Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD FX 8150 vs I5-2500K

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 8, 2012 11:55:07 PM

I'm looking to build a budget gaming rig and event hought I only heard bad things about the FX 8150, I'm still tempted to go that way since the latest price cut made them pretty cheap. I5 are 229$ right now, while Fx are 189. Will I miss anything if I go for the FX or should I spend the extra 30 for the I5. Windows 8 is on the corner too and they promised better integration of the extra cores so mb the 8 cores might make a difference.

More about : amd 8150 2500k

October 9, 2012 12:13:37 AM

The i5 is much better for gaming. It's worth the extra $$, the i3 even beats the 8150 at stock clocks in gaming.
m
0
l
October 9, 2012 1:00:49 AM

After so much postponing, AMD is finally releasing its new processor series based on the “Bulldozer” architecture, the FX, featuring models with four, six, or eight processing cores. Let’s test the top-of-the-line, the eight-core AMD FX-8150 (3.6 GHz), which is placed between the Core i5-2500K (3.3 GHz) and the Core i7-2600K (3.4 GHz) in terms of price. We are also including the six-core Phenom II X6 1100T (3.3 GHz), which was previously the fastest processor from AMD. Let’s see who the winner is.

We recommend that you read our “Inside the AMD Bulldozer Architecture” tutorial if you need more in-depth information about this new architecture. For a complete list of all AMD FX processors released, please read our “All AMD FX Models” tutorial.

In a nutshell, the “Bulldozer” architecture adds the SSE4 and AVX instructions that AMD CPUs didn’t have, allows the CPU to use the higher HyperTransport 3.0 bus speeds (2.4 GHz/9.6 GB/s and 2.6 GHz/10.4 GB/s) not supported by socket AM3 processors, increases the support for DDR3 memories up to 1,866 MHz, and introduces two “Turbo” clocks. Also, all AMD FX processors have an unlocked clock multiplier, allowing you to overclock the CPU by changing this parameter. AMD FX processors require the new socket AM3+ platform.

The first (and lower) “Turbo” clock is called “Turbo Core,” which is used when the CPU “feels” the application needs more processing power, and there is still enough headroom in the CPU’s maximum dissipation power for it to increase its clock rate. For instance, if the processor TDP is 125 W and the CPU is currently dissipating 95 W, it “knows” that it still has 30 W “unused” and, thus, can increase its clock rate. In this mode, all CPU cores may be active.

The second (and higher) “Turbo” clock is called “Max Turbo,” which is used when there are unused processing cores available. In this case, the CPU puts these unused cores to “sleep,” allowing it to increase its clock rate even further.

AMD FX-8150 processor
click to enlarge
Figure 1: AMD FX-8150 processor

AMD FX-8150 processor
m
0
l
Related resources
October 9, 2012 1:02:20 AM

Amd FX 8150 is better if you compare Price/Performance
m
0
l
October 9, 2012 1:04:24 AM

The new PCMark 7 performs a series of tests and gives scores in the following categories: An overall score called PCMark; a Productivity score, which is the system performance when using applications such as web browsing and home office applications; a Creativity score, which is the system performance when viewing, editing, converting, and storing photos and videos; an Entertainment score, which is the system performance when recording, viewing, streaming, and converting TV shows and movies, importing, organizing, and browsing music, and gaming; and a Computation score, which indicates the processing performance of the system. Let’s analyze the results.
AMD FX-8150 processor

On the PCMark 7 overall score, the Core i7-2600K (3.4 GHz) and the Core i5-2500K (3.3 GHz) beat the AMD FX-8150 (3.6 GHz) by 12% and 6%, respectively. The FX-8150 achieved a score 4% higher than the Phenom II X6 1100T (3.3 GHz).
AMD FX-8150 processor

On the Productivity set, the AMD FX-8150 achieved a performance level similar to the Core i5-2500K’s, with a score 7% higher than the Phenom II X6 1100T’s. The Core i7-2600K, however, beat the FX-8150 by 8 percent.
AMD FX-8150 processor

On the Creativity test suite, the AMD FX-8150 achieved a score 5% higher than the Core i5-2500K’s and 6% higher than the Phenom II X6 1100T’s. The Core i7-2600K achieved a score 5% higher on this test.
AMD FX-8150 processor

On the Entertainment test suite, the FX-8150 achieved the same performance level as the Phenom II X6 1100T, with the Core i5-2500K achieving a score 10% higher and the Core i7-2600K achieving a score 17% higher.
AMD FX-8150 processor

On the Computation test, the FX-8150 achieved a performance 10% higher than the Phenom II X6 1100T. However, the Core i5-2500K achieved a score 5% higher and the Core i7-2600K achieved a score 35% higher.

