Intel Core i7-2600K 3.4ghz vs AMD Phenom II X4 975 Black Edition3.6GHz

[togerland]

I wanna build a new computer currently running intel duo core 2 2.4ghz iMac. I prob would not be building a new computer in it if I could upgrade the video card in it but I cant.

The price between these cpus is 170.... I dont see where my current 2.4ghz computer ever maxes out on cpu when browser the internet etc. I would like to be able to play starcraft 2 at full settings so I was thinking of spending the extra 170 dollars on a better video card if I go with the AMD one. What do you guys think?

[Astra.Xtreme]

Go with an i5-2500K and you can overclock the hell out of it if you want.

Then spend the extra money, as you said, on a better GPU.

[Motoko.]

i3 2100

[togerland]

How do these 2 compare to the amd one?

[Motoko.]

How do these 2 compare to the amd one?

The i3 2100 is priced similar to the Phenom II but it destroys the AMD in games, media, and other applications. It also uses less energy. The 2500K is really the sweet spot in CPUs but since its not in your price range the i3 2100 retains the kind of performance you'll need to play todays games.

[togerland]

Thanks do you think games depend more on better GPU then a cpu?

[Ambroos]

Try to stay away from AMD CPU's, they really don't have the bang for buck right now, AMD screwed some things up.

Thanks do you think games depend more on better GPU then a cpu?

Games depend mostly on the GPU, but you need to make sure your CPU isn't a bottleneck. But if you get the i3 2100 people are recommending and combine it with a good GPU (for example the nVidia GTX560Ti) you should be just fine to play about everything.

[Astra.Xtreme]

The Intel CPUs spank that AMD pretty hard:

http://www.guru3d.com/article/phenom-ii-x4-975-black-edition-review/1

Take a look at the benchmark pages.

Even with the phenom overclocked by a lot, the i5 still beats it.

The i5 is around $50 more expensive, but I think that extra is justified by the performance gain.

The i7 is about $100 more expensive than the i5, but it won't have as much of a real-world gain unless you do video encoding.

Even so, you can easily overclock the i5 to 4.5Ghz on air and get a sizeable speed increase.

[Astra.Xtreme]

The i3 2100 is priced similar to the Phenom II but it destroys the AMD in games, media, and other applications. It also uses less energy. The 2500K is really the sweet spot in CPUs but since its not in your price range the i3 2100 retains the kind of performance you'll need to play todays games.

He never mentioned a price range. Plus, if he's asking about an i7, I'd assume he has plenty of money in his budget.

[Motoko.]

Thanks do you think games depend more on better GPU then a cpu?

Some do some don't in either case if you have a game thats more CPU intensive you're gonna have a bottleneck in game performance. Its why I recommended the i3 2100 you'll still have a budget to work with and won't have any performance issues in games if they're CPU intensive

[Motoko.]

He never mentioned a price range. Plus, if he's asking about an i7, I'd assume he has plenty of money in his budget.

He mentions the i5 is a $170 more expensive than the AMD, clearly he's aware about that difference in msrp, so I'm giving him options if he doesn't want a quad core

[togerland]

Thanks everyone still thinking.... I just think 4cpus is over kill especially when most apps can not use that many and its not like ill be running 2 games at once...lol Escpially when my current intel due core intel 2 2.4ghz has never been a bottle neck of anything

[Astra.Xtreme]

Thanks everyone still thinking.... I just think 4cpus is over kill especially when most apps can not use that many and its not like ill be running 2 games at once...lol Escpially when my current intel due core intel 2 2.4ghz has never been a bottle neck of anything

Moving forward, more and more games will be taking advantage of the extra cores. Battlefield has especially been highly CPU dependent for the past few games.

You might as well get a quad core now and pay the extra few bucks, or else you might regret it later.

If it was a $200 difference between the i3 and the i5, I'd be hesitant. But it's only $50 more for an i5-2300 or a little more if you want the better models. So that should honestly be a no brainer.

[togerland]

Does the extra cache with the i7 really matter?

[Open Minded]

Does the extra cache with the i7 really matter?

Not really; it's minimal at best. Not many programs take advantage of the extra threads either, but when they do... it's fast.

[togerland]

Thanks whats the diffence between i5 and i7 when the ghz are the same?

[togerland]

Does the i5 beat the amd FX ones?

[CentralDogma]

Extra cache is more useful than hyperthreading. The extra cache will be taken advantage of by every program while hypethreading will only benefit certain programs.

[Astra.Xtreme]

Thanks whats the diffence between i5 and i7 when the ghz are the same?

This is a pretty good read if you're interested:

http://www.brighthub.com/computing/hardware/articles/48391.aspx

Basically the biggest difference between the i5 and i7 is that the i7 has hyperthreading that mocks another 4 cores. Unless you're doing video encoding or something that will actually utilize that extra processing potential, the difference is pretty minimal.

That's why the i5-2500k has been so popular because you can overclock is really well and actually get a real-world performance boost out of it.

[Site Lab]

i5-2500k

X4 975 is a good chip, but im going to admit it now. The i5 will beat it :p. You could also look at the FX-8150 which seems more on par with the i5/i7, however I read that the FX-4100 is better than the 8150 or something. (and cheaper)

[notuptome2004]

to the OP if you can go with the core i7 2600k that is the chip i have and it is a beast every game i throw at it runs and some of the games i been running of late like BF3 and other will use more then 4 threads-cores more games today and even in the last couple of years has been made to utilize 4 or more thread/scores . Hyperthreading can make a differance in gaming well it has for me anyways as my performance has seen a slight boost but in multitasking it is a damn great CPU to have.

just for reference to your one comment about you wont be running 2 games at once umm no you wont but the games itself are made to use 4 or more cores /threads now days depending on the game the game spreads out task on each CPU or thread

[togerland]

Do you think once that new intel chipset comes out the prices for the sandybridge will drop?

[psionicinversion]

from what ive read the new ivybridges are not that good because theres only a 10% boost in performance over sandybridge BUT if you overclock they get very very hot. think i read that one guy who overclocked ivy bridge cpu (prolly pushing it to the max) ran 90 degrees on water cooling, which is rediculous so best off sticking with sandybridge i reckon.Tri gate transistors are new so theyll prolly have any kinks worked out in the next architecture in a cpl years or so.

sandybridge, 8GB ddr3 1600 mhz ram, and decent gpu will see you good for a while

[Farchord]

Last year, I had a Phenom II X4 955. I changed it for an i7 2600.

Three words: Night and day. Big big difference.

[Invizibleyez]

AMD Does have some decent processors out there. It really depends on your price point and usage need. However, based on what you said, I would recommend spending the extra $50 on a core i5 2500 and spend the leftover $120 or so on GPU. Most games are still GPU intensive. CPU does matter in some games though. One thing you never mentioned is what GPU you are looking at and what monitor you are using. For myself, my Nvidia GTX 550 ti does very well, but I only run at 1680x1050 so I don't run that high of a resolution. Considering my situation, if I had more money I would've bought more GPU and stayed with the same CPU, as my GPU is basically a perfect match for my montior, but I like extra headroom. By the way, my FX6100 breezes through everything just fine. But again, I run at a less than fullHD resolution. Oh and I play Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 and World of warcraft mostly. I hear Battlefield 3 may push my system more, but I don't own it so I don't know.