Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD pile driver or Ivy bridge?

Last response: in Systems
Share
May 14, 2012 4:14:24 PM

Hello I am looking to build my first PC, after spending to long looking at the comparisons I still feel like getting a AMD FX-Series FX-8120 would be better then the i5-2500K reason being while I am a gamer I'm also a editor and no matter how many times I see people say the 2500k is faster I still can't buy that 8 cores would be worse then 4 for gaming I'm sure its faster but editing surely not?

So my question do you think this trend will continue with the release of Ivy bridge and pile driver, is it worth waiting for them or shall I just pick up a FX-8120?
May 14, 2012 4:32:08 PM

worldofjonny2 said:
Hello I am looking to build my first PC, after spending to long looking at the comparisons I still feel like getting a AMD FX-Series FX-8120 would be better then the i5-2500K reason being while I am a gamer I'm also a editor and no matter how many times I see people say the 2500k is faster I still can't buy that 8 cores would be worse then 4 for gaming I'm sure its faster but editing surely not?

So my question do you think this trend will continue with the release of Ivy bridge and pile driver, is it worth waiting for them or shall I just pick up a FX-8120?

Four good cores > Eight crappy cores.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-... <----- Reviews w/benchmarks for the AMD FX-8120 Zambezi. So whether you buy it or not, the reviews and benchmarks show that the Sandy Bridge and now Ivy Bridge pretty much mop that floor with the 8120 and do it more efficiently.

As far as Pile Driver goes...who knows until we see the benchmarks? If it's anything like AMD's last release I wouldn't hold my breath.
May 14, 2012 4:37:40 PM

Even for editing? Any idea on a release date?
Related resources
May 14, 2012 4:39:15 PM

Bulldozer was pretty much an epic fail - you try to introduce new cores and instructions onto an aging platform with a socket that can't handle it, you're going to get the bad benchmarks that everyone is saying. I'm told that FX does better in some environments than the i5/i7 does but even that's not enough to justify purchasing one. I just migrated my system from AM3 to an i5-based setup and I couldn't be happier with the results.
May 14, 2012 4:40:35 PM

i would bet that an intel core i5 2400 would beat the best desktop processors from amd, oh wait benchmarks prove it.
May 14, 2012 4:43:57 PM

We will get our first taste of piledriver in a few days supposedly through Trinity (notebooks etc) then through Trinity Desktop in August. As far as Piledriver Desktop (with L3 cache) we don't know when at the moment or for that matter how much faster it will be than trinity or how it will perform.
May 14, 2012 4:45:33 PM

Well these are the components I was planning on getting:


CPU:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/AMD-FX-Series-FX-8120-Processor...
=£123

Motherboard:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Asus-SABERTOOTH-990FX-ASUS-AM3/...
=£114

Hardrive:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Samsung-HD103SJ-internal-SATAII...
=£85

Ram:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Corsair-CMZ8GX3M2A1600C9-1600MH...
=£40

CD Drive
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sony-AD-7261S-0B-Internal-DVDRW...
=£15.99

Power supply:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/OCZ-OCZ600MXSP-UK-ModXStream-Po...
=£50

Cooling fan:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Arctic-Cooling-Freezer-Xtreme-C...
=£28

budget around £500

so would u recommend getting I5 instead? i know there is no graphics card included and that is because a friend is giving me his old gtx480
May 14, 2012 4:50:54 PM

Why_Me said:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=551 <----- AMD FX-8150 vs 3770K

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=552 <----- AMD FX-8150 vs 3930K

There's some benchmarks to check out. No idea on when Pile Driver is due to be released. AMD is mum on it so far.


According to those benchmarks the AMD seems to be stronger at editing as I suggested, my friend has a 6 core AMD i think its a phenom and he still runs games flawlessly is there really any need to go for i7 cost wise AMD is cheaper and when will i notice to difference if a older 6 core runs games full setting with no problems?
May 14, 2012 4:54:48 PM

The Phenom IIs will bottle-neck most games if you use a decent graphics card. Those aren't Piledriver CPUs that you looked at, they are Bulldozer. Piledriver is not out yet and although it looks like a promising leap over Bulldozer, it might not be good enough until at least it's successor, Steamroller.

