Intel's i5 vs AMD FX-8150

[Rfisher]

I was looking into upgrades that I will be doing in the near future and I have replaced everything but the CPU and mother board and ram over the last 3-4 years or so. I am currently running an AMD Phenom 9850 quad-core 2.5 GHz. I really like AMD although I have never had a Intel that I had a issue with either so I'm not biased. However, AMD tends to be cheaper.

I almost had my mind made on the AMD FX-8150 Zambezi 3.6GHz eight-core with a ASUS Crosshair V Formula-Z AM3+ AMD 990FX. Then I decided to take a look here and to my surprise then i5 was being mentioned. I took a look at the i5's. I have some questions and concerns. The i5 I currently was looking at was one that seemed to be mentioned a lot when I did a search on it. It is Intel Core i5-3350P Ivy Bridge 3.1GHz quad-core not sure of the Mobo to go with it. I'm mainly comparing these two.

Maybe these can be addressed by the more tech savvy people here. I currently have a quad core and it even though it a few GHz up I still think that if I'm dumping 400$-500$ into a upgrade (When you include CPU mother board and new ram) it seems like you should be getting more. Maybe its a huge upgrade? It just doesn't seem that way. But comparing the 2 the AMD looks better on paper. I mean it has more cores just to start. I know that doesn't mean everything but it also supports higher RAM and its a 3.6 to a 3.1. But even when I looked at the post of "Best Gaming CPUs For The Money: July 2013" the i5 mentioned above was the top of the mid range CPU and slightly more expensive then the AMD mentioned above, but only by 10$. So even this site says the i5 is better. Can someone explain to me why the i5 seems to be mentioned as the superior CPU and why? Maybe a good mobo to go with the i5.

As an addition I should probably add this is my gaming machine I want to upgrade and future proof it as much as possible and have it ready for new and up coming games without bottle necking my GPU. I should also add I don't overclock and I don't plan on overclocking, way to risky for my tech knowledge.

 

[kirilmatthew]

The i5 beats the 8150, but I think you should look at the 8350 over the 8150 if you want to make a fair comparison.

 

[griptwister]

Get a FX 8350. Especially if you don't plan on overclocking. I don't see a non-K series i5 holding up for long considering the next gen games will support 8 cores. The FX 8150 isn't a great CPU either. FX 8350 is what you're looking for.

*edit* Future proofing? FX 8350 is what you want. Also, how much are you planning to spend on a GPU?

 

[4745454b]

I don't see a non-K series i5 holding up for long considering the next gen games will eventually support 8 cores.

Fixed. The reason why it's an upgrade is because the cores are different. Even the second gen phenom is faster then your current CPU. Every generation they put more and better tech into the cpus. So even though they might have similar stats, they are very different.

Before saying which you should get, what are the prices?

 

[griptwister]

Lol, @AMD Phenom 9850 being "faster" than a FX 8350. I've got many friends that are Devs. They say the FX 8350 is a good value considering how many game "Will" be supporting 8 cores. I mean, it doesn't take a genius to know AMD controlls the console market, and it doesn't take a genius to know that they want 8 core optimization for their CPUs.

The only Intel CPU I'd buy is a i7 4930K, other than that, it's a waste of my money. This guy is going for future proofing, not what's faster now. IMO, if he's playing on a 60Hz monitor, he won't be need a i5. In fact, I'm willing to bet a FX 8350 is faster than a i5 3350P. When he bottlenecks that, he'll be screwed because he can't OC, and he doesn't have extra resources (another 4 cores).

I can tell you right now, a FX 8350 is noticeably faster than my Phenom II.

 

[8350rocks]

The 8350 would be better if you have an eye toward the future...

 

[jaguarskx]

The FX-8150 (Bulldozer) is more or less a bad choice. While Bulldozer is more powerful than the 1st gen Phenom CPUs, there are more or less a "side-grade" compared to the 2nd gen Phenom CPUs (Phenom II). Meaning benchmarks do not really show much improvement in performance overall, and in some games it performs a little worse than Phenom II. I would simply bypass the FX-8150 and look at either the 6 core FX-6300 / FX-6350 or the 8 core FX-8320 / FX-8350; Piledriver cores.

 

[Rfisher]

Well I guess adding to this is I have been a console gamer for many many years. Only recently have a I made the decision to go solely computers I will need to upgrade them anyway but keep 400 dollars out of the mix.

As far as the price point goes, it is not very different at all. FX-8150 169.99 The i5 is 179.99 and the FX-8350 is 199.99 I don't mind buying the i5 if it better. I just don't really see how it is. At least not on paper.

