Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What makes the I5-2500k and I7-2600K so good?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 19, 2012 7:45:29 PM

Now while being a computer builder and building locally and servicing for people around town I have pretty decent knowledge about what parts work what parts don't work and how to troubleshoot most of them... but when it comes to definitive answers why certain things work better in the CPU world I can't really tell... My question here is probably answered somewhere else but I couldn't really find anything that was a suitable answer.... Now I am not really a fanboy of any CPU Brand... ( although I am when it comes to graphics card I don't really like Nvidia at all. ) basically I buy for needs... if I have budget for an intel I would get an intel because for w.e reason they always WAY out perform AMD... but usually I don't have 200-300 extra dollars laying around and so don't most customers....I get lot of questions lately about why the I5-2500k and I7 are so expensive compared to AMD chips and my normal response is because I7 supports hyper threading so it can run more information faster so it cost more... and the I5-2500k is super overclockable and runs pretty cool. But I don't really have a good answer to them as to why a I5-2500K that basically has the same Specs as some AMD CPUs that are half the price runs 5xs better in CPU heavy tasks especially when they feature similar specs are sometimes even better specs on the AMD side sometimes and still under performs.

We can see from the hundreds of test that the I5-2500k IS right now the Peak for building a gaming PC. Basically even if you put a I7-2600k which by all means IS faster you won't see much difference in games... So why is this case Vs say a Phenom II x4 980 or something that has higher clock and similar cache... Is it the overall design of the chip? I figure it has something to do with the Threads and Intel has more threads to pass more information faster? I mean I'm not one of those idiots that gets bent out of shape when their 150 dollar CPU from AMD isn't beating a top end 230 dollar Intel CPU because lets face it... they aren't suppose too... and AMD has never released a CPU other then I think the FX-8150? and said THIS CPU BEATS EVERYTHING INTEL HAS. AMD has always been to me for the home builders and the low/mid range people... because honestly... compared to intels other chips... AMD usually wins... because the lower end I5s and I7s are pretty garbage I've had them.. and built computers with them and wasn't very impressed for how much they usually cost... Besides Intel never updates its older CPU line because AMD dominates that market. With AMD recently giving up Desktop CPU production with the fail of bulldozer and switching purely into laptops... ( which they are dominating in so its a smart choice.. I mean I haven't seen a Intel based laptop in any retail store for the past 4 months.. they are all APU based amd chips ) So this isn't a question of why does my 80 dollar AMD triple core not beat a 230 dollar chip.. its more of What makes that chip so good compared to others? I read lot of stuff but I see similar chips with similar specs and threads and other crap and they never do as good... Quality of material? I know AMD was always stubborn when it came to changing the way its processors were designed so they were always limited by that but shouldn't a CPU with similar Cache... Similar power requirements similar clock speed run just as fast as the other one?

Anyway This is just out of curiosity as I haven't bothered with intel in awhile and its a common question I get asked that I can't really explain without confusing people and if you bothered to read this giant thread I applaud you and thank anyone who gives a pretty basic answer. Although We don't need flame wars started here this is just a question about how the architecture of the chip works.

on a side note... Bulldozer failed because 64bit OS don't support the hyper threading on the chips yet right? because I been steering customers away from them for now because of unfavorable reviews but since Windows 8 is coming out soon I figure the performance should stabilize and make them worth buying soon yes? if not let me know with a real answer why.. Not looking for Fanboy responses here.

More about : makes 2500k 2600k good

a c 203 à CPUs
February 19, 2012 8:02:34 PM

How much did you look around to try and find your answer?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 19, 2012 8:21:57 PM

BullDozer mainly failed because it did not increase it's IPC (instructions per clock or measurement of single threaded performance) over the X6 (Thuban core range) infact in most cases it's IPC is lower.
The large number of cores and things like Hyper Threading are only useful in a very small range of tasks and most related to CAD/Photo/Video/Rendering related work loads, For gaming and every day usage anything over 4cores is complete overkill.
Even Dual core is still perfectly fine for most Gaming and everyday Usage
The reason why the 2500K and the 2600K are so good is performance per $$$
These chips have excellent performance (much higher IPC compared to AMD's products) as well having excellent overclocking potential.
The only advantage the i7 has is Hyper Threading for those who need more threads for large multi threaded workloads
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
February 20, 2012 4:20:22 AM

chrisht256 said:
on a side note... Bulldozer failed because 64bit OS don't support the hyper threading on the chips yet right? because I been steering customers away from them for now because of unfavorable reviews but since Windows 8 is coming out soon I figure the performance should stabilize and make them worth buying soon yes? if not let me know with a real answer why.. Not looking for Fanboy responses here.


