AMD Vs Intel (Fx8150 vs i5 2500k

zackn06

Honorable
May 18, 2012
19
0
10,510
Before fanboys get ahold of this,
I'm looking for reasons outside of brand preference and based on fact.


AMD FX-8120/50 vs. Intel I5 2500k

Besides looking at benchmark software, or price, (I've seen i5 destroy the 8150 in almost everything except benchmarks below) Is there any reason to buy an AMD CPU still? When software becomes better threaded and OS's being to fully utilize more cores, will the 8150 ever truly surpass the i5?

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8150+Eight-Core

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-2500K+%40+3.30GHz
 

firo40

Splendid
Creating programs compatible with 8 threads requires alot more advanced algarythyms then say 2 or 4, this is why most do not support more then 2-4. When AMD decided to work on there stepping, cache memory bandwidth, and core per core preformance, theyll be on the right track to compete with intel.
 
G

Guest

Guest
*sigh* here we go AGAIN.

OP just ask a mod to delete this thread . .it never fails at starting a flame war.
 

zackn06

Honorable
May 18, 2012
19
0
10,510
I think my post was misinterpreted, this is not a 'Which is better' thread, My question was directed towards the performance of the two compared as software evolves. How will they compare in a year? Two years?
 
It doesn't require any bias, the bottom line from the review of FX 8150;
In the very best-case scenario, when you can throw a ton of work at the FX and fully utilize its eight integer cores, it generally falls in between Core i5-2500K and Core i7-2600K—which is where it should appear all of the time given a price tag between those two most relevant competitors. Sometimes FX manages to outperform the higher-end -2600K, but other times it’s embarrassingly bested by its predecessor in threaded workloads.
So if you're going heavy multi threaded applications, the FX 8150 wouldn't let you down but in everything else the i5 2500k is the sweet choice.
 
I'm with Looniam, this is just going to devolve into a flame war.

With that said, what Firo40 said is basically correct. The Bulldozer CPU lineup works well for highly threaded integer based applications but falls short elsewhere due to inferior instructions per cycle per core
 
G

Guest

Guest

well the "AMD Vs Intel " is bound to throw off a few people . .

no offense, you ask a good rhetorical question; because there really is no answer for it until the time when software does progress and whether or not the architecture of FX is taken into account.

the no offense part comes in when i ask about you doing the research . .i mean google is easy . .i remember as a kid if i wanted an answer i had to peddle my 3 speed, the one with a banana seat and sissy bar, 10 miles to the local library, up hill both ways and search the card catalog. and i had to avoid the librarian; she was a witch ya know, everyone knew it because she had a lazy eye and mole on her nose that a 3 inch hair grew out of . . . but i digress.
 

davemaster84

Distinguished
Jun 15, 2011
464
0
18,810
I am with AMD but I wont lie to you, the 8150 has the same performance as the 2500k , sometimes better but in only a few apps, so it is basically the same. Anyway the 2500k is priced a bit lower, so if you ask which one is better I would say the INTEL is.
 

zackn06

Honorable
May 18, 2012
19
0
10,510



Newegg prices

FX-8120 169.99
FX- 8150 199.99
i5 2500k 219.99

Is each step worth the 20$ price difference? Will i notice a performance difference between them for gaming? (WoW,Diablo 3, SC2, Crysis)
 

teh_gerbil

Honorable
Apr 9, 2012
515
0
11,060
The short answer to OP:

They are the f***king same. Difference architectures, but they're both targetting at the same customers/price group.

FPS for FPS, the i5 beats the FX by on average 5-20% (25fps vs 30) but that depends on the game, as well your other specs of the machine.

For encoding video it's the other way around, the FX beats the i5 by 5-20% for MPEG > DVD conversion or whatever.

 

cuecuemore

Distinguished

Wow=no
D3=no
SC2=2500k @4.8 or forget about it
Crysis=Same as SC2
 

jacobsta811

Honorable
May 26, 2012
165
0
10,710
The reason to choose any processor really, is performance for price- unless you are going i7-39xx on an X79, we all are trading performance for $. So the real question is, at what price ? Compare the price of your desired motherboard + processor for each processor (since AMD mobos that can overclock are often cheaper).
At the same price for Mobo + Processor, I'd probably choose the 2500k, unless I was doing a lot of video editing/conversion.
At probably $50 less for the mobo + processor, I'd switch to the FX-8150, and buy a beefier graphics card with my budget savings.
 

zackn06

Honorable
May 18, 2012
19
0
10,510
so all you look at is newegg.?
and that price IS INCORRECT, or was plus there is a promo discount..
(so try that again.)
:pfff:

AMD FX-8150


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103960
http://www.amazon.com/AMD-FX-8150-8-Core-Edition-Processor/dp/B005UBNLFK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1338145672&sr=8-1
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=1308191&CatId=7341

Intel I5 2500k
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115072&Tpk=Intel%20I5%202500k
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B004EBUXHQ/sr=1-1/qid=1338145753/ref=olp_tab_all?ie=UTF8&coliid=&me=&qid=1338145753&sr=1-1&seller=&colid=
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=7073161&CatId=6988

Good god, did your mother not tell you that if you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything at all?
I didnt think that it was necessary to post higher prices in a thread that has nothing to do with the price of the item.
:fou:
 

FtsArTek

Distinguished
Sep 11, 2011
368
0
18,810
Depending on what you plan to do most... 8150 if you're gonna use threaded stuff (Autodesk, Adobe, etc), otherwise undoubtably 2500k. Unfortunately the 8150 isn't very well optimized, being one of the first desktop (not quite true, but close enough) 8-cores - I know that on my i7 920 system the first four 'cores' are the main cores, the next four are the hyper-threads (so 0-3=Cores, 4-7=second thread to each core), and it's optimized to use the first 4 cores before going onto the next ones, whereas on my 8150, cores 0, 2, 4, 6 are the actual cores, whereas 1, 3, 5, 7 are the second part of the module, so share part of the other 4 cores. However, it still uses 1, 2, 3, 4 before using the others.... On linux Ubuntu (newest version and maybe the one before it) it's properly optimised though.
 
G

Guest

Guest

just go to passmark and see where a like AMD A8 - 3850 cpu is at.

then read some reviews with some real world benchmarks.

if you want to find some better benchmarking programs that reflect more of real world applications go to:
http://hwbot.org/
 

TRENDING THREADS