, 2012 8:28:20 AM

No one gives a proper advantage of intel over amd when both churn out more than the playable frame rate and one is cheaper than the other , more core than other , less expensive motherboard than other , overclocks like a beast.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 22, 2012 8:37:11 AM

The FX 8120 isn't really that bad of a chip, if it is cheaper than the 2500K and enough so then go with it, slap it onto a Crosshair V or Fatal1ty board, sorted.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 22, 2012 12:08:52 PM




your the biggest amd fanboy on this forum defending amd by showing a gpu bottlenecked game so the intels cant strech there legs through a few more gpus in the mix and lets see the outcome then. i loved amd to but there is no way i would even try and defend the bulldozer chips especially when the last gen phenoms can beat or match them in alot of senarios. just admit it clock for clock intel smash em 95% of the time, sounds like you bought one and justified in your head they are as good!
m
0
l
March 22, 2012 1:40:28 PM

Intel fanboys always calling all the people who say the fact that all the CPU give you a FPS which is more than awesome as AMD fanboys.
All CPU give you a playable FPS
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 22, 2012 3:44:53 PM

A Bad Day said:
Try running one of those games on Intel's eight-core Xeon processors, they'll have weaker performance because the Xeon will have lower clock rate due to additional cores. And the reason why they get kneecapped because no game uses more than four cores.

FX has a weaker per core performance than Sandy Bridge. A design gamble gone wrong, as proven by the vast majority of reputable tech review websites.


But if you want to continue your conspiracy theory, feel free to burn your wallet. I think I'll save some money by buying a cheaper Intel SB processor with the same gaming performance of a more expensive AMD FX processor.

Gotta love how people say its a conspiracy when intel lists it on their own website ... like they are proud of the fact that they help develop games to run better on the "INTEL Core I-series cpus". What conspiracy? its posted right there on their Intel website.

Intel is soooo much faster that even with a 500 mhz clock advantage, the I7-2600k has 1-5 fps advantage ... omg ... the horror. http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/4350/amd_fx_8150_bulld...
Hmm imagine that tho, farcry 2 is the only game thats on intels website obliterates the amd cpu.

No game uses more than 4 cores .... ya ... go back to school.



What do you know ... metro 2033 wich doesn't show favoritism runs on all 8 cores fairly well..



Civ V also ... wow ... must be a cpu bottleneck at 70% on 2 cores tho because intel is sooo much better than AMD.

Guess what, BF3, Resident Evil 5, Dirt 3, ect are capable of running on more than 4 cores. But that defeats your arguement that no game uses more than 4 cores, go ahead and pretend its not true.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 22, 2012 4:59:15 PM

Quote:
bottom line is.....
both set-ups i5-2500K and FX-81xx can game.
the Intel option overall gets you more frames and lesser Intel options compete with the AMD FX in gaming as well.
the lesser AMD FX options are a worse move but the AMD FX-8 series are very capable, just not preferred by most.
prices now also tilt in Intel's favor AT TIMES, it depends on the actual build.

problem people have with AMD FX is that the prior generation in more times than not outperforms it: Deneb C3 and Thuban E0..
and also AMD way overblown on marketing and raised out expectations too high.

so the AMD FX-41xx and the AMD FX-6xxx are out and damn AMD for not working on a stepping revision
but praise them for focusing on Piledriver in attempt to correct mistakes (if that's what they are doing)..


+1
m
0
l
March 22, 2012 5:28:59 PM

noob2222 said:
-snip-


When I play Simcity4, Windows 7 Task manager displays that all four cores of my i7-720qm are at 25% load, and stay there even when SC4 is set to simulate a massive city at full speed.

Does that mean SC4 supports quad-core? No, it was released in 2003 by EA/Maxis, and dual core processors didn't exist in the market until past 2004. I would be amazed if EA actually had Maxis add in multicore support, because SC4, like many other EA games, was a rushed and buggy product.

Even if a game could take advantage of all of the cores, the question is, how efficiently?:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=552

If you scroll down to the games benchmark section, you can see that the i5 2500k and the significantly more expensive i7 3930k trade blows and neither show a clear advantage overall (one of the Civ5 benchmarks seem unusual). However, do keep in mind that the i7 has a lot more L2 and L3 cache, which could potentially help the i7.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/07/05/how-ma...

Bit-tech also stated that for gaming, six-core processors are ill-advised.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 22, 2012 6:28:14 PM

Advising because games generally will run on less than 4 cores and saying
Quote:
because no game uses more than four cores.

are totally different. Gams can and will be able to utilize more than 4 cores, now and games to come. Yes there are exceptions to every rule (showgun 2, Skyrim eg. still use 1 core, IE 1 core pegged at 100%, other 7 running 5%), doesn't change the facts that even now games can and do use more than 4 cores.

As for anands odd civ v, they typod the full render score on the 2500k, note the no render score is the exact same number. As for civ V itself, prefers sheer memory bandwidth, going from 1333 memory to 2133 gives a 20+% FPS boost at the same cpu clock.

Just like to add that stupid nascar ad at the top is annoying.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 22, 2012 7:20:27 PM

I favour the chip that can play solitaire maxed out with full AA.
m
0
l
March 25, 2012 8:22:22 AM

just saying fan boys blow...yes intel on paper and charts etc....are better. but most of us amd owners game just fine. i get 70fps in bf3 with my gtx570. my chip only uses 54% of the processor and kicks ass! all in all, it comes down to money, if we all had the cash we'd all be intel freaks...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 25, 2012 10:46:59 AM

tbh the i5 2500k is only £15 or so more than an fx8120 and cheaper than an fx8150
m
0
l
March 29, 2012 3:03:10 AM

noob2222 said:
Advising because games generally will run on less than 4 cores and saying
Quote:
because no game uses more than four cores.

are totally different. Gams can and will be able to utilize more than 4 cores, now and games to come. Yes there are exceptions to every rule (showgun 2, Skyrim eg. still use 1 core, IE 1 core pegged at 100%, other 7 running 5%), doesn't change the facts that even now games can and do use more than 4 cores.

As for anands odd civ v, they typod the full render score on the 2500k, note the no render score is the exact same number. As for civ V itself, prefers sheer memory bandwidth, going from 1333 memory to 2133 gives a 20+% FPS boost at the same cpu clock.

Just like to add that stupid nascar ad at the top is annoying.


I take back on my statement of that no games use more than four cores.

Two questions though, how many can efficiently use more than four cores, and when will 6-core processors' price become more reasonable? Currently it's about 2-3x the price for a theoretical 50% performance boost, which is something that budget builders will gag on.


Back on the OP's topic, the FX has the same number of cores as the i5, but with a theoretically better support for 4+ threaded tasks because its architecture is a blend between HT and an additional core.


But gaming and other software benchmarks, including 8+ threaded ones, tell otherwise. If you have to buy AMD, I'd recommend waiting for Piledriver and Windows 8 to see if it lives up to AMD's promises. Otherwise, go with the cheaper i5s and i3s, i5s and i3s that can put heat on a Fx8150 in terms of absolute performance and price per performance.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 29, 2012 3:46:47 PM

FX 8120 or 2500K, to be honest you won't notice a thing. Both will game at exceptionally high FPS with respectable GPU's and pretty much over 30FPS is not noticable.
m
0
l
!