Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

FX vs i5

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 25, 2012 1:47:51 PM

At stock speeds what is faster an Intel core i5 3550 or an AMD FX 8150? Also what would be faster overclocked? :) 

More about : question

May 25, 2012 2:12:26 PM

What do you intend to use the processor for? Gaming, video editing etc
a b à CPUs
May 25, 2012 2:13:29 PM

Probably the i5, if you could notice it.
Related resources
a c 473 à CPUs
a c 115 å Intel
a c 119 À AMD
May 25, 2012 2:18:33 PM

Stock speed = i5
Overclocked = FX by a little bit (only the i5 "K" models can be OC'ed)
May 25, 2012 2:50:35 PM

SteelLAD said:
What do you intend to use the processor for? Gaming, video editing etc

Gaming
a c 473 à CPUs
a c 115 å Intel
a c 119 À AMD
May 25, 2012 2:55:38 PM

i5.
May 25, 2012 2:58:36 PM

If gaming then definitely the i5 all the way, demolishes the FX chips.
a c 86 à CPUs
a b À AMD
May 25, 2012 3:46:35 PM

for gaming? then even the i3 gives the fx 8 core a run for its money. Take any i5 SB/IB over any AMD chip for gaming.
a b à CPUs
May 25, 2012 4:27:52 PM

in a "single threaded world" the intel arhitecture its the best. 99% of games are not multi core optimized
May 25, 2012 4:53:22 PM

But what if i got the FX overclocked to 5ghz? What would be best for gaming then?
a c 146 à CPUs
a b À AMD
May 25, 2012 5:03:29 PM

Overclocked I5 vs an overclocked Bulldozer the I5 is still going to win out.
May 25, 2012 5:47:38 PM

yeah but you can't overclock the i5 unless it is a K and a K is out of my budget, so would and overclocked FX beat the i5 at stock speeds in gaming?
a c 186 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
May 25, 2012 5:59:34 PM

You wouldn't be able to reach 5ghz easily, regardless the i5 will outperform the overclocked bulldozer.

It's roughly 20% faster than a BD processor.
May 25, 2012 6:00:41 PM

amuffin said:
You wouldn't be able to reach 5ghz easily, regardless the i5 will outperform the overclocked bulldozer.

It's roughly 20% faster than a BD processor.


What made the FX processors so bad then?
a c 227 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
May 25, 2012 6:01:30 PM

JNB said:
yeah but you can't overclock the i5 unless it is a K and a K is out of my budget, so would and overclocked FX beat the i5 at stock speeds in gaming?



No. In fact an FX 8120 at 4.2Ghz is equal to or even quite a bit less than an i3 2100 is gaming performance.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-a...


For gaming the best FX processor is the FX 4170. If you have to buy AMD you are better off with an old Phenom II X4 975-980 or a Thuban core X6 1090T-1100T.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...
a c 186 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
May 25, 2012 6:04:16 PM

The i5-2500k is only about $10 more than the 3550, you should grab that then.
May 25, 2012 6:15:58 PM

Well, Intel looks like the best way to go. Comparing the i5's would i notice a difference when gaming between the entry level i5 3450 @ 3.1GHz and the top end i5 3570k @ 3.4GHz?
a c 186 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
May 25, 2012 6:16:21 PM

No.
May 25, 2012 6:21:08 PM

I'll definitely settle on the 3450 now then, as it's £31 cheaper than the 3570k and £16 cheaper then the FX 8150. Thanks for all the input :) 
a c 227 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
May 25, 2012 6:21:18 PM

^ Agree. No.


But with the K model processor you can overclock to ~4.5Ghz with good air cooling and Sandy/Ivy Bridge CPUs at 4.5Ghz are amazingly fast. Hell they are fast at stock.
a c 146 à CPUs
a b À AMD
May 25, 2012 6:41:14 PM

JNB said:
yeah but you can't overclock the i5 unless it is a K and a K is out of my budget, so would and overclocked FX beat the i5 at stock speeds in gaming?


