# Intel Core i5-2500K vs AMD FX-4100 Zambezi? Fact Finding Needed!



## Mad Skillz

The 2500k beats the 8 core bulldozer in most benchmarks (http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=434).


----------



## Schmuckley

this is the 8150..the 4100 is considerably weaker..troll thread is trolling.i'm in b4 the flamage


----------



## Angrybutcher

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1766/1/


----------



## Arslay

The i5 2500k demolishes it. Just see the data above....Architecture > Clock Speeds/Cores/Threads to an extent.


----------



## black96ws6




----------



## cjc75

This is also not a fair assessment as the FX-4100 is not intended to go against the i5-2500K which is more of a true Quad Core then the FX-4100 will ever be.

The FX-4100 is intended to target and compete with, the current Intel Dual Cores and Intel's lesser quality chips.

I sought the exact same question in one of the Bulldozer threads; and was given the same argument, that the FX-4100 is not a true "Quad", and therefore can not compete against the i5-2500K.

If you want to compare Quad vs Quad, then you look at the 25K/26K's and compare with the FX-8120/8150.

But as above posters have already explained, when a chip like the 25K blows even the flagship 8150 out of the water...

Then the 4100 is not even worthy of being in a 25K's presence.


----------



## Erick Silver

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Angrybutcher*
> 
> http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1766/1/


Thanks! Very informative
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Skillz*
> 
> The 2500k beats the 8 core bulldozer in most benchmarks (http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=434).


Thanks you for the link


----------



## Fortunex

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1766/1/

It generally sucks. It'll play games alright, but the 2500k will greatly outperform it in non-GPU bound situations.


----------



## Erick Silver

The more I have been reading up on the newest line of AMD processor the more I feel that AMD is just not interested anymore. They label the 4100 as a quad but it perfoms like a dual core and the octos perform like quads. WTH were they thinking? I was considering in the near future of upgrading to one of the new AMD processors but I think I will keep my X6 for a while. I can't afford to upgrade to a Intel system because honestly, I don't like my wallet being raped. I don't make a lot of money so what I do have for upgrades has to go further. I thought that perhaps there would have been a decent comparison between the 2 chips and in the end save a little cash. Guess not.


----------



## trumpet-205

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Erick Silver*
> 
> The more I have been reading up on the newest line of AMD processor the more I feel that AMD is just not interested anymore. They label the 4100 as a quad but it perfoms like a dual core and the octos perform like quads. WTH were they thinking? I was considering in the near future of upgrading to one of the new AMD processors but I think I will keep my X6 for a while. I can't afford to upgrade to a Intel system because honestly, I don't like my wallet being raped. I don't make a lot of money so what I do have for upgrades has to go further. I thought that perhaps there would have been a decent comparison between the 2 chips and in the end save a little cash. Guess not.


You can start with i3-2100 and work your way up. It matches an overclocked FX 4100. Or wait for Haswell if you plan to keep X6.


----------



## Erick Silver

Look I don't know what the big deal of actually responding with facts is. I looked at both spec sheets and both processor look to be able to offer similar performance. This is apparently not the case. Spec wise they look similar, but architecture wise apparently there is a significant difference. All I was looking or is real information on the difference between the chip. A few of you were actually helpful. Thank you. The rest of you, on the other hand, were not. And that's putting it nicely.


----------

