TKC (The Killing Committee) Forum

Is it better for NOTHING but gaming, nothing other then GAMING, is it better to get a good 6-Core i7 (Probably the 960) or an i5 2600K Quad core? Price is not an issue.

Sandybridge can process items (including gaming) faster then Nehalem. Those 6-core are really just for show and unless u do a lot of 3D CAD or a lot of After Effects but for gaming (or until the games start supporting 6 cores multithreading), the i5 is planty fast for gaming.
Since money is not an issue, I'd wait like 4 months, Intel is coming out with 6-core sandybridge (Called SandyBridge-E)..Those are gunna be fast and priced at $294 (quad unlocked), $583(hexa unlocked), $999(hexa extreme). With Sandybridge-E, it is suppose to include the X79 Chipset, native SATA3, USB3 and PCI-E 3.0 Support.

Yeah I may have said price is not an issue, but I've never been one to go for a extreme processor, also since it seems to have a different chipset it would mean reconfiguring my entire system, guess I stick to the Sandy Quads =P

6 cores would be better like that you will be ready for any thing or the new games.

Don't forget AMD will be releasing their 8-core chips pretty soon for the price of an Intel quad. Who knows how many cores BF3 will be able to use, especially with all of the new physics processing power it will need.

Yeah but with that being said, it would probably perform on par with an Intel quad. My 955 Black Edition performs on par with a Core 2 Extreme in gaming. If I got an i5-2500k Sandy Bridge it would beat any AMD processor currently on the market, and probably half of the Bulldozer lineup.

Wasnt bulldozer supposed to come out in april? AMD needs to get with the game.

Do you have any idea when it 's going to come out

No they announced it in April and said late 2011 would be the release.

Don't forget, I play BC2 Maxed out and my CPU Usage is only less then 60% on a Core 2 Quad Q6700.

BTW:
I'm NEVER Getting an AMD CPU:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-gaming-performance,3007-5.html

So you 're saying intel is better and will always better, i just want to know what you think about that.

I remember them saying in February that it would be out in April, but then it never came, until they released some info in June or something.

Let me clear this up...AMD is good if you are JUST gaming...that's it. Nothing more than gaming, AMD is fine. What I'm getting into now (using FRAPS and doing a lot of video editing) requires a LOT more CPU power than games require. I get massive dips in my fps when I record with FRAPS...extreme cases I have dropped down to 2-4 fps and stayed there until I stopped recording.



Another point there. My 955 Black Edition nearly maxes out when I'm playing BC2 on max settings, whereas ME's C2Q is only at 60%, and his CPU is a few years older than mine. Use that chart ME linked to, it'll really help you decide.

I wanted to have Me's opinions about it.

About what?

Crimson pretty much summed it up. AMD is great if you want a budget build and only do gaming, whereas if you want more power (seeing as I do photoshop, After effects and a bit of 3Ds Max) such as Fraps to record, you need Intel. I recently built an i3-2100 for a friend, and ohhhh does that thing ever have power...

But if you want me deep thoughts on it, here it is:
Here is an example:

You can get a core i5-2500k and an AMD 6-core for roughly the same price, correct?
i5 is built using a 32nm process, Thuban is build using a 45 nm process.
On a die (because it is length x width), 32nm = 1024nm2, on amd, 45nm = 20252
Since the transistors are bigger in the AMD, it takes the CPU longer to compute along with sucking up more power.

Note: I have no idea how to show the squared 2 in the upper right hand corner...

Another example is (Linked in with the first):
Intel core i3 and AMD quad core are roughly the same price, correct?
Now, this is a little harder to explain, so bare with me..
The core i3 is able to compute things quicker then the AMD. Meaning that it can computer gaming and EVERY DAY TASKS a lot faster. Has anyone ever heard of Microsoft Word being able to use up 4 core? Why not just get an i3, where its able to computer the binary faster. Because of the Die size being smaller and many other factors that affect it such as turbo boost. Turbo boost will OC 1 or 2 cores on the computer if it senses that a program is only single threaded. (or if your computer needs a boost)
But when it comes to gaming... the games will make great use of all 4 cores in the AMD chip. But with the i3, the 2 cores are able to compute faster, making it the clear choice. Oh and you still think that isn't enough power... Don't forget that the i3 is hyperthreaded. So it is a dual core chip, but it has 4 threads, meaning that in some senarios, you can computer 2 sets of binaries using one core... pretty sweet huh? ... That means if u use fraps + BC2 on an i3, if it is processing similar binaries, it will just process them together. (Yes, I realize this isn't EXACTLY how HT is defined, but you can read up more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-threading)

On top of all this, Why don't we just stick to Intel, the people who created the x86 platform... Did you know that for every processor AMD builds, they have to pay Intel a royalty for using the x86 platform?

Also, What i find pretty sad with that graph i showed earlier is that the i3-sandybridge is rated in the HIGHER ROW then the AMD 6-Core Thuban...Cmon...Really Now?... 2 Cores > 6 Cores?

Honestly, after saying all this, I find that Intel is faster in all scenarios..
Pretty sad...AMD may be 2 cores ahead then Intel for the same price but think about it..Are you really gaining any performance benefit?