AMD sixcore of i7 2600

[THHHHH]

Hello,

Wich one is better because the AMD is somewhat cheaper

 

[THHHHH]

Hello,

Wich one is better because the AMD is somewhat cheaper

Sorry of in the title should have been or

 

[Timop]

At current prices, the 2600K is $120+ more expensive than AMD six cores. So obviously its better.

Neither is a good deal though, if you want a good gaming CPU and have some money, get a 2500K, if not a Phenom II X4 v955, you can also wait for BD if you arn't pleased with either.

 

[kajabla]

At current prices, the 2600K is $120+ more expensive than AMD six cores. So obviously its better.

This is a totally wrong statement. Take the i7-990x as an example: it's a *thousand dollar* CPU that is outperformed by the $220 2500K.
The 2600K is way better than the AMD one, though. It runs much faster and has a better architecture. Also, most games can't use more than 3 or 4 threads, so extra cores would be a waste for gaming (though not for media stuff, if that's what you're going for).

 

[Timop]

This is a totally wrong statement. Take the i7-990x as an example: it's a *thousand dollar* CPU that is outperformed by the $220 2500K.
The 2600K is way better than the AMD one, though. It runs much faster and has a better architecture. Also, most games can't use more than 3 or 4 threads, so extra cores would be a waste for gaming (though not for media stuff, if that's what you're going for).

Which makes my statement wrong how?
1. 2600K is more expensive than 1XXXT.
2. 2600K is better than 1XXXT.
Both are true.

Also, the 980X is better than the 2500K, ( http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=142 ) just not by the margin its price increase is. He never specified gaming either.

 

[kajabla]

You're right that it's better, but what's wrong is that you said that it's better *because* it costs more. By price, this piece of junk would appear to be better than a 2500K:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115054
They trade advantages in that benchmark.
Even outside gaming, I think the 2600K would perform better, no?

 

[Timop]

You're right that it's better, but what's wrong is that you said that it's better *because* it costs more. By price, this piece of junk would appear to be better than a 2500K:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115054
They trade advantages in that benchmark.
Even outside gaming, I think the 2600K would perform better, no?

However, the 1100T is still AMD's flagship, most up-to-date CPU that *competes* the Core i7s, so since the i7 costs more, performance is naturally better.

But if you insist, the 2600K is better because it is 1.5 architectures ahead and also a process ahead.

 

[kajabla]

ATM, AMD's flagships aren't good enough to consider competing with Sandy Bridge
The only thing the 6-corers can really be considered for is media stuff, I guess.
We'll have to wait for Bulldozer to see an actual gaming competition.

 

[Timop]

IMO, anything above a 955 in AMD's lineup is pretty uncompetitive. Especially the 9X0s, guess it brings home the cash and what little "dignity" it has left. lol

 

[THHHHH]

Have to run multiple pokersites and pokertables on it, pokersoftware (Holdem manager), Mikogo-Teamviewer and Skype- MSN kind of programs

So basically I can also buy a i5 or AMD quadcore?

 

[kajabla]

As far as I know, those aren't exactly intensive programs (am I wrong?). Any of these offerings should be decent for you.
Yes, a 2500K will probably cover you, and it's much cheaper too. A 955...eh. Thoughts, timop?

 

[THHHHH]

Thanks for the help everyone!

 

[Wisecracker]

Are you running a server?

Asus M5A87 AM3+ AMD 870 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3 or the Asus M5A88-M AM3+ AMD 880G HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3 has an IGP.

Either way you go you have 6 x SATA 6Gb/s. You can RAID the snot out of some fast Spinpoint HDDs.

Asus/AMD will run ECC RAMs -- either 4 x Crucial 2GB ECC Unbuffered DDR3 1333 (PC3 10600) Server Memory or an 8GB ECC Kit (4GBx2) is qualified, too.

I don't really see the need for raw CPU power in what you are doing, server or not.