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 ?

 

[jasont78]

You are misinformed LOL - http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-7970-cpu-scaling-performance-review/8

your the biggest amd fanboy on this forum defending amd by showing a gpu bottlenecked game so the intels cant strech there legs through a few more gpus in the mix and lets see the outcome then. i loved amd to but there is no way i would even try and defend the bulldozer chips especially when the last gen phenoms can beat or match them in alot of senarios. just admit it clock for clock intel smash em 95% of the time, sounds like you bought one and justified in your head they are as good!

 

[mitunchidamparam]

Intel fanboys always calling all the people who say the fact that all the CPU give you a FPS which is more than awesome as AMD fanboys.
All CPU give you a playable FPS

 

[noob2222]

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.

Gotta love how people say its a conspiracy when intel lists it on their own website ... like they are proud of the fact that they help develop games to run better on the "INTEL Core I-series cpus". What conspiracy? its posted right there on their Intel website.

Intel is soooo much faster that even with a 500 mhz clock advantage, the I7-2600k has 1-5 fps advantage ... omg ... the horror. http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/4350/amd_fx_8150_bulldozer_gaming_performance_analysis/index9.html
Hmm imagine that tho, farcry 2 is the only game thats on intels website obliterates the amd cpu.

No game uses more than 4 cores .... ya ... go back to school.

What do you know ... metro 2033 wich doesn't show favoritism runs on all 8 cores fairly well..

Civ V also ... wow ... must be a cpu bottleneck at 70% on 2 cores tho because intel is sooo much better than AMD.

Guess what, BF3, Resident Evil 5, Dirt 3, ect are capable of running on more than 4 cores. But that defeats your arguement that no game uses more than 4 cores, go ahead and pretend its not true.

 

[Robi_g]

bottom line is.....
both set-ups i5-2500K and FX-81xx can game.
the Intel option overall gets you more frames and lesser Intel options compete with the AMD FX in gaming as well.
the lesser AMD FX options are a worse move but the AMD FX-8 series are very capable, just not preferred by most.
prices now also tilt in Intel's favor AT TIMES, it depends on the actual build.

problem people have with AMD FX is that the prior generation in more times than not outperforms it: Deneb C3 and Thuban E0..
and also AMD way overblown on marketing and raised out expectations too high.

so the AMD FX-41xx and the AMD FX-6xxx are out and damn AMD for not working on a stepping revision
but praise them for focusing on Piledriver in attempt to correct mistakes (if that's what they are doing)..

+1

 

[A Bad Day]

-snip-

When I play Simcity4, Windows 7 Task manager displays that all four cores of my i7-720qm are at 25% load, and stay there even when SC4 is set to simulate a massive city at full speed.

Does that mean SC4 supports quad-core? No, it was released in 2003 by EA/Maxis, and dual core processors didn't exist in the market until past 2004. I would be amazed if EA actually had Maxis add in multicore support, because SC4, like many other EA games, was a rushed and buggy product.

Even if a game could take advantage of all of the cores, the question is, how efficiently?:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=552

If you scroll down to the games benchmark section, you can see that the i5 2500k and the significantly more expensive i7 3930k trade blows and neither show a clear advantage overall (one of the Civ5 benchmarks seem unusual). However, do keep in mind that the i7 has a lot more L2 and L3 cache, which could potentially help the i7.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/07/05/how-many-cpu-cores-do-games-need/9

Bit-tech also stated that for gaming, six-core processors are ill-advised.

 

[noob2222]

Advising because games generally will run on less than 4 cores and saying

because no game uses more than four cores.

are totally different. Gams can and will be able to utilize more than 4 cores, now and games to come. Yes there are exceptions to every rule (showgun 2, Skyrim eg. still use 1 core, IE 1 core pegged at 100%, other 7 running 5%), doesn't change the facts that even now games can and do use more than 4 cores.

As for anands odd civ v, they typod the full render score on the 2500k, note the no render score is the exact same number. As for civ V itself, prefers sheer memory bandwidth, going from 1333 memory to 2133 gives a 20+% FPS boost at the same cpu clock.

Just like to add that stupid nascar ad at the top is annoying.

 

[sarinaide]

I favour the chip that can play solitaire maxed out with full AA.

 

[bf2player1978]

just saying fan boys blow...yes intel on paper and charts etc....are better. but most of us amd owners game just fine. i get 70fps in bf3 with my gtx570. my chip only uses 54% of the processor and kicks ass! all in all, it comes down to money, if we all had the cash we'd all be intel freaks...

 

[Robi_g]

tbh the i5 2500k is only £15 or so more than an fx8120 and cheaper than an fx8150

 

[A Bad Day]

Advising because games generally will run on less than 4 cores and saying

because no game uses more than four cores.

are totally different. Gams can and will be able to utilize more than 4 cores, now and games to come. Yes there are exceptions to every rule (showgun 2, Skyrim eg. still use 1 core, IE 1 core pegged at 100%, other 7 running 5%), doesn't change the facts that even now games can and do use more than 4 cores.

As for anands odd civ v, they typod the full render score on the 2500k, note the no render score is the exact same number. As for civ V itself, prefers sheer memory bandwidth, going from 1333 memory to 2133 gives a 20+% FPS boost at the same cpu clock.

Just like to add that stupid nascar ad at the top is annoying.

I take back on my statement of that no games use more than four cores.

Two questions though, how many can efficiently use more than four cores, and when will 6-core processors' price become more reasonable? Currently it's about 2-3x the price for a theoretical 50% performance boost, which is something that budget builders will gag on.


Back on the OP's topic, the FX has the same number of cores as the i5, but with a theoretically better support for 4+ threaded tasks because its architecture is a blend between HT and an additional core.


But gaming and other software benchmarks, including 8+ threaded ones, tell otherwise. If you have to buy AMD, I'd recommend waiting for Piledriver and Windows 8 to see if it lives up to AMD's promises. Otherwise, go with the cheaper i5s and i3s, i5s and i3s that can put heat on a Fx8150 in terms of absolute performance and price per performance.

 

[sarinaide]

FX 8120 or 2500K, to be honest you won't notice a thing. Both will game at exceptionally high FPS with respectable GPU's and pretty much over 30FPS is not noticable.