# i7 2700k or FX-8150? Please help me decide



## BondExtreme (Oct 13, 2011)

I need help in deciding which processor would be the best choice for my new system...

First off, the new FX series came out and it looks good but not great as far as reviews go.
If I were to get an 8 core it would be the 8150. It would be nice having 8 cores but it's hard for me to tell if it would even make a difference... 

Now in all these reviews I am reading, these sources are explaining how even the FX-8150 can't even compete with the i7 2600k which to me sounds a bit disappointing. 

If I were to go with Intel's i7, I would most likely wait until the 2700k is released.

Personally though I really don't know what to go with. I want a CPU that that is very powerful with current gen, high end gaming and strenuous video editing & production. 

I run a video game channel on Youtube with a few buddies and when it comes to recording with Fraps at 60FPS with an intense game engine, you NEED a powerful processor. 

So if you guys wouldn't mind and just explain to me my options and what differences I would see with each CPU, it would be appreciated. 

And again, I am either going with the FX-8150 or i7 2700k (when released)

Thank you for your time,
Bond


----------



## _JP_ (Oct 13, 2011)

I vote for a 2600k + Z68 board.
To start with, the 2600k can OC to 2700k levels. The Z68 assures compatibility with Ivy Bridge. And bulldozer needs a few tweaks to be competitive, so for now, you best bet is SB.


----------



## BrooksyX (Oct 13, 2011)

_JP_ said:


> I vote for a 2600k + Z68 board.



2700k if you need the you need the hyper threading if not get a 2500k.


----------



## Black Haru (Oct 13, 2011)

check this post.


----------



## erocker (Oct 13, 2011)

This is an easy decision. Look at reviews and the answer is right there.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Oct 13, 2011)

None of it. 2500K + P67, skip the HT hype.


----------



## erocker (Oct 13, 2011)

With video editing and production one would definitely want HT if it's available. I mildly do those things and wish I had a 2600/2700K over my 2500K. The FX-8150 shouldn't even be in this discussion.


----------



## PaulieG (Oct 13, 2011)

erocker said:


> With video editing and production one would definitely want HT if it's available. I mildly do those things and wish I had a 2600/2700K over my 2500K. The FX-8150 shouldn't even be in this discussion.



THIS. A 2600k or 2700k is really the only decision to make, and if you are willing to do even mild overclocking then the 2600k IS the cpu you want. It will save you some cash over the 2700k, since in theory the 2600k should drop in price when the 2700k is released.


----------



## AhokZYashA (Oct 13, 2011)

2600k + a Z68 board, 
its faster than BD, and easily overclockable to 2700k levels,


----------



## BondExtreme (Oct 13, 2011)

erocker said:


> With video editing and production one would definitely want HT if it's available. I mildly do those things and wish I had a 2600/2700K over my 2500K. The FX-8150 shouldn't even be in this discussion.


Thank you and actually that is something I completely forgot about with the FX-8150 on how it doesn't support HT... which is something I would definitely need. 




Paulieg said:


> THIS. A 2600k or 2700k is really the only decision to make, and if you are willing to do even mild overclocking then the 2600k IS the cpu you want. It will save you some cash over the 2700k, since in theory the 2600k should drop in price when the 2700k is released.


Hehe. Well mild overclocking would be a little absurd wouldn't it? 
I would get that thing to around 4.5 with proper cooling.
As far as how much I am willing to spend on a CPU, money isn't really an issue. 

Also, any opinions on when the 2700k will be released? I'm hearing more towards Nov-Dec.


----------



## ShRoOmAlIsTiC (Oct 13, 2011)

<---AMD Fan boy.  Get the 8150 and show them some love.


----------



## dir_d (Oct 13, 2011)

As much as it saddens me, bulldozer is not ready yet. You must go 2600k or 2700k if its out by then.


----------



## erocker (Oct 13, 2011)

BondExtreme said:


> Thank you and actually that is something I completely forgot about with the FX-8150 on how it doesn't support HT... which is something I would definitely need.



Well, if BD worked right it would be a good choice with having 8 cores which should be superior to a HT design. Unfortunately it's not.


----------



## 3volvedcombat (Oct 13, 2011)

2700k also.

Anything Intel is pretty good architecture, you can almost consider them the Maserati or Ferrari of the age. 

Bulldozer is not necessarily not a 8 core sense die diagrams are exposing its clever architecture. 
It is, just not necessarily the full 8 cores. 

It look's like someone is gonna have some bad sales now


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Oct 13, 2011)

The last bit of 2700k news I saw indicated it was going in above the 2600k. Nothing will drop price. Why would it given the competition? The 2700k is Intel getting back in on that $400-$600 price point they've enjoyed so much in the past.


----------



## johnnyfiive (Oct 13, 2011)

erocker said:


> Well, if BD worked right it would be a good choice with having 8 cores which should be superior to a HT design. Unfortunately it's not.



That's the problem erocker, the FX 8xxx doesn't have eight physical cores. They have four modules that each have two integer units, which the OS reads as eight cores. The reality is, the FX 8xxx CPUs are gloried eight core processors that actually only have four physical core units. 
Rumor has it on xtremesystems that disabling an integer in each module improves single thread performance and IPCs in general. I'm hoping some TPUers can replicate that rumor and show some serious proof.

To the OP, I'd recommend a 2600k.


----------



## BondExtreme (Oct 14, 2011)

Anyone have any opinions on the release of the 2700k? 
Hopefully before the end of the calendar year?


----------



## qubit (Oct 14, 2011)

BondExtreme said:


> I need help in deciding which processor would be the best choice for my new system...
> 
> First off, the new FX series came out and it looks good but not great as far as reviews go.
> If I were to get an 8 core it would be the 8150. It would be nice having 8 cores but it's hard for me to tell if it would even make a difference...
> ...



Go Intel, it's a no-brainer. Bulldozer is a lemon and I don't know if AMD are gonna be making x86 CPUs in the next couple of years. It's really 4 cores with multi-threading, so I don't know how AMD get away with describing it as an octacore CPU.  It uses lots of power and underperforms badly, just look at this terrible Guru3D result - it's only 53% of the processing power of the 980X in Far Cry 2 and the 2600K smokes it too. The difference isn't so wide in other benchmarks, but nowhere does it excel against Intel. This is what we get after a long 4 year wait, too.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Oct 14, 2011)

http://pcper.com/reviews/Processors...r-Unearth-AMD-Victory/FX-Memory-Frequency-S-0

But yet how come I see totally different results there qubit?


----------



## uwemi (Oct 14, 2011)

This is very eazy choice  
2600K ofc


----------



## qubit (Oct 14, 2011)

JrRacinFan said:


> http://pcper.com/reviews/Processors...r-Unearth-AMD-Victory/FX-Memory-Frequency-S-0
> 
> But yet how come I see totally different results there qubit?



Different website and different test, perhaps? Also, that SiSoft memory bandwidth test only compares different models of AMD CPU.


----------



## Frick (Oct 14, 2011)

uwemi said:


> This is very eazy choice
> 2600K ofc



Aye, totally this.

I mean in _some _things BD reached SB levels, but the general top dog is the 2600k.


----------



## ViperXTR (Oct 14, 2011)

BondExtreme said:


> Thank you and actually that is something I completely forgot about with the FX-8150 on how it doesn't support HT... which is something I would definitely need.


FX-8150 is actually in some sort of "HT" like johnnyfiive mentioned. Its not like the Phenom II X6 processors or Core i7 980/990 where it really has 6 physical cores that has its own compute units. 

4 modules, 2 integer cores in each module is what the 8150 has. 



> Rumor has it on xtremesystems that disabling an integer in each module improves single thread performance and IPCs in general. I'm hoping some TPUers can replicate that rumor and show some serious proof.


Probably because the threads won't share the FP unit of the module. Each module has 2 integer units for 2 threads but only 1 Floating point unit that needs to be shared between each thread. When you only allow one thread in each module, the thread wil have full access to both the integer and flaoting point pipeline without sharing, heck it will also gobble all that 2MB L2 cache for itself.

And as for proof, i think someone already showed it in the BD thread


----------



## BondExtreme (Oct 14, 2011)

So no opinions on when the 2700k is to be released?


----------



## Corporate_Nothing (Oct 14, 2011)

Here's some info.
http://hexus.net/tech/news/cpu/32072-intel-readying-core-i7-2700k-rain-amds-fx-parade/

I don't mean to hijack this discussion, but I was thinking about building an i7-2600k/Z68 rig later this year, some time before Black Friday/Cyber Monday and Christmas. This is what I put together -
 Once You Know, You Newegg
I'll be upgrading from the system I have listed in my Specs profile here. It's costly to say the least, but I could save a lot of money by dropping the sound card (for now), buying a Cooler Master Full Tower ATX case instead, and keeping my current 23.6" Asus LCD monitor.
Oh, and I'll be reusing my GTX 560 Ti SLI setup from my current rig, too.

But anyway, my suggestion to you would be to wait a few more weeks, see if i7-2700k is significantly better in terms of performance vs. price, if not, just go with the i7-2600k, and upgrade in a year and a half or so once Ivy Bridge is cheap enough.


----------



## LagunaX (Oct 14, 2011)

Your end overclock on air will roughly be the same if you plan on reasonable 24/7 voltage and stability - around 4.5-4.8ghz. 
You might get the same overclock at 0.01v or 0.02v less with the 2700k, but that will probably be about it. 
So buy a 2600k now or wait a month or two for the 2700k to arrive - maybe you'll pay a little less or maybe the same.
That's about it.

Or buy a proven used 2600k in a month or two when the 2700k arrives and the die hard benchers will be selling their "slower" chips...


----------



## MilkyWay (Oct 14, 2011)

I would get a 2600k and then wait for ivy bridge if i was in your position. Me personally i might get a 2500k and just overclock that, the reason why is the 2500k is on special for £155 and the 2600k is £230-240

Ivy is compatible.


----------



## Frick (Oct 14, 2011)

MilkyWay said:


> I would get a 2600k and then wait for ivy bridge if i was in your position. Me personally i might get a 2500k and just overclock that, the reason why is the 2500k is on special for £155 and the 2600k is £230-240



2600k have HT though, which the OP might benefit from.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Oct 14, 2011)

Well if money's not a problem and you have time then the high-end SB-E will do great. Rumours place a middle model 6 core at around 600$. Anyway if you want to go now and spare some money then the 2600K and Z68 is the best solution. 2700K is the same as 2600K with higher stock clocks (maybe a better overclocker?). Anyway, with reasonable coolling solutions you can expect to use your CPU between 4.5-4.8 GHz. Below 4.5 really all you need is cheap aftermarket HSF and it's atainable in 99% of the cases.


----------



## MilkyWay (Oct 14, 2011)

Frick said:


> 2600k have HT though, which the OP might benefit from.



"I would get a 2600k and then wait for ivy bridge if i was in your position"

That's what i said, they said money wasnt a big issue so a 2600k is a good idea. I dont really see the point in going 2700k and then ivy bridge later. 2600k will clock good anyway so no real point in getting a 2700k.


----------



## basco (Oct 14, 2011)

i am with crap Daddy here.
if you got little bit time wait for sandy-e benchmarks and then decide.
and if money is no prob i would prefer one strong gpu instead two smaller ones.
bulldozer just for benching fun.


----------



## wolf (Oct 14, 2011)

if the machine is 90%+ for gaming, get a 2500K. if you use heavily multithreaded encoding or editing applications, the 2600K could be worth the extra scratch.


