AMD FX 8150 or Intel i7 2600K?

[t3chn0vamp]

Which one I should go for? Which one is better?

 

[cliffordcooley]

Here are a few reviews that answer the question better than I could.

Bulldozer Arrives: AMD FX-8150 Review
AMD FX-8150 vs. Intel i7-2600k CrossFireX HD 6970 x3 Head-to-Head

 

[t3chn0vamp]

means Intel is the best.

found this one:

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/arti...re-i5-2500K-and-Core-i7-2600K-CPU-Review/1402

 

[slh28]

2600K, all day every day. But that's not really a fair comparison because the 2600K costs quite a bit more. A better comparison is between the FX-8150 and i5 2500K/3570K, in which case Intel still wins.

 

[t3chn0vamp]

2600K, all day every day. But that's not really a fair comparison because the 2600K costs quite a bit more. A better comparison is between the FX-8150 and i5 2500K/3570K, in which case Intel still wins.

Yes...the only thing where AMD wins is the price ! but I think that price is not much if we include the cooling which will be needed after installing AMD cpu + ATI Video card...and if I don't use better cooling, my room will the worst place affected by the global warming !!! Watch this one:

 

[hood6558]

Which one I should go for? Which one is better?

This link shows all high-end CPUs and their benchmarks for comparison -http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
Spend the extra $90 and get an i7 2600K if you want real performance.. AMD processors are a joke among tech savvy builders. Sure, if you're building an email machine for your grandmother, by all means save the money and go with AMD, but for anyone into gaming, folding, video editing, etc. you will be disappointed. You get what you pay for!

 

[hahahanoobs]

LMAO. The FX 8150 is a whole ~$10 cheaper than the 2500K.

 

[t3chn0vamp]

This link shows all high-end CPUs and their benchmarks for comparison -http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
Spend the extra $90 and get an i7 2600K if you want real performance.. AMD processors are a joke among tech savvy builders. Sure, if you're building an email machine for your grandmother, by all means save the money and go with AMD, but for anyone into gaming, folding, video editing, etc. you will be disappointed. You get what you pay for!

LOL....

very informative link indeed.Thanks buddy.

 

[oldikes]

Anyone who said AMD is a joke among "tech savvy builders" is a joke. Its an i3 processor vs an FX-6 series, which would you rather have.

AMD has much better offerings for the lower price range.

Im not a fanboy, but it ticks me off when people base real world performance off of benchmarks.

 

[hood6558]

Anyone who said AMD is a joke among "tech savvy builders" is a joke. Its an i3 processor vs an FX-6 series, which would you rather have.

AMD has much better offerings for the lower price range.

Im not a fanboy, but it ticks me off when people base real world performance off of benchmarks.

Sorry, didn't mean to tick you off, I just respect well designed products. You are absolutely right; if you're on a tight budget you can build an AMD rig that's a little faster than an equally priced Intel system, but after a certain price point Intel wins every time, for the same money, and farther up the ladder AMD isn't even in the running. By "tech savvy builders" I really meant "high-end builders", which is something totally different - my bad. If you read as many hardware reviews as I do you may have noticed that only about 10% of them pertain to AMD products (excluding Radeon, which is really ATI. and excluding Nvidia, which both get equal ink). You don't see many people trying for world record overclocks using AMD, either. I guess I am a fan of Intel, as much as I can be a fan of a huge soulless corporation, which ain't much! As for benchmarks, the purpose is to gauge average user scenarios. Of course real world mileage may vary, every system is different, some are loaded with crapware and 15 toolbars, some are pristine, and most fall somewhere in between. But ON AVERAGE it can easily be determined where a CPU falls on the chart with enough testing. No. it's not gospel but it IS a useful guide.

 

[oldikes]

Well yea, of course intel wins. And benchmarking is useful, but its a little different in bulldozer/Piledrivers case as they have an unusual architecture and arent even fully supported yet. But yea, anything after about $200 loses.
Maybe if AMD actually made a REAL 8 core or focused it it being a really good quad core, they would do better..

PS. you can get an FX-8 series for around 50 dollars less than an i5-2500k (at least on newegg). So that puts it a little more on par.

 

[fimbles]

The intel is a bit better for gaming, The bulldozer however is no slouch and may outperform the intel in multithreaded applications.

Plus windows 7 is poorly optimised for the bulldozer and there are rumours of a 20 to 25% performance increase using windows 8.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-23.html

 

[LNCPapa]

That's a rather old article fimbles and those performance hotfixes were released for Win 7 back in Jan.

 

[fimbles]

Ah ok, thanks for the heads up LNCpapa.

I would still have chosen the intel anyhow, But I must admit to having a softspot for AMD. (underdog)

 

[LNCPapa]

But I must admit to having a softspot for AMD. (underdog)

I hear ya fimbles - I really wish the competition was a bit closer between the two.

 

[t3chn0vamp]

Yea, AMD is for Tight budget gamers out there but if you don't care about money of if you have some bucks to throw out on your gaming rig then Intel is the best.