Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Amd bulldozer vs i5 2500k

Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
July 20, 2012 11:08:22 AM

Hello,
hi whats the diffence for gaming

More about : amd bulldozer 2500k

a b à CPUs
July 20, 2012 11:25:14 AM

Stay away from AMD bulldozer they are really crap, 8 core doesn't meant that it would boost your games much more than 4 cores of 2500k entirely wrong, all the games require 2/4 cores only not more than this and in this particular case 2500k is MUCH MUCH faster gaming cpu. here is the benchmark, see how much 2500k is better than bulldozer fx-8150 which has 8 cores while 2500k has only 4 cores. I strongly recommend 2500k don't waste your money on bulldozer.
a c 448 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a c 111 À AMD
July 20, 2012 1:20:12 PM

The vast majority of games only use 2 CPU cores. The number of games that can use 4 CPU cores is tiny compared to the number of games designed to use only 2 cores.

Assuming the same clock speeds each Intel Sandy Bridge CPU core is about 23% more powerful than each AMD FX CPU core. This is important in games that are dependent on the CPU like Skyrim and Civilization V which can provide higher frame rates, but less important in games that are not very dependent on the CPU like Crysis 2 (very little difference between an i5-2500k @ 2.5GHz and @ 4.5GHz).
Related resources
a b à CPUs
July 20, 2012 1:59:30 PM

xtreme5 made "fanboy"statement. The thing is: intel is ahead of AMD with their SB and IvB arhitecture. But to state that "FX is horrible" its way out of line here... There is no Bulldozer CPU that is going to make ANY modern game UNPLAYABLE. Even if you use a triple monitor setup an FX 4170 / 4100 (OCd) is not going to make your game unplayable.... From "horrible" to "weaker then intel" its a long way.
July 20, 2012 2:24:13 PM

I think he's saying that it's horrible because they are way below par with the bulldozer architecture, heck even the phenom II's are still better than them. I personally wouldn't say horrible because like you said they can still do things pretty well, but cheaper dual cores from intel outperform them in some categories :p 

(Not a fanboy here)
a b à CPUs
July 20, 2012 2:33:19 PM

crisan_tiberiu said:
xtreme5 made "fanboy"statement. The thing is: intel is ahead of AMD with their SB and IvB arhitecture. But to state that "FX is horrible" its way out of line here... There is no Bulldozer CPU that is going to make ANY modern game UNPLAYABLE. Even if you use a triple monitor setup an FX 4170 / 4100 (OCd) is not going to make your game unplayable.... From "horrible" to "weaker then intel" its a long way.

well actually i'm not a fanboy of anything the only cpu which i like from AMD side is phenom ll 980BE cheaper + excellent performance. you are saying that i'm a fanboy then you are too are you blind didn't you see the bench isn't that true 4cores beat 8cores how strange, another REAL thing is when someone is going to configure SLI/CF high-end cards like GTX 680's or 7970's even 690's too all of the AMD low to high-end cpu's can bottleneck those cards as a result more crappy performance where as intel core i series cpu's can handle every two or more sli/cf setup like i5 2500k, i5 3570k, i5 2500, i5 3550 or i7's of both generation 2nd and 3rd GEN.
a c 141 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
July 21, 2012 6:22:39 PM

xtreme5 said:
well actually i'm not a fanboy of anything the only cpu which i like from AMD side is phenom ll 980BE cheaper + excellent performance. you are saying that i'm a fanboy then you are too are you blind didn't you see the bench isn't that true 4cores beat 8cores how strange, another REAL thing is when someone is going to configure SLI/CF high-end cards like GTX 680's or 7970's even 690's too all of the AMD low to high-end cpu's can bottleneck those cards as a result more crappy performance where as intel core i series cpu's can handle every two or more sli/cf setup like i5 2500k, i5 3570k, i5 2500, i5 3550 or i7's of both generation 2nd and 3rd GEN.


I agree 100% and wouldn't bother with a Bullcrapper for a gaming build.
a b à CPUs
July 21, 2012 6:51:09 PM

rds1220 said:
I agree 100% and wouldn't bother with a Bullcrapper for a gaming build.

bullcrapper LOLLLL
July 21, 2012 10:37:05 PM

jaguarskx coverd the intel part.

You will not experience any difference in gaming as the subject is more graphics card related and less CPU. The truth is AMD always wins in floating point tests with more powerful ALU therefore is the best choice in 3rd rendering application, code encryption, code breaking, workstation.

I say go with FX-8150 if you like 4.2 Ghz or FX-8170 if you like 4.5 Ghz

Ps you need a good cpu coler also.
a c 141 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
July 21, 2012 10:59:58 PM

Giatrakis said:
jaguarskx coverd the intel part.

You will not experience any difference in gaming as the subject is more graphics card related and less CPU. The truth is AMD always wins in floating point tests with more powerful ALU therefore is the best choice in 3rd rendering application, code encryption, code breaking, workstation.

I say go with FX-8150 if you like 4.2 Ghz or FX-8170 if you like 4.5 Ghz

Ps you need a good cpu coler also.


First of all he doesn't mention anything about doing video encoding or Auto Cad he said strictly gaming and the Bulldozer isn't that great at gaming. Bulldozer always wins out in heavy threaded programs...ok but no. It wins out in SOME heavily threaded programs. The I7 with hyper threading can and has beaten out the Bulldozer in heavily threaded programs to when the Bulldozer actually wins out it's just barley. The Bulldozer was suppose to be so great in heavy threaded programs and it's piss poor in that too. :pfff: 
July 21, 2012 11:54:45 PM

rds1220 said:
First of all he doesn't mention anything about doing video encoding or Auto Cad he said strictly gaming and the Bulldozer isn't that great at gaming. Bulldozer always wins out in heavy threaded programs...ok but no. It wins out in SOME heavily threaded programs. The I7 with hyper threading can and has beaten out the Bulldozer in heavily threaded programs to when the Bulldozer actually wins out it's just barley. The Bulldozer was suppose to be so great in heavy threaded programs and it's piss poor in that too. :pfff: 



I covered territories jaguarskx didn't he is making really hard to disagree with him but it's ok. In floting point is never barelly search a bit better..
July 22, 2012 3:05:28 AM

crisan_tiberiu said:
xtreme5 made "fanboy"statement. The thing is: intel is ahead of AMD with their SB and IvB arhitecture. But to state that "FX is horrible" its way out of line here... There is no Bulldozer CPU that is going to make ANY modern game UNPLAYABLE. Even if you use a triple monitor setup an FX 4170 / 4100 (OCd) is not going to make your game unplayable.... From "horrible" to "weaker then intel" its a long way.



Why are you even here? Did you not answer earlier that the question posted was pointless?
!