DivX Encoding

We converted a full-length DVD movie to DivX format using VirtualDub and saw how long it took to complete this conversion. DivX codec is capable of recognizing and using not only more than one CPU (i.e., more than one core) but also the SSE4 instruction set.

The movie we chose to convert was “Star Trek – The Motion Picture: Director’s Cut.” We copied the movie to our hard disk drive with no compression, so the final original file on our HDD was 6.79 GB. After compressing it with DivX, the final file was only 767.40 MB, which is quite remarkable.

The results below are given in seconds, so the lower the better.
AMD FX-8150 processor

On DivX encoding, the AMD FX-8150 (3.6 GHz) achieved the same performance level as the Core i7-2600K (3.4 GHz) and the Core i5-2500K (3.3 GHz), operating 4% faster than the Phenom II X6 1100T (3.3 GHz).

Photoshop CS4

The best way to measure performance is by using real programs. The problem, though, is creating a methodology using real software that provides accurate results. For Photoshop CS4, there is a methodology created by the folks at GamingHeaven that is very accurate. Their script applies a series of 15 filters to a sample image. Then we wrote down the time taken for each filter to run. At the end, we had the results for each individual filter, which we added up to get the total time taken to run the 15 filters. The results below are given in seconds, so the lower the number the better.
AMD FX-8150 processor

On Photoshop CS4, Intel CPUs were way faster: the Core i7-2600K (3.4 GHz) beat the AMD FX-8150 (3.6 GHz) by 34%, while the Core i5-2500K (3.3 GHz) beat it by 30 percent. The AMD FX-8150 was 4% faster than the Phenom II X6 1100T (3.3 GHz) on this program.

After Effects CS4

After Effects is a very well-known program for video post-production, used to add animations and visual effects in videos. To evaluate the performance of each CPU running this program, we ran a workload consisting of a number of compositions that applied several filters and effects to a variety of input file types such as PSD (Photoshop), AI (Illustrator), EPS and TIF. After each filter was applied, the composition was rendered to an uncompressed AVI file of the same resolution as the input files. The results below are the time each CPU took to finish the whole batch, given in seconds, so the lower the number the better.
AMD FX-8150 processor

On After Effects CS4, the Core i7-2600K was 49% faster and the Core i5-2500K was 27% faster than the AMD FX-8150, which achieved the same performance level as the Phenom II X6 1100T.

Media Espresso 6.5

Media Espresso is a video conversion program that uses the graphics processing unit of the video card to speed up the conversion process. It is also capable of using Intel’s QuickSync technology available in the CPUs from this company. We converted a 449 MB, 1920x1080i, 18,884 kbps, MPG2 video file to a smaller 640x360, H.264, .MP4 file for viewing on a portable device such as an iPhone or iPod Touch.
AMD FX-8150 processor

Here we forced Media Espresso to use the CPU for the conversion process, not the GPU. The Core i7-2600K was 19% faster and the Core i5-2500K was 9% faster than the AMD FX-8150. The new AMD processor was 13% faster than the Phenom II X6 1100T.

WinZip

We used WinZip not only to measure compression time, but also decryption time. We measured the time each CPU took to decompress and decrypt 200 JPEG images, 125 of them at 10 megapixels and 75 of them at six megapixels. The total size of all photos was around 830 MB. The results below are given in seconds, so the lower the number the better.
AMD FX-8150 processor

Decompressing and decrypting files, the Core i7-2600K was 33% faster and the Core i5-2500K was 17% faster than the AMD FX-8150, which was 4% faster than the Phenom II X6 1100T.

iTunes

We used iTunes to convert an uncompressed .wav file into a high-quality (160 Kbps) MP3 file, and checked how many seconds each CPU took to perform this operation. Therefore, the results below are given in seconds, so the lower the number the better.
AMD FX-8150 processor

Here all CPUs achieved the same performance level.

Cinebench 11.5

Cinebench 11.5 is based on the 3D software Cinema 4D. It is very useful to measure the performance gain given by having more than one CPU installed on the system when rendering heavy 3D images. Rendering is one area where having more than one CPU helps greatly, because usually rendering software recognizes several CPUs – Cinebench, for instance, can use up to 16 CPUs.

Since we were interested in measuring the rendering performance, we ran the test called “Rendering x CPUs,” which renders a “heavy” sample image using all available CPU cores – either real or virtual, as on CPUs with Hyper-Threading technology, each CPU core is recognized as two cores by the operating system.
AMD FX-8150 processor

On Cinebench, the Core i7-2600K was 14% faster than the AMD FX-8150. This is an unexpected result, since the FX-8150 is an eight-core CPU, while the Core i7-2600K is a quad-core CPU with Hyper-Threading technology. The FX-8150 achieved the same performance level as the Phenom II X6 1100T, and was 10% faster than the Core i5-2500K.

StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty

StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty is a very popular DirectX 9 game that was released in 2010. Though this game uses an old version of DirectX, the number of textures that can be represented on one screen can push most of the top-end graphics cards to their limits (especially when the graphics settings are set at “Ultra”). StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty uses its own physics engine that is bound to the CPU and thus does not benefit from PhysX.

We tested this game at 1920x1200. The quality of the game was set to the “low” preset, disabling both anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering. We then used FRAPS to collect the frame rate of a replay on the “Unit Testing” custom map. We used a battle between very large armies to stress the video cards.
AMD FX-8150 processor

On StarCraft II, the Core i7-2600K, the Core i5-2500K, and the AMD FX-8150 achieved the same performance level, with the new AMD processor being 12% faster than the Phenom II X6 1100T.

Lost Planet 2

Lost Planet 2 is a game that uses many DirectX 11 features, like tessellation (to round out the edges of polygonal models), displacement maps (added to the tessellated mesh to add fine grain details), DirectCompute soft body simulation (to introduce more realism in the “boss” monsters), and DirectCompute wave simulation (to introduce more realism in the physics calculations in water surfaces; when you move or when gunshots and explosions hit the water, it moves accordingly). We reviewed the video cards using Lost Planet 2 internal benchmarking features, choosing the “Benchmark A.” (We know that “Benchmark B” is the one recommended for reviewing video cards, however, at least with us, results were inconsistent.) We ran this game at 1920x1200 with graphics set at “low,” with no anti-aliasing and no anisotropic filtering. The results below are the number of frames per second generated by each system.
AMD FX-8150 processor

On Lost Planet, the Core i7-2600K and the AMD FX-8150 achieved the same performance level, with the new AMD processor being 4% faster than the Core i5-2500K and 9% faster than the Phenom II X6 1100T.

Deus Ex: Human Revolution

Deus Ex: Human Revolution is a DirectX 11 game, and we used in-game introduction to measure the number of frames per second using FRAPS. We configured the video resolution at 1920x1200 with low settings and anti-aliasing disabled.
AMD FX-8150 processor

On Deus Ex, the AMD FX-8150 was the fastest processor, being 3% faster than the Phenom II X6 1100T, 4% faster than the Core i7-2600K, and 5% faster than the Core i5-2500K.

DiRT3

DiRT3 is another DirectX 11 game. We measured performance using this game by running a race and then playing it back using FRAPS. We configured the video resolution at 1920x1200 with low settings and both anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering disabled. The results below are in frames per second.
AMD FX-8150 processor

On DiRT3, the AMD FX-8150 was the fastest processor, being 6% faster than the Phenom II X6 1100T, 6% faster than the Core i7-2600K, and 9% faster than the Core i5-2500K.

3DMark 11 Professional

The 3DMark 11 measures Shader 5.0 (i.e., DirectX 11) performance. We ran this program at 1920x1200 using the “Performance” profile.

This program provides three different scores: graphics, physics and combined.
AMD FX-8150 processor

The graphics score achieved by the three CPUs was the same. This was expected, since this score measures the performance of the video card, not the processor.
AMD FX-8150 processor

The physics score measures exclusively the physics performance of the system, a process that is typically done on the CPU. Here the Core i7-2600K achieved a score 31% higher than the AMD FX-8150’s, which in turn achieved the same score as the Core i5-2500K and was 15% faster than the Phenom II X6 1100T.
AMD FX-8150 processor

The combined score shows a balance between the graphics and the physics performance achieved by each system being tested. Here all CPUs achieved the same performance level.

Overclocking

Since the AMD FX-8150 comes with an unlocked clock multiplier, you have two options to overclock this CPU: by increasing its base clock and/or by increasing its clock multiplier.

Also, AMD is offering a liquid cooling solution manufactured by Asetek for this CPU. (See Figure 3.) While we ran our tests using the default air cooler that comes with the CPU, we decided to use the optional liquid cooling solution for our overclocking tests.