Well you pretty much already got your answer and that is no. Even when the Bulldozer is overclocked it will still get beaten out by a stock I5.
a b à CPUs
May 25, 2012 6:45:25 PM

Bad time to be buying FX anyways, with Piledriver out in September. When making a choice on CPU its ultimately your needs, the FX is not the best CPU out but it is good enough to do everything at well above playable framerates. The better choice is a Intel I5, but if you are on a budget then a $160 8120 + 990fx combo will net you $100+ towards other components.
May 25, 2012 8:31:42 PM

sarinaide said:
Bad time to be buying FX anyways, with Piledriver out in September. When making a choice on CPU its ultimately your needs, the FX is not the best CPU out but it is good enough to do everything at well above playable framerates. The better choice is a Intel I5, but if you are on a budget then a $160 8120 + 990fx combo will net you $100+ towards other components.


In your opinion then, would it be better to hold off the build of this PC to see what Piledriver is like? Also i was going to wait for the gtx 660 and use that or will a 7870 be better?
a b à CPUs
May 25, 2012 8:50:03 PM

grab the i5!
May 25, 2012 8:50:15 PM

a gtx660 will probably be better.
a b à CPUs
May 25, 2012 8:52:40 PM

Well the i5 will be good regardless, the piledriver is unknown as of now so while yes it is prudent to wait and see, by taking a i5 you are not making a bad choice.

The same with the Graphics, a 7870 is a fantastic card and available now, but a 660 should be good too.
a c 227 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
May 25, 2012 9:23:42 PM

Based on the Trinity reviews with Piledriver cores it's not worth waiting for. It comes close to the first gen Nehalem Core "i" chips from Intel but does not come close to Sandy or Ivy Bridge.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/a10-4600m-trinity-p...

The i5 2400 beats every chip AMD makes overclocked or not for gaming.
May 25, 2012 9:32:19 PM

as for the piledriver i know that AMD said that they weren't going to have a speed war with Intel, im not sure if this applies the the piledriver or CPU that will be developed after.
a c 124 à CPUs
May 25, 2012 9:48:16 PM

mercer95 said:
as for the piledriver i know that AMD said that they weren't going to have a speed war with Intel, im not sure if this applies the the piledriver or CPU that will be developed after.

The way I look at AMD's statement, AMD will still continue to improve performance, just not at the expense of power efficiency since nearly all growth markets are going mobile/wireless/embedded where battery life and low-power are more important than raw performance.
June 7, 2012 10:50:03 AM

I wanna ask something, I should choose 8150 if I CAD-ing, video-converting/rendering/moviemakering, photoshopping while rendering a video and running a online-RPG game behind it (like, when fishing), ?
June 7, 2012 1:23:32 PM

These guys are essentially pulling your leg. I've been using an FX-8120, as well as own 3 Phenom II X6 1090Ts and some old Phenom II X4s, one of the original Phenoms, and even an old Athlon II laying around. FX isn't a bad choice by any mark. It is significantly faster with integer calculations in respect to Intel which most games rely on. All these benchmark software that exist out there only have a lead because they have an automatic cripple AMD function employed by the Intel C Compiler that created these programs, as well as some games that employed ICC, which forces all non-Intel processors to default to the slowest instruction set. Even so, there is no disadvantage to owning an FX processor. I even recorded this and this from the most CPU intense game ever created, does it look like I had any problems whatsoever with the CPU I chose? And no, Phenom II X6 and Phenom II X4 is not faster than FX, that is a downgrade by a decent margin. My overclocked X6's are 30% slower than my FX-8120, with X4s only capable of half the throughput. FX is not 'hyperthreading' you should learn what CMT is. A single FX FPU is as strong as two Phenom II FPUs, with 8 ALUs that are slightly faster than the ALUs in Phenom II series. You can throw benchmarks all day long, but it won't change the fact that they are great processors. I have never had a single fellow gamer complain about their FX processor.
June 7, 2012 1:25:44 PM

andrern2000 said:
I wanna ask something, I should choose 8150 if I CAD-ing, video-converting/rendering/moviemakering, photoshopping while rendering a video and running a online-RPG game behind it (like, when fishing), ?


You can do all of the above plus scientific research and so much more. Having 8 real threads is better than Intel's fake hyperthreading (8 threads through hyperthreading is realistically 6 threads due to issues in hyperthreading in comparison to CMT)
June 7, 2012 1:30:14 PM

InvalidError said:
The way I look at AMD's statement, AMD will still continue to improve performance, just not at the expense of power efficiency since nearly all growth markets are going mobile/wireless/embedded where battery life and low-power are more important than raw performance.


You are correct. The speed war ended a long time ago. Intel and AMD commented that the next stage was over power efficiency. Piledriver's main feature is resonant clock mesh technology which would reduce power consumption by a decent amount, and allow for better overclocking capabilities, among possibly fixing the cache misses in Bulldozer which was it's only flaw.
a b à CPUs
June 7, 2012 2:17:34 PM

Casts out the rod* waits for fish to bite.
a c 227 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
June 7, 2012 4:38:07 PM

Sure is all "AMD employee creating an account to post in this thread" in here all of a sudden.
a c 146 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 7, 2012 5:14:47 PM

JNB said:
In your opinion then, would it be better to hold off the build of this PC to see what Piledriver is like? Also i was going to wait for the gtx 660 and use that or will a 7870 be better?


Right now it really doesn't seem like Piledriver is going to be much better. Some things will be fixed and it probably will have some performance increase over Bulldozer but it's not going to close the gap or pass Intel on performance. So to answer your question no there really is no point in waiting because in the end the Piledriver will still get beaten out by Sandy Bridges and Ivy Bridges. .
a b à CPUs
June 7, 2012 8:26:43 PM

mmstick said:
These guys are essentially pulling your leg. I've been using an FX-8120, as well as own 3 Phenom II X6 1090Ts and some old Phenom II X4s, one of the original Phenoms, and even an old Athlon II laying around. FX isn't a bad choice by any mark. It is significantly faster with integer calculations in respect to Intel which most games rely on. All these benchmark software that exist out there only have a lead because they have an automatic cripple AMD function employed by the Intel C Compiler that created these programs, as well as some games that employed ICC, which forces all non-Intel processors to default to the slowest instruction set. Even so, there is no disadvantage to owning an FX processor. I even recorded this and this from the most CPU intense game ever created, does it look like I had any problems whatsoever with the CPU I chose? And no, Phenom II X6 and Phenom II X4 is not faster than FX, that is a downgrade by a decent margin. My overclocked X6's are 30% slower than my FX-8120, with X4s only capable of half the throughput. FX is not 'hyperthreading' you should learn what CMT is. A single FX FPU is as strong as two Phenom II FPUs, with 8 ALUs that are slightly faster than the ALUs in Phenom II series. You can throw benchmarks all day long, but it won't change the fact that they are great processors. I have never had a single fellow gamer complain about their FX processor.



I must say... I haven't read a post quite like this since JennyH left these forums... but here it goes...


Integer/FP performance Baseline results (may vary from config to config)

SPECint_rate/SPECfp_rate:

i7-2600K : 159/113
FX-8150 : 106/78.8
X6-1100T : 109/85.8

I don't see where your FX-8120 surpasses a Sandy Bridge let alone Ivy Bridge (Google these results or check Real World Tech here).

Now you go on to talk about FPUs performance... Look above. An X6 1100T has better FPU performance than an FX-8150 (with a 2600K besting them both).


Now I know you don't care about objective performance figures or "Benchmarks" due to an Alex Jones-like conspiracy involving the Intel Compiler (because everyone is forced to compile with it right... oh wait most companies use an Microsoft C and C++ compiler if you look at the marketshare so there goes that claim).

But yes the Intel Compilers are made in order to boost Intel processor performance. In 2009, after a legal battle with AMD, Intel released this...

Quote:

A legal battle between AMD and Intel over this and other issues has been settled in November 2009. In late 2010, AMD settled an US Federal Trade Commission antitrust investigation against Intel.

