Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Amd buldozer vs intel i7 core processor

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 19, 2012 8:55:47 PM

AMD Bulldozer vs. Intel i7 Core Processors
April 19, 2012 8:59:05 PM

Intel i7 Core Processors
a b à CPUs
April 19, 2012 9:00:55 PM

^+1
Related resources
a c 188 à CPUs
April 19, 2012 9:08:01 PM

Heck for gaming I would aim for the Intel® Core™ i5-2500K and spend the extra on an small SSD.


Christian Wood
Intel Enthusiast Team
April 19, 2012 9:10:48 PM

If you want to game and overclock, get a 2500k. If you plan on gaming without overclocking get a i5 2500, it's a great CPU for gaming as well. Spend the saved money on a boot drive SSD and put some games on it.

The i7 has hyperthreading and is clocked a little higher normally, which is really not that important besides for multitasking. 2500k will beat a 8150 in gaming in almost all situations, the 8150 wins in a couple but the 2500k is also a lot cheaper(microcenter has them for 180).
a c 184 à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 19, 2012 9:18:38 PM

Think of it like this:
If the i5-2500k outperforms everything on amd's side, including their flagship fx-8150..then the i7 wins by default.
a b à CPUs
April 19, 2012 9:50:56 PM

amuffin said:
Think of it like this:
If the i5-2500k outperforms everything on amd's side



Hi :) 

PLEASE stop saying that..its untrue and you know it.....

I appreciate brand loyalty, but not like that...and I sell BOTH Intel and AMD Cpu`s...

All the best Brett :) 
a c 283 à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 19, 2012 9:57:28 PM

I think this question will be asked until the end of time... Do your research! 2500K and above for gaming and most other things too. There are a few instances where the FX 8150 will be better, but not enough to justify it for most people, when the 2500K is around the same price.
a b à CPUs
April 19, 2012 10:00:43 PM

DJDeCiBeL said:
I think this question will be asked until the end of time... Do your research! 2500K and above for gaming and most other things too. There are a few instances where the FX 8150 will be better, but not enough to justify it for most people, when the 2500K is around the same price.


Hi :) 

Ask Christian if he would repeat your statement....he wont....

It depends what you are doing with a Cpu....and for gaming just about ANY quad of ANY make will do....its more about Gpus than CPU`S...

As an example....my 1100T will outperform all i3s , most i5s and some i7s.... DEPENDING on what they are doing...

But I repeat for gaming ANY quad will do.....

All the best Brett :) 
a c 78 à CPUs
April 19, 2012 10:04:32 PM

DJDeCiBeL said:
I think this question will be asked until the end of time... Do your research! 2500K and above for gaming and most other things too. There are a few instances where the FX 8150 will be better, but not enough to justify it for most people, when the 2500K is around the same price.

You mean all those pretty little synthetic benchmarks of demo modes? They don't interest me, especially when most of them show both the 2500k and the 8150 exceeding the frame rate limitations of a typical LCD monitor (60FPS). Now don't get me wrong, I agree the 2500k is a better CPU than the 8150, but at least lets be realistic.

And like Brett says, the 1100T can go toe to toe with a 2500k. Its a shame they discontinued them.
a c 283 à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 19, 2012 10:07:03 PM

Quote:
It depends what you are doing with a Cpu


That's why I qualified that statement with "for most people". I fully understand that Bulldozer has its place for some things, it's just easier to justify the 2500K (and above, if it's needed) for almost everyone else.
a c 283 à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 19, 2012 10:08:57 PM

Quote:
the 1100T can go toe to toe with a 2500k. Its a shame they discontinued them.


I was only talking about Bulldozer processors with that statement, but I agree the 1100T is a fine processor.
a b à CPUs
April 19, 2012 10:11:08 PM

No question definitly the I7 2600 or 2600k.
a b à CPUs
April 19, 2012 10:39:58 PM

lol i like how to OP didnt even ask a question. i believe hes a troll and you guys are the victims :p 
a c 184 à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 20, 2012 3:34:15 AM

Brett928S2 said:
Hi :) 

Ask Christian if he would repeat your statement....he wont....

