If AMD FX-8150 selling at the same price as i5-2500K...

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar

If the price for AMD FX-8150 is the same price level as i5-2500K. Which one will you buy?

  • INTEL i5-2500K

    Votes: 61 80.3%

  • AMD FX-8150

    Votes: 15 19.7%
  • Total voters
    76
sonexpc

sonexpc

Honorable
Feb 20, 2012
478
0
10,860
This is a marketing discussion ....

If the price for AMD FX-8150 is the same price level as i5-2500K...say $209 US

Will you switch to AMD ?

Assume you need to buy the MB at the same time...
Assume you looking for new system now...
:sarcastic:
 
2500k is selling for $225 on newegg, $180 at microcenter.
fx 8150 is selling for $250 on newegg, $260 at microcenter.
amd will have to lower prices quite a bit for their top of the line, top binned cpu like the i7 cpus represent intel's top of the line cpus. they are unlikely to lower 8150 prices anytime soon. amd positioned 8150 between 2500k and i7 cpus, not behind the 2500k.
pricewise, the 8120 is closer to i5 cpus in general. fx 8120 is selling for $200 at both newegg and microcenter.
in the end, the decision would be no, 2500k would still be the better buy imo. however, other people might disagree with my choice.
 
....ohhh.. first 8 hour ...75% still support i5-2500K... Out of my expectation....I assume will be 50/50...Let's see what's going on...

First ..see wheather we can gather 100 people in the poll to make some conclusion..
 


I understand the position of FX-8150....if I use FX-8120 as compare I will assume people support i5-2500K will still support....

becausye not that significant on the performance different.... But FX-8150 should be better than i5-2500K by most of the review....
AMD is loss the market now... and is so confuse with all the FX / APU...

If AMD can put FX-8150 in i5-2500K Position ... can they gain back the market position....

 


IMO this is more of a flamebait thread than a useful one.. But if by the above you mean the 8150 performs better than the 2500K, you should note that Tom's is an enthusiast site - lots of gamers here - and most of the reviews around the web show the 2500K as being much superior to the 8150 in gaming. Sure, some of the AMD fans trot out the anomalous review here & there but those are fairly few and far between. Given the current price advantage for the 2500K, there really is no controversy left for this thread to usefully explore..

If you really want the truth, buy both systems and then bench according to what you use..
 
I really mean is for the hardware specification FX-8150 VS i5-2500K
CPU : FX-8150 -VS- i5-2500K
Core Frequency: 3.60 GHz -VS- 3.3 GHz
No. Of Cores: 4 Modules , 8 Cores -VS- 4 ( 4 Hyperthreads)
Cache Organization: 4 x 2MB L2, 8 MB L3 -VS- 6 MB Intel Smart Cache
Turbo Frequency: 4.20 GHz ( 4 Cores), 3.90 GHz ( 8 Cores) -VS- 3.7 GHz
TDP Rating: 125 Watts -VS-95 Watts
Lithography: 32 nm -VS- 32 nm
Integrated Memory Controller: DDR3-1866 -VS- DDR3-1333

http://compare-processors.com/amd-bulldozer-peformance-fx-8150-vs-i5-2500k/3085/

how come that good hardware specification on FX-8150 still canot beat i5-2500K in most of the GAME Benchmark Review.....


Here is the more review compare the FX-8150
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FX8150/

It show FX-8150 is not loss to i5-2500K in each of the benchmark...Actually in some benchmark FX-8150 is very good..

But what cause the overall performance like that...?
 
Unless your main use is multicore/multithreaded oriented the SB will kill any
AMD available. I expect that the final poll results will be 80%-20% for SB because this is a enthusiast/gamer site.

The main reason for the SB advantage is the design which provides enhanced graphics performance over the AMD design. It's funny that AMD, which is a major GPU producer should have a CPU design that produces inferior graphic support.
 


What looks good on paper, does not always result to good in the real world. BDs paper looked great. CMT looked like a great idea. But it doesn't always translate to good in the real world. HyperThreading looked great on paper for the Pentium 4. But in most cases it made the CPU perform less. Maybe it will take a few iterations for CMT to work well.

As for why the performance, clock speed and memory speed is almost pointless these days. Thats why when the BD was overclocked to 8+GHz, I just ignored it. BD has lower IPC than Core does and that hurts performance a lot. Even with higher clock speed it only keeps up with it.

