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

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Beitzel15

Beitzel15

Distinguished
Oct 14, 2008
544
1
18,995
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?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes

another rig...then again it is a hackintosh so my benchies probably got screwed up :pt1cable:
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

WHOOPS Sorry big mistake, i meant 4.8ghz pulls in 7.81
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
There is this propensity to choose a side, frankly it is stupid and foolhardy and the justifications are as bad as even the thought of choosing a side. Essentially I buy something that is the best value in that price range. Right now neither side has a truely perfect desktop chip, Intel are not pushed, so they release chips that are nowhere near true potential, because they don't have to and any smart business man will do the same thing allowing flexibility to improve and sell the product down the line when necessary. AMD on the other hand have produced a chip, proclaimed to be SMT perfected, a octo core and with tech involved in it that should easily break the $300-500 range, but are selling on the cheap and not only selling cheap but delivering poor performance to boot, somewhere something went wrong.


Of the two chips the 2500K costs $220 and games like a beast, may suffer without HT in highly threaded applications but can be compensated with Intels SRT. The FX 8150 at $270 cannot beat the 2500K across the board, so it is a stupid financial investment to make, not only that the FX supported MOBO cost around the same as Intel SB MOBO's making it even less apealling. Put the $50 difference towards a better GPU is far more reasonable and rational, that is unless you are not a fully functional human being.

This kind of choice may have been tough when BD was released, but knowing what every Tom, Dick and Harry in the computer industry have had to say, all the benches done, to fall for making the 8150 an investment is just pure madness.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Actually, kinda proves my point. Aside from the 640x480 test, probably due to pci controller being on chip vs on mb. Can you see the difference between 450 fps and 568?

Overclocking_01.png


I play at 1900x1200 since thats what my monitor support is. single gts 580 goes from 92.3fps to 92.8 fps from 3.6ghz and 4.4ghz. Seems that the cpu bottleneck is somewhere between 3.1ghz and 3.6ghz as that drops to 86fps. note that the intel systems are both pulling ~92 fps

What makes you think going from 4.2 to 4.7 won't have the same results? As far as intel vs amd, there are a lot of games optomized specifically for intel and will always run better on intel systems such as starcraft II. I would almost bet that even if AMD improves ipc by 150%, they would still lose those "game" bechmarks.

Here is a single 6970, stock, oc, and intel. looks pretty much the same. jumps of a massive 1-2 fps between systems and between overclocking and not, on all 3 games.

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/amd_fx8150/11.htm

I am more intrested in seeing some load time testing rather than straght FPS wich is video card dependent.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

Load time would be dependent on hdd! :fou:
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
the 8150 has alot of power no doubt, just no game nor application will ever use 8 core, most dont use more than two and some but not many utilize 4, intels quadcores are far supirior to amds thats why intels 2500k i5 wins
 
Upvote 0 Downvote




The 2500K will be faster for gaming but who really cares with those FPS(almost every game was getting over 60fps). I mean come on. Like i said before it comes down to the user if all he does is what his first post says he should get the 2500K but if he wants to do more such as encoding or rendering or buy a good board that has 4 ram slots,CF, ATX(not micro)+USB 3.0 Plug Sata6 for just 110$ go AMD.

Also i still think games will use more then 4 cores in the next 2-3 years. Back 4-6 years ago programmers will saying games would never need more then 2 cores.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote




Lol what about encoding that can use 12 cores or rendering. See this is what i mean i love tomshardware but i'm starting to think all people do here is game. Hand brake uses 6 of my cores at 95%. I don't own a BD because i think the Phenom II x6 is better(Since i have 2 less cores and 300mhz less speed and i'm still getting about the same performance).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
most people who throw 5 grand down a pc are hardcore gamers, if your doing that id still say go with intel extreme edition liquid cooled at 4.6 ghz with 32gigs of quadchannel ram on a rampage iv and tri gtx 580s so you have massive power and the ability to run 3 monitors with ease and multitask encode and such like you mentioned and still be able to utterly destroy games if need be the case
 
Upvote 0 Downvote



Or you can do it on a budget? Extremely over exaggerated Just like people who Say the 8150 is incapable of playing any games. For 1000$ you can build a beast of a machine that can encode fast and play pretty much any game on Ultra on 1080P.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Definitly the I5. For fooling around on the internet and watching movies both pretty much equal out. The thing that tips the balence in favor of the I5 is the gaming part. The Bulldozer just can't compete in gaming with the Sandy Bridges processors. The way I see it why not get the I5 that can do the first two parts and game really good.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
lol im done im not gonna act like a fanboy here when im not, amd stuff wprks and works well just intel works faster.alltho it be amds cheaper id rather be with the better performing cpu even if it costs 3 times as much. anyone who says otherwise id think is lying if they said they dont want the best performing
 
Upvote 0 Downvote



Not every one has 2000$ for a PC(1000$ for just a CPU that's not even worth it), saying to go with a CPU that cost 3 times as much is the worst thing to do. You get the best for your money regardless. And Not everyone just games on their pc lots of people do lots of different things, I would seriously get 2 PC's over a 1000$ CPU. i could use one for gaming and the other for encoding.


Hell i would could get a 16 core BD for 1000$.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

Have you ever heard of the asrock z68 extreme gen 3?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


+1^ I'm glad someone else is pointing out that the much vaunted AMD advantage of price/performance is not the reality anymore, ever since the advent of the Sandy Bridge lineup, if not before that with some of the Nehalem processors.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote




Lol i find that to be quite weird i mean of course the Llano would win but the 8 core BD. I'm going to say people wont notice the difference 90% of the time. But i can't set their and recommend a 8 core BD to a pure gamer i would not feel right not when the 4 core sandy is better and cheaper for gaming.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
AMD marketing a 2 Billion transistor chip like 900 million more than the SB-E yet is marketed in the mid and high level desktop range. The performance expected is obviously not there, and the pricing of the FX 8000 is just so bad for consumers and AMD alike. I would imagine that in a perfect world the FX 8000 chips would have competed on price and performance with the SB-E while the FX 6000 and FX 4000 competed with the Intel low and mid level chips, the reality is they don't nor is AMD significantly cheaper than Intel, just badly placed.


The 2500K is cheaper, far more efficient and generally faster, The BD is to gimmicky it is not a true high end chip. In fact AMD don't have a high end or extreme level processor, they are far behind Intel, pretty much dump all AMD products into the congested midfield of Processors. If performance and value is what you want then why on this planet will you even fathome buying a FX 8150? If you don't do heavily threaded apps or you just game, then the 2500K plus $50 in the pocket is a much better option.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom