Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel i5 2500k vs AMD FX-8150

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 9, 2012 7:52:47 PM

My brother won't shut up about the 8150. All he does is game and he thinks the 8150 is much better. I've heard way different from basically everyone else, and I ended up getting the i5 myself. So, what do you think?

More about : intel 2500k amd 8150

April 9, 2012 8:15:09 PM

In nearly all general applications the 8150 shows an embarrassing defeat in the wake of the i5 and even the i3 2120. I think the only time the 8150 gains some sort of advantage is in heavily threaded apps that take advantage of the eight "cores".
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 9, 2012 8:34:17 PM

The i5-2500k does better in a lot of benchmarks but i dont know how much real life difference you'll see between the two. The 8150 gets good reviews by its owners.
m
0
l
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
April 9, 2012 8:35:51 PM

The 2500k is hands down the best processor for gaming at this point in time (or the 2600k), I can't think of anything off the top of my head that conventionally uses 8 cores, ergo, the 8150 a complete waste for lightly threaded applications. With 8 cores, a higher stock clock, and a larger cache, the 8150 is theoretically more powerful. Despite that, it cannot hone up to it "theoretical power" and lags behind the 2500k in actual application.
m
0
l
a c 478 à CPUs
a c 120 À AMD
April 9, 2012 11:31:34 PM

The vast majority of benchmarks has shown that the Core i5-2500k is better than the FX-8150. Your brother can easily Google those benchmarks.

If he does not believe them. Then you can demonstrate it once you get your i5-2500k PC built. For gaming benchmarks you would need have a level playing field though. So if you and your brother have different graphic cards, then it's just a matter of deciding which graphics card to use on both PCs for benchmarking purposes to determine which CPU performs better.

Don't bother using Crysis 2 as a benchmark because it that game is not dependent on a fast CPU. Whether your Core i5-2500k is running at 3.7GHz or 4.8GHz, the difference in performance will probably 1 FPS or 2 FPS.
m
0
l
a c 478 à CPUs
a c 120 À AMD
April 9, 2012 11:39:02 PM

My suggestion is to take it easy on your brother at first for gaming performance. Run benchmarks on both of your PCs using 3DMark11. As long as both PCs are using the same graphics card, the resulting benchmarks should be relatively close like the following...



That should give him a false sense of hope before benchmarking other games. Click the following link to see actual gaming benchmarks between the two CPUs. Note that the benchmarks are based on test rigs with a Radeon HD 6970.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-812...
m
0
l
a c 77 à CPUs
April 9, 2012 11:39:06 PM

The 2500K is a better CPU over all. The 8150 does have some advantages but only when it comes to applications that are heavily threaded to make full use of the 8 cores. Like others have said, real world idk how much difference you would notice depending on the apps you run.
m
0
l
April 9, 2012 11:44:42 PM

There isnt really anything to back up the claim that the 8150 is better than the 2500k, mainly because its not.
m
0
l
a c 117 à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 9, 2012 11:46:53 PM

when the 2500k beats an 8150 it does so in a big way 99% of the time. in the apps where the 8150 is best it barely scrapes the win...
the truth of the fact is that intel need 4 cores to do the same or more than the amd with 8 cores so even if it does beat it on the odd 8 threaded app you juat know the intel would murder the 8150 if it had 8 cores...
telling your bro will just set his lip up. trust me, you cant change a fanboi's mind 1s its made up... just sit back with a knowing smile and watch him get pissed off when he cant match your fps...
m
0
l
a c 83 à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 10, 2012 12:41:44 AM

He can believe his 8150 is better all he wants, and you can get similar FPS in current games because your both GPU bottlenecked. In the future when his 8150 starts to hold him back and he needs to upgrade, you can laugh as your 2500K is still plenty powerful.

It's been 6 years since AMD has a better CPU for gaming, FX doesn't even match what Intel released a few years ago in terms of gaming performance.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 10, 2012 2:39:32 AM

cenderone said:
My brother won't shut up about the 8150. All he does is game and he thinks the 8150 is much better. I've heard way different from basically everyone else, and I ended up getting the i5 myself. So, what do you think?

