AMD FX 8120 vs. Intel Core I5 2500K, WHICH ONE I WILL CHOOSE FOR APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT AND MORE SOFTWARES?

You are trying to compare apples and oranges and pears and walnuts. You can't think like that with computers. It can be confusing comparing AMD and Intel, but it really isn't "complicated" when you understand the basic concepts.

First of all Cores. Just because a CPU has 8 cores or even 6 cores does not mean it will outperform any other CPU- solely because of that number. There are certain (and very few actually) applications which will utilize multiple cores, such as video encoding or transcoding, and certain design or CAD based programs.

In these few instances the 6 or 8 cores may excel and show some real speed. But for the most part, having more cores really doesn't equate to anything special or faster for the average computer user or gamer. You will never use more than one or two cores while doing everyday tasks on your pc.

Even the most demanding games are not coded for multiple cores, so this makes no difference in gaming either. Two or fours cores are plenty (BF3 does take advantage of multiple cores, but not 6 or 8). Bottom line: An average user only needs a good quad core CPU.

You will not benefit from having more cores. Looks good on paper, but that's about it. Secondly, Processor Speed.

First if all, you should realize that AMD and Intel are using different calculations to arrive at these numbers, so a 3.1 GHZ AMD processor, isn't exactly the same as a 3.1 GHZ Intel one as you might assume. Also, just because the processor's speed is higher on one processor, doesn't necessarily mean it will crunch numbers better or be faster than one with a lower number. For example, there is the Intel Celeron D rated at 3.6 GHz, and it sounds like it is pretty fast, right?

It's not. It is an old slow horrible CPU. An Intel Core i5-2400S running at a "slower" 2.50 GHz runs circles around it, eats lunch, takes a nap, and then absolutely destroys it in ANY benchmark or application.

Why? Is it because of the L2 or L3 cache? Yes - but no.

Cache does play a part, but its mostly just in the improvements in technology with each generation, the fabrication of the silicon, and ultimately the efficiency of the processors. And luck. The Sandy Bridge era Core I CPUs from Intel are incredibly fast and efficient.

Even the slowest rated one from this line will pretty much smoke anything out there with the exception of a higher rated Sandy Bridge CPU. They're just "that good." Somehow Intel was very lucky and struck gold with these puppies, making them run cool and fast with minimal juice.

It's not just their cache, or the GHz, or the cores. Its a combination of several things that just seemed to fall into place and work at this given time. It doesn't happen very often, but it did this time.

If it was easy to explain exactly how they made them run so fast and efficient, don't you think AMD would have made something equal or superior to them by now. They haven't because its almost impossible to duplicate. So many factors had to happen in just a certain way.

The best most powerful consumer level CPU by AMD right now (the 8 core FX 8150), can barely keep pace with a i5 2500k in 75% of applications, and is actually beaten soundly by it in the other 25%. And the 2500k is not even the top of the line Sandy Bridge CPU (that would be the mighty i7 2700k). Such is also the case with your FX 8120.

It just isn't as good or as fast as the i5 2500k or i7 2600k. Regardless of what it's cache size is, or it's GHZ is. That's just the way it is.

Are the FX CPUs horrible? No- they're decent CPUs, but they turned out to NOT be the shining savior that AMD wanted them to be, to equal Sandy Bridge. They didn't even come close.

You should enjoy your FX 8120, and don't get caught up in trying to figure out why the i5 2500k seems to beat it in everything when some of the specs and numbers say it shouldn't. That 2500k is just an amazing CPU. It seems to have the exact food that every pc game needs to run smoothly and fast.

The i7 2600 is awesome as well, perhaps a little better overall with its "Hyperthreading" but for gaming and regular use, the i5 2500k is the premier CPU. Period. No 6 or 8 core, or any other CPU outperforms it for gaming - or for bang for your buck.

You might as well bang your head on wall, than try to figure out exactly why or how. If you do figure it out though. Call AMD immediately, they want to know and will hire you.

The Intel processor wins despite having fewer cores because it has a far more advanced architecture which achieves much more work in the same number of clock cycles.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.