FX-6100 / FX-6200 vs. Core i5-2500K

Discussion of all forms of processors, from AMD to Intel to VIA.

Moderators: Flying Fox, morphine

Re: FX-6100 / FX-6200 vs. Core i5-2500K

Postposted on Sat Feb 25, 2012 4:29 pm

Unless the need is urgent I'd wait and get an Ivy Bridge chip. And I don't think that the FX chips are necessarily bad, the top end ones are generally faster than Phenom II X4s, but it's just that Sandy Bridge is really good. Also, if you're not planning on overclocking I think the Core i5-2400S looks appealing with its lower TDP.
evilpaul
Gerbil
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 6:59 pm

Re: FX-6100 / FX-6200 vs. Core i5-2500K

Postposted on Sat Feb 25, 2012 5:56 pm

Phishy714 wrote:I want AMD to be succesfull too, sadly this is not the case. i5-2500k will still be vastly superior.


Oh please.. Hyperbole much?
shank15217
Gerbil Team Leader
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 12:09 pm

Re: FX-6100 / FX-6200 vs. Core i5-2500K

Postposted on Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:18 pm

Synchromesh wrote:
flip-mode wrote:I've had only AMD in my systems for over a decade now. I'm currently still rocking the X4 955 and it does everything I need just fine (on DDR2 no less). But if you're buying today, I stand by what I said.


I agree with flip on this one. I had exclusively AMD cpus in my desktop from 2002 until end of 2011 when Bulldozer came out. After that I promptly went to Microcenter and bought my first Intel CPU (for main desktop) in almost 10 years. With a couple of tweaks it's running 4.5GHz which is pretty impressive for a $180 chip. Don't see the point in getting AMD any longer, unless you're on a super tight budget.

Don't forget to add; you also had to get that $180 motherboard.
AMD Phenom II X4 955 BE | MSI 790FX-GD70 | 4x2GB DDR3 | 3 x Intel X25-M G2 | Samsung Series 830 | XFX Radeon HD 7870 | BenQ FP241VW 24" | Grado SR80 | Logitech G710+ | SeaSonic SS-660XP 80+ Pt | Cooler Master Hyper 212+ | WinXP64 | Back-UPS NS 1250
Mr Bill
Gerbil XP
 
Posts: 420
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Colorado Western Slope

Re: FX-6100 / FX-6200 vs. Core i5-2500K

Postposted on Sun Feb 26, 2012 3:09 am

The problem with Bulldozer is its split personality. In heavy integer workloads, it tends to shine. In fpu-heavy workloads, it behaves much like four cores with hyperthreading, but with a much weaker fpu than sandy bridge.

Being so unbalanced makes it hard to recommend unless you're sure the end-user is focusing on highly threaded integer workloads, which aren't that common on desktops.

The original poster's analysis is based on passmark, which appears to be heavily skewed towards integer workloads (probably by design since most applications probably rely upon integer workloads, though not nearly as threaded as synthetic tests like passmark). That analysis falls apart for single-threaded and/or fpu workloads, which is why games fare so poorly.

Even highly threaded fpu workloads suffer on Bulldozer because you're essentially feeding one fpu with two threads.
Jason181
Gerbil First Class
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 7:23 pm
Location: Oregon

Re: FX-6100 / FX-6200 vs. Core i5-2500K

Postposted on Sun Feb 26, 2012 11:14 am

.
Last edited by clone on Tue Jan 14, 2014 1:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
neg
clone
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 900
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:40 am

Re: FX-6100 / FX-6200 vs. Core i5-2500K

Postposted on Sun Feb 26, 2012 1:37 pm

clone wrote:3 years ago almost every cpu overclocked quite a bit, a $200 cpu and mobo would overclock quite nicely, Intel has certainly killed that and left a $400 position just to get started.


Actually there is a decent overclocking motherboard for SB for less than $100 and a few in the $100-$125 range. $400 will get you a vastly superior cpu with a lot of overclocking headroom, a very decent board, and 16 GB of RAM. I'm guessing that woulda been a bit tough 3 years ago.
Jason181
Gerbil First Class
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 7:23 pm
Location: Oregon

Re: FX-6100 / FX-6200 vs. Core i5-2500K

Postposted on Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:34 pm

I to have been a AMD lover for a long time,I still like them even though BD wasn't the step up everyone was hoping for.I started in the 90s with a pentium 60,then bought the overdrive 120 chip for it.Not knowing about amd @ the time I went and grabbed a p2 300 from gateway,Installed 2 voodoo2 8 MB cards in sli"that overheated until i added 2 80mm fans in the side panel of case"boy those cards ran hot.
Then my love affair with AMD began.Bought a ecs k7s5a mb that supported ddr2 266 or RDram.2 slots for each but you could not mix and match.That motherboard Is still working to this day.It went from a 900tbird,to a 1400Tbird,then after a scary bios upgrade a 2400xp.AMD just always seemed to have a better upgrade path.From there i went to a 940 pin fx 53 Oced to 2639mhz 13x203.....I remember this because i got her running again,and typing this on it now.From there it was a dreambuild all water cooled 4800x2 with 2 x1800xts.LOL i had the fastest setup for a whole 2 weeks,then ati released the x1900s. Sold my dreambuild and 6 years or more went by owning only a c2d laptop and a couple dell zino hds with the 1.5ghz x2 cpus as HTPCs,they both do there job well.
Then once i saw sandybridges performance advantage over amd I thought about getting a new PC after years of no gaming,well soon after I heard that Intels Ivy would support the same socket as sandy....that reminded me of my love affair with AMD"upgradabilty" But sandy was much more beautiful and i cheated on AMD.I still call her from time to time but sandy has stole my heart.
I too agree 2500k is the best bang for the buck,more so if you live near a microcenter.
2600k HT on@4705mhz 8gb Cas9 1600 mem 2x EVGA GTX770 4gb Classified cards in SLI @1320 mhz core and 2003 mhz mem,mounted in CM HAF922 with a TX-850 PSU 2xHTPC's 2xi3 2120 3.3ghz dual core,1xasus LP HD6570 1xHIS hd7750@1150core1325mem,55"PanyVT30
vargis14
Graphmaster Gerbil
 
Posts: 1149
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 6:03 pm
Location: philly suburbs

Re: FX-6100 / FX-6200 vs. Core i5-2500K

Postposted on Sun Feb 26, 2012 3:59 pm

AMD is still a viable choice, especially for gamers and/or overclockers.

The FX-4100 ($109) is a full $70 cheaper than the cheapest quad core sandy bridge (i5-2300, $179), and faster than the more expensive i3-2100 ($124). The cheapest unlocked intel quad is the 2500K at $229. Factor in a cheaper motherboard for AM3 systems, and you're saving an average of $70-100 on the FX-4100 build. That's enough money to step up from a 6850 ($139) to a 6950 ($229+) or 560Ti ($209+). For the vast majority of games, the 4100+6950 will be much faster than a 2300+6850 at the same pricepoint (outliers like Starcraft II are more CPU-dependant and might do better with a faster CPU and slower GPU, so choose depending on your application needs).

If you're not a gamer, the money saved could go towards a SSD, which will give a much smoother and more responsive system even with a slower processor.

FX builds aren't the most balanced. If you need general computing power (eg photoshop) you're better off with a sandy bridge system. For a narrow range of niche applications (gaming, rendering*, video encoding*), the FX processors are price-performance competitive with intel, especially if you build to the same final system cost, and if budget is constrained. Sure, in an ideal world, we'd all be using Sandy Bridge-E systems with HD7970 cards and revodrive SSDs, but most of us can't afford to spend this kind of money in real life.

* For rendering and encoding, you need to step up to the 6- and 8- core FX processors to compete with the intel quad core sandy bridges. But alas, they're no faster than the 4-core 4100 for gaming. Hence my assertion that the FX isn't balanced still holds. But if you need to cut back on the GPU to afford an equivalent or better intel processor, that's not necessarily the most balanced option either.

I'm something of an AMD supporter, but my builds have been system agnostic for a while. My current system is an AII-X4, but before that, it was a Wolfdale C2D and before that, an Opteron 165, Throroughbred B, Pentium III, Pentium II etc etc. Dollars make more sense to me than brand loyalty. Am I disappointed that Bulldozer didn't perform to expectations? Yes. But if BD had excelled, AMD would have priced it higher, and then I'd still be cross-shopping against intel to get the best bang for my buck.
Wind, Sand and Stars.
Voldenuit
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
 
Posts: 2453
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 11:10 pm

Re: FX-6100 / FX-6200 vs. Core i5-2500K

Postposted on Sun Feb 26, 2012 5:28 pm

You might want to re-check that gaming performance. Even an FX-8150 can't keep up with an i3-2100 in Battlefield 2: Bad Company and Civ V. The 8150 gets a slight win in F1 2010, and only really dominates one gaming benchmark (Metro 2033) in the Tech Report's Bulldozer review.

That might seriously change your value proposition for BD and gaming. The fact that games are so gpu-restrained much of the time just accentuates BD's poor gaming performance.

I wanted BD to be great (especially as a gamer) because I do agree that it would be nice to have a <$100 good overclocking alternative to Intel's $220 bottom-of-the-line overclocking chip.
Jason181
Gerbil First Class
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 7:23 pm
Location: Oregon

Re: FX-6100 / FX-6200 vs. Core i5-2500K

Postposted on Sun Feb 26, 2012 6:52 pm

Jason181 wrote:You might want to re-check that gaming performance. Even an FX-8150 can't keep up with an i3-2100 in Battlefield 2: Bad Company and Civ V. The 8150 gets a slight win in F1 2010, and only really dominates one gaming benchmark (Metro 2033) in the Tech Report's Bulldozer review.

That might seriously change your value proposition for BD and gaming. The fact that games are so gpu-restrained much of the time just accentuates BD's poor gaming performance.

I wanted BD to be great (especially as a gamer) because I do agree that it would be nice to have a <$100 good overclocking alternative to Intel's $220 bottom-of-the-line overclocking chip.


I personally think that getting 60 fps in a game is more than enough when most LCDs can't even keep up with frame rates above that. As you say, most games are GPU-limited, not CPU limited. With that in mind, BD remains a viable budget gaming CPU choice, especially if going AMD gives you the extra budget to afford a better GPU.
Wind, Sand and Stars.
Voldenuit
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
 
Posts: 2453
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 11:10 pm

Re: FX-6100 / FX-6200 vs. Core i5-2500K

Postposted on Sun Feb 26, 2012 7:47 pm

.
Last edited by clone on Tue Jan 14, 2014 1:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
neg
clone
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 900
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:40 am

Re: FX-6100 / FX-6200 vs. Core i5-2500K

Postposted on Mon Feb 27, 2012 3:01 am

Im not sure bulldozer is viable at all really... gaming or otherwise. By the time you get into the upper levels of CPUs then your no longer on a budget spending upwards of 200 bucks. At that point if i were considering a fx-4100, id just buy a Phenom II x4 955 or 965. they perform great in games still and general use and can be bought new or used for under 100. Then grab up an AM3+ board and hang on for Piledriver. I have a certain amount of faith in AMD... but i think Piledriver is way to early for them to turn things around.

So if you dont think piledriver is going to be successful then you could buy an AM3 board with an X4 and call it a day until you feel the need to spend some cash on the next big thing. Not to mention the X4 overclocks extremely well and easy.
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

i5-2500K|Asus P67 Sabertooth|16GB Corsair 1600|MSI 7850 2GB|250gb Evo 840|Corsair 400R|ET750w PSU|Logitech G5|Dell 2420L|Corsair Vengeance 1300
Welch
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 2639
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:45 pm
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska

Re: FX-6100 / FX-6200 vs. Core i5-2500K

Postposted on Mon Feb 27, 2012 9:44 am

clone wrote:doing it on a budget i5 2500k as mentioned gobbles up too much of that budget. you are pushing what Intel pushes which is that CPU is wonderful for everything and no expense need be spared which as mentioned is wrong.
You're thread jacking; I don't think you're doing it intentionally, but you're having a different conversation than this started as. The thread did not start off as a discussion of what the best budget CPU is. I suggest you start another thread for that. That's definitely an interesting discussion and the answer is probably going to be something other than i5 2500, but that is not the discussion being had here. This thread has been about performance, and the original post put forth the idea that a performance-based case could be made for purchasing FX-6100 CPU if you are opposed to buying Intel's stuff.

Back on topic, the bottom line is that you shouldn't try to fool yourself into thinking that an FX processor is going to keep up with the SB processors. If you want to buy an AMD processor and stick with "team AMD" don't try to justify it or find outlier benchmarks to make a dubious case, just be at peace with it. It's your money, do what you want with it.
flip-mode
Gerbil Khan
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 9084
Joined: Thu May 08, 2003 12:42 pm
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Re: FX-6100 / FX-6200 vs. Core i5-2500K

Postposted on Mon Feb 27, 2012 9:49 am

flip-mode wrote:
Back on topic, the bottom line is that you shouldn't try to fool yourself into thinking that an FX processor is going to keep up with the SB processors. If you want to buy an AMD processor and stick with "team AMD" don't try to justify it or find outlier benchmarks to make a dubious case, just be at peace with it. It's your money, do what you want with it.

