TR Forums

I still wanna give Bulldozer a chance. AMD announced back in Dec. 29 that they're coming out with some new FX SKUs, namely the FX-4170 and -6200, and I'm obviously interested in the FX-6200. Doing the math based on PassMark, the FX-6200 at stock can theoretically deliver almost similar aggregate performance as an i5-2500/2500K. Now, PassMark is a multi-threaded benchmark and is apparently not very popular here at TR or at any other prominent tech site, but the numbers give a ballpark figure of where each chip lies in the performance spectrum, when all cores are working, at least. You can also use the numbers to calculate the individual performance of each core of a particular CPU.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

Here are the numbers from PassMark (taken Feb. 16, 2012 ... they change everyday) :

Core i5-2500K : 6,743
FX-8150 : 8,250
FX-6100 : 5,593
FX-6200 : To be computed

Although this benchmark is multi-threaded and stresses all the cores it can find, we can easily compute the per-core performance of a CPU by simply dividing the score by the # of cores, so given the data above, a 2500K core gets 1,686/core, while a single FX-8150 core gets 1,031. These numbers (1,686 and 1,031) are in line with what TR measures with real-world, lightly-threaded apps, which show the 2500K to be around 60% faster than the FX-8150. Aggregate performance of the FX-8150 is 22% higher than the 2500K, which is also not too different from what TR sees in highly-threaded apps.

Doing the math,

1,686 / 1,031 * 3,600 = 5,887

.. we can estimate that the FX-8150 has to run at a whopping 64% faster (5.9GHz!!!) to reach the per-core performance of a 2500K! Of course, if each FX core matched each i5-2500K core's performance, the 5.9GHz 8-core FX's (model no.?) aggregate performance would be twice the 2500K's aggregate performance using twice as many cores. It won't cost $270 if it existed now, that's for sure.

I've also found that PassMark's numbers across a processor family (i.e. same die and enabled features) are pretty much in line with each other. You can easily come up with the numbers for a different SKU using another SKU if you use clock speeds as your other factors. Hence, we can compute/estimate how the upcoming FX-6200 will score in PM:

3,800 / 3,300 * 5,593 = 6,440

That's pretty close to the 2500K's score. Clock it just a bit higher and you get

4,000 / 3,800 * 6,440 = 6,779

This means you have to overclock an FX-6100 or an FX-6200 to 4.0GHz to reach (approximately) the aggregate performance of an i5-2500K. Each FX core @ 4.0GHz will score 1,130, which still falls way below an i5-2500K core's score of 1,686 ... but you have two more cores.

You can either grab a $160 FX-6100 right now and bring it up to 4.0GHz and convince yourself you got a great deal comparable to a $230 2500K, or you can wait for the FX-6200, clock it at 4.0GHz also, and possibly enjoy higher OC headroom should you wish to leave the 2500K (at stock) behind for just $15 more. It has a higher TDP, yes, but clocking the FX-6100 at 4.0GHz will undoubtedly suck around that much juice as well anyway, with the -6200 quite possibly being able to reach higher clocks. Also remember that you need a P67 or Z68 board to OC your K CPU with any real level of satisfaction, which also usually cost about $40 more than AM3+ boards, so don't think it's just the difference between the FX-6100's and 2500K's prices that you have to fork over to get OC goodness on that Intel system -- it's more like (230 - 160) + 40 = $110 more.

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

The i5-2500K will always be a better processor, however an FX-6100 is still likely to serve someone's needs without issue - so if you have ideological issues with Intel, or simply want a lower total cost of platform, you could do a hell of a lot worse.

Of course if your spending the extra money on the "K" model I assume the i5-2500K isn't going to stay at stock either.

On a budget FX4100 are great I think. Quad @ 3.6ghz for $99. FX6100 or FX8100 not so much since i5 are in that price bracket.

I don't care if you HATE Intel with every neuron in your skull, outside of rare cases the 2500K is the only sensible desktop processor to buy unless you absolutely can't afford it. It's about as fast at stock as what any overclocked AMD chip can do, and on top of that it's totally typical to get 1 GHz overclocks with it. "Game over, man, game over." / Private Hudson, Aliens.

flip-mode wrote:

I don't care if you HATE Intel with every neuron in your skull, outside of rare cases the 2500K is the only sensible desktop processor to buy

Uh, what?
I mean it's not as if an FX-6100 can't do anything, it still performs fine, just not as fine as Intel does - if people are ideologically opposed to Intel or any of their practices, it's not senseless to boycott them as there is a product that can still fit their needs - albeit potentially not as well, but to suggest that there is no sensible alternative, you MUST get a 2500K, is just bad reasoning.

