i5 2500K and i7 2600K for CoD

Oldschool61 · #1 03-10-2011, 04:15 PM

Quote:

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 · #2 03-10-2011, 04:21 PM

Excuse me if this sounds a bit rude,

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

Tacoma74 · #3 03-10-2011, 04:30 PM

Quote:

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 · #4 03-10-2011, 04:50 PM

Quote:

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.

#5 03-10-2011, 04:54 PM

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

Kikuchiyo · #6 03-10-2011, 05:02 PM

Quote:

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.

T}{OR · #7 03-10-2011, 05:05 PM

Again, I fail to see the logic behind Oldschool61's posts. What are we talking about here and what is this forum/subforum about?

Hoping to achieve 150 FPS with CoD is pretty optimistic IMO.

Oldschool61 · #8 03-10-2011, 05:25 PM

Quote:

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

TheGrunch · #9 03-10-2011, 05:28 PM

Is err...is that likely to happen?

kendo65 · #10 03-10-2011, 05:39 PM

The Sandy Bridge processors are considerably more powerful than current AMD ones. The extra processing power 'headroom' gives a degree of extra future-proofing over the AMD and may result in systems using the intel's being able to handle future demands (in COD and elsewhere) better than the AMD.

For me, the price difference between an AMD and an i5-2500K is not an issue. The intel is well within budget for my upgrade. The extra performance certainly makes the 2500K the current 'sweet spot'

(I got hauled over the coals for using that term 'future-proofing' in a previous post - but it makes sense to build a system that has as much headroom to deal with future needs as you can afford. )

Also Oldschool 61, we can all see that you have an AMD fixation - but the OP did make clear that he wasn't interested. It's a bit disrespectful to keep harping on and on and on.

For myself - I did consider Bulldozer as an option, so I'm not some Intel fanboy, but as I want the new system to play COD - in 2 weeks - and Bulldozer won't be out until June...