It has nothing to do with Windows despite what AMD have been peddling, it is a simple case of a new idea going very wrong. The bulldozers don't utilize Hyperthreading more that they treat fused cores like a core lite so as to handle multiple software threads. To me it is a rather pointless exercise as a single independant core can already handle a single thread, in the process have produced a brute of a die hiding 1.2 billion transistors more than Intels highest end chip for considerably uninspiring performance.

I don't know what you mean by "lower end i5's and i7's being garbage" a first gen i7 9XX and second gen i5 and i7's(I assume you mean the 2600, which is every part as fast as the 2600K/2700K at stock speeds just locked) will well and truely hand it to a Bulldozer. There is nothing garbage about intel in comparison to the competition.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 20, 2012 4:42:03 AM

chris, you are rambling all over the place with your post. It appears to me you are not nearly as informed as you think you are.
Simply put, the newer Intel Core CPU's can execute more instructions per clock cycle.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 20, 2012 4:51:09 AM

congratulations! I know you didn't ask for a war of words but that's all that you're gonna achieve with this thread. For the record I have a FX-8120 OC'd to 4.2GHz and I am (apparently) the only person in the community who gets suburb performance from the configuration.

CPU: FX-8120@ 4.2GHz
MB: ASUS Sabertooth 990FX
Video: X2 HD 6870 crossfire
RAM: 16GB G.Skill Ripjaw @ 1666

Maybe its because I'm the so called "scorpious platfrom" IDK. All I'm saying is that I get very good, very fast performance with my rig. Intel definitely performs much better in single threaded applications, and maybe the engineers designing the FX series were too forward thinking and didn't optimize for single threaded apps. It is what it is, good luck..... here come the insults and arguments over 5 seconds and 5-10 frames lol
m
0
l
a c 185 à CPUs
February 20, 2012 4:56:04 AM

No one only uses their computer for gaming. An i5-2500k or i7-2600k @4.2ghz will destroy your fx in many desktop applications.
m
0
l
February 20, 2012 5:02:20 AM

Architecture is what makes sandy bridge so fast over the competition
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 20, 2012 5:03:56 AM

What is 'suburb' performance? I guess it's different from 'big city' performance, smaller maybe?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 20, 2012 5:04:33 AM

The price for the performance.
m
0
l
February 20, 2012 5:18:57 AM

DelroyMonjo said:
chris, you are rambling all over the place with your post. It appears to me you are not nearly as informed as you think you are.
Simply put, the newer Intel Core CPU's can execute more instructions per clock cycle.


theconsolegamer said:
Architecture is what makes sandy bridge so fast over the competition


^+1 to those two.

First off, I'm not sure what you mean with only seeing AMD CPUs in the laptops in stores. I've seen just as many if not more Intel based laptops in stores.

Anyways Chris, in order for an EXACT reason why the Intel chips are faster, you need to have a very in depth knowledge of CPU architecture (which I for one don't have). For all practical purposes though, we can just say they have a better design. Ghz are just the amount of cycles a chip does, so it's far from the end all say all of which chip is better. The chip with the better design will get more done in one cycle. Thats why you can have say an old Pentium 4 get trounced by an Athalon 64 operating at a lower frequency.

Now, I'm not trying to be a jerk or talk down to you, but you seem to behind the times a bit. Intel has a better chip selection at virtually every price point these days. Some people will surely fire back with how Bulldozer can handle more heavily threaded operations and Phenoms black editions can be overclocked to get close to the sandy bridges, but at the end of the day Intel is king of the hill in CPUs (unfortunately). Check out this article... http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-a...

Obviously that was just for gaming, but it's fairly representative of most folks day to day computer needs. Intel simply can not be touched at single threaded tasks and that's the majority of the programs that people use.
m
0
l
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 20, 2012 5:26:51 AM

rage33 said:
congratulations! I know you didn't ask for a war of words but that's all that you're gonna achieve with this thread. For the record I have a FX-8120 OC'd to 4.2GHz and I am (apparently) the only person in the community who gets suburb performance from the configuration.

