i5 2500K and i7 2600K for CoD

[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.

with your AMD low budget stuff you will have lower minimum fps and that is what counts.

[Kikuchiyo]

Originally Posted by Hecke

with your AMD low budget stuff you will have lower minimum fps and that is what counts.

If I could afford the new Intel stuff I would. They are honestly better in pretty much every way, but I bought a quad core AMD Phenom 2 3.1 ghz because it is a huge boost over what I have now, and I can afford it.

Next year my wife tells me I get to go nuts with building a new machine, so it will tide me over for now.

If you can afford the Intel "i" processors go for it, but if you can't the AMD processors are a good match for price to performance.

[Oldschool61]

Originally Posted by Hecke

with your AMD low budget stuff you will have lower minimum fps and that is what counts.

The point was that if your amd and intel both get a minimum of >60 fps then you wont see any difference

[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

[Codex]

Originally Posted by NLS61

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

Respect to all those who upgraded now but NLS61's comment is exactly why I would wait until CoD is out.

I've got a nagging suspicion that as soon as we fly over London <paste Tree_UK's comments here > with some medium amount of objects the frames will drop dramatically. Just like with the Crysis euphoria in 2007, people upgraded before the game was out, mainly to have more GPU power, but when released the game just bought any system to it's knees.

With CoD I think it's going be CPU intensive and the 2500k and 2600k may not be enough, don't get wrong it's a great CPU, but a lot of what the reviewer sites base their comparisons and recommendations on are on games that are 12 months old or older and are GPU limited not CPU.

I hope I'm wrong but my male intuition is acting like my cautious wife telling me to wait.