Edit: To answer your question price wise. I would really like to keep it under 200$if possible.

 

[8350rocks]

Well I guess adding to this is I have been a console gamer for many many years. Only recently have a I made the decision to go solely computers I will need to upgrade them anyway but keep 400 dollars out of the mix.

As far as the price point goes, it is not very different at all. FX-8150 169.99 The i5 is 179.99 and the FX-8350 is 199.99 I don't mind buying the i5 if it better. I just don't really see how it is. At least not on paper.

Edit: To answer your question price wise. I would really like to keep it under 200$if possible.

The 3350p isn't better than the 8350, that's probably why you're having a hard time seeing it.

 

[jaguarskx]

As far as the price point goes, it is not very different at all. FX-8150 169.99 The i5 is 179.99 and the FX-8350 is 199.99 I don't mind buying the i5 if it better. I just don't really see how it is. At least not on paper.

To put it simply you cannot rely just specs alone since the CPU architectures are different between AMD and Intel which determines how well / quick they can execute instructions. In a way it's kinda like using a dating service, you simply cannot tell whether or not you absolutely want to be in a long term relationship with a guy / girl simply based on his / her profile.

While the specs tells you how fast the CPU's clock speed is, you cannot tell how well / efficiently it can execute instructions; known as IPC (instructions per clock or cycle). It is both the IPC and clockspeed that more or less determines how powerful the CPU actually is in this simplistic explanation. Intel has designed their CPUs to have very IPC, while AMD's IPC are not quite so high. Therefore, a lower clocked Intel CPU can outperform a higher clocked AMD CPU, depending on exactly which CPUs you are comparing. Why doesn't AMD simply make high IPC CPUs like Intel? Easier said than done. It requires a lot of money, research, and time to do so.

The fact is each individual Intel CPU core is more powerful than each individual AMD CPU core. Therefore, an Intel CPU core running at only 2.0GHz, is either just as powerful or more powerful than an AMD CPU core running at 2.5GHz. However, we are no longer in the era of single core CPUs anymore, we are in the age of CPUs having multiple cores. AMD's strategy to compensate for it's lower IPC core is to increase the clockspeed and increase the number of cores.

Explaining clockspeed is simple. Let's just say an Intel CPU can execute 100 instructions every 100MHz while an AMD CPU can only execute 80 instructions every 100MHz. That means an Intel CPU running at 2.0GHz can execute 2,000 instructions every second. However, since the AMD CPU can only execute 80 instructions every 100MHz, that means the AMD must be clocked at a higher speed in order to execute a total of 2,000 instructions every second which is 2.5GHz; 80 x 25 (multiples of 100MHz). Therefore, AMD CPUs need to be clocked higher in order to equal an Intel CPU.

Multiple cores complicates matters. First, the program / game must be designed to take advantage of multiple cores to gain any performance advantages. If the program / game is not designed to use multiple cores, then only one core will be used. I have read several posts where people stated that most online MMO games only one core. Whether that is true or not I do not know. I believe Sims 3 is an example of a modern game that only uses one core. Along with higher clock speeds AMD attempts to compete against Intel by adding more cores to their CPUs. It's actually less expensive and quicker compared to designing a CPU architecture with very high IPC. The problem lies in the fact that the vast majority of games released only use 2 cores. There are some games that can make use of 4 core, and there are very few games that can make use of more than 4 cores.

The issue also lies in how well the game can make use of the multiple cores. Simply having multiple cores and the capability using them does not automatically mean that performance is higher. For example, 8350rocks mentioned a game that he was playing where all 8 cores of the FX-8350 was being utilized. I found a CPU performance benchmark of the game. I can't remember which game, but if 8350rocks mentions it, then I can look for that performance chart again. Anywaste, included in that CPU performance chart was the 6 core FX-6300 which provided the same exact performance as the 8 core FX-8350 (well there might have been 1 FPS difference). So a 6 core and 8 core CPU provides the same performance. Since the load is being spread across all 8 cores in the FX-8350, I will assume the load is also spread across all 6 cores in the FX-6300.

So what does that mean? Since both CPUs provide the same performance, that means the game is designed inefficiently. Each core in the FX-8350 does less work compared to the FX-6300 where each core does more work, but the output (performance is still the same). If the game was designed efficiently, then the FX-8350 would provide better performance than the FX-6300. I will also add that the Intel quad core i5-3470 outperformed both FX-8350 and FX-6300 in that particular game.