Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD 1100T or Intel 2500k?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 27, 2011 7:45:35 PM

guy i want to know which processor to pick? my current configuration is Quad core Q9300 2.5Ghz and im planning to upgrade my pc with medium spec im confused between AMD hexacore and the new intel 2500k?

which one is better for me?

my usage :

1-for Games
2-Windows 7 OS 64bits
3- regular pc software not specific


the chart didnt give me clear view with new CPU because depend on the hardware spec also.

More about : amd 1100t intel 2500k

June 27, 2011 7:58:44 PM

well im not quite sure , i know my pc is not normal pc here my hardware spec:


Q9300 2.5GHZ

Asus maximus formula

2GB kingstone 800Mhz X 4 = 8GB total

VGA ATI 4870X2

Zalman cooling fan

i was planning to go for :

2500k or 1100T

4GB ram 1600MHZ DDR 3 X 4 = 16GB

VGA 6950



June 27, 2011 8:09:22 PM

Quote:
everything there is fine, i would reccommend a GPU and PSU upgrade for better gaming performance and an SSD for better overall performance (better boot times etc.)


do i need watercooling for over clocking ?
Related resources
a c 344 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
June 27, 2011 8:37:00 PM

The 6 core amd cpu's are very poor for gaming. They are a decent value for highly multithreaded apps.

Very few games use more than two cores, let alone 4 or 6.

The sandy bridge cpu's are particularly good because of their higher clock rates. They are also 30% more efficient per clock.

The 2500K is currently the very best for gaming.

The 2600K is equally good, but at $100 more, it is more appropriate to workloads that can use many threads.
There is no downside to a 2600K if the extra $100 is not that important to you.
a b à CPUs
June 28, 2011 1:15:57 AM

You could also save $100 by getting 'only' 8gb of ram (2 x4gb); no advantage to having any more, currently.....

http://www.overclock.net/intel-cpus/324846-q9300-club.h...

here are a few pages of devoted Q9300 overclockers, in case you decide to stand pat/delay your upgrade for now....
June 28, 2011 5:20:02 AM

For games the 1100T is extremely overpriced considering it performs the exact same as a Phenom II X4 and costs much more.
a c 480 à CPUs
a c 119 å Intel
a c 122 À AMD
June 28, 2011 8:58:00 AM

I wouldn't overclock by more than 300MHz on a stock cooler.

To be honest, I've never used a stock cooler before other than in my 1st PC which i bought rather than built myself back in the late 1990's.

My advice is to buy a CPU heatsink that is compatible with both socket 775 and 1155, that way when you decide to upgrade to a Sandy Bridge CPU, you can use the same heatsink. Or if you decide overclocking does not give you the performance boost you are looking for.

Click following link for list of heatsink compatible with both sockets.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=E...
a b à CPUs
June 28, 2011 9:11:12 AM

Just wait until bulldozer/ivybridge.
June 28, 2011 3:50:27 PM

Gaming? - 2500K

Threaded apps / Productivity ? - 2600K
June 28, 2011 4:04:56 PM

For Intel 2600K vs. AMD Phenom X6 1100T BE, is there a noticible difference for video editing on Cyberlink Power Director only? I know Intel is better for games, but what if only do video editing beyond average daily tasks? 2600K has 4 cores/hyperthreading, while 1100T BE has 6 cores - do they get closer on performance on video editing?
a c 190 à CPUs
a b å Intel
June 28, 2011 5:03:49 PM

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/203?vs=287 about the only thing that will outperform the Intel® Core™ i7-2600K in heavily multi-threaded applications like Adobe CS is the Intel Core i7-990X Extreme Edition.

Christian Wood
Intel Enthusiast Team
June 28, 2011 5:34:34 PM

Thanks but to my question, how much of a real difference are we talking about between the i-2600K and the Phenom II X6 1100 in time to complete the task. Intel definitely is faster - we all know that. But does this benchmark speed translate into something meaningful in terms of how much longer does it take to complete the same task on the 2 different processors? So I'll pose this real world task: how long will it take to encode a 1 hour MPEG-2 video using each of the 2 processors on the CPU only (no hardware accelerations on either a discrete GPU or Quick Sync)?
July 22, 2011 8:55:18 PM

Oh well, no answer after a month - guess I'll give up. I guess the people here care more about benchmarks than real world issues.
a b à CPUs
July 22, 2011 9:09:39 PM

The benchmark answers you question, in case you hadn't realised, you can select different CPU's to compare, so the answer has been in front of you for a month, but since you need everything laid out for you like a baby, here you are.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/287?vs=203

EDIT : Also, make your own thread.
July 22, 2011 9:30:17 PM

Well I won't be rude - but the question posed was how long it takes to encode a 1 hour MPEG-2 video on each of the processors on Cyberlink Power Director. I didn't see that anywhere in the anandtech benchmarks which I did compare. But perhaps since you are so brilliant you can answer that.
a b à CPUs
July 23, 2011 12:15:40 AM

Make your own thread
!