For those like that to waste money on CPU's for gaming

Krogtheclown

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/amd%E...e-conclusion/3

Andrew Moore · 12-20-2011, 17:21 | posts: 2 | Location: UK

Still wont stop me splashing out on an 3930K

Conan · 12-21-2011, 22:12 | posts: 110

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Moore

Still wont stop me splashing out on an 3930K

why would you wanna buy 3930K if you have 2600k. Jesus Christ!!!

Send me you i5 and i'll be your friend for ever

bouf0010 · 12-20-2011, 17:40 | posts: 441 | Location: Belleville, Ontario

i love how they didnt put the 2500k or 2600k in there.

Redemption80 · 12-20-2011, 19:08 | posts: 13,412 | Location: Glasgow

Yeah, why they picked an i7 920, i have no idea, can't be far off two years old now, and a nice cheap 2500k would do the same.

Strange selection of games, but the few that do respond to a good CPU do show increases, especially when using CF, but its missing games like BF3, GTAIV etc.. which do benefit more than most.

Agent-A01 · 12-20-2011, 19:29 | posts: 5,617 | Location: USA

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redemption80

Yeah, why they picked an i7 920, i have no idea, can't be far off two years old now, and a nice cheap 2500k would do the same.

Strange selection of games, but the few that do respond to a good CPU do show increases, especially when using CF, but its missing games like BF3, GTAIV etc.. which do benefit more than most.

i7 920 is almost 4 years old..

IcE · 12-21-2011, 21:43 | posts: 6,980 | Location: Toledo, Ohio

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent-A01

i7 920 is almost 4 years old..

And performs almost identically to a 2500k at the same clocks...Nehalem is still good, it's not like SB reinvented the wheel.

Regardless though, this article is nonsense.

Agent-A01 · 12-21-2011, 23:44 | posts: 5,617 | Location: USA

Quote:

Originally Posted by ice445

And performs almost identically to a 2500k at the same clocks...Nehalem is still good, it's not like SB reinvented the wheel.

Regardless though, this article is nonsense.

Uh huh, yeah identical...

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/47?vs=288

IcE · 12-21-2011, 23:48 | posts: 6,980 | Location: Toledo, Ohio

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent-A01

Uh huh, yeah identical...

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/47?vs=288

I think you failed comprehension 101. I said they're roughly equal at the SAME CLOCKS.

Virtue · 12-21-2011, 23:52 | posts: 827 | Location: Montreal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent-A01

Uh huh, yeah identical...

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/47?vs=288

Quote:

Originally Posted by ice445

And performs almost identically to a 2500k at the same clocks...Nehalem is still good, it's not like SB reinvented the wheel.

definitely failed comprehension 101

Virtue · 12-22-2011, 00:04 | posts: 827 | Location: Montreal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent-A01

not identical

Quote:

Originally Posted by ice445

almost identically

lol starting to feel bad
game benchs dont show a 22% increase that's for sure

Wrigleyvillain · 12-20-2011, 22:59 | posts: 115 | Location: Chicago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redemption80

Strange selection of games, but the few that do respond to a good CPU do show increases, especially when using CF, but its missing games like BF3, GTAIV etc.. which do benefit more than most.

Yeah my i7 870 at 4Ghz struggles in BF3, 1920x1200 High w/ 2x MSAA. Average fps in perfoverlay is like half of my two 6850s. Min is even worse relatively...

Agent-A01 · 12-20-2011, 19:35 | posts: 5,617 | Location: USA

I think ill just get a 2nd 580 and skip this and kepler and upgrade to w/e nvidia has next.

---TK--- · 12-20-2011, 21:45 | posts: 14,671 | Location: New Jersey, USA

thats my plan too, had theses cards a full year already. and with all the crying going on in the ati driver section, Im a little scared to give them a try

Agent-A01 · 12-20-2011, 23:17 | posts: 5,617 | Location: USA

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommyk2005

thats my plan too, had theses cards a full year already. and with all the crying going on in the ati driver section, Im a little scared to give them a try

So you are skipping kepler? Thats what i said i would do. Anyways i feel the same way about amd

---TK--- · 12-20-2011, 23:34 | posts: 14,671 | Location: New Jersey, USA

thats my plan the low end stuff is coming out first long wait. hope maxwell is on schedule. that was my plan to wait it out for maxwell. I plan on getting a new soundcard, faster ram and a IB and sell one of my SB chips. probably the 2600k

vbetts · *Last edited by vbetts; 12-21-2011 at 16:47.*

Not sure why this is in this section, but gonna move this to the appropriate section.

But on topic now, it's good to spend the extra money on the CPU. Why? You're future proofing! That article proves it right there that! Even in some titles listed in there, the i7 920 despite having a few years on the FX series still can score higher FPS! Now you won't be playing your games at 168 fps constantly, but for games that are cpu intensive even at high resolutions that come out in the near future will benefit from the faster cpu. I love my 435 I have, but if I had to do it all over again I would have easily gotten a Phenom II instead, and overclock it higher than what I can overclock this! I can tell you from experience, it's not a waste of money buying faster and more expensive cpus.

But notice how that article didn't include any Sandybridge cpus?

The Chubu · *Last edited by The Chubu; 12-21-2011 at 18:12.*

Yeah, so Bulldozer has no problem going against first gen core i7? Yeah, great, *pat* *pat* Now, they could test... umm... some current processors? Like A8, 2nd gen i5 and i7, Sandy Bridge-E?

Its like going now about how a i5 2300 trashes a Phenom X4 9850 lol

The article itself says that Phenom II its reaching the end of the line and that Bulldozer pricing is higher than it should be compared against a 2500K.

---TK--- · 12-21-2011, 21:40 | posts: 14,671 | Location: New Jersey, USA

from the looks of that chart I would take the i7 920 and a measly 3.8ghz or 4ghz over any of the other chips.

---TK--- · *Last edited by ---TK---; 12-22-2011 at 01:14.*

SB dual channel if faster than nehlam tri channel. Clock for clock sb is a Tad faster. That not discounting nehlam superiority for the most part of the chart. Its still an excellent chip after all this time. Beating AMD in a lot of those benchmarks. Not too shabby

IcE · *Last edited by IcE; 12-22-2011 at 00:35.*

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommyk2005

SB dual channel if faster than nehlam trial channel. Clock for clock sb is a Tad faster. That not discounting nehlam superiority for the most part of the chart. Its still an excellent chip after all this time. Beating AMD in a lot of those benchmarks. Not too shabby

SB is faster in dual channel? I mean I could be wrong on that, as I haven't looked at the benches in a long time, but it doesn't sound right to me...I'll go look

Yeah I was wrong, write performance is better. Read is about the same though.

hallryu · 12-22-2011, 00:34 | posts: 10,834 | Location: England

My 920 is still holding it's own and I don't see a massive reason to change atm, but I do get envious of the those higher overclocks on SB :'(

---TK--- · 12-22-2011, 00:43 | posts: 14,671 | Location: New Jersey, USA

http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i...600k-review/18
heres an unbiased comparison from the boss

IcE · 12-22-2011, 01:17 | posts: 6,980 | Location: Toledo, Ohio

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommyk2005

http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i...600k-review/18
heres an unbiased comparison from the boss

Yep, that's where I went. I guess I just forgot with time.

---TK--- · 12-22-2011, 01:29 | posts: 14,671 | Location: New Jersey, USA

nehlam is faster than lynnfield clock for clock