^^^ you serious I could post benchmark after benchmark showing the differences in gaming but most people here understand and have seen the differences.
not really the sopranos represents it a bit better. see your the one who wanted to name call and put people down and all the while asking for help.:wanker:
hey bro I noticed you did not make any friends here yet bro (wonders why). but I am willing to add you to my friend list so you do not look like the complete loser you are. just say the word
Neither of you seem to get it, I dont need your help to understand how these processors stack up against each other. This isn't about what processor is better than the next. But you either choose to ignore that or are just obtuse. A bunch of the guys posting on this thread have contributed to the conversation, however they are not named cowie or tommyk. edit- hahaha, what a loser dude, I'm not here to "make friends". I use forums to read what other people have to say. Unlike some people I have friends that I can actually hang out with, not just send text to.
At stock and at apps that use up to 2 cores, the i3 2100 would beat an X4 or X6. It's the overclocking and apps that can use up to 6 cores that will benefit.
Well if you came here looking for sympathy on whether you should still buy AMD even though there's absolutely no sensible reason to then you're not going to get it, the vast majority of posters have already made that clear. Now how about you stop attacking other posters who all made reasonable points, but clearly didn't agree with your mindset, and either accept the overwhelming truth or it's obvious where this thread is headed and quite likely you'll find yourself under the ban hammer.
I'm wondering why you're even involving yourself in this BlackZero. edit- Aslo, I never said anything about only buying AMD.. What i've said is that im considering not buying them for my next upgrade because of where the company seems to be headed. Btw, back when AMD was on top I bought Intel cpu's.. Its just a choice that I make because simply put, I'm not that concerned with having the ABSOLUTE fastest hardware so long as what I have does the job.
well I could just load up my ancient qx9650 rig at 4ghz and have the same performance. that is the point I am making. its old technology. and the newer amd technology cant even compare to a 6 core overclocked thuban gaming wise.
Because you're wrong, TK and Cowie are highly knowledgeable and respected members on this forum and shouldn't have to put up with your name calling.
you labeled yourself.... you clearly said you'd rather buy AMD even though it's not the best choice and you know this.. that's the definition of a 'fanboy' which is no different from 'AMDer for life'. You then proceeded to, and continue with petty name calling, if anything you started the trolling and have continued to do so.
Benchmarks done at a resolution most people actually use for gaming like 1920x1080 or higher like these? http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sandy-bridge-core-i7-2600k-core-i5-2500k,2833-18.html http://www.au-ja.de/review-intel-core-i7-2600k-core-i5-2500k-22.phtml http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/arti...i5-2500K-and-Core-i7-2600K-CPU-Review/1402/13 http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1501/20/ Doesn't look like that big of a difference to me. Edit: http://www.overclocker-sclub/reviews/amd_fx8150/9.htm remove the "-"
do you want me to post legitimate comparisons? not like the gpu bound metro 2033 where all cpu`s are within 1 or 2 frames what about some cpu bound games like BFBC2? SC2? got any of those?
Both games were already part of the computerbase review I posted earlier. It seems to me that at these resolutions most games are gpu bound. You did read the entire reviews not just the pages I linked to?
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/...core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/20 http://www.hardcoreware.net/intel-sandy-bridge-performance-review/6/ http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/203?vs=287 http://guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150--8120-6100-and-4100-performance-review/10 last one is from Hilbert
All done at low or extremely low resolutions. Who still games at 1024x768? By the way you seem to have missed this snippet from one of your own links: "I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. In terms of gaming performance, the CPU is not nearly as significant as the video card being used. Not even close. In order to get anything more than a marginal performance difference in these tests, we have to crank down the quality to the point where you might as well not be playing the games at all. Edit: In the Crysis 2 the 2600k beats the Phenom x4 by 1 FPS at 1080p. Only FarCry 2 shows a clear advantage. Though at 96 FPS the game is still very playable.