It depends what you are doing with a Cpu....and for gaming just about ANY quad of ANY make will do....its more about Gpus than CPU`S...

As an example....my 1100T will outperform all i3s , most i5s and some i7s.... DEPENDING on what they are doing...

But I repeat for gaming ANY quad will do.....

All the best Brett :) 

I put it in "simple" terms :lol: 
Multi-threaded the bulldozer 8150 does better than the 2500k.
Common tasks the 2500k wins...
Gaming, the 2500k wins...
power consumption/efficiency, 2500k wins...
a c 78 à CPUs
April 20, 2012 3:47:27 AM

amuffin said:
I put it in "simple" terms :lol: 
Multi-threaded the bulldozer 8150 does better than the 2500k.
Common tasks the 2500k wins...
Gaming, the 2500k wins...
power consumption/efficiency, 2500k wins...



And I put it in simple terms when I pointed out that almost all of the various gaming benchmarks that Tomshare, guru3d, legit reviews has published has shown both CPUs put out framerates that exceed the refresh rate of a standard computer monitor. Therefore, under that logic, they're equal.

Power consumption, they're piggish for sure when overclocked. But unless you have something ridiculous like 25 cents/killowatt hour, its not a big deal.

Common tasks like what? Video editing? That would be "multi-threaded", browsing the internet, a 5 year old Pentium D can do that. I'm not impressed.

Quite frankly, I think bulldozer is a disappointment, even so, the fanboy stuff complete with exaggerations and factual information taken out of context is getting silly.
April 20, 2012 4:26:04 AM

is it me or does putting emoticons in every statement make you think a 10 year old is writing it?

any way this is a dumb fight because each CPU does the same thing... the only things that separate them are SYNTHETIC BENCHMARKS...
a c 78 à CPUs
April 20, 2012 4:38:17 AM

Ohmybad said:
is it me or does putting emoticons in every statement make you think a 10 year old is writing it?

any way this is a dumb fight because each CPU does the same thing... the only things that separate them are SYNTHETIC BENCHMARKS...



Well, I figure computernewb is right when he said this thread was probably a troll. But its not like I had anything better to do. But yea, without naming names, some of the members are indeed very young, although age is not always an indication of knowledge nor maturity.
a c 184 à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 20, 2012 5:37:13 AM

nekulturny said:
Well, I figure computernewb is right when he said this thread was probably a troll. But its not like I had anything better to do. But yea, without naming names, some of the members are indeed very young, although age is not always an indication of knowledge nor maturity.

like me.... :pt1cable: 
a b à CPUs
April 20, 2012 10:07:03 AM

Sorry but I need to ask another question. Why are you asking about a $380 chip compared to a $240 ($180 8120) chip?

If you are just gaming then either of a 2500K or 8120 will suit your needs, if you need lots of threads, then a 8120/50 is more than copious in doing what a 2700K can at a reduced cost. Either way in that instance a 2700K is still a very good option if you want to pay the premium.
a c 184 à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 21, 2012 2:39:26 AM

Probably one of those "annoying" people on youtube..
April 22, 2012 6:23:06 AM

You really wouldn't need a i7 to compete with the FX cores. A Intel core i5 because of the fact my father has a FX-8150 for his gaming rig/autocadd system and it just can't do the same as this Intel i5 2500k cpu can. I know for sure the FX ain't a application based cpu based on personal experience and the benchmarks you can look at. Both systems use dual XFX 6970's so the graphics are the same. Now if you really wanted a cpu with a better performance with applications get a i5 2500 or better. Now if you intend to game, in some instances the FX will get better frames and performance, because of the fact the game is using the eight cores. The difference is just by about 10-20 frames but for the cost the i5 is a better choice. The FX eight core was a good idea but it needs major improvement in the meantime.
!