CPU: FX-8120@ 4.2GHz
MB: ASUS Sabertooth 990FX
Video: X2 HD 6870 crossfire
RAM: 16GB G.Skill Ripjaw @ 1666

Maybe its because I'm the so called "scorpious platfrom" IDK. All I'm saying is that I get very good, very fast performance with my rig. Intel definitely performs much better in single threaded applications, and maybe the engineers designing the FX series were too forward thinking and didn't optimize for single threaded apps. It is what it is, good luck..... here come the insults and arguments over 5 seconds and 5-10 frames lol


Just because you have superb (I'm assuming) performance that doesn't mean the fx-8120 is better or equal to the i5-2500k in gaming.

AMD and Intel have two different philosophies with their multicore processors. Intel's is more efficient cores while AMD's is more cores for less. Since most programs/games aren't heavily threaded Intel usually wins in price/performance benchmarks. What AMD did with the FX is essentially double down with their more cores for less strategy.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 20, 2012 6:32:40 AM

Anyone laughing like me at the assertion that the lower end i5's and i7's are garbage, seriously I think that is the bigger talking point here.
m
0
l
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 20, 2012 6:38:53 AM

sarinaide said:
Anyone laughing like me at the assertion that the lower end i5's and i7's are garbage, seriously I think that is the bigger talking point here.


:D 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 20, 2012 6:41:18 AM

Quote:
Just because you have superb (I'm assuming) performance that doesn't mean the fx-8120 is better or equal to the i5-2500k in gaming.

AMD and Intel have two different philosophies with their multicore processors. Intel's is more efficient cores while AMD's is more cores for less. Since most programs/games aren't heavily threaded Intel usually wins in price/performance benchmarks. What AMD did with the FX is essentially double down with their more cores for less strategy.



I never stated that it was better in benchmarking or gaming or otherwise, I simply stated that AMD still offers options for users who want high end performance. If I can run BF3 on ultra (HD 6870s in crossfire) and get an average of 85-90 frames that seems pretty exceptional performance wise to me. Okay fair enough maybe the same configuration with a i5 2500k does 100Frames, big whoop thats 10 frames. Or in other applications the i5 will encode a video if 2min and my FX will do it in 2:10.... 10 seconds, you see what I'm saying? Everyone else seems to believe that there is no options other than Intel, and that's not the case, all I'm stating is that there are other high end options other than Intel. And basically wanted to point out that this thread will turn out just the like rest, which I guess I'm contributing to lol, but who am I anyway, just an opinion and nothing more ;-)
m
0
l
a c 79 à CPUs
February 20, 2012 6:53:25 AM

you mention in the original post that an intel system costs $200-$300 extra over an amd system, why do you think this? mobo prices are comparable, chip prices are not that different and as the 2500K (the practical performance choice) is only $229, you have to get amd chips for free to create a gap of $200-300. Yes if you are talking about SB-E then the cost gap can be 200-300, but for cost to cost at the 2500k level then the differential is low on price and high on performance.
m
0
l
a c 79 à CPUs
February 20, 2012 6:57:57 AM

rage33 said:
I never stated that it was better in benchmarking or gaming or otherwise, I simply stated that AMD still offers options for users who want high end performance. If I can run BF3 on ultra (HD 6870s in crossfire) and get an average of 85-90 frames that seems pretty exceptional performance wise to me. Okay fair enough maybe the same configuration with a i5 2500k does 100Frames, big whoop thats 10 frames. Or in other applications the i5 will encode a video if 2min and my FX will do it in 2:10.... 10 seconds, you see what I'm saying? Everyone else seems to believe that there is no options other than Intel, and that's not the case, all I'm stating is that there are other high end options other than Intel. And basically wanted to point out that this thread will turn out just the like rest, which I guess I'm contributing to lol, but who am I anyway, just an opinion and nothing more ;-)


I agree completely that for most practical uses there's not much difference and the price has been managed to keep a level(ish) playing field. It would be good to dispell the myth that at that performance level there is a massive price difference, there just isn't. At low levels then maybe, I remember looking for a CPU for a home server, and ended up with a low end x2 fo about £45, I don't think that intel had anything in that space at that time.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 20, 2012 7:01:18 AM

rage33 said:
I never stated that it was better in benchmarking or gaming or otherwise, I simply stated that AMD still offers options for users who want high end performance. If I can run BF3 on ultra (HD 6870s in crossfire) and get an average of 85-90 frames that seems pretty exceptional performance wise to me. Okay fair enough maybe the same configuration with a i5 2500k does 100Frames, big whoop thats 10 frames. Or in other applications the i5 will encode a video if 2min and my FX will do it in 2:10.... 10 seconds, you see what I'm saying? Everyone else seems to believe that there is no options other than Intel, and that's not the case, all I'm stating is that there are other high end options other than Intel. And basically wanted to point out that this thread will turn out just the like rest, which I guess I'm contributing to lol, but who am I anyway, just an opinion and nothing more ;-)