Liquid cooling solution for the FX-8150 offered by AMD
click to enlarge
Figure 3: Liquid cooling solution for the FX-8150 offered by AMD

Liquid cooling solution for the FX-8150 offered by AMD
click to enlarge
Figure 4: Liquid cooling solution for the FX-8150 offered by AMD

With this CPU, we were able to increase its clock multiplier from 18x to 21x, and the base clock from 200 MHz to 235 MHz. This made the CPU internal clock increase from 3.6 GHz to 4.935 GHz, an impressive 37% clock increase. In order to do that, we increased the CPU voltage to 1.368756 V, the memory controller voltage to 1.368750 V, and the CPU VDDA voltage to 2.76875 V. Due to the short time we had between receiving the system and publishing its review, we spent only one hour overclocking this CPU. With more time and more patience, you are sure to get even higher results.

Conclusions

We can summarize the AMD FX-8150 in one word: “disappointment.” We expected much more from this eight-core CPU based on the highly anticipated “Bulldozer” architecture.

The FX-8150 was faster than the Core i5-2500K in only a few situations, and the performance difference was not so high as to justify the higher price you will have to pay to bring this new AMD processor home. So, unless you are a die-hard AMD fanboy, we think it is hard to recommend this CPU. The Core i5-2500K is cheaper and provides a higher overall performance, and is the CPU we recommend for the user looking for the best price/performance ratio is the USD 200 - USD 220 price range. And if you really want performance, you can pay a little more and get the Core i7-2600K.

One of the only areas in which the AMD FX-8150 excelled was overclocking. We could easily set it to run at almost 5 GHz, and if you are into overclocking, with time and patience you will likely be able to break the 5 GHz barrier.
m
0
l
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 9, 2012 1:28:12 AM

i5 2500K. However, 1155 is a dead socket, and you should wait for an FX 83XX series that will match an i5, supposedly, and its a smidgen cheaper then the i5.

I dont know. On the fence with this one.
m
0
l
a c 116 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
October 9, 2012 1:36:16 AM

Anonymous said:
i5 2500K. However, 1155 is a dead socket

Not much point worrying about LGA1155 being a 'dead socket' since LGA1150 for Haswell will likely be a single generation affair like LGA1156 and LGA1366.
m
0
l
October 9, 2012 1:52:59 AM

What the hell imtiaz_baba... I hope you don't expect anyone to read all that?

It may be worth waiting for an FX 83XX as it might push the i5 down in price. IMO get the i5 and be done with it.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 9, 2012 2:07:28 AM

I'd go with i5 series since you are building it for gaming and the i5's are better in gaming than the 8150 and worth the money. If you are patient you can wait for the Piledriver release but I think that they will still target their price higher or equal to the current Ivy Bridge processors which would not be a good move.
m
0
l
October 9, 2012 2:35:45 AM

imtiaz_baba, learn what TLDR stands for, and then ease it down from there
m
0
l
October 9, 2012 2:50:51 AM

imtiaz_baba what the f*ck is that.

_____________

Short answer: i5-2500k is much better for gaming.
m
0
l
October 9, 2012 3:07:06 AM

:pfff:  lol at imtiaz_baba. If your main focus is gaming then there is no reasong to get the FX. Get the i5 or wait for Piledriver.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 9, 2012 10:29:01 AM

marcotf10 said:
I'm looking to build a budget gaming rig and event hought I only heard bad things about the FX 8150, I'm still tempted to go that way since the latest price cut made them pretty cheap. I5 are 229$ right now, while Fx are 189. Will I miss anything if I go for the FX or should I spend the extra 30 for the I5. Windows 8 is on the corner too and they promised better integration of the extra cores so mb the 8 cores might make a difference.


1] Wait for Piledriver

2] FX 8150 is like $20 more than the 8120 with no real benefits so consider that.

3] Granted intels single x86 performance is better but in most cases AMD delievers well above mainstream FPS, in many common titles today the difference is mere 1-2 FPS while in CPU orientated titles like MMO's or RTS the Intel chips pull ahead, but again the FX chips deliver very high FPS regardless......so its a matter of how much you really need.

4] Define budget, preferably in terms of how much you are looking to spend, it is true throwing money at a CPU is one thing as it can last longest but if it means skimping on other things then its not worth it, advise us on this so as to better help you rather than resorting to the Intel is awesome, AMD has more cores rhetoric.
m
0
l
October 9, 2012 10:56:10 AM

marcotf10 said:
I'm looking to build a budget gaming rig and event hought I only heard bad things about the FX 8150, I'm still tempted to go that way since the latest price cut made them pretty cheap. I5 are 229$ right now, while Fx are 189. Will I miss anything if I go for the FX or should I spend the extra 30 for the I5. Windows 8 is on the corner too and they promised better integration of the extra cores so mb the 8 cores might make a difference.


Both good in their own ways. Overall i would say Intel i5, but Pilderiver will be out soon, and with Windows 8 around the corner i would personally just wait a few weeks and buy the 8350. I'm pretty sure that it will hands down beat the i5, also counting that AMD is loyal to their customers in the sense of sockets. They don't force you to get a new motherboard, if you get the AMD chip, most likely you will be able to stick with the same socket for the next few generations of the FX series. LGA1155 will be dead soon, and TBH i don't understand why Intel doesn't stick with a more consistent socket architecture.

Also some defining factors, Gaming, workstation, etc. If your doing straight gaming, then just go straight to intel; but if you use Graphic Design, Game Development, Server running, or any high calculative program, then AMD might be for you. I personally have never had a single problem with gaming on my AMD, i load faster than anyone in just about any match with my 8150. I've never had any lag issues from running multiple programs. Overall, i feel more satisfied with my purchase of AMD products. Despite the differences, AMD still gets the job done. I mean i got Skyrim running max settings around 60 fps with my 2 Radeon 6950's.
m
0
l
October 9, 2012 11:50:02 AM

This are recent benchmarks on DX11 games where the FX8150 shines
every time we get more game on DX11 it seem that FX cpus they tend to do better on those

http://atenra.blog.com/2012/06/08/amd-fx8150-vs-intel-2...

for example this is BF3

BattleField 3 Caspian Border (64 player)
A 64 player server was used with 50 to 64 players at any given time with the following IQ settings.



this is from other site http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/battlefield-3-armo...

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 9, 2012 12:01:53 PM

Thats odd results because I produced;

min 34
max 111
avg 82.3

64 Player Metro server ultra presets, 4x MSAA, AF, HBAO, Blur and effects maxed with a HD7950, I doubled checked and cross referenced these results and they are correct, the FX in DX11 titles is roughly 5 FPS slower than the 3960X under the same config.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 9, 2012 12:06:21 PM

re-play- said:
This are recent benchmarks on DX11 games where the FX8150 shines
every time we get more game on DX11 it seem that FX cpus they tend to do better on those

http://atenra.blog.com/2012/06/08/amd-fx8150-vs-intel-2...


Those are not valid benches in the slightest it's some idiot at home making up data.

1 - Who the hell is that guy? What is his credibility?

2 - No effort to make as many variables between machines the same

3 - AvP where all CPU's draw (within margin of error) clearly shows the GPU is the bottleneck

4 - Testing Caspian Border on BF3 is somewhat hard to do with any accuracy, this person clearly failed as anyone with a2500k @ stock can tell you with a top shelf GPU they get better figures than that.

5 - The guy is not credible so I don't really believe his testing methods or that they were done properly. I could list all the other holes in his tests but its not hard to see his tests either appear innacurate (when compared to similar tests from credible sources) or rely on showing us something thats GPU bound so is irrelevent to the arguement.
m
0
l
October 9, 2012 12:07:59 PM

wr6133 said:
Those are not valid benches in the slightest it's some idiot at home making up data.

1 - Who the hell is that guy? What is his credibility?

2 - No effort to make as many variables between machines the same

3 - AvP where all CPU's draw (within margin of error) clearly shows the GPU is the bottleneck

4 - Testing Caspian Border on BF3 is somewhat hard to do with any accuracy, this person clearly failed as anyone with a2500k @ stock can tell you with a top shelf GPU they get better figures than that.

5 - The guy is not credible so I don't really believe his testing methods or that they were done properly. I could list all the other holes in his tests but its not hard to see his tests either appear innacurate (when compared to similar tests from credible sources) or rely on showing us something thats GPU bound so is irrelevent to the arguement.


Ok what about this other test genius...

this is a reputable site http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/battlefield-3-armo...

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 9, 2012 12:16:29 PM

re-play- said:
Ok what about this other test genius...

this is a reputable site http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/battlefield-3-armo...

]http://i.imgur.com/5vAeD.png


Well done you proved my point by discrediting your own first set of data with the second. Your 1st set shows stock 8150 beating stock 2500k, 2nd set show the opposite

Calling me a genius for questioning the provenance of unreliable data or the method used to collect it is incorrect, better would be to ask yourself why you failed to do so.

You cant reliably bench on multiplayer this is why most sites have avoided it. Recreating the exact same set of variables each time is near impossible. Also its vastly open to manipulation, where do you start counting? at spawn as you look at the sky? that would skew results by giving very high max FPS therefore bumping the average (and its clear that majority of self done tests from users on this site have used the start looking at the sky method or at the least purposefully avoided any mass action or destruction that may effect the FPS).
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 9, 2012 12:21:52 PM

re-play- said:
and just in case u need a video test...BF3 - GTX670+FX 8150 FPS Test http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhSg6McS9Z0


Really?

Ok 1 the guy doesnt prove the hardware to us

Why does he also use FRAPS or the like to show us setting the settings but then for the gameplay he uses a camera to take still photos of his screen!

You have issues understanding credibility try this http://www.open.ac.uk/infoskills-researchers/evaluation...
m
0
l
October 9, 2012 12:24:04 PM

wr6133 said:
Really?

Ok 1 the guy doesnt prove the hardware to us

Why does he also use FRAPS or the like to show us setting the settings but then for the gameplay he uses a camera to take still photos of his screen!

You have issues understanding credibility try this http://www.open.ac.uk/infoskills-researchers/evaluation...



OK LITTLE GINIUS OTHER VIDEO FOR YOU
FX 8150 | EVGA GTX 670 FTW | BF3 | CASPIAN BORDER | 64 PLAYERS | TEST VIDEO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W54fMi46pL4

this guy does show everything u have ask for... man i know intel is better, but FX CPU arent as bad as most intel lovers think

i am not here to prove FX is better than intel, im here to show off FX CPU are decent to play for less money
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 9, 2012 12:37:02 PM

re-play- said:
OK LITTLE GINIUS OTHER VIDEO FOR YOU
FX 8150 | EVGA GTX 670 FTW | BF3 | CASPIAN BORDER | 64 PLAYERS | TEST VIDEO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W54fMi46pL4

this guy does show everything u have ask for... man i know intel is better, but FX CPU arent as bad as most intel lovers think

i am not here to prove FX is better than intel, im here to show off FX CPU are decent to play for less money


Still no provenance as it is a Youtube video but it's somewhat more reliable than the 1st. I'm not trying to trash AMD here I have been a longtime AMD user but your 1st link was misleading, infact any BF3 multiplayer comparison between 2 CPU's shouldn't be taken as a perfect indication of performance (ask yourself why have the major sites not tested bf3 mp), neither should questionable results from some persons blog or unbacked up claims from people here as to max/min and average results.

Fact and opinion are 2 different things and people should state whether their assertion is their opinion or if it's an accepted fact.
m
0
l
October 9, 2012 12:40:21 PM

wr6133 said:
Still no provenance as it is a Youtube video but it's somewhat more reliable than the 1st. I'm not trying to trash AMD here I have been a longtime AMD user but your 1st link was misleading, infact any BF3 multiplayer comparison between 2 CPU's shouldn't be taken as a perfect indication of performance (ask yourself why have the major sites not tested bf3 mp), neither should questionable results from some persons blog or unbacked up claims from people here as to max/min and average results.

Fact and opinion are 2 different things and people should state whether their assertion is their opinion or if it's an accepted fact.



hey man, just accept FX cpu are decent to play at the price you get them, i got my FX8150 for $160 and i dont play any DX9 games where intel really do good BECAUSE THOSE ARE OLD GAMES ANYWAY...
so whats the point? on you telling me the same and thee same when i have show u prove? i have not show 1 video, but 3 videos, and also i have included intel videos and u keep telling me that multiplayers comparison can not be taken? LOL U ARE A JOKE

did u even saw the video with the 3770k??? getting same fps as the FX8150?? what more do u want?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 9, 2012 12:43:09 PM

re-play- said:
look at this GUY Fps test Gtx 670 i7 3770k Bf3 Ultra settings
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IZtcIpTDuQ&feature=rela...

he has the all mighty 3770k and he is getting same FPS as the FX8150 in the previous video what that about? lol a CPU that cost 300dollars


and in case u dont get it this is with the 2500k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjYK6AtA-2Q&feature=rela...

DO YOU GET MY POINT LITTLE GENIUS?


