-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Which if these would be better?
- Thread starter mufcmark
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Jan 2006
- Posts
- 1,375
Probably be much of a muchness, with the 1090t being better at slightly more things than the i5. But why would you not overclock the 2400?
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Jan 2006
- Posts
- 1,375
Really, no overclocking at all? Fixed multi and bus? Who would make such a thing and why? It can't possibly be cheaper to manufacture them so they are hard programmed not to overclock.
But on topic, the 1090t might be slower, even with the overclock, but not by much and I doubt it'll bottleneck anything less than a GTX480/6950. For a mid range system, which it looks like this will be, I'd prefer the extra cores because they actually might make a difference one day.
But on topic, the 1090t might be slower, even with the overclock, but not by much and I doubt it'll bottleneck anything less than a GTX480/6950. For a mid range system, which it looks like this will be, I'd prefer the extra cores because they actually might make a difference one day.
yep no tweaking at all, it's the new sandybridge thing, intel are making tweakable chips but they cost a premium over stock chips, go see the sandybridge threads for more info,
On topic, yeah possible but i'm still not convinced, if OP is happy enough then i'd say just get a Phenom II quad, will easily hit 4Ghz, all the cores will be usable in most games and it undercuts the hexcore and stock intel i5 chip by quite a margin
On topic, yeah possible but i'm still not convinced, if OP is happy enough then i'd say just get a Phenom II quad, will easily hit 4Ghz, all the cores will be usable in most games and it undercuts the hexcore and stock intel i5 chip by quite a margin
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Jan 2006
- Posts
- 1,375
Wow, brutal move on intel's part. It's a messy world where you spend extra money to cripple a chip just so you can justify the expense of the premium model.
And, yeah, I'd probably go with the Phonom II quad as well. You'll still get the same sort of performance once it's overclocked plus you'll have affordable upgrade options further down the line if you go for the right motherboard.
And, yeah, I'd probably go with the Phonom II quad as well. You'll still get the same sort of performance once it's overclocked plus you'll have affordable upgrade options further down the line if you go for the right motherboard.
Soldato
would personally go for the AMD Phenom II X6, since at 4GHZ i doubt the Sandy Bridge is really gonna be faster thread vs. thread, so the added benefits would be AMD motherboards are generally better value and it'll have stronger multi-threaded performance. just my two cents 
Soldato
You need to either spend more and get the 2500k, which you can overclock, or spend less and get a Phenom II X4. Six cores is pointless for gaming.
Clock for clock the new intel chips murder the AMD ones, so the only reason to go AMD is to save money.
Clock for clock the new intel chips murder the AMD ones, so the only reason to go AMD is to save money.
I'm on a budget and to get a i5 2500k I would have to buy a more expensive motherboard as well. If i wanted to overclock the i5 2500k I would need a p67 mobo and that costs even more.
This system is going to last for 3-4 years so the hexacore might be more future proof.
There's no point buying either atm until bulldozer comes out and the am3+ motherboards. Need to see if it provides any competition with sb which might save me a bit of money.
Come back in 6 months and ask again seems to be the best option.
This system is going to last for 3-4 years so the hexacore might be more future proof.
There's no point buying either atm until bulldozer comes out and the am3+ motherboards. Need to see if it provides any competition with sb which might save me a bit of money.
Come back in 6 months and ask again seems to be the best option.
Not really that drastic a change of tack though, Intel has been locking multipliers since the 1990s (Pentium 2) it's just now the 'loophole' of bus overclocking has been closed off. Makes sense to me as people have been taking the mick for too long, for example I've never spent £200 on an Intel CPU, always buying midrange/cheaper stuff (300A / P3-650E / P4-1.6A / E4300 / i5-750) and overclocking it wheres technically speaking to get that level of performance I probably should have been shelling out well in excess of £300.
+1 most sensible,
yes the 2500k and board will be a little bit more expensive and a hell of a lot quicker than the amd even with the six cores, but then that chip is quicker than Intel's own 6 cores in all but 6 core dedicated work, and even then it just loses out and I do mean just loses out. Sandybridge is killing the cpu market right now and can only mean it will last longer too. Sandybridge is more future proof, these are the first generation chips out on socket 1155, imagine what is coming down the road later on in this socket
This makes for an interesting read, here
If you are not using the onboard gpu, it would be a mistake not to buy a 'k' series Intel. That 2500k will be sat at 4.4 to 4.7 without any effort at all and be killer for your gaming needs and you will have a lot of life in the socket 1155 motherboard too.
6 core for gaming remains barely used if at all and can be considered a token effort much like quad cores were a few years ago. It is only now that quad cores are being utilised as we would expect and look how long quad cores have been around.
If you are not using the onboard gpu, it would be a mistake not to buy a 'k' series Intel. That 2500k will be sat at 4.4 to 4.7 without any effort at all and be killer for your gaming needs and you will have a lot of life in the socket 1155 motherboard too.
6 core for gaming remains barely used if at all and can be considered a token effort much like quad cores were a few years ago. It is only now that quad cores are being utilised as we would expect and look how long quad cores have been around.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Jan 2006
- Posts
- 1,375
'People have been taking the mick for too long?' I'm not sure where that sentiment comes from. I could see that being said around an Intel boardroom table by those who see the purchase of a £200 cpu that's gets overclocked as actually the loss of the sale of an £800 cpu, but we all know it doesn't work that way.
They hurt themselves to hurt us, we tiny part of the market that spends more money per head than anyone. But they see it as under exploited because we don't spend more? Does that not seem like the actions of an disturbed mind? Sounds like something close to evil to me.
EDIT: That said their pricing (at least as OcUk has it at the moment) doesn't really reflect this.
Last edited:
Soldato
to be honest, you've just summed up the Intel corporation quite nicely in my eyes, they are the 'dark side' of the CPU world. AMD are the more genuine party I believe, but its really a battle they can't win to be honest, like the Rebels vs. the Empire in Star Wars! Intel have been sued for more dishonest things than I can remember anymore, so the current non-overclockable chips is absolutely no surprise, hence why I going with Bulldozer and AMD in the near future, for the sake of my soul...! 
Soldato
think about your soul man!