2500 for the win!!! Actually my mobo was dying so it was upgrade time.

"I don't care if you HATE Intel with every neuron in your skull, outside of rare cases the 2500K is the only sensible desktop processor to buy."

You know, if most people went along with your brand of logic during WW2, we'd all be speaking German right now.

Well, there are limits. So long as the AMD-based machine gives me enough FPS for my games, then I don't care how pragmatic your argument is, I'm going to do what I think is right and boycott a criminally-minded company, and enjoy watching AMD eventually overtake its competitors because they are supported by loyal customers over time due to their more ethical business practices, and Intel is not.

pikaporeon wrote:

flip-mode wrote:

I don't care if you HATE Intel with every neuron in your skull, outside of rare cases the 2500K is the only sensible desktop processor to buy

Uh, what?
I mean it's not as if an FX-6100 can't do anything, it still performs fine, just not as fine as Intel does - if people are ideologically opposed to Intel or any of their practices, it's not senseless to boycott them as there is a product that can still fit their needs - albeit potentially not as well, but to suggest that there is no sensible alternative, you MUST get a 2500K, is just bad reasoning.

Fine then just tell people you're boycotting Intel but get a 2500K anyway

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.

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.

The 6200 OC'd might come close to the 2500k if it is not overclocked, but if you are going to OC your 6200 why wouldnt you OC the 2500k? The 6200 won't hang with the 2500k when both are OC'd. If you have a Microcenter in your town you can get a 2500K for $179 and $50 off any mobo. Best deal out there IMO.

Same boat Synchromesh, just bought a 2600k at Micro (wanted the HT for video encoding) popped open the BIOS and set it to 4.5GHz, haven't looked back. I still plan on building an HTPC box with Trinity bc at least AMD has been doing great in that segment.

Synchromesh wrote:

Don't see the point in getting AMD any longer, unless you're on a super tight budget.

Even then, it's hard to justify. A Sandy Bridge Pentium wipes the floor with pretty much anything AMD...even the FX series in lightly threaded workloads.

the only way I could recommed an AMD system today is if they already have a mobo to support it. And with Ivy Bridge coming fast, BD is going to have no price point advantage if SB chips get their prices cut at all.

The AMD lover in me hopes that Windows 8 will "unleash" the BD and its cores, but I highly doubt it.

Alright guys.... Alright :|, I think I give in.

I'm with Flip-Mode on this. I too have had nothing but AMD chips in everything from Desktops to Laptops over the past decade also (Back to my 650 Duron). But I think I'm throwing the towel in for this one round and purchasing a 2500k for my new gaming build. The FX-8150 would probably be an unnoticeable difference between the 2500k at times. If that were the case and the 8150 were CHEAPER by say $30, I'd probably reach for it instead just on principal.

Intel I5-2500k = $224.99 (Newegg)
AMD FX-6100 = $149.99 (Newegg)

If you want 2500k performance, then get a 2500 as the 6100 isn't going to impress you by any means.

The really sad thing is that I was doing some reading and came across this article regarding the failure of bulldozer. The article supposedly quotes an EX AMD employee who commented on why AMD is failing compared to their K8 days.
http://www.insideris.com/amd-spreads-pr ... peaks-out/

I'd take it with a grain of salt, I really wish the guy could legally go public and be proven correct or full of it. Either way it almost provides a very good reason why Bulldozer fell completely flat on its face. Had bulldozer been 20% smaller/faster as the commenter suggested then Flip-Mode would likely be saying "FX-8150 is the only sensible desktop processor to buy ", unfortunately its not.

Ohh, one last thing. Don't put any stock in those synthetic benchmarks. They seem to be very full of it from all of the reviews I've seen. One site compared the I5-2500k and the I7-2600k for gaming paired with a 7970 to rule out video card constraints. Synthetic benchmarks showed at times a difference of 30%+ in favor of the 2600k, while real world games damn near maxed out showed literally 0% to a fraction of 1%. The only game showing any appreciable difference was Resident Evil 4 (Don't recall which) at something like 1.8% difference in favor of the 2600k.

