Intel i5 2500k vs AMD FX-8150

cenderone

Honorable
Apr 2, 2012
35
0
10,530
My brother won't shut up about the 8150. All he does is game and he thinks the 8150 is much better. I've heard way different from basically everyone else, and I ended up getting the i5 myself. So, what do you think?
 

SteelLAD

Honorable
Feb 19, 2012
63
0
10,640
In nearly all general applications the 8150 shows an embarrassing defeat in the wake of the i5 and even the i3 2120. I think the only time the 8150 gains some sort of advantage is in heavily threaded apps that take advantage of the eight "cores".
 

holykalo

Distinguished
Aug 27, 2011
155
0
18,710
The 2500k is hands down the best processor for gaming at this point in time (or the 2600k), I can't think of anything off the top of my head that conventionally uses 8 cores, ergo, the 8150 a complete waste for lightly threaded applications. With 8 cores, a higher stock clock, and a larger cache, the 8150 is theoretically more powerful. Despite that, it cannot hone up to it "theoretical power" and lags behind the 2500k in actual application.
 
The vast majority of benchmarks has shown that the Core i5-2500k is better than the FX-8150. Your brother can easily Google those benchmarks.

If he does not believe them. Then you can demonstrate it once you get your i5-2500k PC built. For gaming benchmarks you would need have a level playing field though. So if you and your brother have different graphic cards, then it's just a matter of deciding which graphics card to use on both PCs for benchmarking purposes to determine which CPU performs better.

Don't bother using Crysis 2 as a benchmark because it that game is not dependent on a fast CPU. Whether your Core i5-2500k is running at 3.7GHz or 4.8GHz, the difference in performance will probably 1 FPS or 2 FPS.
 
My suggestion is to take it easy on your brother at first for gaming performance. Run benchmarks on both of your PCs using 3DMark11. As long as both PCs are using the same graphics card, the resulting benchmarks should be relatively close like the following...

3dmark-1.png


That should give him a false sense of hope before benchmarking other games. Click the following link to see actual gaming benchmarks between the two CPUs. Note that the benchmarks are based on test rigs with a Radeon HD 6970.

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

cmi86

Distinguished
The 2500K is a better CPU over all. The 8150 does have some advantages but only when it comes to applications that are heavily threaded to make full use of the 8 cores. Like others have said, real world idk how much difference you would notice depending on the apps you run.
 
when the 2500k beats an 8150 it does so in a big way 99% of the time. in the apps where the 8150 is best it barely scrapes the win...
the truth of the fact is that intel need 4 cores to do the same or more than the amd with 8 cores so even if it does beat it on the odd 8 threaded app you juat know the intel would murder the 8150 if it had 8 cores...
telling your bro will just set his lip up. trust me, you cant change a fanboi's mind 1s its made up... just sit back with a knowing smile and watch him get pissed off when he cant match your fps...
 

loneninja

Distinguished
He can believe his 8150 is better all he wants, and you can get similar FPS in current games because your both GPU bottlenecked. In the future when his 8150 starts to hold him back and he needs to upgrade, you can laugh as your 2500K is still plenty powerful.

It's been 6 years since AMD has a better CPU for gaming, FX doesn't even match what Intel released a few years ago in terms of gaming performance.
 

Chaz21

Honorable
Mar 6, 2012
1,022
1
11,460

I think he probably will have the better CPU - when BF8 comes out and it utilizes 8 cores. Till then you're top dog. :D
 

teh_gerbil

Honorable
Apr 9, 2012
515
0
11,060
The 8150's a fantastically over priced peice of kit. The i5 2500k eats them for breakfast. Your brother is an idiot who should have gone for a phenom II. He's probably bragging to hide his shame at buying an inferior CPU and not doing his homework.
 

noob2222

Distinguished
Nov 19, 2007
2,722
0
20,860
Truthfully the 8xxx are very close to intel's i5, 5-10%. One problem is that software sees amd cpu and doesn't enable the full cpu coding that it does for an intel cpu. That's why benchmarks are all over the place when it comes to games, and very easy to "cherry pick" wich games to use. The only way to see the difference between the 8xxx and I5 is with a benchmark. Seriously who can tell the difference between 115 fps and 120?

Benchmarks can't tell you how "snappy" the systems feel when people multitask. For eg how long it takes to alt-tab to load a web page and then back to the game.
 

aicom

Honorable
Mar 29, 2012
923
1
11,160
One problem is that software sees amd cpu and doesn't enable the full cpu coding that it does for an intel cpu.
False. Any coder worth his salt would use the cpuid instruction to detect processor features. This approach works regardless of who made the CPU. If it supports AVX, it reports that.
 

Anonymous_26

Honorable
Mar 22, 2012
336
0
10,810


Exactly what I was thinking.
 


Not exactly true. In non-gaming apps, the 8150 is faster than the 2500K. The 2500K has a sizable edge in gaming, but that edge is mitigated somewhat by the fact that many games are not terribly CPU dependent.

the truth of the fact is that intel need 4 cores to do the same or more than the amd with 8 cores so even if it does beat it on the odd 8 threaded app you juat know the intel would murder the 8150 if it had 8 cores...

And if the 8150 was really an 8 core cpu, that would mean something. But its not. Bulldozer is a 4 core cpu masquerading as an 8 core. Which part of why it appears to perform so poorly.

Even AMD's own patent submission for bulldozer called what they now refer to as a "Module" a core and what they now call a "core" was a cluster. It all marketing.
 

Anonymous_26

Honorable
Mar 22, 2012
336
0
10,810


More like why should we pay more for a slower, hotter, inferior CPU.
 

aicom

Honorable
Mar 29, 2012
923
1
11,160

There are a few select cases where this is true but they are certainly the exception, not the rule.


Spot on. If anything Bulldozer was killed by its own creators. It was way overhyped, marketed as a Sandy Bridge killer. It was also deemed an 8-core CPU, which doomed its chances of a fair comparison. It's also way overpriced for the performance.
 

noob2222

Distinguished
Nov 19, 2007
2,722
0
20,860

And when intel supplies the compiler, not much up to the person writing the code is it?
 

aicom

Honorable
Mar 29, 2012
923
1
11,160


Quite the conspiracy theorist. Lucky for us, most Windows programs are compiled with a 3rd party compiler like Microsoft Visual C++.
 

noob2222

Distinguished
Nov 19, 2007
2,722
0
20,860

Oh noes, someone can think outside the box, must be a conspiracy.

http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-compilers/

Front page conspiracy? :eek:
 
Hmmm strange, I got P5800~ with a stock 1100T in 3DM11, but whatever. It is the reason why real world is the preferent determinable factor in these debates. Running Skyrim, BF3, Metro2033, F12011 fully maxed.

Essentially it is simple if you are a serious benchmarker then take Intel although you will get scored less for overclocking Intel than AMD setups so its not really a advantage having a Intel chip. And if you are a casual user an AMD setup will be way cheaper allowing you to put more into a system, also note it is the GPU that gives you the better performance overall and for slightly cheaper (if you take a 8120 rather which is 20 dollars less than the 2500k). eg; 8150 with a 7970/680 will comfortably beat a 2500K with a 570/580 on synthetics.