I5 2500k or AMD Bulldozer FX

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Did you upgrade an exisiting 775 motherboard a few years back.
Q6700 has been out about five years now. It's still a pretty decent CPU, especially overclocked.
What video card are you using?


 
This would be more accurate if you were a Sandy Bridge owner looking to upgrade. As someone about to move from Kentsfield to SB/IVB/Bulldozer it's not exactly a downgrade.
If your video encoding software will support Quick Sync or GPGPU encoding IVB is looking like a very good option for you.
 
My GPU is an XFX HD4890, have considered upgrading to a GTX 570, not the 560 Ti 448 as I want a bit of headroom, especially if I go to EVGA and use the step up program if I gain a bit more money in the near future.

I upgraded my system about 2 years ago from an AMD 939 4400 X2 with an 320MB 8800GTS OC to the Q6700 and HD4890. I was going on the factor that using an old chip was top-ish spec, but I've found myself limited in games, even if they are CPU heavy games such as good old Half Life 2 that sometimes my CPU seems to struggle (well I think it's the CPU anyway).

Hmm I will have to keep that in mind, I'm not a massive overclocker but have tweaked a little extra power from the Q6700 to roughly 3Ghz.
 
Have you done the usual house keeping, system cleaning and fresh OS install anytime lately?

Q6700 @ 3.6hz~3.8Ghz and a new graphics card might keep you happy long enough to end up to choosing between Piledriver or Haswell.
 
Probably go for a GTX 570 then, performance is all I want haha.

I've got 4 hard drives, I dual boot 2 with the other 2 as storage drives, they hold Windows 7 Pro, one with a fresh clean install with just basics on for intense gaming (off the other HDD's, which seems to work well). I do need to learn how to OC. I know I can OC my CPU to 2.9 stable with not voltage changes, when I tried to inc my voltage by just one level my PC was just like.... "NO!" so might be stuck here for a while. I've got a relatively decent cooler on it so I wouldn't say cooling is an issue. Someone care to give me some lessons? <3

Piledriver I take it being AMD's recovery from the fail FX then?

Is the 560Ti 448 worth debating over, because it's almost the same price as a GTX 570 in the UK it is anyway. Only like £30 difference
 
Piledriver I take it being AMD's recovery from the fail FX then?
Click to expand...

Theoretically, we'll see this winter I 'spose. I'm with WR2 after bouncing back and forth on the issue myself, I think largely the Bulldozers have been unfairly criticized. They deserved to get hammered for being initially overpriced, but the argument in my mind is largely resolved by their price reduction.
 
£30 difference = 570

Piledriver is to be 10-15% better than Bulldozer so that puts it at first Gen Intel Core (Nehalem) like the i5-760 in terms of ratio performance.
Piledriver will clock higher than the i5-760..
Click to expand...


What I'm wondering is, does that include the 5-10 percent figure Tom's through out there that Windows8 is supposed to bring to the table? If so then we're talking a 15-25 percent improvement. Where does that put them? But then again its all hypothetical since I had heard Ivy was supposed to be 20 percent better than Sandy and all we got was 6 percent.
 
I'm not really confident in AMD at the minute, so I'll probably just stick with Intel, have been right up there and no complaints yet. Well I know where that £30 is going then 😛

Haswell is another chip for the sandybridge board or a completely new architecture?
 



I don't know about architecture but Haswell is set to be on a whole new socket that isn't backwards compatible with LGA1155.. Meaning if you want a Haswell next year, you'll be buying a new mobo.
 
IVB was a die shrink (a tick) and Haswell is new architecture (a tock in the Intel tick-tock upgrade plan).
There are some sticky topics above you might want to browse if you're interested.
 
Well if I wait until Haswell comes out, would be a clever move I think. Do you think the GTX 670's price with come down soon (being a year's time) so I could do a complete new build all at once with Haswell. Is there any Direct X level improvements made in Windows 8? (haven't been updated with windows 8)
 
I wouldn't wait for Haswell no. Right now AMD is licking their wounds from releasing a product that stock to stock, it can't outperform its prior generation, but the fact is that Intel is not infallible either, they too have released products that can't even keep up with their prior generation (Pentium 4s for example, and yes there are others).

While its unlikely the Haswell will be a flop, its not impossible. Haswell is more than likely based on history, not going to be a "reinvention of the wheel". What we do know today in June 2012, a Sandy or Ivy will be a fairly big step up from your Core2Quad.

As far as prices of GTX 670s, my guess is you won't see them drop until Nvidia is ready to throw out the 700 series. Since 600 series is just getting underway, who knows?

As far as DirectX, I don't know.
 