I think he probably will have the better CPU - when BF8 comes out and it utilizes 8 cores. Till then you're top dog. :D 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 10, 2012 3:41:41 AM

The 8150's a fantastically over priced peice of kit. The i5 2500k eats them for breakfast. Your brother is an idiot who should have gone for a phenom II. He's probably bragging to hide his shame at buying an inferior CPU and not doing his homework.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 10, 2012 5:19:04 AM

Truthfully the 8xxx are very close to intel's i5, 5-10%. One problem is that software sees amd cpu and doesn't enable the full cpu coding that it does for an intel cpu. That's why benchmarks are all over the place when it comes to games, and very easy to "cherry pick" wich games to use. The only way to see the difference between the 8xxx and I5 is with a benchmark. Seriously who can tell the difference between 115 fps and 120?

Benchmarks can't tell you how "snappy" the systems feel when people multitask. For eg how long it takes to alt-tab to load a web page and then back to the game.
m
0
l
April 10, 2012 5:22:45 AM

Quote:
One problem is that software sees amd cpu and doesn't enable the full cpu coding that it does for an intel cpu.

False. Any coder worth his salt would use the cpuid instruction to detect processor features. This approach works regardless of who made the CPU. If it supports AVX, it reports that.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 10, 2012 5:23:30 AM

teh_gerbil said:
The 8150's a fantastically over priced peice of kit. The i5 2500k eats them for breakfast. Your brother is an idiot who should have gone for a phenom II. He's probably bragging to hide his shame at buying an inferior CPU and not doing his homework.


Exactly what I was thinking.
m
0
l
April 10, 2012 5:25:57 AM

Maybe nobody can tell the difference between 115 FPS and 120 and maybe it's only a 10% difference but why should we pay more money for less performance?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 10, 2012 5:28:48 AM

HEXiT said:
when the 2500k beats an 8150 it does so in a big way 99% of the time. in the apps where the 8150 is best it barely scrapes the win...


Not exactly true. In non-gaming apps, the 8150 is faster than the 2500K. The 2500K has a sizable edge in gaming, but that edge is mitigated somewhat by the fact that many games are not terribly CPU dependent.

Quote:
the truth of the fact is that intel need 4 cores to do the same or more than the amd with 8 cores so even if it does beat it on the odd 8 threaded app you juat know the intel would murder the 8150 if it had 8 cores...


And if the 8150 was really an 8 core cpu, that would mean something. But its not. Bulldozer is a 4 core cpu masquerading as an 8 core. Which part of why it appears to perform so poorly.

Even AMD's own patent submission for bulldozer called what they now refer to as a "Module" a core and what they now call a "core" was a cluster. It all marketing.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 10, 2012 5:30:58 AM

aicom said:
Maybe nobody can tell the difference between 115 FPS and 120 and maybe it's only a 10% difference but why should we pay more money for less performance?


More like why should we pay more for a slower, hotter, inferior CPU.
m
0
l
April 10, 2012 5:32:50 AM

FALC0N said:
Not exactly true. In non-gaming apps, the 8150 is faster than the 2500K. The 2500K has a sizable edge in gaming, but that edge is mitigated somewhat by the fact that many games are not terribly CPU dependent.

There are a few select cases where this is true but they are certainly the exception, not the rule.

FALC0N said:

And if the 8150 was really an 8 core cpu, that would mean something. But its not. Bulldozer is a 4 core cpu masquerading as an 8 core. Which part of why it appears to perform so poorly.

Even AMD's own patent submission for bulldozer called what they now refer to as a "Module" a core and what they now call a "core" was a cluster. It all marketing.

Spot on. If anything Bulldozer was killed by its own creators. It was way overhyped, marketed as a Sandy Bridge killer. It was also deemed an 8-core CPU, which doomed its chances of a fair comparison. It's also way overpriced for the performance.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 10, 2012 5:36:52 AM

aicom said:
Quote:
One problem is that software sees amd cpu and doesn't enable the full cpu coding that it does for an intel cpu.

False. Any coder worth his salt would use the cpuid instruction to detect processor features. This approach works regardless of who made the CPU. If it supports AVX, it reports that.

And when intel supplies the compiler, not much up to the person writing the code is it?
m
0
l
April 10, 2012 5:40:32 AM

noob2222 said:
And when intel supplies the compiler, not much up to the person writing the code is it?


Quite the conspiracy theorist. Lucky for us, most Windows programs are compiled with a 3rd party compiler like Microsoft Visual C++.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 10, 2012 5:49:03 AM

aicom said:
Quite the conspiracy theorist. Lucky for us, most Windows programs are compiled with a 3rd party compiler like Microsoft Visual C++.

Oh noes, someone can think outside the box, must be a conspiracy.

http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-compiler...

Front page conspiracy? :o 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 10, 2012 5:55:28 AM

Hmmm strange, I got P5800~ with a stock 1100T in 3DM11, but whatever. It is the reason why real world is the preferent determinable factor in these debates. Running Skyrim, BF3, Metro2033, F12011 fully maxed.

Essentially it is simple if you are a serious benchmarker then take Intel although you will get scored less for overclocking Intel than AMD setups so its not really a advantage having a Intel chip. And if you are a casual user an AMD setup will be way cheaper allowing you to put more into a system, also note it is the GPU that gives you the better performance overall and for slightly cheaper (if you take a 8120 rather which is 20 dollars less than the 2500k). eg; 8150 with a 7970/680 will comfortably beat a 2500K with a 570/580 on synthetics.
m
0
l
April 10, 2012 5:55:55 AM

Umm, yes Intel makes compilers. Are Intel's compilers also responsible for the FX 8150 using significantly more power at load than the 2500K or 2600K? You know Intel made the sames claim when they released the Pentium 4. They said "recompile your apps and everything will be faster" and they were right. The fact of the matter is (as Intel learned): applications shouldn't need to be recompiled. Things should just be faster as is. Look at each of Intel's major launches post-Prescott: Conroe, Nehalem, Sandy Bridge. All of those show performance gains immediately. No recompilation needed. If you took the time to do it, you benefited even more, but if not, you still gained a good chunk of perfomance.

EDIT: Even AMD's prior launches showed this trend. Phenom -> Phenom II for example.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 10, 2012 6:23:08 AM

Well I can speak on compilers a tad seeing as we use them a lot to recompile our litecoin applications.

Even when we recompile the code to take advantage of AMD Bulldozers AVX/XoR capabilities and we recompile for Sandy Bridge's AVX capabilities we still see Intel ahead by quite the margin.

Now some have claimed to be able to get all these insane scores with an FX 8150 but none have been able to substantiate their claims (you know Partisan fans and how they make these grandiose claims).

Put it this way... I'm doing 72-75 khash/s on a 3930K @ 4.5GHz a Bulldozer FX-8150 @ 4.5GHz gets around 55-58 khash/s with all its optimizations. This is in pure cryptographic calculations (SHA256 and AES 256-bit) an area where AMD has traditionally (even Phenom II vs. Core i7 Nehalem) beat Intel.

A Core i7 2600K @ 4.6GHz, on the other hand, nets around 50-53 khash/s.

So yes an FX-8150 does gain tremendously from compiler optimizations (up to 75% more performance) for such a use. Intel also nets some gains once we compile for their chips around 25% more performance.

Of course we're talking about an area in which AMD has shown strength traditionally. This is not the case when it comes to other areas where Intel's execution engine, caching mechanism and process technology come into play (pretty much every other use) in such cases AMD simply cannot match Intel compiler or no compiler.

See here for more details: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=55038.240

PS. We don't care about pricing as much seeing as we're making money and paying off the hardware anyway. What tends to matter are power costs (Electricity). So even-though upfront you may pay big, you pay it back. But if the CPU consumes more power then output... that's a constant, monthly loss. AMD Bulldozer has that problem. It desperately needs a die-shrink. Because of this the best CPU for litecoins tends to be the 2600K. It performs close to the 8150 but sucks up less power (way less).




So to answer the ops question. The 2500K is the superior CPU (vs. 8150). There really isn't that much of a reason to purchase an 8150 if you can get a 2500K. Price wise they're pretty close to one another as well.

I personally don't make purchasing decisions based on emotion(s). My purchasing decisions are based on logic and utility. Some people do purchase based on emotion(s) and for those people they may see no reason to ever purchase an Intel processor if they're emotionally attached to AMD (and vice versa). I would recommend ignoring such folks. They're a nuisance more than anything.

peace
m
0
l
!