AMD FX 8120 vs Intel Core I5 2500K


May 20, 2012
so lot of peoples before me asked the same question that which one is better, AMD FX 8120 8 core or Intel Core I5 2500K quad core, but I am asking it again because I can't find any similarity of their reason of buying a new processor with my reason. I want a processor mostly because of Application Development and Video and Photo editing. The softwares I am going to use are Sony Vegas, Adobe Premiere Pro, Android SDK, Windows Phone SDK, Tizen SDK, QT SDK, Adobe Photoshop, Corel Video and Photo editors so which one should I choose? Do I really need a 8 core processor to use this all softwares. I will also use my PC for gaming, mainly games such as gta iv, Crysis 2, call of duty black oops, nfs hot pursuit, max payne 2 etc. And I don't have more money to buy any other processor costs more than this. So please answer.
i would say get 1 of the new ivy cpu's with hyper threading... because then you can compare like with like instead of comparing a 4 threaded cpu with an 8 threaded 1...
then you will see the real performance gap. the third gen i5/i7 will monster the amd regardless what app you throw at it. this wasnt so with the sandys, they lost out by a small margin when more threads were used...
but as i say when you compare and 8 threaded cpu with the high end amd fx you will see the numbers reversed. and not just by a small amount.
I have no idea about application development. If they can actually use more than just 4 cores, then maybe the FX 8120. You need to research those development kits to find an answer. My gut feeling is that SDKs do not use more than 4 cores which means the Core i5-2500k will be the better choice.

With regards to Photo Editing, based on the following benchmarks, the Core i5-2500k will be slightly faster based on benchmarks for Adobe. The FX-8150 is selected because the FX-8120 is not an option. Not sure about video editing, but if you are doing video encoding, then the FX-8120 would be faster based on the x.264 encoding benchmarks.

If you encode video and you plan on Cyberlink MediaExpresso, then you take advantage of Quick Sync to encode video. There is simply no contest; the Core i5-2500k will simply dominate. The chart below is just for mobile CPUs, but it should still apply to desktop CPUs.



As for games... simply refer back to the Anandtech link above.
from the OP it looks like app development and video editing is your primary task and gaming is secondary. in that case, fx 8120 is the (slightly) better option than the 4 core 2500k. if you can afford a core i7 2600/2600k/3770/3770k, that should be even better (if you have microcenter access).
for gpu acceleration (mercury playback engine) in adobe softwares you can opt for a gtx 570 or higher gfx card.
in the end,
for highly multithreaded tasks, cheap price - fx 8120
for moderate multithreaded tasks, gaming - core i5 2500k.
your decision.
i hope this thread doesn't turn into one where people bicker.....


Jan 14, 2012
I have dont own a FX chip but i am going to give u my idea,
The FX has 4 modules and each module has 2 cores.
So i think that when the applications are running not all the 8 modules are filled.
These benchmarks are done with a sigle app running and as everyone knows the Core i5 and i7 will be better hands down when u inted to use a app at a time.
Now when we come to the real world use, I always have most of the apps running and it affects the performance.
I think since the FX has 4 modules with 8 cores it will give a consistent FPS (games) or other things when u run many apps at the same time when compared to the i5.
This is my observation
Correct me if your wrong.
A FX with a mobo will cost you less than the i5, that is what people say, I am not sure about that.