i5 2500K and i7 2600K for CoD

[NLS61]

Hi, I’ve just build my new price sensible rig.
I’ve chosen to go for i5 2500k on an ASUS P8P67evo
Video is a MSI twin frzer 560 ti
Both the 2500k and MSI will over clock easily.
The ASUS software makes the oc ing of the 2500K easy as cake.
The system has run stable at 4,7 MHz to be sure ive put a great big Mugen cooler from Scythe on top of it.’ Which keeps it at a unbelievable 37 degrees C at that speed.
Be sure to visit Toms hardware http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...on,2866-4.html and their remarks about buying an i7 2600k .
And do price check on tweakers.net.

Greetz,

Niels

[PeterPanPan]

I've just takewn delivery of a new rig with i7 2600 and am mightily impressed with it. It plays IL2 like a dream (as you'd expect) and ROF with all sliders to the max with silky smooth frame rates. Check out the benchmark results yourself and you'll see that the i7 2600 gives loads of bang for your buck compared with other high end processors.

PPanPan

[T}{OR]

Originally Posted by PeterPanPan

I've just takewn delivery of a new rig with i7 2600 and am mightily impressed with it. It plays IL2 like a dream (as you'd expect) and ROF with all sliders to the max with silky smooth frame rates. Check out the benchmark results yourself and you'll see that the i7 2600 gives loads of bang for your buck compared with other high end processors.

PPanPan

True. But game performance wise - pretty much the same as i5 2500k.

Originally Posted by NLS61

Would be a good comment if processor power is only aubout frame rates.

That.

[Oldschool61]

Originally Posted by NLS61

Hi, I’ve just build my new price sensible rig.
I’ve chosen to go for i5 2500k on an ASUS P8P67evo
Video is a MSI twin frzer 560 ti
Both the 2500k and MSI will over clock easily.
The ASUS software makes the oc ing of the 2500K easy as cake.
The system has run stable at 4,7 MHz to be sure ive put a great big Mugen cooler from Scythe on top of it.’ Which keeps it at a unbelievable 37 degrees C at that speed.
Be sure to visit Toms hardware http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...on,2866-4.html and their remarks about buying an i7 2600k .
And do price check on tweakers.net.

Greetz,

Niels

Actually a sensible price would have been with AMD not Intel. Remember if your LCD refresh rate is 60hz you wont get over 60 fps so saying you get 150 fps with intel versus 125 with AMD is pointless.

[NLS61]

Actually a sensible price would have been with AMD not Intel. Remember if your LCD refresh rate is 60hz you wont get over 60 fps so saying you get 150 fps with intel versus 125 with AMD is pointless.

Would be a good comment if processor power is only aubout frame rates.

[Oldschool61]

Originally Posted by NLS61

Would be a good comment if processor power is only aubout frame rates.

It actually is but you dont seem to understand what overall performance is. II try to explain it simply so you can understand it... Your monitor can only display 60 fps max if your refresh rate is 60hz..are you still with me... now if your cpu/gpu combo gets an average of 150 fps with intel and 100 fps with amd which one will have the best fps on your 60 hz monitor???? They will both get 60 fps because your monitor restricts your fps to the refresh rate. Any questions?? So if you pay 1200 for an intel system that gets "60fps" actual frame rate and you pay 800 for amd which gets "60fps" which one has the better fps?

[T}{OR]

Excuse me if this sounds a bit rude,

what part of "if processor power is only about frame rates" wasn't understandable?

[Tacoma74]

Originally Posted by T}{OR

Excuse me if this sounds a bit rude but,

what part of "if processor power is only about frame rates" wasn't understandable?

+1

Besides, the guy says he's buying Intel anyways. I'm sure that you (Oldschool) aren't going to change his mind. You are correct about the correlation between your monitors refresh rate and your overall FPS. However, with a game that needs as much processing power as it can get, the Sandy Bridge will blow the doors off ANY current AMD product. It's not that we're not listening... we just have selective hearing

[Oldschool61]

Originally Posted by Tacoma74

+1

Besides, the guy says he's buying Intel anyways. I'm sure that you (Oldschool) aren't going to change his mind. You are correct about the correlation between your monitors refresh rate and your overall FPS. However, with a game that needs as much processing power as it can get, the Sandy Bridge will blow the doors off ANY current AMD product. It's not that we're not listening... we just have selective hearing

If your game/sim gets 150fps with one cpu and 100 with another what fps is diplayed on your monitor?? 60 fps or 150fps. Your gameplay will be limited to a maximum of your refresh rate, so yes in theory your intel processes faster than the amd but unless your monitor has an unlimited refresh rate your always be limited to 60 fps which translates to your actual max fps weather your cpu does 100 or 200 is irrelavent as you only get 60fps. Once you exceed your monitors capability its just wasted fps in a sense. SO your gameplay will be the same weather its 150 fps with intel or 100 with amd as they both will display the same 60 FPS.

[NLS61]

Originally Posted by Oldschool61

It actually is but you dont seem to understand what overall performance is. II try to explain it simply so you can understand it... Your monitor can only display 60 fps max if your refresh rate is 60hz..are you still with me... now if your cpu/gpu combo gets an average of 150 fps with intel and 100 fps with amd which one will have the best fps on your 60 hz monitor???? They will both get 60 fps because your monitor restricts your fps to the refresh rate. Any questions?? So if you pay 1200 for an intel system that gets "60fps" actual frame rate and you pay 800 for amd which gets "60fps" which one has the better fps?

Oh man,

Yes i follow now i'm over London chasing a 100 plus bogies then i want the faster of the two posibilities.
So I bought the most price sencible in the performance curve.
Furthermore you are assuming that I have a monitor that does 60 refresh rate.
You assume right but do you know the resolution?. I might be at 2550x1600
As it is i'm not because I would have bought a 580 card.
I Understand quit a lot a bout performance but also a bout what wich performance cost on the polar.
So what is sencible priced and what is not is a price performance equasion.
You might argue that my system is not the best price performance one can get probably that is where your AMD system scores.
I want a system that scores high on the performance curve without costing "me" an arm and a leg.
At under 600 euros this system does that.
In the end we will see who's got it right.
See you over London,

Greetz,

Niels