I-5 2500k or FX-8120

[MellowOut]

Not sure how close or far apart these are there similar in pricing now is all I am aware of and looked at some benchmarking with the fx slightly higher than then i-5
Would be using it in a new machine for mostly gaming, videos etc nothing like video editing or anything just thought I would ask and will it fall once the Ivy comes out or is the 2500k just a staple now ?

 

[loneninja]

The I5 2500K is much better for gaming than any AMD FX processor, unless you use a budget video card than you'll see the same results on both processors. These benchmarks with a Radeon 6970 show a rather large advantage for the I6.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-8120-6100-4100_6.html#sect0

 

[bf2player1978]

go with the 8120 if you need to save money. yes the intel chip is better than the fx or amd in that matter. but i have the fx-8120 paired with a gtx 570 superclocked and my gaming is really good.

last thoughts, go intel if you have the money. amd falsely marketed the fx 8120, 8150 as 8 cores, but they are not true 8 cores. i went with amd cause they never done me wrong and i needed to save money. either way imo is a good choice! hope this helps.

 

[MellowOut]

Thanks guys

 

[mitunchidamparam]

Go with AMD because you can save money on the motherboard and todays games will play fine with all these CPUS.
This is the real fact.
Get a better GPU for the money you save.

 

[dish_moose]

I think your whole computer experience would be better with the Intel - small amount more but at least if you want to go Ivy down the road that option will be open to you. Intel is more efficient clock for clock which means every thing will work better/faster. Also the 2500k overclocks very well without using excessive power. The AMD cpus will overclock but efficiency goes down the drain.
-Bruce

 

[dish_moose]

There is a reason Intel has most desktop market share - the cpus are just better.
-Bruce

 

[mitunchidamparam]

ya, ya CPU are just better?
Dude all the games deliver 30 FPS or more for all the CPUs of Intel and AMD (Mid and High) ones.
So why then why go with a expensive build?
You can get better graphics for that.
This is a fact.

 

[Isaiah4110]

Not sure how close or far apart these are there similar in pricing now is all I am aware of and looked at some benchmarking with the fx slightly higher than then i-5
Would be using it in a new machine for mostly gaming, videos etc nothing like video editing or anything just thought I would ask and will it fall once the Ivy comes out or is the 2500k just a staple now ?

I would expect you to get better performance from the Core i5. Even a stock Core i5 2400 can outperform an FX-8120 overclocked to 4.2 GHz in gaming according to these benchmarks. Those benchmarks do use an overly expensive GPU, but show the capabilities of each processor. Check out this article for a straight comparison of an i3 2100 to an FX-4100 with more realistic graphics card options.

 

[mitunchidamparam]

Subjectively speaking yes they are but how does 10-15% boost in performance that Ivy will bring such a deal when most people are still not even close to maxing out the capabilities of an i5 2500K

Ivy bring 10-15 %
and Pile Driver brings 15-30 % in single core which were AMD lacks.
So who is the boss now?

 

[dish_moose]

I too have a 955BE in the computer I am using right now - Epenis - get real. The previous generation AMDs were better gaming cpus that Bd. Have you looked at any of the Tom's recommended gaming systems lately? AMD is absent!!!! It's not about benchmarks - it's about hardware that works well, and is more efficient - Intel has been moving forward - AMD - sideways?/ backwards???
-Bruce

 

[mitunchidamparam]

I would expect you to get better performance from the Core i5. Even a stock Core i5 2400 can outperform an FX-8120 overclocked to 4.2 GHz in gaming according to these benchmarks. Those benchmarks do use an overly expensive GPU, but show the capabilities of each processor. Check out this article for a straight comparison of an i3 2100 to an FX-4100 with more realistic graphics card options.

The game starcraft uses only two cores and obliviously intel wins but look you get a average of 30 FPS more and when the software evolves for multi threaded apps , then the fx will dominate.
Your eveys cannont see any difference more than 30 FPS.
FACT FACT

 

[melikepie]

Not sure how close or far apart these are there similar in pricing now is all I am aware of and looked at some benchmarking with the fx slightly higher than then i-5
Would be using it in a new machine for mostly gaming, videos etc nothing like video editing or anything just thought I would ask and will it fall once the Ivy comes out or is the 2500k just a staple now ?

8120, i have it but it's EPIC, need 25% performance boost? change the multiplyer to 20.0 (from stock 200 x 15.5) and you got it!

 

[anti-painkilla]

AMD is really it's just that Intel owned all the hype and Fanboys plus they payed off more publications/reviewers Not saying that Intel sucks just that there is an option thats just as good .

Haha dont even start on the FanBoy crap. You are unreasonably biased, these people are making statements and you ignore them and post your own rubbish. Intel is better yes. We can agree on that, the debate is whether it is worthwhile spending more for it or will the FX be fine. So if you are not going to contribute something worthwhile troll elsewhere please.

I love AMD, last build was a Intel because it was better, i tried really hard to justify AMD but couldnt. Phenom II were awesome, but Intel is currently better, FX is meant to be full utilised with Win8 but looking at the previews, I would stick with 7.

If you can build it cheaper with a FX and get a better GPU, then why not.

 

[Guest]

Every game that utilizes the cpu more (like sc2) runs much better on on intel than amd. FX is a failure get over it.

 

[A Bad Day]

Take a look at Tom's Hardware's review on FX: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043.html

Conclusion of the review: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-24.html

The i5 occasionally outperforms the FX even if 8 threads are being run, and dominates when less threads are being run. FX's performance might increase somewhat with W8, but there aren't any games that use more than four threads.

Take a look at the chart for CPUs that have the best value: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106.html

(Note: The FX is only mentioned once, the i3 competitor FX-4100, and it only got an honorable mention.)

 

[NZSol]

It is my experience that the faster CPU, the faster the data to the GPU...In other words, if you get a AMD CPU, you are wasting a % of your GPU power....check it for yourself....

 

[noob2222]

Every game that utilizes the cpu more (like sc2) runs much better on on intel than amd. FX is a failure get over it.

Every game that runs much faster on intel cpus are either backed by intel or using intel's havok software. http://game-on.intel.com/eng/games/default.aspx

Wonder what the problem might be...

 

[A Bad Day]

Every game that runs much faster on intel cpus are either backed by intel or using intel's havok software. http://game-on.intel.com/eng/games/default.aspx

Wonder what the problem might be...

Try running one of those games on Intel's eight-core Xeon processors, they'll have weaker performance because the Xeon will have lower clock rate due to additional cores. And the reason why they get kneecapped because no game uses more than four cores.

FX has a weaker per core performance than Sandy Bridge. A design gamble gone wrong, as proven by the vast majority of reputable tech review websites.


But if you want to continue your conspiracy theory, feel free to burn your wallet. I think I'll save some money by buying a cheaper Intel SB processor with the same gaming performance of a more expensive AMD FX processor.

 

[Isaiah4110]

The game starcraft uses only two cores and obliviously intel wins but look you get a average of 30 FPS more and when the software evolves for multi threaded apps , then the fx will dominate.
Your eveys cannont see any difference more than 30 FPS.
FACT FACT

What is your point? I'm not a fanboy for any CPU or GPU side, so don't come after me as though I am trying to tear down AMD processors. I simply look for the best possible price/performance option. The Core i3 2100 obviously matches or beats the FX-4100 (neither of which processor is actually being considered here). If all you truly want is 30 FPS then the fact that the Core i3 outperformed the FX-4100 in some games simply means you can raise the graphics settings in those games and still get acceptable frame rates. That equates to better performance.

When I was building my first computers AMD was the less expensive brand that game equal performance. You were essentially paying for the name when you got Intel. In recent years, however, Intel has been staying at least half a step ahead of AMD in the price-performance department. Sure you can find some super threaded (usually productivity related) applications that perform better with the greater number of Cores provided by AMD, but when it comes down to gaming and everyday use the overall evidence leans in favor of Intel.

Honestly? If you are really into overclocking and being able to OC your CPU is important for you then you probably want to go AMD. From what I read, they are easier to overclock to higher levels. However, if you are looking for a top notch gaming computer then the best price performance combo is a Core i5 2400 (or 2500K if you want a bit of OC freedom) with a ~$250 price range GPU. Couple that level of card with any AMD processor and you will end up with lower performance.

 

[amuffin]

The game starcraft uses only two cores and obliviously intel wins but look you get a average of 30 FPS more and when the software evolves for multi threaded apps , then the fx will dominate.
Your eveys cannont see any difference more than 30 FPS.
FACT FACT

Actually it is 60FPS, fluid motion is 20fps, very smooth motion is 60fps.

 

[Robi_g]

I asked this question 2 days ago (the exact same in fact) and the answer I got was definitely the i5 2500k (or wait for ivy bridge in 3 weeks or so)
I like AMD and think that their motherboards have better specs than intel's however...
* The AMD fx-8120 and 8150 only beat or draw level in benchmarks that can make full use of all the cores, most games now can only use up to 4 max
* The i5 uses less power and therefore less heat, ivy bridge will use even less
* I'd say they overclock equally well from looking at reviews etc...
* I think tom's did a gaming comparrison with low and high end GPUs even the i3 2120 was beating the AMDs all the AMDs performed the same in games because the games couldn't use the extra cores that the higher ones had.
* By that reasoning if you want it for gaming then get an FX4100 but then an i3 is better than that so get and i3 if you just want to game with a lower end GPU, if not then get the i5.

 

[jasont78]

Ivy bring 10-15 %
and Pile Driver brings 15-30 % in single core which were AMD lacks.
So who is the boss now?

oh so when they get 15-30 increase on single core only maybe they might keep up with 2500k if they are overclocked they will still be slower with multitasking by then ivy will be out and, we are only talking about i5's remember there are still plenty of i7's to stomp on the poor little amd's not to mention new gens by the time piledriver comes out!
sorry to flame but he said "whos the boss now"

 

[mitunchidamparam]

No one gives a proper advantage of intel over amd when both churn out more than the playable frame rate and one is cheaper than the other , more core than other , less expensive motherboard than other , overclocks like a beast.

 

[sarinaide]

The FX 8120 isn't really that bad of a chip, if it is cheaper than the 2500K and enough so then go with it, slap it onto a Crosshair V or Fatal1ty board, sorted.