New
#11
maybe this will help you. Passmark high End Cpu charts.
Wanting to compare two CPU' - AMD 8 core VS. Intel i7 -opinions needed
-
-
New #12
You have a point re brand recognition being a factor for some but there is a very good reason why 'non-amateurs/enthusiasts' knowingly choose intel over AMD.
+1 For your intended needs a i5 2500K fits the bill perfectly. 99% of games do not benefit from hyperthreading.I'm wanting some opinions from people who actually know computers, on which would offer better performance for the money. (To get a sense of what I use it for, just think Gaming. No 3d modelling)
No, it doesn't work that way. Core clock speed is not accumulative. It's still 3.6ghz per core.Here's the AMD 8-core (a whopping 3.6Ghz per core.. so 28.8 GHz total):
-
New #13
Intel chips far outrun AMD's in almost anything. They also have a far better memory controller too. I am certainly considering a move to Intel and it would likely be a 2500K, it's a champ at about $230 or so.
-
New #14
$/Performance, especially for gaming, the 2500K can't be beat. For $219 (last price I recall) there is not another chip that can beat it. And to answer your next question, I'm not an Intel fanboy. The last computer I built was an Amd Phenom II X 6. The 2500K I have now will beat it, hands down. If you are talking about heavy duty graphics encoding or CAD, that may be different.
-
New #15
Agreed with everybody here that the i5-2500K is the real sweet spot with processors right now. Everybody wants to believe that more cores must be better, but it's not a good comparison. So much depends upon how these cores process the data, how efficient they are, and how well multithreaded the application is that is being used. I've seen very little from AMD, benchmarks or fans which show that the AMD processors with more cores are outperforming similarly priced Intel chips. It's usually the opposite, the Intel chips with fewer cores are leading the way...and the price is often nearly the same.
If you are an AMD fan and want to stick with AMD to root for the underdog, by all means go for it. They make solid chips and your performance will be fine. If however, you simply want the best bang for the buck, and higher performance for nearly the exact same price, Intel is by far your better choice. I used to buy AMD machines as they were great in the past, but since the Core 2 Duo days from Intel, AMD has been so far behind that I haven't considered using a single chip of theirs. If they somehow turn things around and can put out a great chip at a great price, I wouldn't hesitate for 1 second to build another AMD rig. I'm not an Intel fanboy, I just want the best bang for my buck. And I feel that it's Intel, without question and has been for 5+ years.
-
New #16
I can toss out another suggestion, too. A few friends were looking into budget builds, so I had them go with their intended parts, and then an i3-2100 for $100. It's no slouch, and got them up and running. Later down the road, they have or will be swapping out that processor for something better, like an i7.
-
New #17
^Yeah, I tend to shy away from going the upgrade route. Often times what seems to happen is that you start with something, and by the time that you get to the point that you want to upgrade, the socket that the new chips plug into has changed, or the prices of the older CPU technology is more expensive than newer technology (due to supply and demand...look at price of DDR2 today versus DDR3 as an example).
-
New #18
That can always be an issue, but when he's ready to upgrade, the Socket 1155 i7's will be even cheaper than they are now, so it wouldn't cost much to get a massive upgrade, and it would only need the processor swapped. I don't go this route for myself, because I'd prefer to wait a little longer and buy the parts as I wanted...and not a "band-aid" part....but it's worked out well for other people. I do quite a bit of buying and selling of parts in other forums, so I can always turn their parts into cash for them.
-
New #19
Whoa, I come back after a day to a flood of new posts. The information is interesting. Everyone seems to root for the i5-2500.
Essenbe, when i checked the link you sent me, my current CPU clocked in at around 3679. The i5 is at 7484. That is rediculous, and seeing that there are ones at 13 000, thats just strange. I understand that the ones at 13000 won't make that much of a difference on gaming compared to the 7500 of the i5, because part of the points comes from activities and tests that my cpu wouldn't experience while playing games. (Like Hyperthreading)
However, I want to know what you all think, in terms of sheer opinion: Will i notice a significant upgrade if i go for the i5, over my current CPU? ( AMD Phenom II X4 940, 3.0GHz) Or, should i save my money and wait for something else to come out? I know intel is releasing their Xenon processors soon, and that will make the price of all the current ones drop.
If I go for the i5, i would be needing a new Mobo as well..
As well, while I am being dissuaded from AMD chips, i do want to point out that one of the amd 8-cores did score higher than the 2500k, for nearly the same price (In my own defense, i know that the scores mean little-to-nothing for actual performance, because most games dont utilise 8 cores, let alone 4. I have been listening to what you're saying :P)
-
New #20
Some of the chips that scored that high are $1000 chips. But, look at your numbers and the ones they put out. The 2500K is twice yours, so yes you will see a difference. My reference was for gaming and you wouldn't see much differene with those higher scoring chips. I was talking about price/performance. I am overclocked some, but here is my passmark score, composite avg. 9256. You be the judge.
Quote
Related Discussions