Well, there isn't an SSD out there worth your money that costs the difference between the two chips.

But I see where you're coming from. Cut price in one area to raise it in another, and it's really one of the main things you do when building a computer.

It's all about balance though I think. I don't think that the GPU should ever be more expensive than the CPU in a system, simply because the GPU for all intents and purposes is a mono-use component. It does one thing well (video games), but in all other aspects contributes only very small performance boosts. i would rather have the component that's going to be doing the most work for most of the time have a high degree of quality.

This is the same reason I can't abide by cheap PSUs.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/01/03/intel-sandy-bridge-review/10

The only way you wouldn't get better performance with AMD is if you already planned on buying the very best Intel chips. The AMD chips might run warmer, and consume more power, but that doesn't change the fact that you get more performance for your money. I wouldn't go with Intel unless overheating and power consumption are major concerns. Edit: There might be a concern with compatibility though. It really depends on the software you intend to buy. Most won't have a problem.

Every chip listed is close to double the cost of a comparable AMD chip. While the performance never reaches double. Price/performance, AMD wins. Save the cash and buy a better video card with the added 100-200+ dollars you save.

Here is a far more realistic "real world" benchmark of performance differences:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-review-intel-core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/20

Phenom II x6 1100T - $199.99
i5 2500k - $224.99

Obviously this is going nowhere, so I'm done here.

$100-$200 is a pretty big exaggeration on price/performance ratio, but whatever. I don't see why this is surprising. I don't think it has a whole lot to do with AMD vs. Intel, though. Intel has always been able to charge a bit more, but bleeding-edge performers are always disproportionately expensive compared to high-mid and midrange performers.

I didn't recommended that chip. I showed one that was $70 dollars cheaper with similar performance. The $100 dollar difference could net him a better video card for the same price, which will give better Frame rates than a good cpu coupled with a lesser video card.

That's the point, and here is a cost anolysis to show that I am indeed correct:

AMD:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150531 (6970 - much better video card) $379.99

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103727&cm_re=AMD_phenom_2_965-_-19-103-727-_-Product (Phenom 2 965 - 4 core) $134.99

= $514.98 total

Intel (His setup):
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814133397&cm_re=nvidia_560-_-14-133-397-_-Productt (560 - worse video card) $189.99

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115070&cm_re=intel_i7-_-19-115-070-_-Product (i7 CPU - as listed originally) $314.99

= $509.98 total

The AMD system will outperform in gaming. Price/performance for gaming is better.

Here is a good indicator of performance differences in games between i7/i5 and phenom 2s (including the one I listed):

http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/Intel_i7_2600K_i5_2500K/

In most cases, the frame rates are 80+ and the differences are meaningless. IMHO, that's why going for a cheaper CPU and a better GPU is always better for games. An i5 + better GPU may be a consideration too, but in most cases there's no tangible difference in performance for the added cost of the CPU. Take it for what you will, but I'd always recommended a better GPU.

Note: The Phenom 2 965 x4 that I listed is always very competitive with the i7 2600K in gaming. Sure, the i7 is better, but at more than double the cost? That's my point.

If you can achieve 60+ FPS at max settings, you're doing good. ;P

edit:

Starcraft 2 bench showing the CPU I listed: SC2 is supposedly very CPU hungry too. Note, that the differences aren't that great.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,705392/Starcraft-2-Beta-CPU-benchmarks-x-Core-i5/i7-leading/Practice/

World of Warcraft Performance differences:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/62

Yeah, it's all about finding a good balance. If your main concern is gaming, then yes, IMO you should get the best GPU you can afford and a CPU that isn't going to hold back that GPU. Some games are more CPU-intensive than others (RTS games come to mind), but most games scale with the GPU more than the CPU, especially at higher resolutions and with more shader-intensive eye candy. It also doesn't hurt to think about how long you want the system to last you. Video cards tend to be easier to upgrade than CPUs since oftentimes a worthwhile CPU upgrade involves a platform (i.e., motherboard and possibly memory) upgrade.

Totally agreed. I look at it like what can I get for my money? I would rather spend saved money in one area on a better monitor, an SSD hard drive, or a better video card. The added CPU performance is nice, but the balance across the system is much better. At $1900 he could easily build an insanely beefy PC if he was building it himself. You could do it all, the i7 + SSD + SLI/CF video cards. ;P

Phenom lacks AES-NI, and I have an encrypted hard drive. Playing on a Phenom would svck.

Note: I do not mean to bag on you, just pointing out that a CPU has many purposes that can occur concurrently with gaming, and there are features in Intel chips that are significantly desirable in these circumstances.

Not to mention chipsets.

Hey, is there really a difference between 2600K and 2600 on the i7? What does it matter?




My mobo is an Asus P8P67 Deluxe, if that helps any (as I said I'm new to this).



And I had a 750 Watt Corsair PSU.

The K just designates that it can be overclocked. Sandy Bridge processors overclock really well even on air cooling, so no reason not to pay a little extra.

Oh. Well I'm not nearly experienced enough to wade into those waters, so should I just go with the 2600 instead of the 2600K?

You'd be screwed in the future if you ever wanted to try overclocking. It's admittedly not that important for current games, but it's only $15 extra... a bit of insurance if you will.

EDIT: I agree with the i5 suggestion below too.

Yeah, if you're like me and don't plan on messing with overclocking get the 2600. There's no reason to get more than you need for no reason.

And with that in mind I point again to the i5 2500 over the i7. The i7's gain in performance isn't worth it in my opinion, and you'd do better to get the i5 for gaming.



For most people overclocking is a non-issue completely. I never have and never will overclock anything, even though I know many people practically obsess over it to get 0.1GHz more out of a CPU. To me it just says "hey lets see how I can lower the life of my hardware by pumping more voltage through it than I should."

for me, longevity is slightly more important than perforrmance


Also, will the i5 2500 work with GeForce 570? Once again, I'm new, cut me some slack


Edit: Wow, looked at the i5. Only 0.1 GHz less, but a whole 110 dollars? Looks nice, but will it work for more CPU intensive games?

Well the thing is, overclocking a Sandy Bridge is child's play. They're practically meant to be overclocked.


There are other subtle performance differences.

Of course it'll work. Infact the i5 2500K is practically the gold standard these days (though others value overclocking more than I).

http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af150/The_FalconO6/CurrentLogicalPCBuyingGuide/Guide.png




Hyperthreading is unneeded and un-utilized in 90% of the games out there though.

However, wouldn't I need to upgrade the i5 before the i7?

There are those occasions where the overclock is a no-brainer. My older Q9550 is a 2.83 GHz CPU meant for a 333MHz FSB. The northbridge on my motherboard can do 400MHz in-spec. So, I just got ~1000MHz RAM, I run the FSB at 400MHz, and the CPU runs at 3.4 GHz at spec voltage. I've only seen the CPU hit 50C a handful of times, and the RAM is actually under-volted and running at 800. ~600MHz for free and everything runs at or under spec voltages. No additional wear-and-tear. I'm sure I could overclock that one further, but meh.


Don't compare CPUs based on clockspeed (GHz) unless they're part of the same series of CPUs. Look at benchmarks. Clockspeed does not equal processing power.


Eh, probably not. There's a difference in crunching power there, but not a generation worth of difference.

*headache*

In layman's terms, rather than waste money on new components, he just overclocked the ones he had, got a nice performance boost without paying more money, and he;s not running anything at weird voltages or overly high temperatures, and so he's getting more for effectively no penalty.

Thanks




anyways, I have changed GPUs to a 570.


I'm pretty sure I'll have the money for the i7, so should I just get it anyway?