Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel Core i5-2500K 3.3GHz vs. AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 24, 2013 8:07:03 PM

I'm curious to know if the FX is better for gaming than Intel. I understand Intel is better now, but what if 2-3 cores of the FX were disabled. Does this mean the AMD CPU will run much better than the Intel?
July 24, 2013 8:51:25 PM

Not really. For single core games/apps, Intel is still slightly faster. I'm not sure with 2500K. I think you should consider 3570k instead.
a b À AMD
a c 184 à CPUs
a b å Intel
July 25, 2013 12:08:52 AM

Why disable 2-3 cores of the 8320? Might as well buy a 63XX series. The 2500k or any quad will be good enough for the majority of games out there.
July 25, 2013 12:41:04 AM

There is a work around provided by motherboards on previous AMD procs wherein 1 core can be disabled per module such that 1 core will utilize all the resources of one module (L1 instruction cache and L2 cache).

For example a Phenom with 6 cores has 3 modules with 2 cores each. Disable 1 core per module to eliminate resource sharing per module thereby boosting 1 core performance.

However, it doesn't work on Vishera/PileDriver procs anymore. AMD removed it on purpose. Probably because they've already optimized Vishera procs and it's no longer needed.

Vishera modules can still be disabled such that both cores per module will be turned off all together. I don't think it has impact on performance but definitely lowers power consumption.
!