CPU decision

[adzx]

I'm planning on building a new pc, and I'm deciding whether to buy an AMD fx 8 core or the Intel price equivalent. I'll be running
2 http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B007OYS4R6/sr=1-6/qid=1335378556/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&qid=1335378556&sr=1-6&seller=
4gb of ram
And a 850W psu.
If the 8-core is a bad choice, which cpu would you recommend?

 

[blazorthon]

All AMD CPUs would be a pretty big bottleneck on that graphics card. The cheapest CPUs that you could get for that card would be the Intel Sandy or Ivy bridge i5s. Also, get 8GB of 1333MHz or 1600MHz RAM (Corsair or G.Skill are the best brands for RAM) and get a lower wattage PSU. Go for something like a 600 or 700 watt PSU.

 

[mouse24]

Yeah if you have enough for two 6850s then yeah grab an i5

the 8 core fx performs pretty badly in games.

 

[nekulturny]

Both CPUs perform adequately in games to provide smooth gameplay, contrary to claims made by some forum users.

Having said that, the Intel i5-2500k still performs better for a well-balanced computer system..

Although not in all cases: (These are low detail)

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/AMD-FX-8150-vs-Core-i5-2500K-and-Core-i7-2600K-CPU-Review/1402/12
As you can see above, all the CPUs tested, substantially exceed the frame rate of a typical computer monitor (which is 60FPS)

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/AMD-FX-8150-vs-Core-i5-2500K-and-Core-i7-2600K-CPU-Review/1402/13

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/AMD-FX-8150-vs-Core-i5-2500K-and-Core-i7-2600K-CPU-Review/1402/14

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/AMD-FX-8150-vs-Core-i5-2500K-and-Core-i7-2600K-CPU-Review/1402/15

High Settings
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-18.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-19.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-20.html


To the two others who have posted in this thread already, please don't make up fraudulent claims, people are seeking advice on a financial investment, lying to them to promote your favorite product is unprofessional.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103960
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115072&Tpk=2500k

Both the 2500k and 8150 are priced the same, I say flip a coin. However, you should consider getting 8 gigs of RAM, not 4.

 

[Idonno]

If your building for games get the Intel i5-2500k. If you want a PC that's great in games and also a little faster/better at other things, get an Intel i7-2600k.

The 2600k is a little more expensive than a AMD fx 8 core and a i5-2500k but only a little. Either way both Intel's are great CPU's

 

[mouse24]

Both CPUs perform adequately in games to provide smooth gameplay, contrary to claims made by some forum users.

Having said that, the Intel i5-2500k still performs better for a well-balanced computer system..

Although not in all cases: (These are low detail)

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/AMD-FX-8150-vs-Core-i5-2500K-and-Core-i7-2600K-CPU-Review/1402/12
As you can see above, all the CPUs tested, substantially exceed the frame rate of a typical computer monitor (which is 60FPS)

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/AMD-FX-8150-vs-Core-i5-2500K-and-Core-i7-2600K-CPU-Review/1402/13

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/AMD-FX-8150-vs-Core-i5-2500K-and-Core-i7-2600K-CPU-Review/1402/14

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/AMD-FX-8150-vs-Core-i5-2500K-and-Core-i7-2600K-CPU-Review/1402/15

High Settings
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-18.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-19.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-20.html


To the two others who have posted in this thread already, please don't make up fraudulent claims, people are seeking advice on a financial investment, lying to them to promote your favorite product is unprofessional.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103960
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115072&Tpk=2500k

Both the 2500k and 8150 are priced the same, I say flip a coin. However, you should consider getting 8 gigs of RAM, not 4.

You just linked a benchmark on low at 1920 x 1200... for CPU scaling..... the F1 and Cata benches are the only ones that matter in your entire line up of benchmarks.

Those benchmarks also don't include overclocking.

 

[nekulturny]

You just linked a benchmark on low at 1920 x 1200... the F1 and Cata benches are the only ones that matter in your entire line up of benchmarks.

Those benchmarks also don't include overclocking.

I linked several benchmarks, including some in High settings from Tom's own people if you think that you have more condemning benchmarks, then provide them. Otherwise, once again, you are doing a disservice to others by making inaccurate claims. Furthermore, if the benchmarks shown already show the games being perfectly handled at STOCK clock rates, Overclocking is irrelevant. You forget that only 5% of the consumer market is going to overclock.

 

[popatim]

Normally I would say go intel for the better upgrade path and a more powerful processor but Intel SB chips only have 16pcie lanes whereas a 990FX has support for two GPU's in x16 or four in x8 mode which may come in handy if you run into the microstutter issue and the fix is to run 3 gpu's.

If your looking for pcie3 support then you have no choice but go intel and Ivy Bridge. Sandy bridge cpu's only support pcie2 but work fine in a pcie3 board.

Its a tuff call...

 

[nekulturny]

Normally I would say go intel for the better upgrade path and a more powerful processor but Intel SB chips only have 16pcie lanes whereas a 990FX has support for two GPU's in x16 or four in x8 mode which may come in handy if you run into the microstutter issue and the fix is to run 3 gpu's.

If your looking for pcie3 support then you have no choice but go intel and Ivy Bridge. Sandy bridge cpu's only support pcie2 but work fine in a pcie3 board.

Its a tuff call...

Yea it really is, now that The bulldozers are priced competitively. 270 bucks was way too much for an 8150, now they're priced exactly where they should have been IMO.

 

[mouse24]

I linked several benchmarks, including some in High settings from Tom's own people if you think that you have more condemning benchmarks, then provide them. Otherwise, once again, you are doing a disservice to others by making inaccurate claims. Furthermore, if the benchmarks shown already show the games being perfectly handled at STOCK clock rates, Overclocking is irrelevant. You forget that only 5% of the consumer market is going to overclock.

Perhaps I should use this wording "in non cpu bound games it does alright, but in games where the cpu takes a hit its basically a phenom 2 x4" The only real time I would suggest an 8150 over an i5 which is the same price is when you have very specific needs and thats your absolute budget (IE video encoding and you can't afford an i7)

You can read the entire list of benchies here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/8

I don't see a reason why anyone would buy an 8150 instead of an i5.

 

[Idonno]

To the two others who have posted in this thread already, please don't make up fraudulent claims, people are seeking advice on a financial investment, lying to them to promote your favorite product is unprofessional.

I really don't know what the hell your talking about! The only fraudulent claims I see is the one in the above quote!

If you disagree with them that's fine. State your opinion. Calling them lairs is over the top and completely "unprofessional".

 

[nekulturny]

Perhaps I should use this wording "in non cpu bound games it does alright, but in games where the cpu takes a hit its basically a phenom 2 x4" The only real time I would suggest an 8150 over an i5 which is the same price is when you have very specific needs and thats your absolute budget (IE video encoding and you can't afford an i7)

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4955/41702.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4955/41703.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4955/41700.png

You can read the entire list of benchies here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/8

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4955/41709.png


I don't see a reason why anyone would buy an 8150 instead of an i5.

World of Warcraft- All CPUs exceed the frame rate limitations of a typical LCD monitor

Starcraft II- You have a point, which if you paid attention, I actually recommended the 2500k in the first place. 47frames per second however is perfectly fine for smooth/stable gameplay

Dragon Age- Again all CPUs nearly put out DOUBLE the frame rates that a typical LCD monitor is capable of displaying

Crysis- LCD monitor frame rate exceeded again.

Because neither has any real advantage over the other for actual gameplay, thats why.

 

[nekulturny]

I really don't know what the hell your talking about! The only fraudulent claims I see is the one in the above quote!

I didn't post to you, I did not address you sir in any way shape or form as the thread clearly shows, I was referring to statements made by two other posters above me neither of them were you, unless you have multiple accounts.

One member said that the FX-8150 is "horrible for gaming", and that just is not factual. So by logic, its either a lie, or an omission of truth.

 

[Idonno]

I didn't post to you, I did not address you sir in any way shape or form as the thread clearly shows, I was referring to statements made by two other posters above me neither of them were you, unless you have multiple accounts.

One member said that the FX-8150 is "horrible for gaming", and that just is not factual. So by logic, its either a lie, or an omission of truth.

Just because someones opinion is incorrect doesn't mean he/she is a liar. All you needed to do is present your facts, calling them lairs was over the top and unnecessary.

 

[nekulturny]

Just because someones opinion is incorrect doesn't mean he/she is a liar. All you needed to do is present your facts, calling them lairs was over the top.

They're entitled to their opinion and I'm entitled to mine. But thank you for your concern.

 

[Idonno]

They're entitled to their opinion and I'm entitled to mine. But thank you for your concern.

Any Time!

You are in fact correct but, I also think they were just trying to help.

 

[mouse24]

I didn't post to you, I did not address you sir in any way shape or form as the thread clearly shows, I was referring to statements made by two other posters above me neither of them were you, unless you have multiple accounts.

One member said that the FX-8150 is "horrible for gaming", and that just is not factual. So by logic, its either a lie, or an omission of truth.

I have to agree with the user you quoted though, it did come as a bit standoff ish. I was going to call you out on it but I just said never mind and proceeded to provide proof of my thought process.

World of Warcraft- All CPUs exceed the frame rate limitations of a typical LCD monitor

Starcraft II- You have a point, which if you paid attention, I actually recommended the 2500k in the first place. 47frames per second however is perfectly fine for smooth/stable gameplay

Dragon Age- Again all CPUs nearly put out DOUBLE the frame rates that a typical LCD monitor is capable of displaying

Crysis- LCD monitor frame rate exceeded again.

Because neither has any real advantage over the other for actual gameplay, thats why.

