Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

AMD FX-8150 vs Intel® Core™ i5-2500K for future games

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a c 185 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 25, 2012 4:22:32 AM

i5-2500k.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 25, 2012 4:24:02 AM

Essentially it comes down to what you really want, but the logical answer is the i5. Despite being a older chip.
Score
0
Related resources
a c 185 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 25, 2012 4:25:06 AM

It also has a much better upgrade path.
Score
0
January 25, 2012 4:32:48 AM

i5 2500k only has 4 cores meanwhile the amd-fx 8150 has 8 cores isn't that a big advantage for future gaming?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 25, 2012 4:35:35 AM

amuffin said:
It also has a much better upgrade path.


True. I don't have any allegience to any brand or product, I have used AMD, Intel, Asus, Gigabyte, MSI, Nvidia, ATI and I will honestly say that despite 2011 being a big year for new chips, nobody really has a good product right now. AMD and their issues are well documented, but even Intel are not ideal. They are high priced for a company that is sandbagging the consumers by not releasing products to full potential.

The i3 could have had a higher stock clock, could have been unlocked, and could have had TB. The i5's could have had HT, and the i7's could have been Hex Cores and the SB-e have hidden cores. I know it is smart business and thats how they role, but we are paying a lot for what 70% potential.
Score
0
a c 185 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 25, 2012 4:35:40 AM

No because games don't even utilize quad core fully. Also you can upgrade to the i5-3570k or the i7-3770k later on.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 25, 2012 4:38:20 AM

StevenGiangz said:
i5 2500k only has 4 cores meanwhile the amd-fx 8150 has 8 cores isn't that a big advantage for future gaming?


That is if you subscribe to the school of thought that the FX 8150 is a Octo-core. The reality is it is a pseudo octo-core, not a true octo core.
Score
0
a c 146 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 25, 2012 4:53:11 AM

StevenGiangz said:
i5 2500k only has 4 cores meanwhile the amd-fx 8150 has 8 cores isn't that a big advantage for future gaming?


No don't be fooled by AMD's more core hype. Games right now pretty much only use 2-3 cores. So more than four cores is pretty much a waste and won't add any real performance. BTW I wouldn't call the Bulldozer a real 8 core processor but that's for another thread.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 25, 2012 5:00:57 AM

seriously doubt games will suddenly need 8 cores.

hard to say way kind of cpu will be in next gen consoles.
Score
0
a c 146 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 25, 2012 5:17:55 AM

Probably not any time soon but it is said games are going to use more cores in the future. But again games don't even use all four cores so it will probably be awhile before a six core CPU will be necessary to run games smoothly.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 25, 2012 6:10:43 AM

undercovernerd6 said:
the 2500k is the most superior processor for gaming atm. Regardless of the 8 cores the 8100 is just a 4 core with 8 fp its like hyperthreading, the 2500k beats the i7 because games cannot optimize it.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=288
no.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 25, 2012 6:42:18 AM

once they get threading down to an art, you will see more situations like BF3 for example

http://www.techspot.com/review/458-battlefield-3-perfor...



you can immediately see why toms got a higher fps by disabling HT on the 2600k, HT core 1 is maxing out in single player.



This is where games seem to be heading with multi-theading. the game itself runs on 1-2 cores and the rest handle additional features, in the case of BF3, multiplayer gaming. A dual core runs fine in single player, but going multiplayer, the game takes a big dump on fewer cores. The additional threads handle the additional players while the main threads concentrate on the game itself and the graphics.

Looking at the comparison between the 2600k and the 8150, you can see a bit of % difference, but consider that windows doesn't treat an HT core as 30% but rather 100%, and 3 of those are at 0 usage. The problem with the 8150 on the other hand is that the game cores are pretty high.

What happens in the future? anyone's guess, but If I was to try and design a cpu, id push for 2 fast, strong, efficient cores supported by numerous helper cores.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 25, 2012 11:17:59 AM

rds1220 said:
Probably not any time soon but it is said games are going to use more cores in the future. But again games don't even use all four cores so it will probably be awhile before a six core CPU will be necessary to run games smoothly.


Again, I disagree. It is not easy, if impossible, to seperate games in such a way as to have 8 heavy workloads all executing AT THE SAME TIME, without running into any bottlenecks [syncronization, IO, etc].

Games are already running with 60+ threads, and do not scale. Why? Because only two major tasks [AI and Rendering] are heavy usage, the rest are typically low-processing tasks. And even with AI and Rendering, there is interplay between them that limits how well you can scale.

Games will never scale well. Period. More cores helps in teh case of multi-tasking, which is why they are well suited to server loads. But for a single application, there will be a very limited gain going beyond 4 cores, even a deacade or so into the future.
Score
0
January 25, 2012 2:39:15 PM

i think both processors are good(not even 4 cores are fully used for any game),also heard that hyper threading reduces fps in games that does not use them.fx's eight integer cores shares the resources of a four-module design.see this
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-7-hotfix-bu...

go for a high end gpu if u want to be future proof with games.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 25, 2012 3:59:50 PM

Probably when games need more than quad-core to justify the aquisition of an i7 (quad+HT) or a FX-8150 (semi octo-core) this CPUs would be old, and much faster CPUs would be in the block.... probably would be better to buy a new CPU at that time...

Meaning? Stick with the i5-2500k and be happy.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 25, 2012 4:18:58 PM

definitely 2500k are still a successful stuff in every field of use whether it's gaming or programing both are much faster on i5 and too much closest to the i7 2600k.amd cpu's are cheaper but they don't have an acceptable speed for gaming for maxing it out.

I would say i5
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 25, 2012 4:30:04 PM

its like the people who bought c2qs when they came out for future proofing, only now are games starting to use quads but now its time to upgrade either way.
Score
0
a c 112 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 25, 2012 4:35:35 PM

if you want to play games, then intel. if you do a lot of high end photoshop then the fx is the better choice...
but dont be fooled by the fanboys the fx isnt a gaming part. its single threaded performance is seriously gimped. it only shows its true colours when all 8 threads are used. if you buy an fx you will be plagued by bottlenecks on games that require 1 or 2 threads. when you pair it with a gfx card bigger than a gtx 460.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 25, 2012 6:16:22 PM

HEXiT said:
if you want to play games, then intel. if you do a lot of high end photoshop then the fx is the better choice...
but dont be fooled by the fanboys the fx isnt a gaming part. its single threaded performance is seriously gimped. it only shows its true colours when all 8 threads are used. if you buy an fx you will be plagued by bottlenecks on games that require 1 or 2 threads. when you pair it with a gfx card bigger than a gtx 460.

Don't be fooled by intel fanboys either, it takes more than just a 460, more along the lines of tri 6970 to start showing signs of getting weak.



The 2nd from the last column is supposed to be 3.6ghz stock 8150 tri-6970, just a typo.

For the most part, 6990 or 6970 CF is almost no difference between 3.6 ghz and 4.4 ghz -- no bottleneck from the cpu itself The small differences you see are inherent gains from a higher memory bandwidth, wich is why the i7 -920 shows some advantage from 3 memory channel.

There are a few games the prefer lower latency wich is where BD will look bad compared to the Phenom II for example civ V

going to 3- 6970, you can start to see some differences other than the memory bandwidth.

single 460 ... rofl.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 25, 2012 6:37:04 PM

it all depends on whats in the next xbox, I say xbox because thats what the lead platform will most likely be. Most games will be on consoles so when they code the game they make sure it works there well. The 360 has 3 core. 1/2 a core is basically dedicated to the dashboard and other background things. This is why 2 cores are pretty good for this gen. If they make the next xbox have more cores then games might be more threaded.

I doubt the next xbox will have more than 4 cores as it will have a powerpc cpu based on probably the power5 architecture. Might have SMT but don't know how well that will be used since its hardly used in the 360.

as for PC exclusives, I doubt they will try to really pull for more cores since 4 cores are more than enough for general cpu computations. More and more things gets loaded to the gpu as game engines advances. Using 4 cores to the max would be hard enough.