The GTX 480 is more than any AMD processor (except for when they are overclocked to at least 4GHz) can handle in some games (not all games are CPU very dependent, so not all games will have a problem with the slower CPU). It would need a Sandy or Ivy i5 or i7 (i7s are not any faster than i5s for gaming, but they are faster for productivity) to run without being bottle-necked by the CPU in all games right now. For gaming, the i5s are all far superior to AMD's processors, although they do lose in some productivity programs to some of AMD's top CPUs. The i7s beat AMD in everything, hence their higher price.
a b À AMD
May 14, 2012 5:01:38 PM

Actually people call the FX series an Epic fail because they expected too much...They expected it to crush every Intel CPU there is and any given task.The reality however is much different than that.For encoding transcoding and things like that the FX 8120 will often outperform the 2500k and go into 2600k territory.http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150--8120-6100-an...
Now if we are talking about gaming performance the 2500k is by far the better choice but even if you go with the FX 8120 you arent going to notice the difference in most titles.And finally the FX 8120 isnt really an 8 core.Its made up of 4 modules each containing 2 cores which share resources.That compromises single core/thread performance in order to achieve higher multi core/threaded performance.
May 14, 2012 5:27:36 PM

Kamen_BG said:
Actually people call the FX series an Epic fail because they expected too much...They expected it to crush every Intel CPU there is and any given task.The reality however is much different than that.For encoding transcoding and things like that the FX 8120 will often outperform the 2500k and go into 2600k territory.http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150--8120-6100-an...
Now if we are talking about gaming performance the 2500k is by far the better choice but even if you go with the FX 8120 you arent going to notice the difference in most titles.And finally the FX 8120 isnt really an 8 core.Its made up of 4 modules each containing 2 cores which share resources.That compromises single core/thread performance in order to achieve higher multi core/threaded performance.


See this is what I was getting at, i realise that i5 is faster but noticeably? doubt full but with editing thing become much more noticeable I'm not bothers being at 90 fps instead 100 but maybe you could answer my question rather than everyone on every forum shouting about speed tests which CPU would be better for editing and gaming with my current graphics card: a gtx480 as i said im looking for the best of both worlds.
May 14, 2012 5:32:02 PM

The i7-2600k will be better than any AMD Processor for editing.
May 14, 2012 5:34:21 PM

azeem40 said:
The i7-2600k will be better than any AMD Processor for editing.

got £90 on you? ofc i7 is its 75% of the total price of the AMD but i'm asking is i5
May 14, 2012 5:35:32 PM

So you think just because something is more expensive it is better? The FX 8150 is more expensive, but for gaming it sucks. However, the i5 won't be as good as it lacks HT.
May 14, 2012 5:39:19 PM

azeem40 said:
So you think just because something is more expensive it is better? The FX 8150 is more expensive, but for gaming it sucks. However, the i5 won't be as good as it lacks HT.

how do u conclude its more expensive? coz looks like the one i LINKED is not more expensive

http://www.amazon.co.uk/AMD-FX-Series-FX-8120-Processor...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Intel-Sandybridge-i5-2500K-Quad...

yes the 150 is more expensive but not the 120 so as i was asking which is better for editing either the "fake" 8 core or the super amazing rave tatsic i5 and with the "shitty fake" 8 core will i even notice a difference in gaming performance?
May 14, 2012 5:39:59 PM

If you're more interested in editing the FX-8120 is a better value with recent price drop to $160. 2500k is still ~$210 and 2600k is ~$310. As far as gaming I can play Battlefield 3 on ultra with no CPU bottlenecking.
May 14, 2012 5:41:41 PM

If budget is an issue, I think a Phenom II X6 1045T would be a good choice.
May 14, 2012 5:45:41 PM

tonync_01 said:
If you're more interested in editing the FX-8120 is a better value with recent price drop to $160. 2500k is still ~$210 and 2600k is ~$310. As far as gaming I can play Battlefield 3 on ultra with no CPU bottlenecking.

