OC'd FX-8150 or OC'd i5 2500k?

[Beitzel15]

Using the computer for pretty much Youtube/Web browsing and Gaming...

Which do you think would be the best option to go with the AMD FX 8150 @ 4ghz or the i5 2500k @ 4ghz

Which ever one I get will be liquid cooled with a corsair h100, so as far as gaming use/temps...etc, what would you choose?

 

[13thmonkey]

What's wrong with my statement? He said he wants the cpu future proof, so I recommended the AMD, given the fact it has more cores than the i5 and it's cheaper than the i7.
Your name is super "awesome" compared to mine, kid.

but its more expensive than the i5, and not as good, regardless of core count. So how is it better and cheaper when it is neither.

 

[gamerk316]

What's wrong with my statement? He said he wants the cpu future proof, so I recommended the AMD, given the fact it has more cores than the i5 and it's cheaper than the i7.
Your name is super "awesome" compared to mine, kid.

As someone whos actually coded games before, I again express my doubt that games, much less any other general user application, will ever scale well beyond 4 cores or so, for various reasons.

And I also note, having 8 slow cores can be significantly worse then 4 fast ones. Core count by itself is not a good enough indicator for performance.

 

[13thmonkey]

I was thinking that going from 1 to 2 cores was a jump in coding requirements and going from 2 to more than 2 another big jump, and 4 is just many i.e. a hex core will have 6 cores used on BF3, and a quad would have 4.

 

[robthatguyx]

the i5 by far

 

[st4rkill3r]

Well you might be right, I'm not a coder, but some say that future software will benefit on the extra cores (4-6-8), in my opinion the best gaming CPU is i7 2600k, but the best value CPU is the i5 2500k, the FX is good enough for any game right now and has the extra cores for work and other activities.

 

[esrever]

the i7 offers nothing for gaming.

 

[robthatguyx]

i7 is good for photo editing but i agree the i5 2500k is by far the best gaming cpu

 

[jdwii]

In certain games such as skyrim The I5 will pull ahead in others your GPU will be bottleneck. In rendering and encoding the 8 core will pull ahead if your using software that is heavily multithreaded such as hand break. If all your going to do is game then get the I5 but i can tell you that either will be fine to use for gaming some people make a big deal about 10fps today while both processors are getting over 60fps on usually a gtx580. Not to mention Amd has better boards for the money that do things such as CF. You can get a decent ATX(not micro) board with 4 ram slots and that can do CF for just 110$ and it also comes with USB 3.0 and sata 6GB. But for others stop saying BD is smt that is 100% wrong. CMT and SMT are 2 different things.

 

[noob2222]

i5 2500k is cheaper, offers better overall performance for price, is much more efficient compared to fx.
http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0354589 @$180
8150's power-performance efficiency goes down with overclock, stock performance is worse compared to 2500k.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-power-consumption-efficiency,3060.html
undervolting improves slightly.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/bulldozer-efficiency-overclock-undervolt,3083.html
there are windows 7 patches out, that improve overall performance for fx by 1-2% (amd's figures).
at 4 ghz, 2500k > 8150. unless you're running 4 simultaneous vms and using pov rendering 24/7.

First of all, 1.5V at 4.6 ghz is just stupid and unnecessary. This is my 8120 on a multiplier OC.

http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2212932

3dmark physics score 7740

@266 mhz fsb, 3dmark at 8190

cinebench both hits 7.6 scores

 

[13thmonkey]

but they are different chip processes, max of 1.5V is intels limit, whats AMD's. They are just different. didn't the power consumption go through the roof when overclocked to that degree, indicating its pullinga lot more current, current makes heat P=I^2xR

 

[noob2222]

but they are different chip processes, max of 1.5V is intels limit, whats AMD's. They are just different. didn't the power consumption go through the roof when overclocked to that degree, indicating its pullinga lot more current, current makes heat P=I^2xR

Power went through the roof because of the 1.5v. Re-test at 1.344v and see how much difference there is. Its easy to just crank the voltage up to prove your point that if you try, you can draw power ... any moron can figure that one out.

Properly showing what its capable of is a whole different story, after all, no one wants to see the good side of AMD. otherwise not every post where someone asking about cpus would be told to buy Intel for even asking wich AMD cpu to buy.

As for BD's max volts, I have seen where people are pushing 1.6v through bd to reach 5+ghz so BD can handle some juice. Also realize your overclocking 4+4 cores (4 modules) vs 4 cores on intel, of course its going to draw more power, but not as much as Toms wants you to believe.

 

[rage33]

First of all, 1.5V at 4.6 ghz is just stupid and unnecessary. This is my 8120 on a multiplier OC.

http://valid.canardpc.com/cache/screenshot/2212932.png

http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2212932

3dmark physics score 7740

@266 mhz fsb, 3dmark at 8190

cinebench both hits 7.6 scores

+1 my 8120 is at 4.2GHz with out any voltage increase and I get great scores as well. Not to mention really good gaming performance.

 

[sykozis]

but they are different chip processes, max of 1.5V is intels limit, whats AMD's. They are just different. didn't the power consumption go through the roof when overclocked to that degree, indicating its pullinga lot more current, current makes heat P=I^2xR

Yes, Bulldozer's power consumption skyrockets when overclocked and actually rivals nVidia's GTX480 and 580 for power consumption....

 

[melikepie]

i have a 8120 and it works just as well as a i5 2500k and can be overclocked really high, theres no way in games you can see a difference beacause no games uses the fx or i5 fully and overclocking might take more power but if you have a good power supply then no problem.

 

[amuffin]

First of all, 1.5V at 4.6 ghz is just stupid and unnecessary. This is my 8120 on a multiplier OC.

http://valid.canardpc.com/cache/screenshot/2212932.png

http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2212932

3dmark physics score 7740

@266 mhz fsb, 3dmark at 8190

cinebench both hits 7.6 scores

my i5-2500k @4.5ghz pulls in 7.81

 

[noob2222]

my i5-2500k @4.5ghz pulls in 7.81

Lol. I will call your bluff. Considering cinebench is very consistent with clock speeds posting the same scores pretty much on every website and every forum, the only I5-2500 at 7.7+ is 5ghz

If that was a typo then I apologize.

25 pages, to look through. http://www.overclock.net/t/668617/cinebench-r11-5-scores/220

Another 7 pages. http://forums.overclockersclub.com/index.php?showtopic=181398&st=0

sorry, but I don't see it happening.

 

[de5_Roy]

did amuffin make a typo? his sig reads i7 2600k...may be another rig...
anyway, don't see how cinebench and 3dmark affect casual web browsing and gaming.
@noob and rage: you guys sorta proved that 8150 is worse for overclocking (with overclocks from your 8120s).
8120 @ 4.2 ghz... that's only 200 mhz over it's max turbo. that's almost similar to oc'ing a core i5 2500 non k. 😛
problem is, fx's overall performance is so darn inconsistent that talking about it has become tiresome. power consumption is far worse.
we should keep in mind that every cpu is different. performance among owners will vary.
the overall best option between overclocked fx 8150 and 2500k is still the 2500k, until amd releases something that changes it.

 

[deadjon]

Trolololol - lololololol - lolololololol

Moar Flame War.

For the love of god close this thread. Its rediculous.

2500k is the faster CPU Stock and OC'd - Its a known fact.

Its not a case of, this is better here, this is better there, the 2500k is faster in more things, and by a larger margin than the 8150 is vice versa.

There is no need for flame wars, the facts are there and they are simple enough to understand.

And I don't want any of this "YOUR INTEL FAN LOOK AT PIC" - I just like Kentsfield. If you don't know what that is, then look it up.

