Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I5 2500k or AMD Bulldozer FX

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 5, 2012 10:21:37 AM

I have no idea on the AMD CPU front at the minute.

I know that I can purchase a FX6200 (6 core) for roughly the same price as an Intel 2500k, but I want to know what is best for gaming, but also taking into account on budget as I'd like to save a bit of money and not lose much performance.

I personally don't see the benefit of more cores at the moment as nothing really uses it. I do want to replace my Q6700 as it's just not up to scratch anymore

More about : 2500k amd bulldozer

a c 203 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 5, 2012 10:25:28 AM

For gaming - i5-2500K.
Especially when CPUs are roughly the same price.
a c 78 à CPUs
June 5, 2012 10:27:36 AM

You should be able to get an FX-8120 for cheaper than a 2500K, as long as you understand that these CPUs are not particularly impressive at stock speeds, they are just as good as the 2500K under overclocking conditions. So long as you know what you're getting into:

Extensive Overclocking Benches
http://www.overclock.net/t/1210060/fx8120-vs-2500k-benc...

i5-2500K
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

FX-8120
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Plan on buying an aftermarket CPU cooler if you want to overclock either one:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Related resources
a c 78 à CPUs
June 5, 2012 10:28:50 AM

WR2 said:
For gaming - i5-2500K.
Especially when CPUs are roughly the same price.



How is a $220 dollar CPU "roughly" the same price as a $160 dollar one, out of curiosity?
a c 203 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 5, 2012 10:31:00 AM

nekulturny said:
How is a $220 dollar CPU "roughly" the same price as a $160 dollar one, out of curiosity?
Those are US prices you mention.

The OP has already said his prices are 'roughly the same price'
a c 78 à CPUs
June 5, 2012 10:32:52 AM

WR2 said:
Those are US prices you mention.

The OP has already said his prices are 'roughly the same price'



Oh I see, sorry, I've been drinking. LOL.

If the 8120 falls into that same price bracket, and you plan to overclock, based on the benches I've shown.. Flip a coin. Otherwise, 2500K, and I HAS SPOKEN.
a c 203 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 5, 2012 10:33:54 AM

Quote:
hurry up and hit 'master' so I can see..
:o  'morning Mal;
Won't be too long, probably before I finish my first cup of coffee.
a c 78 à CPUs
June 5, 2012 10:34:24 AM

Hi Mal, you know I still love you right bro?
a c 78 à CPUs
June 5, 2012 10:35:54 AM

Quote:
you don't talk to me on Steam... :( 

I didn't know I could talk to people on Steam. I downloaded one game from it (Metro 2033), haven't really played with it much.
a c 203 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 5, 2012 10:36:22 AM

I watched mousemonkey make Master; in fact watched him do it 3 or 4 times maybe.
The THG site database did not blow up.
a c 203 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 5, 2012 10:41:40 AM

@ malmental
He was going backward at pretty good clip before someone (eh hmm) pointed that out to him. He had gone from 69K to 55K without noticing. So there was some experimenting, poking and testing about the time he went on his rampage. I guess they found out a few things.
Maybe it was cheating, but always 'within' the rules.
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 5, 2012 10:49:17 AM

i5-2500K.
a c 203 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 5, 2012 10:51:06 AM

There's a guy over in the German side of THG Forums that made Master quite a whlle ago.
It's going to happen to you before the year is out unless you take an extra long holiday. Rolli59 is going to make it this month too. And mousemonkey (again) if he ever stops going backward.
a c 78 à CPUs
June 5, 2012 11:00:31 AM

Quote:
i5-2500K @ Microcenter (in-store only) $169.99



Hell of a deal too. Only problem with it is the 8120 is 150 from Microcenter.

Like I said, stock to stock, 2500k, 4.5GHZ overclock, flip a coin.
June 5, 2012 11:17:01 AM

hmmm... well I have a good cooler in mind for both of these chips, so obviously overclocking will happen either way. But, I was thinking that the setup of buying a Z77 or equivalent board with memory etc is quite expensive whereas an AMD 980/990 can be picked up a bit cheaper
a c 78 à CPUs
June 5, 2012 11:22:14 AM

Well, how much does the FX-8120 run in your area? And for that matter what is your primary goal for this computer to do? The thing about the FX CPUs is they aren't true 6 cores, 8 cores or what have you.