Its not that i'm more interested rather i think that it would be noticeable editing wise but not gaming wise I can't see games having any issue at all running on it on top setting. So with the AMD being cheaper why bother going for the i5 is my questions?
May 14, 2012 5:46:40 PM

Actually, Bulldozer is called a fail because it is slower per Hz than even it's predecessor, Phenom II, which is already slower per Hz than even Core 2, a six year old architecture. It wasn't just that it was expected to be a killer, it was also the weakest architecture made in the last six years. To be beaten badly by a six year old architecture is a fail.

Look at it this way. If you go AMD, you sacrifice gaming performance in CPU reliant titles (many of the most prevalent titles are, especially MMORPGs) and lightly threaded productivity performance for highly threaded productivity performance. If you go Intel (with i5 as your limit), you sacrifice highly threaded productivity performance in some highly threaded applications in order to get huge performance in lightly threaded productivity and better gaming performance (gaming is almost always lightly threaded with BF3 multi-player being the only notable exception).

Then with AMD, you have to choose between FX and Phenom II. Phenom II is significantly weaker than FX for AES and some other such workloads that involve SSE4.x code, but Phenom II wins for older types of FP math and is a little better than FX at lightly threaded performance, although nowhere near as good as Intel, and a little worse than FX at highly threaded performance.
May 14, 2012 5:48:29 PM

I tell you what guys rather then argue about which is better, why not just explain either with Intel or amd a gaming / editing build for around £500 pounds so $800, I already have a GTX480 so don't bother including a graphics card :) 
May 14, 2012 5:53:56 PM

worldofjonny2 said:
I tell you what guys rather then argue about which is better, why not just explain either with Intel or amd a gaming / editing build for around £500 pounds so $800, I already have a GTX480 so don't bother including a graphics card :) 


I think in real gameplay you won't notice any difference between FX-8120 and 2500k, for editing/multi-threaded apps FX-8120 beats 2500k. In my opinion get the FX and save $50.
May 14, 2012 5:58:23 PM

tonync_01 said:
I think in real gameplay you won't notice any difference between FX-8120 and 2500k, for editing/multi-threaded apps FX-8120 beats 2500k. In my opinion get the FX and save $50.

Over clocking wise as this is my first build is it a great idea to over clock and risk over heat my CPU or something along those lines?
May 14, 2012 6:04:43 PM

worldofjonny2 said:
Over clocking wise as this is my first build is it a great idea to over clock and risk over heat my CPU or something along those lines?

Overclocking is always at your own risk. There is a good write-up about overclocking AMD cpus here: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/274820-29-black-editi... .

That being said, you can almost certainly "overclock" the fx-8120 to 3.6ghz at stock voltage, equal to the performance of the fx-8150, and likley get a higher overclock. If you interested in getting a higher overclock by increasing the voltage you probably will want to look into an aftermarket cpu cooler.
May 14, 2012 6:05:16 PM

I built my first comp and did OC. The worst that can happen is a Blue Screen of Death, which is not that bad.
May 14, 2012 6:11:40 PM

azeem40 said:
I built my first comp and did OC. The worst that can happen is a Blue Screen of Death, which is not that bad.

So it can't fry your components then and referring to the post above me a few pages back a linked my after market CPU.
Hold on a sec so you can over clock without increasing voltage? and there for no risk in harming the components?
May 14, 2012 6:16:04 PM

If you really think you need more cores to do editing get an i7 hexacore. But its true that any sandy or ivy bridge quad core chip will rape anything AMD has on the market as far as gaming AND editing.
May 14, 2012 6:16:27 PM

azeem40 said:
I built my first comp and did OC. The worst that can happen is a Blue Screen of Death, which is not that bad.