The issue is that when people state they're sticking with AMD for ideological reasons or otherwise you have implied stupidity for this belief. Beyond that I think everyone knows by now SB is better, but it almost seems as though people assume BD can't do anything / can't offer any kind of reasonable performance at all in a vaccuum, and that is incorrect.
My Dreamcast PC thread
Main Rig: FX-6100 / Radeon 6950 / Velociraptor HD because old school rotations
pikaporeon
Graphmaster Gerbil
 
Posts: 1312
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 4:42 pm
Location: Mississauga, ON, Canada.

Re: FX-6100 / FX-6200 vs. Core i5-2500K

Postposted on Mon Feb 27, 2012 10:11 am

pikaporeon wrote:The issue is that when people state they're sticking with AMD for ideological reasons or otherwise you have implied stupidity for this belief. Beyond that I think everyone knows by now SB is better, but it almost seems as though people assume BD can't do anything / can't offer any kind of reasonable performance at all in a vaccuum, and that is incorrect.

As I've already expressed elsewhere, BD isn't a terrible CPU; it's just a mediocre one given the price point.
(this space intentionally left blank)
just brew it!
Administrator
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 37677
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere, having a beer

Re: FX-6100 / FX-6200 vs. Core i5-2500K

Postposted on Mon Feb 27, 2012 10:28 am

pikaporeon wrote:it almost seems as though people assume BD can't do anything / can't offer any kind of reasonable performance at all in a vaccuum, and that is incorrect.

I don't see anyone saying that or anything close to it.
flip-mode
Gerbil Khan
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 9084
Joined: Thu May 08, 2003 12:42 pm
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Re: FX-6100 / FX-6200 vs. Core i5-2500K

Postposted on Mon Feb 27, 2012 10:49 am

clone wrote:you are looking at a P67 chipset or better for SB overclocking, the cheapest I found was $119 then tack on a "k" series sandy bridge for the freed up multiplier and that sits at $250+, taxes and ship put that over $400.00 killing it as a viable option not because the cpu is bad but because it's way overkill and the mobo overall is simply too expensive when working below $1000 as an out the door budget.

I've not once said that the i5 2500k is a bad cpu, anyone throwing money at a problem will inevitably get something that works.... but doing it on a budget i5 2500k as mentioned gobbles up too much of that budget.

you are pushing what Intel pushes which is that CPU is wonderful for everything and no expense need be spared which as mentioned is wrong.

also on a side note I mentioned comparable for the time, I'm not directly comparing 3 year old tech against todays, I'm comparing what was available at the time then to today...... please no more shortsighted comments about what's available today is faster because that would be an exceptionally stupid comparison.


I don't think the 2500k gobbles up too much if you can find places that will pricematch Microcenter. My brother was able to get NCIX to pricematch the $179 2500k + $50 off any motherboard. ($100 for a Gen3 P67, sub $100 for Gen3 Z68.) Honestly, that's the best deal out there even on a budget.
bru_05
Gerbil
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 4:11 am

Re: FX-6100 / FX-6200 vs. Core i5-2500K

Postposted on Mon Feb 27, 2012 10:53 am

And besides everything else, SB has a very sweet overclocking headroom. You get even more out of the CPU with K series.
I've never been a fan of vastly overpriced under equipped Intel chipset infested mobos. But sadly, I cannot justify and convince myself buying AMD based system as AMD can't keep up even Intel being greedy with pricing of CPUs and mainboard makers following them with inflated mobo prices.


I'd like to contribute more with walls of texts, maths and numbers but I only got few;
I have i5-2500k on asus z68. I overclocked it to 4.5 GHz and it took me 48 seconds to do it with EFI BIOS. I spent most of those seconds on menus to disable onboard things like audio chip and SATA3 controllers which I wont be using.
YES, I paid more than an AMD system but hell, I'm getting more in return.
i5-2500k@4.5 GHz, Noctua C14 to keep it cool, ASUS Z68-V PRO/GEN3, 2x4 GB DDR3-1600 G-SKILL RipjawsX, ASUS GTX560 DCII TOP@925/1850/2000(RIP MSI GTX460), OCZ 600W, 1x256GB Samsung 830 SSD, 2xSamsung 1 TB RAID 0, 1x2 TB WD Green, NEC 7173-S, Enermax Chakra
allreadydead
Gerbil
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 8:25 am

Re: FX-6100 / FX-6200 vs. Core i5-2500K

Postposted on Mon Feb 27, 2012 11:19 am

.
Last edited by clone on Tue Jan 14, 2014 1:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.
neg
clone
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 900
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:40 am

Re: FX-6100 / FX-6200 vs. Core i5-2500K

Postposted on Mon Feb 27, 2012 11:25 am

I don't think the 2500k gobbles up too much if you can find places that will pricematch Microcenter. My brother was able to get NCIX to pricematch the $179 2500k + $50 off any motherboard. ($100 for a Gen3 P67, sub $100 for Gen3 Z68.) Honestly, that's the best deal out there even on a budget.


see now that's just naughty, I just priced checked i5 2500k last thursday and nowhere was it selling for under $239.99 and their was no $50 off on mobo, thanks for the info that's a great find.

I can't disagree at $300 i5 2500k is almost worth sacrificing an SSD or waiting and scraping more coin together but at $400 I don't even see it as an option.


Yeah it's a sweet deal. They've had it going on for a long time now too. Since October at least... 2500k($180)/2600k ($270) + $50 off any motherboard. Gotta buy it in store from Microcenter though, so if you don't have one or don't know anyone near one you are out of luck. I'm not sure how my brother got NCIX to pricematch it, but he did. You could always try that too.
bru_05
Gerbil
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 4:11 am

Re: FX-6100 / FX-6200 vs. Core i5-2500K

Postposted on Mon Feb 27, 2012 11:26 am

bru_05 wrote:
clone wrote:taxes and ship put [SB + mobo] over $400.00 killing it as a viable option
I don't think the 2500k gobbles up too much
Perhaps this thread could use some splitting. In continuing futility I will again mention that the discussion of a "budget build" is off the topic of this thread. But it's worth going further and saying the whole discussion of what constitutes a "budget build" is worthless. All price points you can come up with are completely arbitrary. $400 is just as arbitrary as $200 is just as arbitrary as $600. Every budget is unique; so all discussions of whether or not an i5 2500 K costs too much are completely dependent upon individual circumstances and are therefore completely impossible to address with a general statement. Coming up with a magical $400 price point is an attempt to gather a whole group of unique individual budgets under one roof in order to be able to make a general statement, but that's disingenuous. For any conversation that starts out considering the i5 2500, it's already implicit that the i5 2500 fits in the budget, for any conversation that starts out saying the i5 2500 is too expensive then you're clearly working below that.
flip-mode
Gerbil Khan
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 9084
Joined: Thu May 08, 2003 12:42 pm
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Re: FX-6100 / FX-6200 vs. Core i5-2500K

Postposted on Mon Feb 27, 2012 11:30 am

.
Last edited by clone on Tue Jan 14, 2014 1:07 pm, edited 4 times in total.
neg
clone
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 900
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:40 am

Re: FX-6100 / FX-6200 vs. Core i5-2500K

Postposted on Mon Feb 27, 2012 11:34 am

I think everyone's made their point here. Please continue on-topic and save me the trouble of splitting this :)
There is a fixed amount of intelligence on the planet, and the population keeps growing :(
morphine
Gerbil Khan
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 9955
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2002 8:51 pm
Location: Portugal (that's next to Spain)

Re: FX-6100 / FX-6200 vs. Core i5-2500K

Postposted on Mon Feb 27, 2012 11:37 am

clone wrote:
Yeah it's a sweet deal. They've had it going on for a long time now too. Since October at least... 2500k($180)/2600k ($270) + $50 off any motherboard. Gotta buy it in store from Microcenter though, so if you don't have one or don't know anyone near one you are out of luck. I'm not sure how my brother got NCIX to pricematch it, but he did. You could always try that too.
NCIX.com rules!!!!

been dealing with them for 13 years.
Flip-Mode wrote:Perhaps this thread could use some splitting. In continui.....
all discussions of whether or not an i5 2500 K costs too much are completely dependent upon individual circumstances and are therefore completely impossible to address
Flip-Mode you are the problem, no one else is.

2nd point, FX 6100 costs less than i5 that's not arbitrary, you lack on interest in certain metrics is as arbitrary as your wish to focus on only the path you want to see.

continuing to quote only to cry thread jacking is a problem, I'm not going to bother with this any further because it is as claimed.