AMD users often cite the PassMark benchmark as "proof" that AMD's Bulldozer trumps Intel's Sandy Bridge, particularly the 8120 versus the 2500k.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8120+Eight-Core

FX-8120 = 8,273

i5 2500k = 6,740

But, that is extremely misleading.

First of all, those are not "gaming" benchmarks. The question is not which CPU is the better performer overall, but rather, which CPU is better in games.

Secondly, the performance of each core is tallied up as a whole, and the FX-8120 has eight of them. The 2500k has only four, and with no hyper threading. That is clearly relevant seeing as how the 2600k, with the same exact architecture as the 2500k, out performs the 8120 handedly, despite the fact that four of it's cores are virtual. And overclocking the 2500k/2600k would leave the 8120 in the dust even more so.

Additionally, it is clear that having double the core count only gives the 8120 a mere 20% advantage, a figure that should easily be five times higher. That makes it very clear that core for core, the Intel i5 2500k is far more effective.

Finally, games up until this point (and into the foreseeable future) seldom, if ever, use more than four cores. In fact, many (modern games included) only use two.

In conclusion, choosing between the i5 2500k and the FX-8120 for a gaming rig comes down to whether you want a CPU with four very effective cores, or a CPU that is basically the equivalent of an eight core Pentium.
 
AMD users often cite the PassMark benchmark as "proof" that AMD's Bulldozer trumps Intel's Sandy Bridge, particularly the 8120 versus the 2500k.
Click to expand...

I've never taken passmark seriously, nor have I to my knowledge ever used it as a basis for any claims I have made on these forums.

Secondly, the performance of each core is tallied up as a whole, and the FX-8120 has eight of them. The 2500k has only four, and with no hyper threading. That is clearly relevant seeing as how the 2600k, with the same exact architecture as the 2500k, out performs the 8120 handedly, despite the fact that four of it's cores are virtual. And overclocking the 2500k would leave the 8120 in the dust even more so.
Click to expand...

I gave a link that shows an 8120 up against a 2500K under overclocking conditions that covers many applications, including synthetics and actual gaming. Its clear to me based on those results that the 8120 priced at $170 can clearly stand up to the $220 2500K regardless of how much higher the results should be. Dealing in hypotheticals is kind of pointless, of course the architecture is not as efficient as it should/could/ought to be, I don't dispute this, but lets stick to facts. Furthermore, the 2600K is a $300 dollar CPU, I darn well expect it to perform better than a $170 dollar one, regardless of who makes it or how its made. I try to keep my claims solely based on Price vs Performance comparisons only, and include overclocking potential when applicable.

To each their own of course applies. But just in case you missed it, here it is again:

http://www.overclock.net/t/1210060/fx8120-vs-2500k-benchmark-results
 


None of those benchmarks were pertinent to the subject of in-game performance, with the exception of maybe two, if that.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and for what it's worth, I agree with it for the most part. For it's price range, the 8120 is among the best out there.

Just NOT for gaming.

That's apt to change when games begin using more than 4 cores. But for now, core for core, the 2500k destroys the 8120, and one has to look no further than the difference in performance in games that use only two cores, such as Skyrim.

It's not pretty if you are an AMD fan, no offense.
 




Obviously thats not true under overclocking conditions.

Battlefield 3...Supposed to be a quad core game, doesn't seem to matter what CPU you use, even at stock speeds:
\
http://www.techspot.com/review/458-battlefield-3-performance/page7.html

I wanted to call your bluff on the Skyrim claim, try as I might, I cannot seem to find a bench of Skyrim for the FX-8120 under overclocking conditions, I still say based on those other benches, that "have nothing to do with gaming", despite the fact that they clearly show the CPU is on-par with the 2500K when overclocked the claim is subject to scrutiny. Yes, I know stock to stock the 2500K plays skyrim much better.

Edit: I did remember this article
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-9.html

So perhaps you have a point for one game.
 
When I saw the title of this thread with 60-something posts in it I put some popcorn in the microwave and sat down to read the two sides duke it out...

Overall I'm really disappointed. This hasn't nearly been as bloody as I had hoped. Egos have largely remained intact and in fact there has been a lot of "meh" from both camps.

Anyways...Congratulations on becoming a master WR2!
 
LOL.

Joking aside, I see no reason for this thread to be "bloody". Sure, we all have different opinions and look at things behind our own set of eyes, but we can still be respectful of others.

After all, this isn't Overclock.net.
 
For gaming the I5 2500k is the best price to performance and right now AMD has nothing that can compare to Sandy Bridges and Ivy Bridges processors. The I5 gives great performance and can easily be heavily overclocked. Just look at the benchmarks out there the I5 2500k beats Bulldozers in all but a few games. Even the old Phenom II's and first generation I core processors beat the Bulldozer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom