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

[StevenGiangz]

Which one do you think I should get for future games?

 

[ctbaars]

but the blind test said that the fx was better.

 

[esrever]

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.

 

[Derbixrace]

2500k /thread

 

[noob2222]

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

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

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.

 

[noob2222]

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.

 

[Orlando_Elman]

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!

 

[evo_x]

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

 

[sarinaide]

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.

 

[aganarok]

+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.

 

[aganarok]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[mafisometal]

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.

 

[Mousemonkey]

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey