Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Future gaming CPU

Last response: in Video Games
Share
October 17, 2011 4:39:57 PM

I know this sub-forum isn't the best place to ask for a future upgrade regarding a better gaming CPU, but since this is a place where I've grown to know and respect posters' opinions, I will ask it in here.

Which of the following do you think will fare better in the near future as a gaming CPU:

* Intel Core i7 960 @ 3.2 GHz
* AMD FX 8150 @ 3.6 GHz

In both cases I would have to switch my mobo which is AM3, so I'd need an AM3+ for the AMD socket or get the LGA 1366 for Intel. I am asking this question because what I have written so far about the AMD's Bulldozer (Zambezi) isn't pretty good looking from the first reviews. Maybe they'll deal with the new release' problems, but since I am not taking either side. AMD or Intel, I am looking for the best performance in gaming; I mention that both CPU's are about the same price where I am from.

So, what do you all think?

More about : future gaming cpu

a b à CPUs
October 17, 2011 5:11:07 PM

personally neither of them

i would go 2600k for gaming
October 17, 2011 5:17:01 PM

It seems the I7 2600K is just slightly more expensive than the 960, but the good part is that the LGA 1155 socket mobos are way less expensive than LGA 1366.
Related resources
October 17, 2011 5:58:39 PM

as for processor, if your main focus is gaming, the i7 2600k is better than the fx8150, but if you are doing a lot of multi-threaded tasks, fx8150 is actually better than the i7. also, amd cpu and nvidia gpu might have some compatibility problem, but intel cpu is great with both nvidia and ati gpu.
October 17, 2011 8:13:52 PM

how do you guys think the 2700k when its released, Would perform against the 2600k?
a b 4 Gaming
a c 112 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 17, 2011 8:32:29 PM

about 5 percent better over all. i think they could have been in production a while but due to cost were never viable till now. so i doubt it will have any radical design changes..

the fx chip is a server part. plain and simple. its not a gaming part by any means. its single core performance is abysmal and is even beaten by amd's own 970... and as most games dont need 8 threads or cores most of the cpu will be idle.
the only time the cpu was actually competitive was in a narrow band of specific tasks. and none were gaming related... so no do not buy the fx for a gaming part. you wont see anywhere near the 2500k's performance in any game ever. also if your a gamer get the 2500k its the better value part than the 2600k. add what you save to your next gfx card
October 18, 2011 5:05:53 PM

would you suggest a 2500k, 2600k or a 2700k when you do graphics work and software development as well as gaming?
October 18, 2011 5:21:36 PM

Well I guess my next gaming CPU won't be an AMD one anymore, am looking more and more towards a 2500k or a 2600k. Would it be a better improvement, going from 965 BE to a 2500/2600k? Is it worth switching over from AMD to Intel?
October 18, 2011 5:34:47 PM

yes! if you have the extra $.

The 2500k and 2600k is way better in gaming than the amd.

Im switching from an amd to intel because of the intel sandy bridge series!

I heard that the 2500 and 2600k cpus beat the new amd bulldozer cpu in performance.
October 18, 2011 6:28:54 PM

night_wolf said:
yes! if you have the extra $.

The 2500k and 2600k is way better in gaming than the amd.

Im switching from an amd to intel because of the intel sandy bridge series!

I heard that the 2500 and 2600k cpus beat the new amd bulldozer cpu in performance.


It seems so, and by far.
October 18, 2011 6:38:01 PM

hell what a disappointment for the bulldozer!

I like the intel cpus allot better anyway!
October 18, 2011 6:43:05 PM

night_wolf said:
hell what a disappointment for the bulldozer!

I like the intel cpus allot better anyway!


I've been using AMD's CPUs for the past 10 years, but I've kinda switched sides starting with my wife's Samsung's laptop which sports an i3. Time to change my desktop CPU with an Intel soon.

Too bad indeed for Bulldozer, I was expecting more in the way of competition with Intel, could've brought the prices down a bit, but not now. Oh well...
October 18, 2011 6:49:01 PM

same here i always used amd for years, Until i tried out a few intel builds and i was very impressed by intel.

it would be nice for intel to drop in price but definitely not now!
October 18, 2011 9:06:46 PM

I'd roll with a 2500k. Wait a second, I did! (no, really, I just bought all the parts for my new build). Compared to the 2600k..eh, I don't really need that extra hyperthreading since in the gaming world it doesn't have too much to offer. If you use HandBrake a lot or generally do a lot of video encoding and what not a 2600k would be more ideal. For $205 after promo @ the Egg you can't beat the 2500k.
October 20, 2011 2:20:16 AM

My friend has a 920 @3.8, its retarded as is. A 2600k sounds even more retarded. Id say it would be good for at least 3 years, unless something major happens. My core 2 duo e8400 is still kicking ass 2.5 years later...
October 20, 2011 2:53:05 PM

Actually I was thinking of AMD's Bulldozer as something major, but it was just a major letdown. I don't know what were they thinking, but again, I am not paid enough to give it any more thought.

So, my next CPU is going to be at least that 2600k, if not something much better hits the market before I decide to upgrade my actual quad core.
October 20, 2011 5:11:09 PM

I hope so, intel needs to release a new cpu thats better than the 2600k
!