| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 119091 | 2011-07-04 10:20:00 | i5 2400 and 2500k vs amd 975b.e. | jareemon (5207) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1214700 | 2011-07-04 10:20:00 | Both the 2400 and the 975 are the same price and quad core. i5 is 3.1ghz, has turbo boost but with a locked multiplier. 975 is 3.6ghz, with unlocked multiplier. 975 also has more cache than the 2400. So, if one wanted to spend $300 or less on a cpu for gaming, amd would be the best option, yes? i5 has gpu onboard (useless when using discreet gpu) and smaller manufacturing process @32nm, 975 at 45nm. For an extra $50 you could get the 2500k and beat the 975. My question: how much more gaming performance would you get with a 2500k clocked at 4ghz compared to a 975be clocked at 4ghz? With that in mind, how worthwhile is it, in your opinion, to spend the extra $50 on the 2500k? :pf1mobmini: |
jareemon (5207) | ||
| 1214701 | 2011-07-04 10:58:00 | Without doubt Intel is king at the moment.. Both the 2400 and 2500 should be more than a match for even the 6-core Phenoms. :( I'd pay the extra $50... Edit: Hahaha... This is so much worse than I thought... www.anandtech.com |
Cato (6936) | ||
| 1214702 | 2011-07-04 11:33:00 | I doubt the AMD overclocked at 4G would do more than match either of the others at stock, intels lead is that big. The budget i3's even beat the 6 core AMD in many gaming benchmarks. AMD is for budget, intel is for performance. Unless and until the next gen AMD kicks some serious butt they just aren't in the running for serious gaming machines. |
dugimodo (138) | ||
| 1214703 | 2011-07-04 12:44:00 | you'll notice, though, that the 945 is higher frequency than the 6 core amds, thats why I'm specifically refering to amd's fastest quad core :pf1mobmini: |
jareemon (5207) | ||
| 1214704 | 2011-07-04 13:04:00 | 2400 will still beat the 975 9 out of 10 times. | Cato (6936) | ||
| 1214705 | 2011-07-04 13:26:00 | Rule of thumb USED to be that AMD was a great processor for game play while Intel was great at number crunching and was a work horse. Since being on this board, peoples views are much of the above posts, AMD just doesnt seem to perform against the Intel at the moment which I find interesting. I've always been an Intel person, so if I was to recommend a CPU to you, it would be Intel and would probably be an i7. :thumbs: |
Iantech (16386) | ||
| 1214706 | 2011-07-04 13:46:00 | Rule of thumb USED to be that AMD was a great processor for game play while Intel was great at number crunching and was a work horse. Since being on this board, peoples views are much of the above posts, AMD just doesnt seem to perform against the Intel at the moment which I find interesting. I've always been an Intel person, so if I was to recommend a CPU to you, it would be Intel and would probably be an i7. :thumbs: So everyone needs an i7? |
Snorkbox (15764) | ||
| 1214707 | 2011-07-04 14:10:00 | So everyone needs an i7? If the choices were between an i5 or a little extra to get an i7, I would recommend an i7 sure. Hyperthreaded 4 cores is better than non-hyperthreaded 4 cores IMO. |
Iantech (16386) | ||
| 1214708 | 2011-07-04 14:15:00 | If the choices were between an i5 or a little extra to get an i7, I would recommend an i7 sure. Hyperthreaded 4 cores is better than non-hyperthreaded 4 cores IMO. Agreed. For a while there I thought you were going to send me an i7 just as everyone needs one. :) |
Snorkbox (15764) | ||
| 1214709 | 2011-07-06 08:49:00 | so if I was to recommend a CPU to you, it would be Intel and would probably be an i7. :thumbs: which i7, there's some pretty average ones out there... |
icow (15313) | ||
| 1 | |||||