The FTC settlement included a disclosure provision where Intel must:
“ ...publish clearly that its compiler discriminates against non-Intel processors (such as AMD's designs), not fully utilizing their features and producing inferior code. ”

In compliance with this rule, Intel added an "optimization notice" to its compiler descriptions stating that they "do not optimize equally for non-Intel microprocessors" and that "certain compiler options for Intel compilers, including some that are not specific to Intel micro-architecture, are reserved for Intel microprocessors". It says that:
“ Intel® compilers, associated libraries and associated development tools may or may not optimize to the same degree for non-Intel microprocessors for optimizations that are not unique to Intel microprocessors. These optimizations include Intel® Streaming SIMD Extensions 2 (Intel® SSE2), Intel® Streaming SIMD Extensions 3 (Intel® SSE3), and Supplemental Streaming SIMD Extensions 3 (Intel® SSSE3) instruction sets and other optimizations.



Now as for a person complaining about an FX processor... well that's an assumption built out of ignorance. If I don't know that I have Cancer will I care that I am dying if I don't know it? Logical fallacy.

Objective performance measurements (or as objective as possible) are great ways to gauge the performance of various products. Are you sure you're not suffering the effects of blind allegiance/ignorance (fanboyism)?
a b à CPUs
June 7, 2012 9:00:00 PM

Quote:
thank-you @ ElMoIsEviL....

Sorry I know feeding the troll but I wouldn't want the OP getting misled ya know?
a c 146 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 7, 2012 9:24:49 PM

AMD fanboyism is immune to common sense and logic. Thats why you have people like mmstick who think that thier Bulldozer will out perform a Sandy Bridges or Ivy Bridges processor even though all benchmarks say complealty the opposite.
a b à CPUs
June 7, 2012 11:40:08 PM

Quote:
but you info/data is dead on, any man with common sense (computing) should see the logic in that..



rds1220 said:
AMD fanboyism is immune to common sense and logic. Thats why you have people like mmstick who think that thier Bulldozer will out perform a Sandy Bridges or Ivy Bridges processor even though all benchmarks say complealty the opposite.



Hear hear :) 
June 8, 2012 1:59:30 AM

ElMoIsEviL said:
I must say... I haven't read a post quite like this since JennyH left these forums... but here it goes...


Integer/FP performance Baseline results (may vary from config to config)

SPECint_rate/SPECfp_rate:

i7-2600K : 159/113
FX-8150 : 106/78.8
X6-1100T : 109/85.8

I don't see where your FX-8120 surpasses a Sandy Bridge let alone Ivy Bridge (Google these results or check Real World Tech here).

Now you go on to talk about FPUs performance... Look above. An X6 1100T has better FPU performance than an FX-8150 (with a 2600K besting them both).


Now I know you don't care about objective performance figures or "Benchmarks" due to an Alex Jones-like conspiracy involving the Intel Compiler (because everyone is forced to compile with it right... oh wait most companies use an Microsoft C and C++ compiler if you look at the marketshare so there goes that claim).

But yes the Intel Compilers are made in order to boost Intel processor performance. In 2009, after a legal battle with AMD, Intel released this...

Quote:

A legal battle between AMD and Intel over this and other issues has been settled in November 2009. In late 2010, AMD settled an US Federal Trade Commission antitrust investigation against Intel.

The FTC settlement included a disclosure provision where Intel must:
“ ...publish clearly that its compiler discriminates against non-Intel processors (such as AMD's designs), not fully utilizing their features and producing inferior code. ”

In compliance with this rule, Intel added an "optimization notice" to its compiler descriptions stating that they "do not optimize equally for non-Intel microprocessors" and that "certain compiler options for Intel compilers, including some that are not specific to Intel micro-architecture, are reserved for Intel microprocessors". It says that:
“ Intel® compilers, associated libraries and associated development tools may or may not optimize to the same degree for non-Intel microprocessors for optimizations that are not unique to Intel microprocessors. These optimizations include Intel® Streaming SIMD Extensions 2 (Intel® SSE2), Intel® Streaming SIMD Extensions 3 (Intel® SSE3), and Supplemental Streaming SIMD Extensions 3 (Intel® SSSE3) instruction sets and other optimizations.