Here you are assuming that no new taxing cpu games will ever come out (like another badly coded GTA, or heck Max Payne 3 might be pretty cpu intensive)

Just because the minimum frams are fine for games today doesn't make it a smart decision to grab a product that performs worse then another product in the same price range on specific titles.

Please provide me with proof why you would take (in a new build, not upgrading from an athlon 2 x3 on an AM3+ board) the 8150 over an i5 + z77/z68.

 

[nekulturny]

Final Summation of my "opinion", and following that I will be de-subscribing to this thread because I know how they always end up and I get tired of having the same debate over and over again.

Both CPUs will provide an adequate gaming experience based on benchmarks provided by both myself and others in this thread. While some may argue that their is a difference, again the differences between the two are "on paper", and have no significant bearing on actual gameplay.

While I am of the opinion that 2500k is a stronger processor than the 8150 when taken into context with everything an average computer user may do. Neither are "bad" choices.

Actually, final final thought:

Please provide me with proof why you would take (in a new build, not upgrading from an athlon 2 x3 on an AM3+ board) the 8150 over an i5 + z77/z68.

I never said I would. LOL. When I built my system, it came down to FX-4100, Phenom II 975 or i3-2100 or 2500k. I determined that based on my needs as a consumer the 975 Phenom II met them. As far as anything else, I've never been one to be concerned about what my computer needs will be down the road. You buy something that meets your needs today, cus all of them (Intel or AMD) will be a dinosaur in 4 years.

 

[mouse24]

Final Summation of my "opinion", and following that I will be de-subscribing to this thread because I know how they always end up and I get tired of having the same debate over and over again.

Both CPUs will provide an adequate gaming experience based on benchmarks provided by both myself and others in this thread. While some may argue that their is a difference, again the differences between the two are "on paper", and have no significant bearing on actual gameplay.

While I am of the opinion that 2500k is a stronger processor than the 8150 when taken into context with everything an average computer user may do. Neither are "bad" choices.

Actually, final final thought:

Please provide me with proof why you would take (in a new build, not upgrading from an athlon 2 x3 on an AM3+ board) the 8150 over an i5 + z77/z68.

I never said I would. LOL. When I built my system, it came down to FX-4100, Phenom II 975 or i3-2100 or 2500k. I determined that based on my needs as a consumer the 975 Phenom II met them.

That is the entire point of this thread to point the OP in the correct direction, not to point him to an amd proc that performs worse then an intel proc at the same price.

You ask me for benchmarks proving you wrong then you tell me "While some may argue that their is a difference, again the differences between the two are "on paper", and have no significant bearing on actual gameplay. "

Oh and hes grabbing 2x 7850, hes not an average user...

Edit: you updated while I was typing that, in response to: "I've never been one to be concerned about what my computer needs will be down the road. You buy something that meets your needs today, cus all of them (Intel or AMD) will be a dinosaur in 4 years."

Thats no excuse to point someone to a poorly performing platform, True if you do have top end hardware like in the benchmarks then yes that proc wont matter but if you only have say a 6870 than it is good to grab all the extra performance out of your cpu you can (for certain games like BF3, Starcraft, etc.)

 

[nekulturny]

Thats no excuse to point someone to a poorly performing platform,

This is where our opinions cross swords, I'm not of the opinion the FX-8150 performs poorly, "not as well" I would say, but poorly is not something I'm prepared to state. Such is the problem when you only have 2 CPU manufacturers providing products, one is bound to be better than the other, is that reasonable to say that 2nd place is a complete failure? I don't think thats reasonable at all. Especially covering all the information I've gone over in this thread.

 

[Idonno]

Well regardless of the uncivil discourse It looks like the 2500k has it. If it were me I'd spring for the extra $60 or so and get the 2600k. With your video cards a 2600k would be the icing on the cake to a killer all-a-round system.

 

[mouse24]

Thats no excuse to point someone to a poorly performing platform,

This is where our opinions cross swords, I'm not of the opinion the FX-8150 performs poorly, "not as well" I would say, but poorly is not something I'm prepared to state. Such is the problem when you only have 2 CPU manufacturers providing products, one is bound to be better than the other, is that reasonable to say that 2nd place is a complete failure? I don't think thats reasonable at all. Especially covering all the information I've gone over in this thread.

Heh, I got nothin to say to that. I agree.

But .... I come in second in fights all the time...

 

[nekulturny]

Heh, I got nothin to say to that. I agree.

But .... I come in second in fights all the time...

LOL, My bark is worse than my bite, I'm not a fighter, its a Gemini-thing.. But I'm that protective jealous type when it comes to my significant other. You mess with him and hell hath no fury. Thats where my Leo Ascending sign comes into play. But I digress.

 

[adzx]

Sorry, but I forgot to mention I'll be using three monitors, one is 1920x1080, the other two are 1280x1024.

 

[mouse24]

Sorry, but I forgot to mention I'll be using three monitors, one is 1920x1080, the other two are 1280x1024.

You can't use eyefinity with monitors of different resolutions (last time I checked anyways)