OK you stupid poorly educated rude little child this is my last response to you as it's simply not possible to educate pork

Both those videos above use recording software not a camera at the screen so there is an FPS loss right away... also look at the settings... yes thats right in your urge to prove your skidmarked little ass right you didnt notice the Intel guy has V-SYNC ON

You class Youtube videos as solid reliable evidence and then fail to even notice whats contained in them fully thats says enough about your judgment and actual knowledge
m
0
l
October 9, 2012 12:52:29 PM

wr6133 said:
OK you stupid poorly educated rude little child this is my last response to you as it's simply not possible to educate pork

Both those videos above use recording software not a camera at the screen so there is an FPS loss right away... also look at the settings... yes thats right in your urge to prove your skidmarked little ass right you didnt notice the Intel guy has V-SYNC ON

You class Youtube videos as solid reliable evidence and then fail to even notice whats contained in them fully thats says enough about your judgment and actual knowledge


yeah yeah its true :hello:  good story bro

other test on BF3 3770k vs fx8150
http://www.ocaholic.ch/xoops/html/modules/smartsection/...



WANT MORE????? :o 

dont get my wrong INTEL IS BETTER, but i just disagree that FX CPU are bad for gaming...
m
0
l
October 9, 2012 1:00:43 PM

OP, within a measurement of practicality, you probably wouldn't notice a real difference between the two. In benchmarks and measuring game FPS, yes, but games will be just as playable with the cheaper FX, and the machine will "feel" just as fast. If money is tight, get the FX.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 9, 2012 1:02:30 PM

re-play- said:
yeah yeah its true :hello:  good story bro

other test on BF3 3770k vs fx8150
http://www.ocaholic.ch/xoops/html/modules/smartsection/...

]http://i.imgur.com/w9KXL.png

WANT MORE????? :o 


I wasn't planning to respond further but your so clueless its amusing

Thats a single player bench you just altered the test its now GPU bound any half decent quad will get similar results

Can't wait to see how you blur reliability, post incorrect assertions or just move the testing goal posts next.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 9, 2012 1:03:35 PM

teh_chem said:
OP, within a measurement of practicality, you probably wouldn't notice a real difference between the two. In benchmarks and measuring game FPS, yes, but games will be just as playable with the cheaper FX, and the machine will "feel" just as fast. If money is tight, get the FX.


Lets just agree on what this guy says its correct
m
0
l
October 9, 2012 1:03:48 PM

I have 2 I5-2500ks OC'd to 4.5Ghz (actually 44 x 103=4532 stock voltage) and a AMD 8150 OC to 4.5 Ghz (21x215 at 1.4 v). The 2500ks are faster in Benchies but the 8150 is hardly a slouch. Both chips game well given equal video cards.

If the cost is equal the Intel chip is faster for gaming. Also to get the Bulldozer close enough to be competitive requires excellent cooling and upped voltage. If you run specific mutithreaded apps perhaps the 8150 makes more sense.

The PileDriver, 8350, is to be released soon. It is stock 4 Ghz vs the 8150 at 3.6 Ghz. It has a number of improvements that should make it overall an improvement. HOWEVER, it will cost more initially than the 8150. Probably more than the 2500k. Microcenter, has the 2500k for $159.99!

My advice? Get the 2500k and be happy. If you do go the 8150 route, get a very good AM3+ mb (I have an Asus Sabertooth 990FX) and a high end cooler (I have a Corsair H100 water cooler) and OC that sucker! I wrote a long thread about my experiences with my I5 -2500ks vs my 8150 at the competitor's forum. My gut impression is that the 2500k is an incredible chip at stock and OC'd. The 8150 needs to be OC'd to what I have it (4.5Ghz) to narrow the gap with the 2500k. The PileDriver, with its higher base clock and other thermal improvements should be much closer to the 2500k but at a premium price for the near future.
m
0
l
October 9, 2012 1:05:03 PM

wr6133 said:
I wasn't planning to respond further but your so clueless its amusing

Thats a single player bench you just altered the test its now GPU bound any half decent quad will get similar results

Can't wait to see how you blur reliability, post incorrect assertions or just move the testing goal posts next.



GTX 670 I7-3770K Battlefield 3 Armored Kill FPS test WiTHOUT VSYNC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGDs99VYJPY
man another video as u requested... your all mighty 3770k getting same FPS as FX8150 with no VSync ... im dying to see what will you say about this one
ENJOY :D 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 9, 2012 1:06:24 PM

Lets just pretend.....erm agree the FX is slow just so this doesn't boil over into a tissy fit.
m
0
l
October 9, 2012 1:07:40 PM

re-play- said:
GTX 670 I7-3770K Battlefield 3 Armored Kill FPS test WiTHOUT VSYNC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGDs99VYJPY
man another video as u requested... your all mighty 3770k getting same FPS as FX8150 with no VSync.... im dying to see what will you say about this one
ENJOY :D 


Excuse me, how are you measuring the FPS? Youtube typically caps videos at 30 FPS.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 9, 2012 1:15:23 PM

re-play- said:
GTX 670 I7-3770K Battlefield 3 Armored Kill FPS test WiTHOUT VSYNC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGDs99VYJPY
man another video as u requested... your all mighty 3770k getting same FPS as FX8150 with no VSync ... im dying to see what will you say about this one
ENJOY :D 


1 - Its actually recorded not using a camera infornt of the screen. That means this has taken a FPS hit.... you understand this yes that to use FRAPS or the like hits your FPS?

2 - Diferent map, doing different stuff. It's not a comparison unless its identical map, identical movements and actions of every person on the map

3 - OC'd GPU compred to a stock clocked one so variables are different.

Like I told you at the start you can't make a reliable MP test of BF3, thats accepted common knowledge it would appear to everybody other than you. I guess you were busy licking a window while we all learned that fact.

Now go learn about provenance and reliablity rather than spamming this thread with badly made unreliable youtube videos and dodgy benchmarks.
m
0
l
October 9, 2012 1:16:46 PM

sarinaide said:
Lets just pretend.....erm agree the FX is slow just so this doesn't boil over into a tissy fit.

Agree at stock the 8150 is slower. OC'd to a decent level 4.5 Ghz it really narrows the gap to the 2500k. BTW I openly admit the 3770k is in another league but so is its price. Prices today from Newegg rounded up to the next dollar AMD 8150 - $190; Intel I5-2500k - $220 and Intel I7-3770k - $330. That's a $140 span from the 8150 to the 3770k while the 2500k is only $30 more.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
October 9, 2012 1:17:51 PM

In order to keep the peace...
First of all, most games that need killer cpu depend even more on the GPU, so the difference will be marginal.
Second, if the game does need a good cpu (like for example Starcraft2), then it will depend more on the game coding than on the model itself (same as when nvidia vs ati change the winning positions on different games depending on the drivers).

I suggest you think more on how long you want that pc to run for you with the new cpu, to make sure you want to buy now and not later.
Its hard to really guess how long a cpu and gu will be powerfull enought to run games great, but since most games are done first on console hardware now...
You probably can still be working on a E6600 Dual core or a Q6600 untill the new generation Consoles come out (my Desktop actually uses Q6600 and only slows down starcraft 2, because it runs better on my laptop using a i5-2430M).

If you dont want to wait however, id probably go with the I5, as Intel is just more popular, so probably compatibility with its architecture is probably better.
m
0
l
October 9, 2012 1:26:00 PM

I've got a FX-6100 and a 560gtx se, I get a solid 59/60 fps on skyrim with graphics maxxed out, so the 8 core should be better, and I only paid $140 for the cpu and $166 for the gpu, teamed with 8gb 1600mhz for $44, on a $110 970A-D3 gigabyte board, cheap but flys and video editing is just awesome to say the least
m
0
l
October 9, 2012 1:34:26 PM

cats_Paw said:
In order to keep the peace...
First of all, most games that need killer cpu depend even more on the GPU, so the difference will be marginal.
Second, if the game does need a good cpu (like for example Starcraft2), then it will depend more on the game coding than on the model itself (same as when nvidia vs ati change the winning positions on different games depending on the drivers).

I suggest you think more on how long you want that pc to run for you with the new cpu, to make sure you want to buy now and not later.
Its hard to really guess how long a cpu and gu will be powerfull enought to run games great, but since most games are done first on console hardware now...
You probably can still be working on a E6600 Dual core or a Q6600 untill the new generation Consoles come out (my Desktop actually uses Q6600 and only slows down starcraft 2, because it runs better on my laptop using a i5-2430M).

If you dont want to wait however, id probably go with the I5, as Intel is just more popular, so probably compatibility with its architecture is probably better.

Excellent post. I have one of my 2500k rigs set up for 3 monitors (each 1920x1080) for a combined resolution of 5760x 1080 so I use my fastest card PNY GTX 680 for it. I have identical EVGA GTX670 FTW gpus in the other 2500k rig and the 8150 rig. These excellent gpus really help equalize the gameplay. No question the 2500k benches higher but the "feel" of both single monitor rigs is FAST.
m
0
l
a c 108 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
October 9, 2012 2:06:30 PM


Purchase the PhII 965BE and put the extra cash toward a video card upgrade.


m
0
l
October 9, 2012 3:08:05 PM

Wisecracker said:
Purchase the PhII 965BE and put the extra cash toward a video card upgrade.

+1
m
0
l
a c 127 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
May 27, 2014 4:19:47 AM

Old thread. The 2500k was better in anyway.
m
0
l
!