Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Flying Fox, morphine
flip-mode wrote:I don't care if you HATE Intel with every neuron in your skull, outside of rare cases the 2500K is the only sensible desktop processor to buy
pikaporeon wrote:flip-mode wrote:I don't care if you HATE Intel with every neuron in your skull, outside of rare cases the 2500K is the only sensible desktop processor to buy
Uh, what?
I mean it's not as if an FX-6100 can't do anything, it still performs fine, just not as fine as Intel does - if people are ideologically opposed to Intel or any of their practices, it's not senseless to boycott them as there is a product that can still fit their needs - albeit potentially not as well, but to suggest that there is no sensible alternative, you MUST get a 2500K, is just bad reasoning.
flip-mode wrote:I've had only AMD in my systems for over a decade now. I'm currently still rocking the X4 955 and it does everything I need just fine (on DDR2 no less). But if you're buying today, I stand by what I said.
Synchromesh wrote:Don't see the point in getting AMD any longer, unless you're on a super tight budget.
Welch wrote:A
Ohh, one last thing. Don't put any stock in those synthetic benchmarks. They seem to be very full of it from all of the reviews I've seen. One site compared the I5-2500k and the I7-2600k for gaming paired with a 7970 to rule out video card constraints. Synthetic benchmarks showed at times a difference of 30%+ in favor of the 2600k, while real world games damn near maxed out showed literally 0% to a fraction of 1%. The only game showing any appreciable difference was Resident Evil 4 (Don't recall which) at something like 1.8% difference in favor of the 2600k.(
pikaporeon wrote:Welch wrote:A
Ohh, one last thing. Don't put any stock in those synthetic benchmarks. They seem to be very full of it from all of the reviews I've seen. One site compared the I5-2500k and the I7-2600k for gaming paired with a 7970 to rule out video card constraints. Synthetic benchmarks showed at times a difference of 30%+ in favor of the 2600k, while real world games damn near maxed out showed literally 0% to a fraction of 1%. The only game showing any appreciable difference was Resident Evil 4 (Don't recall which) at something like 1.8% difference in favor of the 2600k.(
Worth mentioning is you aren't likely to notice a difference with an FX chip either, so saying not to put stock in synthetic benchmarks is kinda moot.
just brew it! wrote:So for the time being, my answer to the "ditch AMD and go back to Intel or buy a Bulldozer" issue is "none of the above".
just brew it! wrote:That doesn't help anyone that needs to upgrade.I'm currently running a Phenom II X6 that I figure will meet my needs for quite a while yet [...] so my answer to the "ditch AMD and go back to Intel or buy a Bulldozer" issue is "none of the above".
Crayon Shin Chan wrote:Someone else who already has a powerful enough CPU says their powerful enough CPU is powerful enough.As sensible as a 2500K may be, the fact remains that even an old Phenom II X6 is sufficient for anything I'd do... so in that performance range, I'd definitely go AMD on principle.
flip-mode wrote:just brew it! wrote:I'm currently running a Phenom II X6 that I figure will meet my needs for quite a while yet [...] so my answer to the "ditch AMD and go back to Intel or buy a Bulldozer" issue is "none of the above".
That doesn't help anyone that needs to upgrade.
Chrispy_ wrote:If you're gaming, the i5 2500K is the best performance per dollar, performance per watt, has the best overclock headroom, "lowest platform cost per FPS" or whatever metric you want to throw at it.
Should you buy an i5 2500K? No. There are other metrics.
If you want to support AMD, if you want to try something different, if you prefer AMD's upgrade path etc, there are good reasons NOT to buy an i5 2500K. If performance per dollar was the ONLY value that mattered, we'd all be driving around in a Toyota Corolla (I don't actually know that much about cars, but you get the idea. There are good cars and bad cars, but people buy the bad cars for irrelevant things, like looks + performance and freebie extras)
If it were me I'd get a 2500K (Oh look, I already own two) because I'm only interested in framerate and fan noise. You may have other interests and as long as you can justify buying AMD then don't let any other trolls stop you.
clone wrote:The interesting thing about computers is that they can be used for more than games. The 2500K is an excellent gaming CPU, and excellent overclocking CPU, and an excellent CPU in general.i5 2500k won't fit into a $600.00 gaming pc build, it won't fit into a $700.00 gaming pc build, it'd be a poor choice for an $800.00 gaming pc build at best ... even at a $900 budget it'd be a tough sell. i5 2500k + motherboard after taxes exceeds $400.00 and really isn't a decent option for gaming under the $1000 budget, just too many other alternatives leaving it as a poor option.
so there, I just threw the metrics that actually matter at i5 2500k and it failed horribly in every one because by the $1000 mark gaming on PC just plain isn't worth it and I'd go Xbox 360 or PS3 instead.
Chrispy_ wrote:If you want to support AMD, if you want to try something different, if you prefer AMD's upgrade path etc, there are good reasons NOT to buy an i5 2500K. If performance per dollar was the ONLY value that mattered, we'd all be driving around in a Toyota Corolla (I don't actually know that much about cars, but you get the idea. There are good cars and bad cars, but people buy the bad cars for irrelevant things, like looks + performance and freebie extras)