----------



## qubit (Oct 14, 2011)

Corporate_Nothing said:


> Here's some info.
> http://hexus.net/tech/news/cpu/32072-intel-readying-core-i7-2700k-rain-amds-fx-parade/
> 
> I don't mean to hijack this discussion, but I was thinking about building an i7-2600k/Z68 rig later this year, some time before Black Friday/Cyber Monday and Christmas. This is what I put together -
> ...



Dude, this sounds like the perfect subject for starting a thread. Trust me, people will dive in to help you. 

And welcome to TPU.


----------



## btarunr (Oct 14, 2011)

i7-2700K is around $360 when it releases. Don't expect it to replace i7-2600K from its $320-ish price point. 

So your choice would be neither - i7-2600K should do.


----------



## Sinzia (Oct 14, 2011)

basically- skip faildozer.

I hate to say is, since I've had many an amd part in the past, I wanted them to "win" but... faildozer is fail.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Oct 14, 2011)

Sinzia said:


> basically- skip faildozer.
> 
> I hate to say is, since I've had many an amd part in the past, I wanted them to "win" but... faildozer is fail.



How so would it be a failure? In most synthetic benchmarks its between i7 875k and 2600k. You know how much a 2600k is in price, but yet the 8150 for example is ~25% cheaper. Please explain to me how it is fail.


----------



## Ahhzz (Oct 14, 2011)

2600k, and the Z68 set (ignore the P67...)


----------



## Fourstaff (Oct 14, 2011)

2600K, Bulldozer's performance is really erratic right now, Windows 8 might improve the situation, but as of now its an inconsistent performer. On good days/apps, you can equal 2600K, on bad days its even worse than 1100T, the chip its supposed to replace.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Oct 14, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> 2600K, Bulldozer's performance is really erratic right now, Windows 8 might improve the situation, but as of now its an inconsistent performer. On good days/apps, you can equal 2600K, on bad days its even worse than 1100T, the chip its supposed to replace.



Yeah, that.


----------



## amadzack (Oct 16, 2011)

why not i7-2600k?
almost all of 2600k+z68 chip can go over 5ghz..
iam running it on 4.4ghz with 20$ cooler
why need spend more for only 0.1Ghz.


----------



## n-ster (Oct 16, 2011)

If you want to wait, and you want a good processor for video editing, X79 for sure. Single threaded performance might be the same as SB, but for true multi-threaded that can use all 12 threads, it is well worth it IMO.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-3960x-x79-performance,3026-11.html

The *i7 3930K* Seems like the $/perf sweetspot. The i7 3960X might be very expensive because it is an Xtreme processor and has 15MB cache instead of 12MB that the 3930K has. The quad-channel RAM might hlp as well.

My vote is i7 3930K


----------



## Jetster (Oct 16, 2011)

2500k, more then any man needs


----------



## purecain (Oct 16, 2011)

the 2700k may have better intel graphics also... which are used when encoding iirc...


----------



## n-ster (Oct 16, 2011)

purecain said:


> the 2700k may have better intel graphics also... which are used when encoding iirc...



Not if you have a dedicated GPU...


----------



## BondExtreme (Oct 18, 2011)

I'm still leaning towards the 2700k. I know it's not much of a difference but I just want this next CPU to last for awhile with great speeds. Just hope the 2700k comes out VERY soon or shortly after release of BF3... I want to play that game smooth as possible.


----------



## Benetanegia (Oct 18, 2011)

JrRacinFan said:


> How so would it be a failure? In most synthetic benchmarks its between i7 875k and 2600k. You know how much a 2600k is in price, but yet the 8150 for example is ~25% cheaper. Please explain to me how it is fail.