It doesn't help AMD that Rory Read seems to want to take the company away from the high end gaming market, so if you were to buy into an AM3+ platform, its likely to end with your FX-6100/6200 or whatever refresh they might come out with in the next year while they transition over to lower powered options. Dark days lay ahead of us in the land of processing power

Welch wrote:

A

Ohh, one last thing. Don't put any stock in those synthetic benchmarks. They seem to be very full of it from all of the reviews I've seen. One site compared the I5-2500k and the I7-2600k for gaming paired with a 7970 to rule out video card constraints. Synthetic benchmarks showed at times a difference of 30%+ in favor of the 2600k, while real world games damn near maxed out showed literally 0% to a fraction of 1%. The only game showing any appreciable difference was Resident Evil 4 (Don't recall which) at something like 1.8% difference in favor of the 2600k.(

Worth mentioning is you aren't likely to notice a difference with an FX chip either, so saying not to put stock in synthetic benchmarks is kinda moot.

As sensible as a 2500K may be, the fact remains that even an old Phenom II X6 is sufficient for anything I'd do... so in that performance range, I'd definitely go AMD on principle.

I'm holding out on upgrading until Piledriver, but even then I don't think Piledriver will really change things. At most, probably 10-15% improvement per clock. It will be a sad end to the AM3+ platform.

pikaporeon wrote:

Welch wrote:

A

Ohh, one last thing. Don't put any stock in those synthetic benchmarks. They seem to be very full of it from all of the reviews I've seen. One site compared the I5-2500k and the I7-2600k for gaming paired with a 7970 to rule out video card constraints. Synthetic benchmarks showed at times a difference of 30%+ in favor of the 2600k, while real world games damn near maxed out showed literally 0% to a fraction of 1%. The only game showing any appreciable difference was Resident Evil 4 (Don't recall which) at something like 1.8% difference in favor of the 2600k.(

Worth mentioning is you aren't likely to notice a difference with an FX chip either, so saying not to put stock in synthetic benchmarks is kinda moot.

Sure if you don't notice it why care... The point is that as your system ages and new games/programs come out that tax the hardware further, a slower processor will generally show to be slower and the issue compounds itself and become more apparent. Its all about mileage

We do have to consider that the FX-6100 he is referring to is $50.00 cheaper, so as long as it will do what he wants and remain to do so for a good number of years ahead of him, then its fine. The question to ask is if Intel (or AMD) offers another chip that will do it to his satisfaction, as good as, or better than the FX-6100 he mentioned.... for around that same 150.00 price mark. I personally think that the 2500k is overkill for most people, gamers or not. I've always had middle to lower ranged stuff and gotten by after about 2 years of use, I want some healthy overkill this time but that's my prerogative, it might not be the OPs

I have been using AMD CPUs in my builds for a very long time -- all the way back to the K6 days!

I'm currently running a Phenom II X6 that I figure will meet my needs for quite a while yet, so I'm planning to sit the 1st gen bulldozers out. If the price comes down and/or the performance goes up I may bite for my next build; but I have no pressing need for a new system today, and I'm unlikely to need one anytime soon.

So for the time being, my answer to the "ditch AMD and go back to Intel or buy a Bulldozer" issue is "none of the above".

just brew it! wrote:

So for the time being, my answer to the "ditch AMD and go back to Intel or buy a Bulldozer" issue is "none of the above".

You lucky bastard . It pains me to do it but I've been running on this laptop of mine for near 5 years. Its been great but it just can't do it.

So Mr. OP, do you have a price range your looking to hit. Is there a reason you chose the FX-6100?

just brew it! wrote:

I'm currently running a Phenom II X6 that I figure will meet my needs for quite a while yet [...] so my answer to the "ditch AMD and go back to Intel or buy a Bulldozer" issue is "none of the above".

That doesn't help anyone that needs to upgrade.

Crayon Shin Chan wrote:

As sensible as a 2500K may be, the fact remains that even an old Phenom II X6 is sufficient for anything I'd do... so in that performance range, I'd definitely go AMD on principle.

Someone else who already has a powerful enough CPU says their powerful enough CPU is powerful enough.

Re-reading the original post, ronch isn't even shopping for a CPU. The entire original post is summed up in the first sentence - "I still wanna give Bulldozer a chance." - and then the rest of the post is all justification for buying a Bulldozer, not a request for advice. If you really want an AMD CPU that much then you really don't have to justify it - just buy one.

I'll never give AMD a penny for any of the 1st gen BDs because I have principles too, dammit. I'm not going to give AMD money for a product that's worse, in several ways, than their previous product, not to mention the competitors current product. It's one thing that Intel did unethical business things in the past, but it's taking it to a new level for AMD to try to pass off BD as a successor to Phenom II. It's not, and there's no shame in saying so and telling AMD to take BD and cram it.

flip-mode wrote:

just brew it! wrote:

I'm currently running a Phenom II X6 that I figure will meet my needs for quite a while yet [...] so my answer to the "ditch AMD and go back to Intel or buy a Bulldozer" issue is "none of the above".

That doesn't help anyone that needs to upgrade.

That depends on what they're upgrading from. An X6 would still be a very nice upgrade from anything pre-Socket AM2.

But point taken -- sorry for the thread hijack!

.

To be honest, unless you do something that really needs the extra power, you could cheap out even more and just go with an AM3 processor and probably never notice the difference.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6819103935


The x4 980 is a quad core 3.7Ghz processor. This is more than enough CPU power for any typical desktop scenario, and will probably not be a bottleneck in gaming for 2 years. With a promo code its only $145, and plus you can buy a cheaper motherboard as well. Toss in 8GB of DDR3 for $40, and your bottleneck for the next 2 years is your GPU, regardless of the games you are playing.

I'm still using my x4 965 and I don't feel that it gets fully stressed even playing stuff like BF3.

If you're gaming, the i5 2500K is the best performance per dollar, performance per watt, has the best overclock headroom, "lowest platform cost per FPS" or whatever metric you want to throw at it.

Should you buy an i5 2500K? No. There are other metrics.

If you want to support AMD, if you want to try something different, if you prefer AMD's upgrade path etc, there are good reasons NOT to buy an i5 2500K. If performance per dollar was the ONLY value that mattered, we'd all be driving around in a Toyota Corolla (I don't actually know that much about cars, but you get the idea. There are good cars and bad cars, but people buy the bad cars for irrelevant things, like looks + performance and freebie extras)

If it were me I'd get a 2500K (Oh look, I already own two) because I'm only interested in framerate and fan noise. You may have other interests and as long as you can justify buying AMD then don't let any other trolls stop you.

Chrispy_ wrote:

If you're gaming, the i5 2500K is the best performance per dollar, performance per watt, has the best overclock headroom, "lowest platform cost per FPS" or whatever metric you want to throw at it.

Should you buy an i5 2500K? No. There are other metrics.

If you want to support AMD, if you want to try something different, if you prefer AMD's upgrade path etc, there are good reasons NOT to buy an i5 2500K. If performance per dollar was the ONLY value that mattered, we'd all be driving around in a Toyota Corolla (I don't actually know that much about cars, but you get the idea. There are good cars and bad cars, but people buy the bad cars for irrelevant things, like looks + performance and freebie extras)

If it were me I'd get a 2500K (Oh look, I already own two) because I'm only interested in framerate and fan noise. You may have other interests and as long as you can justify buying AMD then don't let any other trolls stop you.

+1 Chrispy

That would explain why my dad thought it a great idea to get rid of his Audi A6 and buy a Nissan Murano... Needless to say I've disowned my dad

I too pushed the button on a 2500k last night. But had I not I was considering the X4 965 as a drop in for an AM3+ board in hopes that Piledriver was successful. If you really want to stay in that price range and eBay doesn't make you nervous, buy a 955-965 off ebay for under $100 and if for some reason you think you feel a performance hit, just OC it. The 955 be and 965 be are actually really easy/good overclockers. The 965 BE is a 3.4 stock and hits 4.2 easily on air. Most people reported getting it to 4.4-4.5 with aftermarket cooling without and issue and upwards of 4.8 if it was out of a good bin. I watched my friend use the AMD software utility and make it hit 4.2 on his first shot. A new or used one can be had for 70-100ish bucks on eBay.

.

clone wrote:

i5 2500k won't fit into a $600.00 gaming pc build, it won't fit into a $700.00 gaming pc build, it'd be a poor choice for an $800.00 gaming pc build at best ... even at a $900 budget it'd be a tough sell. i5 2500k + motherboard after taxes exceeds $400.00 and really isn't a decent option for gaming under the $1000 budget, just too many other alternatives leaving it as a poor option.

so there, I just threw the metrics that actually matter at i5 2500k and it failed horribly in every one because by the $1000 mark gaming on PC just plain isn't worth it and I'd go Xbox 360 or PS3 instead.

The interesting thing about computers is that they can be used for more than games. The 2500K is an excellent gaming CPU, and excellent overclocking CPU, and an excellent CPU in general.

If there is going to be absolutely no overclocking then you can go with with a lower i5 or i3 model to save money. And technically, you can fiddle with their turbo modes to achieve some modest overclocking anyway.

TR's most recent system guide uses an i3 2120 in it's $630 gaming build. If you took that exact build and swapped in an i5 2500K you'd have a $730 gaming build, so what you said above is factually inaccurate.

And a "gaming build" isn't necessarily serving the singular purpose of playing games. I'd bet it's almost never used in such a singular fashion. So getting hung up on the term "gaming build" is goofy. A gaming build is nothing more than a computer with a decent video card in it. That could be anything from a $100 5770 to a $550 7970.

Chrispy_ wrote:

If you want to support AMD, if you want to try something different, if you prefer AMD's upgrade path etc, there are good reasons NOT to buy an i5 2500K. If performance per dollar was the ONLY value that mattered, we'd all be driving around in a Toyota Corolla (I don't actually know that much about cars, but you get the idea. There are good cars and bad cars, but people buy the bad cars for irrelevant things, like looks + performance and freebie extras)

I find this analogy a poor one, even though you and I probably agree on the end choice.

A Corolla is about efficiency-per-dollar (not performance), so if that was the only thing that mattered, we'd probably be running Core i3's as processors. But I digress.

To everyone: I've bought tons of CPUs; my first built system (not first-owned) was a 386DX/25, and I've only gone forward since then. I spent a kingly sum of $400 for one of the first AMD K6-233MHz processors, when for one shining month it was the fastest CPU on the market (which actually caused Intel to decide to release the Pentium II early). Owned a few Intel processors after that. Switched to the Athlon family, then the Athlon XP, the Athlon 64, and the Athlon 64X2 (having several chips in each family) before going back to Intel with the Core2 architecture and staying with them.

I'd love to support AMD. I've been a fan of every Intel competitor along the way just for trying, even if I didn't buy their processors (Cyrix, IDT, Centaur, NexGen, etc.) and I value competition. But in the end, I usually support the best engineering standpoint to run the things I want to run. I also support it as a full solution; not just the processor, but the chipset(s) being used on the mainboards that run the CPU, the NIC chips and SATA controllers, etc.

Right now, Intel's chipsets haven't been exciting for a bit (since they got P45 right, everything since has been good but not that special), but aside from the faulty SATA controller issue they had (which they fixed, and shouldered the responsibility for), they're rock solid. They win on the processor efficiency game hands down, and Ivy Bridge is just going to cement that further --and they've done it without sacrificing performance. Considering how well the Core i3 on the budget end stacks up against AMD processors, it's a case in point.

I like AMD, but any support I give currently is done by purchasing their graphics products. Bulldozer at least should have improved upon the Phenom II X6, and it didn't; I feel AMD made real errors in judgment in designing the first-gen BD. Some people have guessed that stumble is based on future predictions about how operating systems will behave; if so, maybe we have something to look forward to. In the mean-time, that isn't how current operating systems behave, to the point where changes needed to be made to improve performance for BD. I don't understand why AMD dropped the ball so badly, but in my opinion, they did. Intel is winning the performance game, but also the performance-per-watt game at this time, and has the best mainboard chipset choices.

It's a tough time to choose AMD; I hope that changes. For now though, the only AMD options I'd buy are if you have a current AMD system that will take a Phenom II X4/X6 --otherwise, I'd buy Intel or wait for PileDriver.

@LoneWolf15 - Good summary of how I feel as well. Give us a compelling option in terms of price/performance (something they've done in the past) and I'll bite.

Actually, Fusion does that already for the low-end market. So they at least sort of "get it".

.