This is not the worst thing that can happen. You can fry your cpu or mobo, or decrease the lifetime of your cpu.
May 14, 2012 6:16:53 PM

I have kept stock voltage at 4.4 GHz and it still runs cool.
May 14, 2012 6:19:41 PM

gordknight said:
If you really think you need more cores to do editing get an i7 hexacore. But its true that any sandy or ivy bridge quad core chip will rape anything AMD has on the market as far as gaming AND editing.

whole thing is that I can't afford i7, and the problem is ivy bridge is expensive at the moment.
May 14, 2012 6:23:14 PM

azeem40 said:
I have kept stock voltage at 4.4 GHz and it still runs cool.

So is there any chance of frying stuff? Basically I'm asking if there is a safe way to do it.
May 14, 2012 6:24:08 PM

With how easy OCing is nowadays, you can't go wrong unless you use unreasonable numbers.
May 14, 2012 6:28:50 PM

worldofjonny2 said:
So is there any chance of frying stuff? Basically I'm asking if there is a safe way to do it.

There always some amount of risk with overclock, but like I said an overclock to 3.6ghz is pretty safe. If you want no risk of damage don't overclock.

If you're interested in overclock you should read some more about it. It is relatively safe if you know what you're doing.
May 14, 2012 6:41:03 PM

There isn't any risk unless you go crazy with the settings.
May 14, 2012 6:41:19 PM

I don't know for Bulldozer, but for Sandy Bridge, so long as you keep the memory voltage at about 1.5v and the CPU voltage below 1.4v, overclocking them will not have a problem. I do knw that FX chips can be overclocked well beyond 4GHz on their stock cooler, although it can get loud, it cools very well.
May 14, 2012 6:47:20 PM

worldofjonny2 said:
Hello I am looking to build my first PC, after spending to long looking at the comparisons I still feel like getting a AMD FX-Series FX-8120 would be better then the i5-2500K reason being while I am a gamer I'm also a editor and no matter how many times I see people say the 2500k is faster I still can't buy that 8 cores would be worse then 4 for gaming I'm sure its faster but editing surely not?

So my question do you think this trend will continue with the release of Ivy bridge and pile driver, is it worth waiting for them or shall I just pick up a FX-8120?


What are you editing? Images, video, newspaper articles, audio, etc? Look at the programs you use and find out if they support 2, 4, 8 cores, etc. Also, look for performance reviews with AMD CPUs vs Intel. Bulldozer may be better/good enough for your application. But you really need to determine this based on your usage. All i see above is that you edit something. No mention of application, workload, etc.
May 14, 2012 6:51:01 PM

po1nted said:
What are you editing? Images, video, newspaper articles, audio, etc? Look at the programs you use and find out if they support 2, 4, 8 cores, etc. Also, look for performance reviews with AMD CPUs vs Intel. Bulldozer may be better/good enough for your application. But you really need to determine this based on your usage. All i see above is that you edit something. No mention of application, workload, etc.

That because i can only be vaigue really i'm a media student i edit with after effects sony vegas photoshop cinimea 4d a whole buncha stuff and for no particular work load but sure as hell would be alot easier if i had a computer that could record games on my pc in high quality and then edit them quiclkly.
May 14, 2012 7:00:40 PM

I'd take the i5. It's more general purpose oriented than the FX, so although there are times when the FX 8 cores and Phenom II 6 cores beat it, it wins more often and by larger margins when it does win.

That is, unless we can confirm beyond a doubt that the FX 8 cores have an advantage over the i5 in your work.
May 14, 2012 7:09:05 PM
May 14, 2012 7:12:28 PM

worldofjonny2 said:
So is there any chance of frying stuff? Basically I'm asking if there is a safe way to do it.