The 6200 for example is a tri-core that "pretends" to have 6 cores. My advice is, as I mentioned, if any FX CPU is to considered it should be considered under the conditions that its overclocked, and its the FX-8xxx series.
a c 203 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 5, 2012 11:22:46 AM

RAM is about the same, or course.
And we see Z68/Z77 and 970/990 motherboards not too far apart price.

What kind of prices are you looking at in your locale?
a c 78 à CPUs
June 5, 2012 11:30:04 AM

I don't know if I'd go that far personally. Intel has too big of a gap between their dual cores and quad cores, they really need to sort that out.
a c 203 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 5, 2012 11:34:08 AM

@ hammerhead2008;

Are you seeing any Phenom II X4s still for sale in your area? For example, Phenom II X4 965 or Phenom II X4 960T? And if so, what price?
One of those with a good 970 motherboard might hit a sweet spot for bang for the buck upgrade.

We like four real Phenom II cores a lot better than three Bulldozer modules.
a c 78 à CPUs
June 5, 2012 11:36:55 AM

WR2 said:
@ hammerhead2008;

Are you seeing any Phenom II X4s still for sale in your area? For example, Phenom II X4 965 or Phenom II X4 960T? And if so, what price?
One of those with a good 970 motherboard might hit a sweet spot for bang for the buck upgrade.

We like four real Phenom II cores a lot better than three Bulldozer modules.

The sole Bulldozer defender in this thread concurs. :lol: 
a c 203 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 5, 2012 11:44:09 AM

I'm OK with Bulldozer if that's what a person wants.
I think it's got a slightly unfair rep - it's not like it can't get the job done.
Too much hype before launch, too much disappointment after and it never recovered.

Still, launching a product after that long a wait that didn't impress (or even match performance of the older line in many respects) was probably too much to over come.
June 5, 2012 12:02:28 PM

I'm from the UK but I have seen one 965 Black Edition for £100 (compared to the 2500K of £140) so that's a cheaper alternative. I thought about this too, but I don't want to dig myself into old technology, as I already have a Q6700 and only after a year or two I'm needing to upgrade.

Been doing my own research and I know that IvyBridge has turned into a flop to be brutally honest, with high temps when overclocking, which I'm probably looking to do. Main priority for this system is games, but also with some video rendering.
June 5, 2012 12:05:12 PM

Ill reiterate what the other have said, if you can go for the i5 any benchmark be it game or synthetic leans heavily in favour of the i5 over any FX chip. I think the only time the FX pulls ahead *slightly* is in some of the heavily multi threaded applications, and even then I'm talking about the 8150 and the 8120, not the 6200.

So in short, i5 is a definite if possible and allowing to budget constraints, yet the FX would "get the job done".
June 5, 2012 12:10:27 PM

hammerhead2008 said:
I'm from the UK but I have seen one 965 Black Edition for £100 (compared to the 2500K of £140) so that's a cheaper alternative. I thought about this too, but I don't want to dig myself into old technology, as I already have a Q6700 and only after a year or two I'm needing to upgrade.

Been doing my own research and I know that IvyBridge has turned into a flop to be brutally honest, with high temps when overclocking, which I'm probably looking to do. Main priority for this system is games, but also with some video rendering.



Yay, Im UK too! Back to the subject though, remember that although the 15 3550k will have higher temps when overclocking above a certain speed it will also have slightly higher ipc to compensate for that, in that respect of being a die shrink I would say Ivy is an important step ahead, especially with this 3d transistor system. So dont count out ivy to much.

Maybe as an alternative if you're gaming you could get a cheap Sandybridge pentium and 1155 mobo and wait for Haswell next year?
a c 203 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 5, 2012 12:11:41 PM

Did you upgrade an exisiting 775 motherboard a few years back.
Q6700 has been out about five years now. It's still a pretty decent CPU, especially overclocked.
What video card are you using?


a c 203 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 5, 2012 12:18:02 PM

hammerhead2008 said:
I know that IvyBridge has turned into a flop to be brutally honest, with high temps when overclocking, which I'm probably looking to do.
This would be more accurate if you were a Sandy Bridge owner looking to upgrade. As someone about to move from Kentsfield to SB/IVB/Bulldozer it's not exactly a downgrade.
If your video encoding software will support Quick Sync or GPGPU encoding IVB is looking like a very good option for you.
June 5, 2012 12:20:28 PM

My GPU is an XFX HD4890, have considered upgrading to a GTX 570, not the 560 Ti 448 as I want a bit of headroom, especially if I go to EVGA and use the step up program if I gain a bit more money in the near future.

I upgraded my system about 2 years ago from an AMD 939 4400 X2 with an 320MB 8800GTS OC to the Q6700 and HD4890. I was going on the factor that using an old chip was top-ish spec, but I've found myself limited in games, even if they are CPU heavy games such as good old Half Life 2 that sometimes my CPU seems to struggle (well I think it's the CPU anyway).

Hmm I will have to keep that in mind, I'm not a massive overclocker but have tweaked a little extra power from the Q6700 to roughly 3Ghz.
a c 78 à CPUs
June 5, 2012 12:27:04 PM

For the price of the GTX 570, you could buy a 7850 for less and overclock it and it would step right up to the 570.
a c 203 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 5, 2012 12:29:57 PM

Have you done the usual house keeping, system cleaning and fresh OS install anytime lately?

Q6700 @ 3.6hz~3.8Ghz and a new graphics card might keep you happy long enough to end up to choosing between Piledriver or Haswell.
June 5, 2012 12:37:17 PM

Probably go for a GTX 570 then, performance is all I want haha.

I've got 4 hard drives, I dual boot 2 with the other 2 as storage drives, they hold Windows 7 Pro, one with a fresh clean install with just basics on for intense gaming (off the other HDD's, which seems to work well). I do need to learn how to OC. I know I can OC my CPU to 2.9 stable with not voltage changes, when I tried to inc my voltage by just one level my PC was just like.... "NO!" so might be stuck here for a while. I've got a relatively decent cooler on it so I wouldn't say cooling is an issue. Someone care to give me some lessons? <3

Piledriver I take it being AMD's recovery from the fail FX then?

Is the 560Ti 448 worth debating over, because it's almost the same price as a GTX 570 in the UK it is anyway. Only like £30 difference
a c 203 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 5, 2012 12:39:25 PM

Piledriver will be to Bulldozer like what Ivy Bridge is to Sandy Bridge; a step up, not a leap forward.
a c 78 à CPUs
June 5, 2012 12:40:28 PM

Quote:
Piledriver I take it being AMD's recovery from the fail FX then?


Theoretically, we'll see this winter I 'spose. I'm with WR2 after bouncing back and forth on the issue myself, I think largely the Bulldozers have been unfairly criticized. They deserved to get hammered for being initially overpriced, but the argument in my mind is largely resolved by their price reduction.
a c 78 à CPUs
June 5, 2012 12:43:53 PM

Quote:
£30 difference = 570

Piledriver is to be 10-15% better than Bulldozer so that puts it at first Gen Intel Core (Nehalem) like the i5-760 in terms of ratio performance.
Piledriver will clock higher than the i5-760..



What I'm wondering is, does that include the 5-10 percent figure Tom's through out there that Windows8 is supposed to bring to the table? If so then we're talking a 15-25 percent improvement. Where does that put them? But then again its all hypothetical since I had heard Ivy was supposed to be 20 percent better than Sandy and all we got was 6 percent.
June 5, 2012 12:44:32 PM

I'm not really confident in AMD at the minute, so I'll probably just stick with Intel, have been right up there and no complaints yet. Well I know where that £30 is going then :p 

Haswell is another chip for the sandybridge board or a completely new architecture?
a c 78 à CPUs
June 5, 2012 12:47:40 PM

hammerhead2008 said:
I'm not really confident in AMD at the minute, so I'll probably just stick with Intel, have been right up there and no complaints yet. Well I know where that £30 is going then :p 

Haswell is another chip for the sandybridge board or a completely new architecture?



I don't know about architecture but Haswell is set to be on a whole new socket that isn't backwards compatible with LGA1155.. Meaning if you want a Haswell next year, you'll be buying a new mobo.
a c 203 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 5, 2012 12:48:42 PM

IVB was a die shrink (a tick) and Haswell is new architecture (a tock in the Intel tick-tock upgrade plan).
There are some sticky topics above you might want to browse if you're interested.
a c 78 à CPUs
June 5, 2012 12:51:19 PM

Quote:
but he doesn't upgrade for 2 to 3 years at least.
Q6700 is like 5-6 years old now right.?

Sounds about right.
June 5, 2012 12:56:06 PM

Well if I wait until Haswell comes out, would be a clever move I think. Do you think the GTX 670's price with come down soon (being a year's time) so I could do a complete new build all at once with Haswell. Is there any Direct X level improvements made in Windows 8? (haven't been updated with windows 8)
a c 78 à CPUs
June 5, 2012 1:35:58 PM

I wouldn't wait for Haswell no. Right now AMD is licking their wounds from releasing a product that stock to stock, it can't outperform its prior generation, but the fact is that Intel is not infallible either, they too have released products that can't even keep up with their prior generation (Pentium 4s for example, and yes there are others).

While its unlikely the Haswell will be a flop, its not impossible. Haswell is more than likely based on history, not going to be a "reinvention of the wheel". What we do know today in June 2012, a Sandy or Ivy will be a fairly big step up from your Core2Quad.

As far as prices of GTX 670s, my guess is you won't see them drop until Nvidia is ready to throw out the 700 series. Since 600 series is just getting underway, who knows?

As far as DirectX, I don't know.
June 5, 2012 1:41:03 PM

AMD users often cite the PassMark benchmark as "proof" that AMD's Bulldozer trumps Intel's Sandy Bridge, particularly the 8120 versus the 2500k.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8120+Eig...

FX-8120 = 8,273

i5 2500k = 6,740

But, that is extremely misleading.

First of all, those are not "gaming" benchmarks. The question is not which CPU is the better performer overall, but rather, which CPU is better in games.

Secondly, the performance of each core is tallied up as a whole, and the FX-8120 has eight of them. The 2500k has only four, and with no hyper threading. That is clearly relevant seeing as how the 2600k, with the same exact architecture as the 2500k, out performs the 8120 handedly, despite the fact that four of it's cores are virtual. And overclocking the 2500k/2600k would leave the 8120 in the dust even more so.

Additionally, it is clear that having double the core count only gives the 8120 a mere 20% advantage, a figure that should easily be five times higher. That makes it very clear that core for core, the Intel i5 2500k is far more effective.

Finally, games up until this point (and into the foreseeable future) seldom, if ever, use more than four cores. In fact, many (modern games included) only use two.

In conclusion, choosing between the i5 2500k and the FX-8120 for a gaming rig comes down to whether you want a CPU with four very effective cores, or a CPU that is basically the equivalent of an eight core Pentium.
a c 78 à CPUs
June 5, 2012 1:49:27 PM

Quote:
AMD users often cite the PassMark benchmark as "proof" that AMD's Bulldozer trumps Intel's Sandy Bridge, particularly the 8120 versus the 2500k.


I've never taken passmark seriously, nor have I to my knowledge ever used it as a basis for any claims I have made on these forums.

Quote:
Secondly, the performance of each core is tallied up as a whole, and the FX-8120 has eight of them. The 2500k has only four, and with no hyper threading. That is clearly relevant seeing as how the 2600k, with the same exact architecture as the 2500k, out performs the 8120 handedly, despite the fact that four of it's cores are virtual. And overclocking the 2500k would leave the 8120 in the dust even more so.


I gave a link that shows an 8120 up against a 2500K under overclocking conditions that covers many applications, including synthetics and actual gaming. Its clear to me based on those results that the 8120 priced at $170 can clearly stand up to the $220 2500K regardless of how much higher the results should be. Dealing in hypotheticals is kind of pointless, of course the architecture is not as efficient as it should/could/ought to be, I don't dispute this, but lets stick to facts. Furthermore, the 2600K is a $300 dollar CPU, I darn well expect it to perform better than a $170 dollar one, regardless of who makes it or how its made. I try to keep my claims solely based on Price vs Performance comparisons only, and include overclocking potential when applicable.

To each their own of course applies. But just in case you missed it, here it is again:

http://www.overclock.net/t/1210060/fx8120-vs-2500k-benc...
June 5, 2012 3:30:39 PM

nekulturny said:
Quote:
AMD users often cite the PassMark benchmark as "proof" that AMD's Bulldozer trumps Intel's Sandy Bridge, particularly the 8120 versus the 2500k.


I've never taken passmark seriously, nor have I to my knowledge ever used it as a basis for any claims I have made on these forums.