 

[noob2222]

did amuffin make a typo? his sig reads i7 2600k...may be another rig...
anyway, don't see how cinebench and 3dmark affect casual web browsing and gaming.
@noob and rage: you guys sorta proved that 8150 is worse for overclocking (with overclocks from your 8120s).
8120 @ 4.2 ghz... that's only 200 mhz over it's max turbo. that's almost similar to oc'ing a core i5 2500 non k. 😛
problem is, fx's overall performance is so darn inconsistent that talking about it has become tiresome. power consumption is far worse.
we should keep in mind that every cpu is different. performance among owners will vary.
the overall best option between overclocked fx 8150 and 2500k is still the 2500k, until amd releases something that changes it.

Thats not my max oc, thats my 49C overclock. 5.0ghz required 1.43v and hit 62C, still lower voltage than toms 1.5v 4.6ghz overclock. Temps were more than I want but 5.0 on the i7's are just as hot if not hotter. 90% of the population are more comfortable at a balanced overclock, wether it be Intel or AMD and that ranges from 4.5-4.8 ghz for both. That 7 pages on overclockersclub didn't have a single verified 5.0ghz sandy brigde posted, even those were 4 out of 41 people.

If that was a typo on the 2600k and not 2500k, then ya, I can easily see that.

 

[de5_Roy]

i just noticed something (sorry for not noticing it earlier):
4.0 ghz is entirely within fx 8150's limits. it's turbo core speed is 3.9 ghz, max turbo 4.2 ghz.
took another look at the article about fx's efficiency compared to other cpus and the one on 8150's oc efficiency. in the first article, both fx 8150 and the core i5 are running at stock speeds.
during single and multithreaded loads , the 8150 should be running at or near 4 ghz, because fx's turbo core tech is more consistent and effective compared to amd's older cpus. after comparing the figures, the i5 2500K, even at stock, seems like the better cpu.
i hope this clarifies things a bit.

 

[noob2222]

The biggest issue is unless your spending $1000 on gpus, you won't notice a difference in games. I have yet to find a game where changing my speed from 4.2ghz to 4.7 make any significant difference other than loading times. All situations are basically 100% gpu bottleneck when looking at FPS with my single 5870. Maybe in another 3 years I might notice a difference with the newest video card from the future, but now .. no.

 

[sarinaide]

Call me silly but the 2500K is a bit down on price on the 8150, so if you can afford a 8150 you can easily pay for a 26002700K, in which case the 8150 has absolutely no chance. The 2500K will run the 8150 close across the board it will suffer in highly threaded apps without the assistance of HT, but in gaming and single thread will blow the 8150 out of the water by 15+ FPS at least.

 

[de5_Roy]

actually, core i7 2600k/2700k costs quite a lot more than fx 8150. only microcenter prices are closer to 8150, still higher. many people do not have microcenter access.

 

[sarinaide]

Well the cheapest I can get a FX 8150 for is R2989 while a i7 2600K comes in at around R3199 and the i7 2700K is about R200 more, all in all R100-300 difference is a small amount to pay for performance over and above the FX8150, in short if you are able to pay for a FX 8150 and matching Mobo, you can afford a i7 SB and in turn there is absolutely no reason to even consider a FX processor right now.

 

[gamerk316]

The biggest issue is unless your spending $1000 on gpus, you won't notice a difference in games. I have yet to find a game where changing my speed from 4.2ghz to 4.7 make any significant difference other than loading times. All situations are basically 100% gpu bottleneck when looking at FPS with my single 5870. Maybe in another 3 years I might notice a difference with the newest video card from the future, but now .. no.

Provably false:

http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=831&Itemid=63&limit=1&limitstart=7

Note how OC had no effect on performance? That could be due to some of BDs other defficencies [cache latency, etc].

http://www.techspot.com/review/452-amd-bulldozer-fx-cpus/page10.html

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/47155-amd-bulldozer-fx-8150-processor-review-16.html

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/8

Note how the minute resolution is moved down a single notch, how much worse BD does compared to SB. This indicates that BD is JUST powerful enough to keep the GPU happy, and indicates that in CF/SLI rigs, or after the next GPU refresh, BD could look even WORSE as the GPU will be less of a bottleneck.

Hence why the argument that BD has legroom going forward is just silly. BD could very well be a CPU bottleneck if the next generation of GPU's are as powerful as is being roumered.