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

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by date Sort by votes


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.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


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.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


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.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
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-performance/page7.html

Core_i7_2600K.png


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.

FX-8150.png


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.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


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.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
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.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
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
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
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.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

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.

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.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
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.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
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.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

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.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

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.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom