Synchromesh wrote: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.
I agree with flip on this one. I had exclusively AMD cpus in my desktop from 2002 until end of 2011 when Bulldozer came out. After that I promptly went to Microcenter and bought my first Intel CPU (for main desktop) in almost 10 years. With a couple of tweaks it's running 4.5GHz which is pretty impressive for a $180 chip. Don't see the point in getting AMD any longer, unless you're on a super tight budget.
clone wrote:3 years ago almost every cpu overclocked quite a bit, a $200 cpu and mobo would overclock quite nicely, Intel has certainly killed that and left a $400 position just to get started.
Jason181 wrote:You might want to re-check that gaming performance. Even an FX-8150 can't keep up with an i3-2100 in Battlefield 2: Bad Company and Civ V. The 8150 gets a slight win in F1 2010, and only really dominates one gaming benchmark (Metro 2033) in the Tech Report's Bulldozer review.
That might seriously change your value proposition for BD and gaming. The fact that games are so gpu-restrained much of the time just accentuates BD's poor gaming performance.
I wanted BD to be great (especially as a gamer) because I do agree that it would be nice to have a <$100 good overclocking alternative to Intel's $220 bottom-of-the-line overclocking chip.
You're thread jacking; I don't think you're doing it intentionally, but you're having a different conversation than this started as. The thread did not start off as a discussion of what the best budget CPU is. I suggest you start another thread for that. That's definitely an interesting discussion and the answer is probably going to be something other than i5 2500, but that is not the discussion being had here. This thread has been about performance, and the original post put forth the idea that a performance-based case could be made for purchasing FX-6100 CPU if you are opposed to buying Intel's stuff.clone wrote:doing it on a budget i5 2500k as mentioned gobbles up too much of that budget. you are pushing what Intel pushes which is that CPU is wonderful for everything and no expense need be spared which as mentioned is wrong.
Back on topic, the bottom line is that you shouldn't try to fool yourself into thinking that an FX processor is going to keep up with the SB processors. If you want to buy an AMD processor and stick with "team AMD" don't try to justify it or find outlier benchmarks to make a dubious case, just be at peace with it. It's your money, do what you want with it.
pikaporeon wrote:The issue is that when people state they're sticking with AMD for ideological reasons or otherwise you have implied stupidity for this belief. Beyond that I think everyone knows by now SB is better, but it almost seems as though people assume BD can't do anything / can't offer any kind of reasonable performance at all in a vaccuum, and that is incorrect.
pikaporeon wrote:it almost seems as though people assume BD can't do anything / can't offer any kind of reasonable performance at all in a vaccuum, and that is incorrect.
clone wrote:you are looking at a P67 chipset or better for SB overclocking, the cheapest I found was $119 then tack on a "k" series sandy bridge for the freed up multiplier and that sits at $250+, taxes and ship put that over $400.00 killing it as a viable option not because the cpu is bad but because it's way overkill and the mobo overall is simply too expensive when working below $1000 as an out the door budget.
I've not once said that the i5 2500k is a bad cpu, anyone throwing money at a problem will inevitably get something that works.... but doing it on a budget i5 2500k as mentioned gobbles up too much of that budget.
you are pushing what Intel pushes which is that CPU is wonderful for everything and no expense need be spared which as mentioned is wrong.
also on a side note I mentioned comparable for the time, I'm not directly comparing 3 year old tech against todays, I'm comparing what was available at the time then to today...... please no more shortsighted comments about what's available today is faster because that would be an exceptionally stupid comparison.
I don't think the 2500k gobbles up too much if you can find places that will pricematch Microcenter. My brother was able to get NCIX to pricematch the $179 2500k + $50 off any motherboard. ($100 for a Gen3 P67, sub $100 for Gen3 Z68.) Honestly, that's the best deal out there even on a budget.
see now that's just naughty, I just priced checked i5 2500k last thursday and nowhere was it selling for under $239.99 and their was no $50 off on mobo, thanks for the info that's a great find.
I can't disagree at $300 i5 2500k is almost worth sacrificing an SSD or waiting and scraping more coin together but at $400 I don't even see it as an option.
Perhaps this thread could use some splitting. In continuing futility I will again mention that the discussion of a "budget build" is off the topic of this thread. But it's worth going further and saying the whole discussion of what constitutes a "budget build" is worthless. All price points you can come up with are completely arbitrary. $400 is just as arbitrary as $200 is just as arbitrary as $600. Every budget is unique; so all discussions of whether or not an i5 2500 K costs too much are completely dependent upon individual circumstances and are therefore completely impossible to address with a general statement. Coming up with a magical $400 price point is an attempt to gather a whole group of unique individual budgets under one roof in order to be able to make a general statement, but that's disingenuous. For any conversation that starts out considering the i5 2500, it's already implicit that the i5 2500 fits in the budget, for any conversation that starts out saying the i5 2500 is too expensive then you're clearly working below that.bru_05 wrote:I don't think the 2500k gobbles up too muchclone wrote:taxes and ship put [SB + mobo] over $400.00 killing it as a viable option
clone wrote:NCIX.com rules!!!!Yeah it's a sweet deal. They've had it going on for a long time now too. Since October at least... 2500k($180)/2600k ($270) + $50 off any motherboard. Gotta buy it in store from Microcenter though, so if you don't have one or don't know anyone near one you are out of luck. I'm not sure how my brother got NCIX to pricematch it, but he did. You could always try that too.
been dealing with them for 13 years.Flip-Mode you are the problem, no one else is.Flip-Mode wrote:Perhaps this thread could use some splitting. In continui.....all discussions of whether or not an i5 2500 K costs too much are completely dependent upon individual circumstances and are therefore completely impossible to address
2nd point, FX 6100 costs less than i5 that's not arbitrary, you lack on interest in certain metrics is as arbitrary as your wish to focus on only the path you want to see.
continuing to quote only to cry thread jacking is a problem, I'm not going to bother with this any further because it is as claimed.
morphine wrote:I think everyone's made their point here. Please continue on-topic and save me the trouble of splitting this
I don't disagree with this because at sub $50 who cares... really, i5 2500k is the better choice by far.
BUT I just found an Asus AM3+ mobo that supports FX for $61.99 and an FX 6100 for $148.99 putting the price around $210.00 and that's a difference worth consideration... that's an SSD or a step up in video or an additional 8gb's of ram.
in the end I don't believe their is a huge mistake to be made, I just reread TechReports review of Bulldozer and while not as great a gamer cpu as I wish it were FX isn't that horrible, and I5 2500k isn't as great as I thought it was.
if you take a look at Metro 2033 gaming results all processors suck, the minimum frames are terrible across the board and when you discount those results FX while not great is ok albeit i5 2500k is better.
Users browsing this forum: clocks and 1 guest