Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD Vs Intel (Fx8150 vs i5 2500k

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 26, 2012 11:18:09 PM

Before fanboys get ahold of this,
I'm looking for reasons outside of brand preference and based on fact.


AMD FX-8120/50 vs. Intel I5 2500k

Besides looking at benchmark software, or price, (I've seen i5 destroy the 8150 in almost everything except benchmarks below) Is there any reason to buy an AMD CPU still? When software becomes better threaded and OS's being to fully utilize more cores, will the 8150 ever truly surpass the i5?

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8150+Eig...

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-2...

More about : amd intel fx8150 2500k

a b à CPUs
May 26, 2012 11:30:08 PM

Creating programs compatible with 8 threads requires alot more advanced algarythyms then say 2 or 4, this is why most do not support more then 2-4. When AMD decided to work on there stepping, cache memory bandwidth, and core per core preformance, theyll be on the right track to compete with intel.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 26, 2012 11:31:42 PM

*sigh* here we go AGAIN.

OP just ask a mod to delete this thread . .it never fails at starting a flame war.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
May 26, 2012 11:37:31 PM

I just gave legitimate answers nothing brand bias
May 27, 2012 12:09:42 AM

I think my post was misinterpreted, this is not a 'Which is better' thread, My question was directed towards the performance of the two compared as software evolves. How will they compare in a year? Two years?
a b à CPUs
May 27, 2012 12:09:57 AM

It doesn't require any bias, the bottom line from the review of FX 8150;
Quote:
In the very best-case scenario, when you can throw a ton of work at the FX and fully utilize its eight integer cores, it generally falls in between Core i5-2500K and Core i7-2600K—which is where it should appear all of the time given a price tag between those two most relevant competitors. Sometimes FX manages to outperform the higher-end -2600K, but other times it’s embarrassingly bested by its predecessor in threaded workloads.

So if you're going heavy multi threaded applications, the FX 8150 wouldn't let you down but in everything else the i5 2500k is the sweet choice.
a c 142 à CPUs
a b À AMD
May 27, 2012 12:11:11 AM

I'm with Looniam, this is just going to devolve into a flame war.

With that said, what Firo40 said is basically correct. The Bulldozer CPU lineup works well for highly threaded integer based applications but falls short elsewhere due to inferior instructions per cycle per core
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 27, 2012 12:26:01 AM

zackn06 said:
I think my post was misinterpreted, this is not a 'Which is better' thread, My question was directed towards the performance of the two compared as software evolves. How will they compare in a year? Two years?

well the "AMD Vs Intel " is bound to throw off a few people . .

no offense, you ask a good rhetorical question; because there really is no answer for it until the time when software does progress and whether or not the architecture of FX is taken into account.

the no offense part comes in when i ask about you doing the research . .i mean google is easy . .i remember as a kid if i wanted an answer i had to peddle my 3 speed, the one with a banana seat and sissy bar, 10 miles to the local library, up hill both ways and search the card catalog. and i had to avoid the librarian; she was a witch ya know, everyone knew it because she had a lazy eye and mole on her nose that a 3 inch hair grew out of . . . but i digress.
May 27, 2012 12:45:52 AM

Gaming: Intel
Multi-threading Applications: AMD
May 27, 2012 2:17:34 AM

I am with AMD but I wont lie to you, the 8150 has the same performance as the 2500k , sometimes better but in only a few apps, so it is basically the same. Anyway the 2500k is priced a bit lower, so if you ask which one is better I would say the INTEL is.
May 27, 2012 2:22:09 AM

davemaster84 said:
I am with AMD but I wont lie to you, the 8150 has the same performance as the 2500k , sometimes better but in only a few apps, so it is basically the same. Anyway the 2500k is priced a bit lower, so if you ask which one is better I would say the INTEL is.



Newegg prices

FX-8120 169.99
FX- 8150 199.99
i5 2500k 219.99

Is each step worth the 20$ price difference? Will i notice a performance difference between them for gaming? (WoW,Diablo 3, SC2, Crysis)
a c 184 à CPUs
a b À AMD
May 27, 2012 2:42:04 AM

PASSMARK IS FAKE!
a b à CPUs
May 27, 2012 3:00:35 AM

The short answer to OP:

They are the f***king same. Difference architectures, but they're both targetting at the same customers/price group.

FPS for FPS, the i5 beats the FX by on average 5-20% (25fps vs 30) but that depends on the game, as well your other specs of the machine.

For encoding video it's the other way around, the FX beats the i5 by 5-20% for MPEG > DVD conversion or whatever.

a b à CPUs
May 27, 2012 3:00:56 AM

zackn06 said:
Newegg prices

FX-8120 169.99
FX- 8150 199.99
i5 2500k 219.99

Is each step worth the 20$ price difference? Will i notice a performance difference between them for gaming? (WoW,Diablo 3, SC2, Crysis)

Wow=no
D3=no
SC2=2500k @4.8 or forget about it
Crysis=Same as SC2
May 27, 2012 3:35:25 AM

The reason to choose any processor really, is performance for price- unless you are going i7-39xx on an X79, we all are trading performance for $. So the real question is, at what price ? Compare the price of your desired motherboard + processor for each processor (since AMD mobos that can overclock are often cheaper).
At the same price for Mobo + Processor, I'd probably choose the 2500k, unless I was doing a lot of video editing/conversion.
At probably $50 less for the mobo + processor, I'd switch to the FX-8150, and buy a beefier graphics card with my budget savings.
May 27, 2012 7:14:18 PM

Quote:
so all you look at is newegg.?
and that price IS INCORRECT, or was plus there is a promo discount..
(so try that again.)
:pfff: 


AMD FX-8150


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
http://www.amazon.com/AMD-FX-8150-8-Core-Edition-Proces...
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/ite...

Intel I5 2500k
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B004EBUXHQ/sr=1-...
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/ite...

Good god, did your mother not tell you that if you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything at all?
I didnt think that it was necessary to post higher prices in a thread that has nothing to do with the price of the item.
:fou: 
a c 184 à CPUs
a b À AMD
May 27, 2012 8:48:36 PM

Troll malmental is troll ;) 
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 27, 2012 8:51:59 PM

Quote:
Nap time!-amdfangirl

s'up wit dat!?
you got stalker sig?
May 27, 2012 9:25:34 PM

Depending on what you plan to do most... 8150 if you're gonna use threaded stuff (Autodesk, Adobe, etc), otherwise undoubtably 2500k. Unfortunately the 8150 isn't very well optimized, being one of the first desktop (not quite true, but close enough) 8-cores - I know that on my i7 920 system the first four 'cores' are the main cores, the next four are the hyper-threads (so 0-3=Cores, 4-7=second thread to each core), and it's optimized to use the first 4 cores before going onto the next ones, whereas on my 8150, cores 0, 2, 4, 6 are the actual cores, whereas 1, 3, 5, 7 are the second part of the module, so share part of the other 4 cores. However, it still uses 1, 2, 3, 4 before using the others.... On linux Ubuntu (newest version and maybe the one before it) it's properly optimised though.
May 27, 2012 9:45:17 PM

amuffin said:
PASSMARK IS FAKE!

Proof?

a c 184 à CPUs
a b À AMD
May 27, 2012 10:02:23 PM

zackn06 said:
Proof?

Phenom 1100T outperforming an i7-870?

FX-6200 outperforming 1100t and older i7's?


a c 184 à CPUs
a b À AMD
May 27, 2012 10:03:35 PM

Anonymous said:
Quote:
Nap time!-amdfangirl

s'up wit dat!?
you got stalker sig?

Ask her yourself :pt1cable: 
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 27, 2012 10:07:34 PM

zackn06 said:
Proof?

just go to passmark and see where a like AMD A8 - 3850 cpu is at.

then read some reviews with some real world benchmarks.

if you want to find some better benchmarking programs that reflect more of real world applications go to:
http://hwbot.org/
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 27, 2012 10:08:37 PM

amuffin said:
Ask her yourself :pt1cable: 

i ain't looking to book a vacation.
a b à CPUs
May 27, 2012 10:13:50 PM

passmark isn't exactly fake, its a pure synthetic test, pretty much in line with sisoft sandra results

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bul...

Quote:
I think my post was misinterpreted, this is not a 'Which is better' thread, My question was directed towards the performance of the two compared as software evolves. How will they compare in a year? Two years?


no one will ever know because the only cpus to be tested over and over are Intel. Look at how many times SB has been reviewed since its release, and with BD FX, we have day 1 results and ... thats pretty much it. Toms doesn't even do SBM builds with AMD chips to show wether or not software is starting to take advantage of it.

Quote:
However, it still uses 1, 2, 3, 4 before using the others.... On linux Ubuntu (newest version and maybe the one before it) it's properly optimised though.


actually not anymore. This is what Skyrim does nowdays.



Definately a cpu bottleneck ... somehow at 40% per core.
a c 184 à CPUs
a b À AMD
May 27, 2012 10:19:10 PM

Anonymous said:
i ain't looking to book a vacation.

She's not going to ban you.... :whistle: 
!