Memory, while faster is nice, doesn't mean anything. I build a lot of Intel and AMD systems and even with 1866MHz RAM, AMDs memory bandwidth is always lower than Intels. Probably a IMC thing but still it doesn't mean anything. There is soooo much memory bandwidth that you can have 2x the bandwidth and most DT apps wont care. Its the same reason why Phenom I couldn't beat Core 2 Quad even with a IMC. In server applications though a IMC with more memory bandwidth helps a lot.

Still I voted for the 2500K and went and bought one too. Its a very good CPU. Plus I don't want to overclock the CPU and use half of my PSUs power for it.
 
I would get an fx-8150 just for rendering, but then power usage from the wall is insane :/ and microcenter didn't offer the motherboard deal with the fx. So i5-2500k was a better deal at the time.
 


There's much more to analyze.. you can't compare architectures for example. There's no such comparation like that... like we do with numbers..
5 is higher than 4. This is ok and straight forward.. but how can you compare architecture, pipelines, branch prediction, cycle redundance, resource allocation, memory latency, and a bunchload of stuff that doesn't even need to be write right here?
 
THe first time I used a PC it's an Intel platform way bask in the 90's and it's an Intel 486, then came 586 with DOS(Disk Operating System), then Windows 3.1 then came Windows 95, 98 2000, XP and so on. And then Pentium 1, 2, 3, 4 and beyond. My trust is in Intel and Widows.
 
wow some absolute loonacy here... the only time the fx gets anywhere near the 2500k is on apps that use more than 4 cores even then the results are marginal.
the fx has to run faster and use more cores to even be considdered in the same benchmarks... if you go off 4 or less threaded apps there is a huge difference often as much as 50%...
if your gonna compare like for like then you have to set the 8150 up against the 2600k as it to can handle 8 threads and only then will the benches reflect the true differences...
its just a fact that buldozer is not in the same class as the intel parts unless you skew the tests in the fx's favour...
frankly the poll is showing a 75% prefrence to intel... they aint all from intel fanboys just people who prefer to buy the best performing parts for the money...
for gaming the fx cant even keep up with a phenom 2 as its single threading performance is weaker than the P2, so how the hell do you expect it to compare to an intel part... seriously guy its wishful thinking on your part that the 2 cpu's are even on performance....

i know them benches are skewed as they are an amd sponsored. but go to many other independent sites and you will see when they bench the cpu's, they show a totally different story...

if you want to spend your money and get less performance thats up to you but please dont bother trying to sell it to us...

a bag of shite is always gonna smell no matter how much perfume you drown it in.


oh and just for refrence go into the games section and see how many "why is my fx cpu having issues with this game or this gfx card" there are. they are from members who didnt listen to other members when told not to buy an fx part...
 
I'm not a gamer, but I would rather have the 2500K between the two. It draws less power for one, and I really don't need 8 cores for my purposes, which includes Photoshop at least once a day.
 


Even when a 2600k is overclocked it barely gets a high in power consumption as the FX-8150 at stock:

reference-clock-speeds.png


systems-at-46.png


A 2500K is even better (206w at 4.6GHz vs 406).

The FX-8150 nearly doubles its power consumption for a 27.7% overclock (4.6GHz). Its actully a 69.1% power draw increase for 27.7% better clock speeds. The 2500K goes from 128 to 206 which is a 60.09% power draw increase for a 39.4% overclock.

Either way you slice it, FX is a power hog.
 
Yeah, the Core i5 is the easy choice since it generally performs better and the power consumption is not crazy high especially when overclocked. The only thing that I do which can use more than 4 cores is the occasional video encoding with Handbrake.

Most games don't even use 4 cores and I don't really play that many games. Most of the time (especially when not gaming) the programs I use like FireFox and sometime Word and Excel which only uses one core. Therefore, having 8 cores for me would mean most of the cores will be idling most of the time.
 
even then i wouldnt. id rather have the inital higher outlay of the 2600k and let the reduced power consumption repay the difference over the first year. after that its intel for the win. reduced cost of running in the uk would make a significant difference on my bills over the lifetime of the cpu saving upwards of £70 a year. currently 1 kw costs between 9p and 21p (night and day prices) on average i use just over 5 Kw per day and 1.5-2 of that is the pc as you can see it costs me about £120 per year just to run my setup you could easily add £70 to that if i was running an fx oc'd to 4.7 end result over say 5 years is a fair wack of £300+ which is way more than the difference in inital price...
i would still be up by over £200 and thats a conservative estimate as the price of electricity has over doubled the last 5 years and is likely to go up by half again over the next 5... it may not seem a lot to some of you but when your on a limited budget it really can make the difference on what cpu to buy...

what im getting at its not just the inital outlay that should sway your decision to buy a certain model, its the overall cost to performance you get...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom