FX-8150 vs i7-2600

Currently for me, I would take the i7 2600K over the FX8xxx but the MB is likely going to be higher than one for the FX.

I would take the 8120 over the 8150 and OC it myself for $40.
Edit: I'd use the $40 toward a good HSF.
 
Last edited:
The 2600K is usually quite a bit faster than the 8150 when both are at stock, see here http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=287

If you get the i7, you want the 2600K, not the 2600 non-K. The 2600K is multiplier unlocked so overclocking is easier, whereas the 2600 is not unlocked.

If you get the FX, don't bother with an 8150, get an 8120 and then overclock it. The only difference between the 8120 and the 8150 is the stock clockspeed. The FX chips are multiplier unlocked by the way, so they overclock just as well as the 2600K does.
 
Last edited:
The 2600k will be much faster then the FX. I don't say the FX is that bad, but even OC the FX will not break the i7 stock.
 
But on the other hand, depending on what you will use your PC for and other parts, maybe you just won't notice much of a difference. :) I don't know the price difference in any other place than Sweden, but here there is a lot of money to save. I got both motherboard and CPU for about the same price as just an i5 3570K. But if you can afford it, Intel processors are of course "better" most of the time.
 
Pyotr said:
I game just fine on my stock FX-8120.
Click to expand...

As you should. But the 2600k will perform better in games. You could see up to a 20% difference in some games. The amd will certainly get the job done, just not as fast.
 
vistakid10 said:
Wouldn't say that's entirely true - I'd say that usually the current Intel chips are better for rendering and editing than the current AMD chips.
Click to expand...

But AMD does have the only 8 core chips on the market right now. Which should fair better in multi-threaded applications that can use them.
 
G80FTW said:
But AMD does have the only 8 core chips on the market right now. Which should fair better in multi-threaded applications that can use them.
Click to expand...

A Sandy Bridge E i7 would be faster than an FX-8150 at rendering I bet.
 
But of course, that's a $500 chip compared to a $180 chip...

Anyways, you'd be happy with either of them. Go with the Intel if you wanna believe benchmarks or go with AMD if you want to save money.
 
vistakid10 said:
i7 3930K has 12 threads though, I reckon it'd be faster than an 8120/8150.
Click to expand...

But hyperthreading is no near as efficient as having 2 physical cores rather than having 1 physical 2 logical.

Im sure it would still be faster. But Im just trying to give AMD some credit on having 8 physical cores.
 
G80FTW said:
But hyperthreading is no near as efficient as having 2 physical cores rather than having 1 physical 2 logical.

Im sure it would still be faster. But Im just trying to give AMD some credit on having 8 physical cores.
Click to expand...

They're physical cores more than hyperthreading, but not true physical cores. They have 4 cores in the chip, but two pipelines from each core to the OS, showing up as an 8-core. Good in theory, but they didn't quite pull it off as they had hoped.

But its still a good chip, just because how cheap it is and how far it can overclock.
 
I got my FX-8120 and a motherboard for a total of about 220 euro. An i5 3570K costs about 195 euro. I saved so much and it still performs super great. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top