Quote:
Secondly, the performance of each core is tallied up as a whole, and the FX-8120 has eight of them. The 2500k has only four, and with no hyper threading. That is clearly relevant seeing as how the 2600k, with the same exact architecture as the 2500k, out performs the 8120 handedly, despite the fact that four of it's cores are virtual. And overclocking the 2500k would leave the 8120 in the dust even more so.


I gave a link that shows an 8120 up against a 2500K under overclocking conditions that covers many applications, including synthetics and actual gaming. Its clear to me based on those results that the 8120 priced at $170 can clearly stand up to the $220 2500K regardless of how much higher the results should be. Dealing in hypotheticals is kind of pointless, of course the architecture is not as efficient as it should/could/ought to be, I don't dispute this, but lets stick to facts. Furthermore, the 2600K is a $300 dollar CPU, I darn well expect it to perform better than a $170 dollar one, regardless of who makes it or how its made. I try to keep my claims solely based on Price vs Performance comparisons only, and include overclocking potential when applicable.

To each their own of course applies. But just in case you missed it, here it is again:

http://www.overclock.net/t/1210060/fx8120-vs-2500k-benc...


None of those benchmarks were pertinent to the subject of in-game performance, with the exception of maybe two, if that.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and for what it's worth, I agree with it for the most part. For it's price range, the 8120 is among the best out there.

Just NOT for gaming.

That's apt to change when games begin using more than 4 cores. But for now, core for core, the 2500k destroys the 8120, and one has to look no further than the difference in performance in games that use only two cores, such as Skyrim.

It's not pretty if you are an AMD fan, no offense.
a c 186 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 5, 2012 3:41:08 PM

i5-2500k $170
Mobo $50 off
At your local Microcenter!
a c 186 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 5, 2012 3:50:10 PM

Quote:
i5-2500K @ Microcenter (in-store only) $169.99

You didn't say you get $50 off of a mobo! :kaola: 
a c 78 à CPUs
June 5, 2012 9:40:43 PM

PCgamer81 said:
None of those benchmarks were pertinent to the subject of in-game performance, with the exception of maybe two, if that.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and for what it's worth, I agree with it for the most part. For it's price range, the 8120 is among the best out there.

Just NOT for gaming.

That's apt to change when games begin using more than 4 cores. But for now, core for core, the 2500k destroys the 8120, and one has to look no further than the difference in performance in games that use only two cores, such as Skyrim.

It's not pretty if you are an AMD fan, no offense.




Obviously thats not true under overclocking conditions.

Battlefield 3...Supposed to be a quad core game, doesn't seem to matter what CPU you use, even at stock speeds:
\
http://www.techspot.com/review/458-battlefield-3-perfor...

I wanted to call your bluff on the Skyrim claim, try as I might, I cannot seem to find a bench of Skyrim for the FX-8120 under overclocking conditions, I still say based on those other benches, that "have nothing to do with gaming", despite the fact that they clearly show the CPU is on-par with the 2500K when overclocked the claim is subject to scrutiny. Yes, I know stock to stock the 2500K plays skyrim much better.

Edit: I did remember this article
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-a...

So perhaps you have a point for one game.
June 5, 2012 10:03:37 PM

When I saw the title of this thread with 60-something posts in it I put some popcorn in the microwave and sat down to read the two sides duke it out...

Overall I'm really disappointed. This hasn't nearly been as bloody as I had hoped. Egos have largely remained intact and in fact there has been a lot of "meh" from both camps.

Anyways...Congratulations on becoming a master WR2!
a c 78 à CPUs
June 5, 2012 10:05:37 PM

LOL Pacioli, really things run much smoother when the young kids are in school
June 5, 2012 10:59:19 PM

LOL.

Joking aside, I see no reason for this thread to be "bloody". Sure, we all have different opinions and look at things behind our own set of eyes, but we can still be respectful of others.

After all, this isn't Overclock.net.
a c 146 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 5, 2012 11:15:16 PM

For gaming the I5 2500k is the best price to performance and right now AMD has nothing that can compare to Sandy Bridges and Ivy Bridges processors. The I5 gives great performance and can easily be heavily overclocked. Just look at the benchmarks out there the I5 2500k beats Bulldozers in all but a few games. Even the old Phenom II's and first generation I core processors beat the Bulldozer.
!