Now as for a person complaining about an FX processor... well that's an assumption built out of ignorance. If I don't know that I have Cancer will I care that I am dying if I don't know it? Logical fallacy.

Objective performance measurements (or as objective as possible) are great ways to gauge the performance of various products. Are you sure you're not suffering the effects of blind allegiance/ignorance (fanboyism)?

+1 This is the reason I'm glad your back, it make for very good reading.
a c 186 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
June 8, 2012 2:13:25 AM

Wasn't there some conspiracy a while ago? This was about AMD Employees hyping up FX on forums, I suppose now they are deployed to go and make FX "seem" better compared to intel.
a c 146 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 8, 2012 2:53:30 AM

amuffin said:
Wasn't there some conspiracy a while ago? This was about AMD Employees hyping up FX on forums, I suppose now they are deployed to go and make FX "seem" better compared to intel.


All the new people here who spout off ridiculous fanboy garbage like "My Bulldozer is really faster than all Intel CPU's, and stupid consipracy theories about Intel paying people off are probably all ex-AMD workers who got fired. Now they're hell bent on trying to convince the world that Bulldozer is better than Intel by saying anything to achive that goal. The only ones they're fooling are themselves and a few loyal AMD fanboys. :kaola: 
a b à CPUs
June 8, 2012 10:43:23 AM

Err "Fanboy" is being thrown around a lot here, I don't advocate AMD chips being better than Intel, just that the difference in real world is not really decernable. Synthetics would show a Thuban better than the direct replacement, however in a lot of professional apps the memory bandwidth of the FX trumps the Thubans, in gaming I would probably say Thubans give consistent FPS, FX goes up and down like my bank account.

In the end there are things that the FX is proficient at, and things which are largely underwhelming, nigh on a year and its looking more like a "lab rat experiement". I will remain mum on Piledriver until concrete information is released.
a b à CPUs
June 8, 2012 5:03:10 PM

sarinaide said:
Err "Fanboy" is being thrown around a lot here, I don't advocate AMD chips being better than Intel, just that the difference in real world is not really decernable. Synthetics would show a Thuban better than the direct replacement, however in a lot of professional apps the memory bandwidth of the FX trumps the Thubans, in gaming I would probably say Thubans give consistent FPS, FX goes up and down like my bank account.

In the end there are things that the FX is proficient at, and things which are largely underwhelming, nigh on a year and its looking more like a "lab rat experiement". I will remain mum on Piledriver until concrete information is released.


I hear ya dude.

SAcceptable and rational viewpoint. I don't have a problem with AMD (heck I have quite a few AMD rigs and build mostly AMD rigs for friends and family).

Thing is... in my opinion lying about the performance of AMD chips in the face of objective testing is a tad dishonest.
June 8, 2012 7:27:27 PM

The benchmarks ive seen have the fx-18xx much faster at gaming benchmarks, i haven't seen one yet where i5 beat the fx in gaming
a c 227 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
June 8, 2012 7:36:08 PM

Crazybum said:
The benchmarks ive seen have the fx-18xx much faster at gaming benchmarks, i haven't seen one yet where i5 beat the fx in gaming




You failed reading comprehension too right? :lol: 
a b à CPUs
June 8, 2012 7:58:07 PM

Crazybum said:
The benchmarks ive seen have the fx-18xx much faster at gaming benchmarks, i haven't seen one yet where i5 beat the fx in gaming


Funny things can happen when one is benchmarking games with a system suffering from a massive GPU bottleneck. Just saying.
a c 186 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
June 8, 2012 11:10:44 PM

Crazybum said:
The benchmarks ive seen have the fx-18xx much faster at gaming benchmarks, i haven't seen one yet where i5 beat the fx in gaming

Proof? :kaola: 
!