And 2500k is much cheaper, cheaper than the 8120 in fact so yeah BD is fail. I'm talking about Newegg, because most people tend to be from US, but if you want a real horror story check the prices in Spain:

http://www.alternate.es/html/catego...ocesadores+(CPU)&l2=Sobremesa&l3=Socket+AM3+&
http://www.alternate.es/html/catego...ocesadores+(CPU)&l2=Sobremesa&l3=Socket+1155&

Basically:

8150 == 265 € vs 299 € == 2600k (fair? being kind)
8120 == 215 € vs 203 € == 2500k (ownage)
6100 == 183 € vs 180 € == 2400 (massive pwnage)

Also when it launched and for a couple of months after launch the 2500k costed 180 € (I bought mine at that price) and the 2600k costed 250€. From here it's been up, up, up everytime that more info was revealed about BD because it was becoming clear how hard it would fail.

Also a 1090T BE costs 165 € so it pwns Buldozer over and over for the price.

Just because Intel is complacent with their prices and want to enjoy a much much much higher profit for every CPU they sell, that doesn't make BD fail any less, in fact in my eyes it's a clear sign of BD's failure. BD's die is 60% bigger than SB and SB has a GPU integrated, it should be at least half of that difference, 30% faster than SB. I don't know how big SB-E is but I don't see it being bigger, and sure will rape BD in multi-threaded apps.


----------



## n-ster (Oct 18, 2011)

BF3 release date is 8 days away IIRC.

LGA 2011 is coming out Nov 15th apparently. If you wait anywhere near then, I'd suggest to just wait and see what 2011 offers


----------



## Sinzia (Oct 18, 2011)

My "failzozer" comment was that it was being billed by the hype machine as the next best processor since sliced bread, given also the wait (wasn't this supposed to be out MONTHS ago?)

According to all the reviews I've seen, it sits in between a 4 core part and a 4 core part with HT, despite being 8 core.

From the spin-masters at AMD, it was supposed to beat Intel in performance. It didn't.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 18, 2011)

BondExtreme said:


> Thank you and actually that is something I completely forgot about with the FX-8150 on how it doesn't support HT... which is something I would definitely need.


You don't need HyperThreading when you have 8 physical cores compared to 4 physical and 4 logical cores.

Even so, FX-8150 does poorly at video encoding compared to 2#00K:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/10/12/amd-fx-8150-review/7

In fact, the 2600K beats the FX-8150 in every metric (except idle power consumption).  The 2500K beats it in most metrics.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Oct 18, 2011)

@benetagia
Pretty sure the only difference between 8120 & 8150 is stock clock speeds. Its like comparing the 2600k & 2700k. Either way I see your point. My whole thing is I'm sick and tired of hearing the bd is fail routine.


----------



## n-ster (Oct 18, 2011)

The 2500K is 205$ at newegg atm


----------



## Benetanegia (Oct 18, 2011)

JrRacinFan said:


> @benetagia
> Pretty sure the only difference between 8120 & 8150 is stock clock speeds. Its like comparing the 2600k & 2700k.



Irrelevant and it's not just an arbitrary difference, not with thr problems they have with GF. 8120 parts are hrvested ones that cannot reach 8150 speeds. The huge difference in stock clock clearly suggests this. Besides in 90% of tests the 2500k is faster than the 8150, and is cheaper than 8120, so that's simply fail.

And like I said I bought my 2500k for 182 €, which is what the FX-6100 sells for now, so yeah it's massive fail no matter how you look at it. Of course Intel upping up the prices like mad is also fail, a fail where we loose, but that's capitalism when ther's no competition...


----------



## nickbaldwin86 (Oct 18, 2011)

2700K HANDS down 

AMD is still a joke imo


----------



## 20mmrain (Oct 18, 2011)

Well it depends on what you do..... and what your budget looks like....and honestly how much brand loyalty you have? 

1st off let me start by saying the i7 2600k will beat Bulldozer in just about anything and by about 10% to 30%. 
But Bulldozer does offer some good things too. 1st. it is a 8 core CPU that is reasonably priced and backwards compatible with AMD's old sockets. 2nd. as time goes on and optimization's come out for the AMD CPU you might see it do a little better. 3rd There is no overclocking wall or cap on the AMD CPU unlike Intel on their 2500k or 2600k cpu's. 
There are a ton of problems with Bulldozer though. For example it runs fairly warm from what I understand. Also take into account it is a very power hungry CPU .... that is not even overclocked.... once you throw overclocking into the mix.... that's a whole another story. Last let's still take into account that Intel beats it with even their 1st gen i7's and their 1st gen i5 competes with it. Shoot even AMD's own 1st gen 6 core Phenom II beats it in some benchmarks.

As far as Intel's offering goes.... I only can mention just a few bad things about it. First Intel likes to change sockets like Hookers change dates. While Ivy bridge will have the same socket... who is to say the gen after that will too? (I doubt it) Also Intel is more expensive right down to the motherboard it runs on. So if you are someone who doesn't care so much about the money factor.... then I wouldn't worry about it. 
Good news is though.... PCIe 3.0 is already on the outlook for Intel, Ivy Bridges is right around the corner, SB beats Bulldozer with out issues, Overclocks like a bat out of Hell too!

I would say really if you don't have a good reason not to go with Intel....then go with them. But if you are a AMD fan boy or you already have a AMD compatible AM3+ socket motherboard then I would say that would be the only way to stay. JMO Who knows though Pile Driver might be better when that releases.


----------



## BondExtreme (Oct 18, 2011)

Money isn't too much of any issue but just to give you all a general understanding of my spending cap, it's about $350 on the processor. 



n-ster said:


> BF3 release date is 8 days away IIRC.
> 
> LGA 2011 is coming out Nov 15th apparently. If you wait anywhere near then, I'd suggest to just wait and see what 2011 offers



Now I have been looking into those a little... Mainly the 3820(not k). Now I do realize the price on that is going to be around $294ish but how would that cpu compare to the 2700k since the 2700k will most likely be over $300...? Would it be a step back if I go with the 3820(not k) rather than going with the 2700k?


----------



## Super XP (Oct 18, 2011)

The AMD FX 8150 is not a bad CPU, they just need to fix the quirks so it can run better. That said, I would wait for the  i7 2700k and see how much faster it is vs. the  i7 2600k. You may be able to the the  i7 2600k on a price drop or something.


----------



## n-ster (Oct 18, 2011)

BondExtreme said:


> Money isn't too much of any issue but just to give you all a general understanding of my spending cap, it's about $350 on the processor.
> 
> 
> 
> Now I have been looking into those a little... Mainly the 3820(not k). Now I do realize the price on that is going to be around $294ish but how would that cpu compare to the 2700k since the 2700k will most likely be over $300...? Would it be a step back if I go with the 3820(not k) rather than going with the 2700k?



Good point. The non-K may be partially unlocked (like the i7 920, and that OCed well!), so OCing should still be possible. Stock, the 3820 will outperform the 2700K by a good margin. It all depends on how well the 3820 will OC though, and the 2700K will probably run cooler. The X79 motherboard will be more expensive though, and probably by a good margin. With that comes the benefit of the memory bandwidth (quad channel), more PCI-E lanes etc.

My guess is that the i7 3930K will come at around 499$ by January, the 3820 at 299$ and the 3960X at 999$ ~ 1199$. Hopefully a i7 39XX will come non-K and be able to OC OK, while having a lower price-tag in the future  But a 38XX with K should be coming soon IMO.

In your situation, when X79 is out, check out how the 3820 OCs. If it does well, go for it. Note that The motherboard may be as high as 100$ more than lga 1155


----------



## nt300 (Oct 22, 2011)

The Intel platform costs more but will offer you better performance. Though for me the Bulldozer setup would be a better buy that would cost cheap and still offer you good performancr.


----------

