So, that's all of the ones I'm currently looking at. Now, I was kind of all set on an Intel, but from benchmarks I've been looking at, it seems like for almost ANY games currently out, the FX-8150 produces better performance than any of the Intel chips, where, on the other hand, the Intel chips beat the AMD in almost everything else that isn't a game.
So, would it be smarter for me to go with an AMD CPU and save a bit of money, since I don't really use any of the programs that Intel actually outperforms the AMD CPU on.
Also, I've seen that if you're mostly a gamer, then if you do go Intel your best choice is the Intel i5 as you will see NO benefit from an i7, and will just be wasting your money, unless you do extensive photo/video editing, and the like.
Anyway, just looking to some others for any possible advice on the subject. The rest of my build will probably be:
-Crucial M4 128GB SSD (Main Drive)
-WD VelociRaptor 10,000RPM 300GB (Slave Drive)
-WD 7,200PM 1TB (Slave Drive)
-16GB's 1600MHz Corsair Memory
-EVGA GTX 580 (Possibly a second one for SLI in the future)
-Cooler Master 1200W PSU
-Mobo either 990FX (for AMD) or Z77 (for Intel)
I just don't want to regret my decision down the road so any help would be greatly appreciated.
I would get i5 2500k, and give nice o/c to 4.5ghz with hyper 212 cooler.
Many years of happy gaming.
Ivybridge chips have smaller die, so can't get rid of heat as efficiently as sandybridge chips, there advantage is better on board gpu, so better for laptops, systems not being overclocked, i5 2500k is still gaming chip of choice.
The i5-2500K is the sweet spot of performance-per-dollar. Anything more is excessive so there's no reason outside of bragging rights to get an i7 and the Ivy Bridge chips you listed aren't worth the extra money.
The FX series of AMD processors is pretty much pointless, their performance is in many cases worse than their predecessors, let alone the Intel chips you listed. The reason they succeed in games is because of their high number of cores but you have to keep in mind that a slow performing chip in an OS not designed to take advantage of the extra cores will reduce your overall experience.
And though the metrics the Intel chips outperform the AMD ones are synthetic, they indicate better performance in everything else that isn't able to take advantage of that many cores. That means startup speed, application startup speed, web browsing, picture editing, and every other task that a user performs each day.
So basically, if you've got the coin (which it looks like you do), get the i5-2500K.
You could also wait for a comparable Ivy Bridge chip to come out to see if it stacks up, but it may not.
I suspect the benchmarks you looked at did not use a discrete graphics cards but instead used just the on-chip graphics that comes bundled with the cpu/apu. Once you throw a discrete graphics card into the mix the intel chips leaves the AMD chip behind in a metaphorical cloud of dust.
Nope just enable xmp profile in bios, is enough to set ram to 1600mhz.
Just make sure buy 1.5v ram, and anything over 1.575v is considered to high and may damage cpu over time.
Low profile ram is also good, as cooler will sit over top of ram sticks. http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MY... i use this very nice ram and clears my hypere 212 cooler
Oh, and one more question I didn't think to mention. IIRC, the Sandy Bridge chips only support up to 1333MHz RAM by default. Is it a hard process to overclock your RAM up to 1600MHz?
Thanks again for any replies!
Little late to this answer I appologize. No, it is not very difficult to overclock ram sold as 1600mhz or higher to that speed. On most boards its as simple as going into the bios and switching a multiplier. It's different on each board but assuming your RAM is actually 1600+ and is simply being clocked lower, it is that simple a process.