It is always possible but at stock voltage, it is very unlikely unless the CPU already had a defect that was probably going to make it fail prematurely anyhow.
May 14, 2012 7:26:14 PM

i5 2nd or 3rd gen will easily last you

AMD 965BE 4.0ghz > FX processors.. Came out in 2009...
May 14, 2012 7:34:30 PM

akamrcrack said:
i5 2nd or 3rd gen will easily last you

AMD 965BE 4.0ghz > FX processors.. Came out in 2009...

according to Amazon it came out in late 2011
May 14, 2012 7:38:09 PM

akamrcrack said:
i5 2nd or 3rd gen will easily last you

AMD 965BE 4.0ghz > FX processors.. Came out in 2009...

This is not helpful to the OP. Optimal CPU choice depends on the intended workload and the price. 965BE is a good cpu, but will its performance is far behind fx 8 cores for multithreading.
May 14, 2012 7:38:10 PM

FX came out in October of 2011, if I remember correctly, or around there. Phenom II is from 2008 or 2009. However, I fail to see why the launch dates are being mentioned.
May 14, 2012 8:01:00 PM

blazorthon said:
FX came out in October of 2011, if I remember correctly, or around there. Phenom II is from 2008 or 2009. However, I fail to see why the launch dates are being mentioned.


965BE almost 3 years old, beats brand new tech.

Even the Pentium G series beats FX.
May 14, 2012 8:05:51 PM

akamrcrack said:
965BE almost 3 years old, beats brand new tech.

Even the Pentium G series beats FX.


Not in productivity performance, only in stock gaming performance and even then, only in CPU limited titles.
May 14, 2012 8:12:06 PM

akamrcrack said:
965BE almost 3 years old, beats brand new tech.

Even the Pentium G series beats FX.

This is only for single threaded games. And fx can still run most of these at > 60fps, which is fine for most gamers.
May 14, 2012 9:27:38 PM

I love the hyperbole used in these forums regarding i5/i7 vs Bulldozer: "Rapes", "mops the floor", "destroys", etc.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150--8120-6100-an...

Oh my goodness! look at the mess the i7-2600K makes on the floor with the FX-8150 in Crysis 2 at 1920 x1080: i7=54 fps, FX=52 fps ...absolutely phenomenal performance for ONLY $100 more!

http://www.techspot.com/review/452-amd-bulldozer-fx-cpu...

The obliteration of the FX processors continues in a benchmark of The Witcher 2: i5-2500K=68.2, FX-8120=63.4...an amazing 4.8 additional frames per second for only $50 more!!!

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1914/13/

I guess if you game at 1024 x 768 then yes the i5/i7 processors are the way to go. However, if you are gaming at 1024 x 768 i would suggest buying the FX processor and using the extra cash to get yourself a higher resolution monitor.

OP: You are right, there is little to no difference in most games and the extra cores would come in handy in other applications. And all for generally less than a comparable Intel setup.
May 14, 2012 9:43:55 PM

maui67 said:
I love the hyperbole used in these forums regarding i5/i7 vs Bulldozer: "Rapes", "mops the floor", "destroys", etc.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150--8120-6100-an...

Oh my goodness! look at the mess the i7-2600K makes on the floor with the FX-8150 in Crysis 2 at 1920 x1080: i7=54 fps, FX=52 fps ...absolutely phenomenal performance for ONLY $100 more!

http://www.techspot.com/review/452-amd-bulldozer-fx-cpu...

The obliteration of the FX processors continues in a benchmark of The Witcher 2: i5-2500K=68.2, FX-8120=63.4...an amazing 4.8 additional frames per second for only $50 more!!!

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1914/13/

I guess if you game at 1024 x 768 then yes the i5/i7 processors are the way to go. However, if you are gaming at 1024 x 768 i would suggest buying the FX processor and using the extra cash to get yourself a higher resolution monitor.

OP: You are right, there is little to no difference in most games and the extra cores would come in handy in other applications. And all for generally less than a comparable Intel setup.

I saw your other post in the newer thread, I had no idea that intel were changing there slot, god amd or intel is sucha hard choice XD though with amd I could probably afford a monitor I have one atm but its not great.
!