To be perfectly honest I have always in these kinds of dabate taken the line of reasoning that it comes down to the end user and that persons needs, in your case your 8120 fulfills your needs and makes you happy and thats all that matters at the end of the day thats not a issue at all, whether you like Intel or AMD it comes down to what the end user requires. What becomes a problem is when you defy the status quo being that the Intel chips are far superior. If you get better or equal performance to a 2600K with yours then you must back up those facts because nobody on TH or Anandtech can do that.
m
0
l
February 20, 2012 7:02:00 AM

theconsolegamer said:
Architecture is what makes sandy bridge so fast over the competition


One dude actually answered his core question, its the core architecture of the cpu. The instruction set and design are vastly better than that of comparable amd cpu's at the moment.
m
0
l
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 20, 2012 7:08:57 AM

rage33 said:
I never stated that it was better in benchmarking or gaming or otherwise, I simply stated that AMD still offers options for users who want high end performance. If I can run BF3 on ultra (HD 6870s in crossfire) and get an average of 85-90 frames that seems pretty exceptional performance wise to me. Okay fair enough maybe the same configuration with a i5 2500k does 100Frames, big whoop thats 10 frames. Or in other applications the i5 will encode a video if 2min and my FX will do it in 2:10.... 10 seconds, you see what I'm saying? Everyone else seems to believe that there is no options other than Intel, and that's not the case, all I'm stating is that there are other high end options other than Intel. And basically wanted to point out that this thread will turn out just the like rest, which I guess I'm contributing to lol, but who am I anyway, just an opinion and nothing more ;-)


The problem is that FX-8150 costs more than the i5-2500k and the $120 i3 2100 can beat the FX-8150 in some benchmarks(mostly gaming). AMD had some great price/ performance cpu's with the phenom II unfortunately they have taken two steps back with Zambezi/Llano.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 20, 2012 7:26:32 AM

What makes sandybridges so good-
INTEL
and
their awesome tech.
no offence to AMD but i think they should have worked more on strength/core instead of number of cores.i hope they do better in future.good luck.
INTEL & AMD FTW!
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 20, 2012 7:27:37 AM

Quote:
The problem is that FX-8150 costs more than the i5-2500k and the $120 i3 2100 can beat the FX-8150 in some benchmarks(mostly gaming). AMD had some great price/ performance cpu's with the phenom II unfortunately they have taken two steps back with Zambezi/Llano.


I don't think Llano chips can be considered two steps backwards, they are a completely different arch and not intended for the highend market. They actually are very good for their intended purpose.

I bought my FX-8120 for $199.99, which I thought was a pretty fair price. I do see what your saying and where you're coming from though.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 20, 2012 7:29:30 AM

The man in the sky said so, jeez stop being such a brand pony, nobody is forcing you to buy Intel, just don't expect anyone or many to support you view that it can be better, sadly AMD comparisons vs Intel scale badly, yes the 8150 is better than the i3 2100 but that again is not a fair scale.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 20, 2012 7:36:14 AM

no even i3 2100 beats FX in gaming lolll!!!!!!!!!
m
0
l
February 20, 2012 7:59:15 AM

Threads like this make me cringe....

The fx8150 performs somewhere between a i5-2500k and a i7-2600k in terms of raw performance. Given the right software it absolutely flies.
The reason the i5-2500k and i7-2600k are still competitive is their superior single thread performance and the fact that a lot of software (especially games) still isn't properly multithreaded.

This is going to change in the future though. The number of processor cores is only ever going to go up and software will have to adapt.

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 20, 2012 8:04:24 AM

Yes of course it will and Intel will address it accordingly, at the end of the day is the FX multi-threading better than the Intel no, its much of a muchness. The FX is a good example of a great I, not really fulfilling what was hoped for. That said two posters here have more than ample performance. So there is the answer, buy what your comfortable with.......and not what benchmarks tell you.
m
0
l
a c 185 à CPUs
February 20, 2012 8:06:11 AM

Problem is after piledriver all of you amd users have to go to intel :lol: 
m
0
l
February 20, 2012 8:07:42 AM

molo9000 said:
Threads like this make me cringe....

The fx8150 performs somewhere between a i5-2500k and a i7-2600k in terms of raw performance. Given the right software it absolutely flies.
The reason the i5-2500k and i7-2600k are still competitive is their superior single thread performance and the fact that a lot of software (especially games) still isn't properly multithreaded.

This is going to change in the future though. The number of processor cores is only ever going to go up and software will have to adapt.

Which is a shoot to the knee to AMD because they targeted gamers with the FX chips. That Dirt 3 booth at some computer show, anyone?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 20, 2012 10:26:18 AM

^UNBEATABLE!!!!
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 20, 2012 10:57:13 AM

rage33 said:
congratulations! I know you didn't ask for a war of words but that's all that you're gonna achieve with this thread. For the record I have a FX-8120 OC'd to 4.2GHz and I am (apparently) the only person in the community who gets suburb performance from the configuration.

CPU: FX-8120@ 4.2GHz
MB: ASUS Sabertooth 990FX
Video: X2 HD 6870 crossfire
RAM: 16GB G.Skill Ripjaw @ 1666

Maybe its because I'm the so called "scorpious platfrom" IDK. All I'm saying is that I get very good, very fast performance with my rig. Intel definitely performs much better in single threaded applications, and maybe the engineers designing the FX series were too forward thinking and didn't optimize for single threaded apps. It is what it is, good luck..... here come the insults and arguments over 5 seconds and 5-10 frames lol



easy way to settle this. i have a 2500k that i bought with a motherboard for ~$280. lets run the same benchmarks and post the results. Im sure the fx-8120 could win some and 2500k will win some.
m
0
l
February 20, 2012 10:59:58 AM

amd is cheap and also sucks in gaming....BULLDOZERS are *** i5 2500k is best with z68 mobo
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 20, 2012 11:15:12 AM

I will bring my core2 duo, and just in case I will find the ol P4, surely BD has to beat something.
m
0
l
February 20, 2012 11:18:36 AM

You kids... I ask a question about the actual architecture of the chip.. why its so good and you start a flame war... and I know everything you already stated but I wanna know more about the actual architecture design itself but apparently no one here has that kind of knowledge. and apparently the other 80% here don't have any knowledge at all because they are starting a flame war about 2 specific processors for no reason.
m
0
l
February 20, 2012 11:50:10 AM

Quote:
chrisht256

You kids... I ask a question about the actual architecture of the chip.. why its so good and you start a flame war... and I know everything you already stated but I wanna know more about the actual architecture design itself but apparently no one here has that kind of knowledge. and apparently the other 80% here don't have any knowledge at all because they are starting a flame war about 2 specific processors for no reason.






The sandy bridge architecture makes data to fight over resources to get processed while the FX BD modules have dedicated threads to workloads. By paper the FX BD modules should be faster since data don't need to wait for threads to get free to be processed because there's plenty.

Intel works with MS to optimize it's architecture while AMD doesn't.

Even though I'm a console gamer and consider a nub and trash by PC elitist, I learned this here at Tom's.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 20, 2012 12:02:30 PM

If you really want to know more about the current architectures out by AMD and Intel:
Sandy Bridge: http://realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT09181019...
Bulldozer: http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT0826...

There can be several reasons why Intel is better per core. Simply put:

Branch prediction is better. In code that has several execution paths, Intel's processors are better at predicting which path to take, which leads to less pipeline stalls.

Shorter pipeline- When branch prediction does go wrong, any instructions in the pipeline are worthless, and latency until the next correct instruction can reach the end is shorter. A longer pipeline has benefits like lower core voltage if implemented right, but pipeline stalls are a downside of longer pipelines.

Better pipeline- The pipeline consists of buffers, decode units, and fetch logic. Optimization of everything is essential for a better processor.

More Out of Order execution units per core(part of the pipeline)- Intel has a very interesting setup of execution units while Bulldozer appears simple compared to it. There are diminishing returns for more though.

Caching subsystems are more efficient, faster, and built better.

Intel has its own fabs- Intel can make CPUs in-house, and they are ahead of the competition(Global Foundries and TSMC) in process technology. Intel can better design their processors around their own process, or vice versa, than AMD can with GloFo or TSMC.

Hyperthreading- The big difference between the 2600k and 2500k. Each core is shared between two execution threads, which allows better efficiency of the pipeline in general**. A pipeline stall for one thread won't prevent the other thread from executing.
-----
Also AMD has done a different approach with Bulldozer than Intel has with Sandy Bridge's Hyperthreading. A processor has Integer execution units and Floating point units. Bulldozer(AMD's current design) shares a FPU between two integer cores. They also share most of the pipeline for the two integer cores, so scaling isn't as good as if they were separated for 5+ threaded workloads*.

*In an 8 core Bulldozer like the 8150.

** Only in workloads that use more than 4 threads effectively, and also don't use all the resources of the pipeline per thread.
m
0
l
February 20, 2012 12:07:45 PM

chrisht256 said:
You kids... I ask a question about the actual architecture of the chip.. why its so good and you start a flame war... and I know everything you already stated but I wanna know more about the actual architecture design itself but apparently no one here has that kind of knowledge. and apparently the other 80% here don't have any knowledge at all because they are starting a flame war about 2 specific processors for no reason.


Modern CPU architecture is incredibly complex.
Pipeline length, superscalarity, branch prediction, clock rate vs instructions per clock, floating point performance, microcode, number of cores, cache performance and size, fancy stuff like Intel's hyperthreading or AMD's 2-core-modules....
it's all way to complicated to explain in a forum and even more difficult to judge the performance trade-offs of all the choices made when designing a CPU.

Economics and production technology also enter into it. Transistors performance is one thing, but also the fact that AMD is producing considerably bigger chips with considerably more transistors than Intel for the same price.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 20, 2012 12:55:16 PM

chrisht256 said:
You kids... I ask a question about the actual architecture of the chip.. why its so good and you start a flame war... and I know everything you already stated but I wanna know more about the actual architecture design itself but apparently no one here has that kind of knowledge. and apparently the other 80% here don't have any knowledge at all because they are starting a flame war about 2 specific processors for no reason.


You knew the answer because it is by and large rhetoric on here, yet you joined to ask the question in a baiting manner, you can't tell us you never expected it to turn into a flamewar.
m
0
l
February 20, 2012 1:01:41 PM

the funny part s i3 2100 beats FX in gaming most games i know
m
0
l
February 20, 2012 1:05:20 PM

Quote:
pell380 - sup dude.
where ya been.?




busy in final year project :-)


m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 20, 2012 1:45:39 PM

And the Intel vs AMD war rages on - when BF3 came out, I finally decided to upgrade my rig so that I would be able to handle the load. I looked at Intel's 2nd gen i5/i7s and I looked at the AMD FX chips. For me, I needed multitasking for day to day use and some raw muscle for video encoding and gaming. I compared pricing of CPU & Motherboard combinations across both platforms and decided on AMD because the 990FX had the option for 6 SATAIII drives in RAID5. I am currently running on a single Intel Cherryville, I can't imagine how crazy it's going to get when I have the speed and redundancy of multiple drives.

My only buyer's remorse is that they now have a Sandybridge E for around $300. I wanted to get a 2011 socket board for PCIE 3.0 capability but didn't want to spend $600+ on the proc when I didn't need that much power. Oh well - I am happy with the performance I am getting and until the Nvidia 600 Series, I won't need PCIE 3.0.

I am an agnostic when it comes to proc warfare - Intel has definitely stepped their game up with the 2nd gen i5/i7s but I am content with my FX-8150. Touch gloves, fight clean.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 20, 2012 6:09:59 PM

Intel sponsored development in quite a few games lately. Guess what games review sights love to use? All other games are deemed a "gpu bottleneck" because they don't show enough of a difference in performance between Intel and AMD.

Ever wonder why AMD would suck on Intel's own software development? Must mean that AMD just sucks.

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/4350/amd_fx_8150_bulld...

2600k overclocked to 5.2 ghz and 8150 @ 4.76 ghz gives Intel a 1-2 fps advantage in all but 2 games. Only 1 showed a massive difference, bet you can't guess who had their hands in development on that one.

Yep, AMD sure does suck at games since it can't keep up with a 500 mhz faster I7, that 1 fps is totally lag city, can't even use it.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 20, 2012 7:18:51 PM

What a bad benchmark, at 5.2ghz the i7 will become unstable. TH and Anandtech have the better CPU v CPU reviews, the others are better for component reviews. Anandtech and TH have shown a solid 5-10FPS difference between a stock 2600K and a 4.2GHZ 8150 even the 2500 has a little buffer in CPU intensive games.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 20, 2012 10:11:46 PM

There's 5.2ghz stable CPUs out there.

Water FTW!
m
0
l
!