By the end of next gen of consoles we might want more than 4 cores but by then intel would have release the die shrink of haswell. Haswell would probably support 6 cores for the consumer market, might as well wait till then to get more cores. The i5 2500k and the FX8150 will both be old tech by then.
Score
0
a c 123 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 25, 2012 6:56:15 PM

Benchmarks are clear, the i5 blows the doors off the FX. The sad truth is that AMD released a mutt. For games, you would do as well as the FX by getting the cheaper 970BE (or the 960T, which may unlock to X6).

Edit: HOWEVER, it should be pointed out that even a lowly Athlon II X3 can play any game, and I think there may be only one or two (e.g. Skyrim) that may not be [enjoyably] playable on an Athlon II X2. So, if motherboard / chipset considerations favor AMD in your case, you need not worry about not being able to play games.
Score
0
a c 112 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 25, 2012 7:03:31 PM

noob2222 said:
Don't be fooled by intel fanboys either, it takes more than just a 460, more along the lines of tri 6970 to start showing signs of getting weak.

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/SumCht-2.jpg

The 2nd from the last column is supposed to be 3.6ghz stock 8150 tri-6970, just a typo.

For the most part, 6990 or 6970 CF is almost no difference between 3.6 ghz and 4.4 ghz -- no bottleneck from the cpu itself The small differences you see are inherent gains from a higher memory bandwidth, wich is why the i7 -920 shows some advantage from 3 memory channel.

There are a few games the prefer lower latency wich is where BD will look bad compared to the Phenom II for example civ V

going to 3- 6970, you can start to see some differences other than the memory bandwidth.

single 460 ... rofl.

like i said on single or dual threaded apps there will be bottlenecks... there are already a few posts in the games section saying as much...
every 1 of them has a stronger than a gtx 460 card. so no pal you can post all the synthetics you want. in the real world people are struggling with there fx cpu's on a lot of current games.
Score
0
a c 82 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 25, 2012 7:09:39 PM

StevenGiangz said:
i5 2500k only has 4 cores meanwhile the amd-fx 8150 has 8 cores isn't that a big advantage for future gaming?

it may have 8 "cores", if you can call them cores, but it only has 1 Floating point unit per 2 cores, where intel has a FP unit for each core. Games use mostly FP instructions, so you will never get 8 core performance in games even if they are threaded to use 8 cores, as it only has 4 FP units. As soon as I saw that this FX cpu has half the FP units as it has cores before it was released I knew it wouldn't perform well. Dumb move on AMD's part, only to top it off with about the slowest cache of any current CPU. There will be no software fix or future game that can bring FX up to speed, its just poorly designed hardware.
Score
0
January 25, 2012 7:17:34 PM

but the blind test said that the fx was better.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 25, 2012 7:51:36 PM

iam2thecrowe said:
it may have 8 "cores", if you can call them cores, but it only has 1 Floating point unit per 2 cores, where intel has a FP unit for each core. Games use mostly FP instructions, so you will never get 8 core performance in games even if they are threaded to use 8 cores, as it only has 4 FP units. As soon as I saw that this FX cpu has half the FP units as it has cores before it was released I knew it wouldn't perform well. Dumb move on AMD's part, only to top it off with about the slowest cache of any current CPU. There will be no software fix or future game that can bring FX up to speed, its just poorly designed hardware.

all floatpoint calculations in games are done by the gpu which is faster than any cpu for float point calculations. the cpu only does integer tasks.
Score
0
January 25, 2012 8:15:38 PM

2500k /thread
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 25, 2012 10:37:42 PM

HEXiT said:
like i said on single or dual threaded apps there will be bottlenecks... there are already a few posts in the games section saying as much...
every 1 of them has a stronger than a gtx 460 card. so no pal you can post all the synthetics you want. in the real world people are struggling with there fx cpu's on a lot of current games.

Since when is 12 different games considered in any way shape or form a synthetic benchmark?

Besides that, the topic is future games, not the single threaded games of 4 years ago
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 25, 2012 11:33:41 PM

noob2222 said:
Don't be fooled by intel fanboys either, it takes more than just a 460, more along the lines of tri 6970 to start showing signs of getting weak.

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/SumCht-2.jpg

The 2nd from the last column is supposed to be 3.6ghz stock 8150 tri-6970, just a typo.

For the most part, 6990 or 6970 CF is almost no difference between 3.6 ghz and 4.4 ghz -- no bottleneck from the cpu itself The small differences you see are inherent gains from a higher memory bandwidth, wich is why the i7 -920 shows some advantage from 3 memory channel.

There are a few games the prefer lower latency wich is where BD will look bad compared to the Phenom II for example civ V

going to 3- 6970, you can start to see some differences other than the memory bandwidth.

single 460 ... rofl.


Hmm...

1. If memory bandwidth is such a key issue then why does a Core i5 750 beat a Core i7 920 in those very same titles eh?!

2. Did you check the resolutions? What kind of person is going to play a game with a GTX 460 at 2560x1600?!

I'm not saying the claim of a GTX 460 bottle-necking a 8150 is true... but I am saying that your post is no more realistic than the claim you reference. :) 


EDIT: On another note... did you take into consideration the higher CPU utilization by the AMD Driver Compiler found in the Catalyst Drivers? You see VLIW4/5 architectures require that work be continually sent to the ALU units to keep them saturated. Also... you need the CPU to intelligently manage which resources to intelligently use to process workloads. You can truly see the difference between the AMD VLIW4/5 architectures and nVIDIAs Fermi (for example) when running F@H. You'll notice that the AMD cards demand far higher CPU utilization.

This may also explain why some people can play BF3 with a Dual Core processor in Multiplayer and others cannot. But this is only theoretical... I'd have to test it.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 25, 2012 11:48:26 PM

1 is answered on the very next sentence. Some games prefer low latency.

2, yes half the tests were higher than most resolutions, the other half were pretty normal 1900x1200. Same could be said for testing at 640x480. No one would even try that nowdays.

But as far as testing "games", the only "cpu" test is to change the cpu speed to find the bottleneck. Otherwise your testing the entire platform against the other. Would be an interesting experiment with various video card brands.
Score
0
April 5, 2012 10:06:28 AM

I'll personally choose the Intel i5-2500k. Even though the FX 8150 has "8 cores", which really is a hoax (it is better said as "8-pseudo cores" than "8 actual cores"), the i5-2500k still blows the FX 8150 out of the water.

But the downside is that if you want to build a gaming rig using the Intel i5-2500k, you'll spend a heck lot than building a rig using the FX 8150.

Go for i5-2500k in any way! Cheers!
Score
0
April 5, 2012 8:49:37 PM

If you plan to get an expensive cooler I think you might be fine with the AMD, will be somewhat better than the i5, but if you don't like loud and expensive coolers then get the intel core i5 cpu


Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 5, 2012 9:03:27 PM

2500K - For per core performance and superior IMC
8150 - Balance not spectacular per core performance but superior multithreading performance.

Overall I would rather go with the $190 8120 as it is nothing less than a small clock boost from the 8150 for a good $40 less. Overall having used both the gaming performance is hardly noticeable between the two, the 2500k's core performance gives it the edge when per core grunt is needed ie: gaming. The FX is not premised on being a gaming grunt but a allrounder, if you plan on using the system for rendering and what not then the FX is a real consideration.

Don't be lured by the "blown away" sensationalism, I ran a stock bench on 3dmark11 with my Thuban and stock 6970 and scored 300 points less than a 4.5ghz 2500K with a slight boosted 6950. at the price point the FX 8000 chips are competing, they more than match the 2500K but thats as far as it goes.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 5, 2012 9:45:48 PM

vitornob said:
Probably when games need more than quad-core to justify the aquisition of an i7 (quad+HT) or a FX-8150 (semi octo-core) this CPUs would be old, and much faster CPUs would be in the block.... probably would be better to buy a new CPU at that time...

Meaning? Stick with the i5-2500k and be happy.


+1 and destroys the whole more core the better argument. even in multi-core optimized games the intel SB dual core will run circles around the FX-6. games want cores that can handle a heavy work load, not a bunch of slow cores. considering the "leaked" specs for PS4 and xbox720 the i5-2500k will be viable for some time...as would the FX-8 but it's simply not as good as the 2500k.
Score
0
April 6, 2012 1:44:13 AM

dirtyferret said:
+1 and destroys the whole more core the better argument. even in multi-core optimized games the intel SB dual core will run circles around the FX-6. games want cores that can handle a heavy work load, not a bunch of slow cores. considering the "leaked" specs for PS4 and xbox720 the i5-2500k will be viable for some time...as would the FX-8 but it's simply not as good as the 2500k.


As long as that multi-core optomized game only scales up to two threads. Check toms own sub $200 roundup. Intel dual cores out preform amd in jsut cause, starcraft 2 and skyrim, all of which only scale up to two cores. In metro and dirt three, which scale beyond, amd matches or exceeds the preformance on the Intel DUAL cores.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 6, 2012 11:42:51 AM

aganarok said:
As long as that multi-core optomized game only scales up to two threads. Check toms own sub $200 roundup. Intel dual cores out preform amd in jsut cause, starcraft 2 and skyrim, all of which only scale up to two cores. In metro and dirt three, which scale beyond, amd matches or exceeds the preformance on the Intel DUAL cores.


well lets see, in metro the FX-6 has a small 5% increase over the i3


while in Dirt 3 the i3 beats the FX-6 by 10%


so you are only right in one of those games

over all tom's has the i3 a good margin over the FX-6





Score
0
April 6, 2012 5:21:59 PM

dirtyferret said:
well lets see, in metro the FX-6 has a small 5% increase over the i3
http://media.bestofmicro.com/X/J/323911/original/Metro2033.png

while in Dirt 3 the i3 beats the FX-6 by 10%
http://media.bestofmicro.com/X/H/323909/original/DiRT3.png

so you are only right in one of those games

over all tom's has the i3 a good margin over the FX-6

http://media.bestofmicro.com/X/F/323907/original/Averages.png



Amd matches or falls a little behind the i3 in those games, but when you said dual core I also was including the pentiums in my previous statement. Note: when i say fx i am referring to the 6 core variant for this comparison. In metro the FX is better the pentiums by 10% for the g860 and 15% for the g630. In dirt the g630 had a higher minimum then the fx but the fx had a higher average, while the g860 beat the fx in minimum and average. So the 6 core is on par with the pentiums, and a little less powerful then the i3 in the benchmarks that were used for that comparison.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 6, 2012 5:51:45 PM

aganarok said:
but when you said dual core I also was including the pentiums in my previous statement.


i did not include the pentiums neither did I mention them. so you are arguing with yourself and losing. my statement stands as accurate with proof from the graphs above. :pfff: 
Score
0
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 1, 2012 3:23:53 AM

Note guys its about cost too. The fx is way overlclockable and you can get top of the line motherboard for mid priced intel one.
I got the fx-8150 with watercooling now that AMD has a £20 cashback.
It costs me less than the i5-2500k and it is more future proof.

Get low CL ram to make the bulldozer perform better.

If you do lots of browsing and FX trading with lots of active threads for different currency pairs, the FX beats i5-2500k hands down.

Score
0
August 1, 2012 8:49:10 AM

AMD FX-8150 chip is pretty damn good, despite what other people may say. I've been using an FX-8150 w/ thermaltake watercooling. Running it at a stable 4.6ghz. at around 30 + - 8`C. FYI for all the people saying that the octo-core isn't true, take a look at the count on CPU-Z and Asus Suite, or any uefi bios based MB. You'll see the count at 8 Cores performing 8 Threads. And if you still don't believe it, take a look at the AMD Diagrams of the build. It is a TRUE 8-Core processor.

I'm not an AMD fanboy so don't get all uppidy because of my views. Yes Intel is better than AMD. This is the first generation of the FX chip. AMD always does well at the end of the chips lifespan. The video game market is shifting with the new consoles on the horizon. You have AMD being looked at as the leader for consoles. For example the UT4 sdk's they give to developers. AMD chips both CPU and GPU. Usually what drives those types of markets do make a big effect in the computer market because developers will initially design for a specific platform if the masses adopt it. You'll see soon AMD has something in store when the next gen consoles arrive.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 1, 2012 12:07:03 PM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
Score
0
!