Wow grow up man.
tfp
Grand Gerbil Poohbah
 
Posts: 3070
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 11:09 am

Re: FX-6100 / FX-6200 vs. Core i5-2500K

Postposted on Mon Feb 27, 2012 11:43 am

.
Last edited by clone on Tue Jan 14, 2014 1:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.
neg
clone
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 900
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:40 am

Re: FX-6100 / FX-6200 vs. Core i5-2500K

Postposted on Mon Feb 27, 2012 11:44 am

As much as for the money I don't think BD is worth it, I agree with Flip-Mode on this too... If you want to buy AMD and you don't care about a little bit of performance here or there, its your cash, buy AMD. For me I wanted a screaming bitch of a system for my money for once... so I bought Intel this round. Plus I wanted a chance to see the grass on the other side of the bridge.... the sandy bridge (Muahahah), ok that was a bit much.

Either way I'm sure the AMD cpu will be plenty enough as long as your upgrading from an old enough system. After-all we I still need someone to buy AMD so that they have a chance in the future :)

And for Clone and Flip-Mode, while both of you have valid points... Perhaps all of us (including myself) should just take a moment to stop posting in here. I'm as guilty as the next, but we have continued to post in this thread over the last couple of days without the OP even responding once..... Lets wait for his word back so that we can continue the discuss by the path he set forth in the first place. I too want to discuss what you guys are talking about, but perhaps starting a new thread would be ideal, considering the forums are starting to gather cobwebs in certain areas due to the lack of shiny new hardware releases.
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

i5-2500K|Asus P67 Sabertooth|16GB Corsair 1600|MSI 7850 2GB|250gb Evo 840|Corsair 400R|ET750w PSU|Logitech G5|Dell 2420L|Corsair Vengeance 1300
Welch
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 2639
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:45 pm
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska

Re: FX-6100 / FX-6200 vs. Core i5-2500K

Postposted on Mon Feb 27, 2012 12:04 pm

morphine wrote:I think everyone's made their point here. Please continue on-topic and save me the trouble of splitting this :)


I'll bite...

Microcenter prices.

AMD 6100 Black Edition ($179.99) + ASROCK Extreme 4 990FX ($159.99) - ($40 bundle savings) + tax = $260ish (if their ad holds true, I'm looking at January's, Houston tax rate too 8.25%)

Intel 2500k ($179.99) + ASROCK Extreme 4 P67 ($149.99) - ($50 bundle savings) + tax = $300ish

$40 more for much better performance across the board. That extra $40 can be easily made up for with other component decisions. As well as the power savings over the life of the build. Then you factor in the future upgrade path, the 2500k will last much longer than the 6100 in terms of performance.

Depending on Piledriver, a 6100 as a placeholder might be ok. Will a 6-core Piledriver be better than the 2500k? Hopefully, for the sake of AMD and CPU competition, Piledriver CPUs push past the 2500k/2600k. I just don't see it happening.

On the Intel side, if you get a Gen3 Z68 (an extra $25-$50) you have Ivy Bridge as your upgrade path.
bru_05
Gerbil
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 4:11 am

Re: FX-6100 / FX-6200 vs. Core i5-2500K

Postposted on Mon Feb 27, 2012 12:17 pm

.
Last edited by clone on Tue Jan 14, 2014 1:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
neg
clone
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 900
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:40 am

Re: FX-6100 / FX-6200 vs. Core i5-2500K

Postposted on Mon Feb 27, 2012 12:36 pm

I don't disagree with this because at sub $50 who cares... really, i5 2500k is the better choice by far.

BUT I just found an Asus AM3+ mobo that supports FX for $61.99 and an FX 6100 for $148.99 putting the price around $210.00 and that's a difference worth consideration... that's an SSD or a step up in video or an additional 8gb's of ram.

in the end I don't believe their is a huge mistake to be made, I just reread TechReports review of Bulldozer and while not as great a gamer cpu as I wish it were FX isn't that horrible, and I5 2500k isn't as great as I thought it was.

if you take a look at Metro 2033 gaming results all processors suck, the minimum frames are terrible across the board and when you discount those results FX while not great is ok albeit i5 2500k is better.


I just picked 2 of the exact same mobo's for the respective processors. You can find cheaper P67s and Z68s than those, they were same brand/model but for different processors for comparison purposes. Same quality/features. Certainly sub $100 mobo's for each side if you wanted to do an extreme budget build.
bru_05
Gerbil
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 4:11 am

Re: FX-6100 / FX-6200 vs. Core i5-2500K

Postposted on Mon Feb 27, 2012 12:49 pm

.
Last edited by clone on Tue Jan 14, 2014 1:08 pm, edited 9 times in total.
neg
clone
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 900
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:40 am

PreviousNext

Return to Processors

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest