i5 2500 equivalent AMD CPU

what resolution u playing at? (yes this has a difference) if your gaming in SD or 720p there jsut isnt. if your palying @ 1080p, 1600p, or doing multi-screen gaming anything amd is basically even. 7970 + phenom II x4 or phenom fx cpu = hd 7970 /w 3930x/2500k/2600k @ 4.2ghz. the above being said amd cpu's are more than capable of playing todays games @ 60fps or better @ 720p so the arguement for the 2500k is always poor unless your doing something professional. (omitting heavy VM work)

In any game that is cpu heavy, amd really can't match the i5 2500k, plus they overclock like a beast. The i5 2500k is the current king of gaming cpu's

There isn't one.

In any game that is cpu heavy, amd really can't match the i5 2500k, plus they overclock like a beast. The i5 2500k is the current king of gaming cpu's

James161324

[QUOTE="James161324"]

In any game that is cpu heavy, amd really can't match the i5 2500k, plus they overclock like a beast. The i5 2500k is the current king of gaming cpu's

ArchDemon123

Dooooo itttttt:P

what resolution u playing at? (yes this has a difference) if your gaming in SD or 720p there jsut isnt. if your palying @ 1080p, 1600p, or doing multi-screen gaming anything amd is basically even. 7970 + phenom II x4 or phenom fx cpu = hd 7970 /w 3930x/2500k/2600k @ 4.2ghz. the above being said amd cpu's are more than capable of playing todays games @ 60fps or better @ 720p so the arguement for the 2500k is always poor unless your doing something professional. (omitting heavy VM work)

ionusX

Thats funny because someone on overclock.net did some benchmarks of the i5 2500k vs the 8120 and the 8120 got beat in pretty much every real world gaming benchmark at 1080p.

I have an AMD CPU myself and its been a great CPU, but stop saying AMD are equal to Intel for gaming, they just arent, its only you on this forum that says that from what I can tell. I know your going to pull some benchmarks from the net showing games that barely show CPU changes but I have shown ones that do, so there is a difference.

[QUOTE="ArchDemon123"][QUOTE="James161324"]

In any game that is cpu heavy, amd really can't match the i5 2500k, plus they overclock like a beast. The i5 2500k is the current king of gaming cpu's

Postmortem123

Dooooo itttttt:P

i bought a fx8120 for my new pc just for the price it was on offer and a £20 rebate so cost me £98 in the end for programs and games it do the job

[QUOTE="ionusX"]

what resolution u playing at? (yes this has a difference) if your gaming in SD or 720p there jsut isnt. if your palying @ 1080p, 1600p, or doing multi-screen gaming anything amd is basically even. 7970 + phenom II x4 or phenom fx cpu = hd 7970 /w 3930x/2500k/2600k @ 4.2ghz. the above being said amd cpu's are more than capable of playing todays games @ 60fps or better @ 720p so the arguement for the 2500k is always poor unless your doing something professional. (omitting heavy VM work)

V4LENT1NE

Thats funny because someone on overclock.net did some benchmarks of the i5 2500k vs the 8120 and the 8120 got beat in pretty much every real world gaming benchmark at 1080p.

I have an AMD CPU myself and its been a great CPU, but stop saying AMD are equal to Intel for gaming, they just arent, its only you on this forum that says that from what I can tell. I know your going to pull some benchmarks from the net showing games that barely show CPU changes but I have shown ones that do, so there is a difference.

The difference in performance on those are minimal. With the way you responded I was expecting it to get blown away, but they are within a few percentage points of each other for basically everything.

Take into account that the 8120 is $159 and the 2500k is $219....

[QUOTE="V4LENT1NE"]

[QUOTE="ionusX"]

what resolution u playing at? (yes this has a difference) if your gaming in SD or 720p there jsut isnt. if your palying @ 1080p, 1600p, or doing multi-screen gaming anything amd is basically even. 7970 + phenom II x4 or phenom fx cpu = hd 7970 /w 3930x/2500k/2600k @ 4.2ghz. the above being said amd cpu's are more than capable of playing todays games @ 60fps or better @ 720p so the arguement for the 2500k is always poor unless your doing something professional. (omitting heavy VM work)

GummiRaccoon

Thats funny because someone on overclock.net did some benchmarks of the i5 2500k vs the 8120 and the 8120 got beat in pretty much every real world gaming benchmark at 1080p.

I have an AMD CPU myself and its been a great CPU, but stop saying AMD are equal to Intel for gaming, they just arent, its only you on this forum that says that from what I can tell. I know your going to pull some benchmarks from the net showing games that barely show CPU changes but I have shown ones that do, so there is a difference.

The difference in performance on those are minimal. With the way you responded I was expecting it to get blown away, but they are within a few percentage points of each other for basically everything.

Take into account that the 8120 is $159 and the 2500k is $219....

Also

And for the record I am not saying that the AMD chips are bad, on a budget I would go for one as I did last time. But side by side with the Intel chips there is a good reason why people are buying i5 2500ks, they are the best gaming chip out there right now. The only people recommending AMD chips not on a budget are AMD blind plain and simple, whenever someone asks for a build IonusX posts the same **** every time, everyone else recommends the i5s, there is a reason for that.V4LENT1NE

There isn't one.

Clock per clock there is no AMD equal, however if you get into applications and game that are multithreaded and can use more the 4 cores then AMD's 6 or 8 core cpu's can outperform the i5's. Such as encoding mp4's with handbrake or BF3 getting better fps averages with 64 MP. But if your playing above 1600x1200 resolution the differences between cpu's are so small you wont see them with gpu prone games.Examples below,

There isn't one.

Postmortem123

More benchmarks, these are from 720p to 1200p in Far Cry 2 from Guru 3d, this game is CPU and GPU intensive, again they show how much the Intel beats AMD CPUs even at high res like 1200p with the same GPU.

oh common v4lentine don't use that bad Game as a example lol that game was intel flavored from start post at least metro or Dawn of war II or company of heroes anything but that lol marcthpro

There isn't one.

Postmortem123

Should've closed the thread after that.

More benchmarks, these are from 720p to 1200p in Far Cry 2 from Guru 3d, this game is CPU and GPU intensive, again they show how much the Intel beats AMD CPUs even at high res like 1200p with the same GPU.

V4LENT1NE

80 fps+

None, otherwise I would had still been with AMD for gaming.

[QUOTE="V4LENT1NE"]

More benchmarks, these are from 720p to 1200p in Far Cry 2 from Guru 3d, this game is CPU and GPU intensive, again they show how much the Intel beats AMD CPUs even at high res like 1200p with the same GPU.

NailedGR

80 fps+

[QUOTE="NailedGR"]

[QUOTE="V4LENT1NE"]

More benchmarks, these are from 720p to 1200p in Far Cry 2 from Guru 3d, this game is CPU and GPU intensive, again they show how much the Intel beats AMD CPUs even at high res like 1200p with the same GPU.

04dcarraher

80 fps+

yeah and with such a push over of a game, may as well go back and do quake 3 and see if the i7s 1000 fps really feels better than the 8120s 800 fps.

I am just posting what I find, I didnt know Far Cry 2 was good with Intel CPUs more so than AMD, anyway I have posted plenty of other benchmarks. But do I even need to post any more? If you pick an AMD chip over Intel for gaming at this point and have no budget then you you are seriously doing something wrong...So how about we end the lame "anything over 1080p and intel is useless lulz!" crap, people are picking intel chips heavily over AMD for a reason now, they have nothing on intel at this point in the CPU market.

I am just posting what I find, I didnt know Far Cry 2 was good with Intel CPUs more so than AMD, anyway I have posted plenty of other benchmarks. But do I even need to post any more? If you pick an AMD chip over Intel for gaming at this point and have no budget then you you are seriously doing something wrong...So how about we end the lame "anything over 1080p and intel is useless lulz!" crap, people are picking intel chips heavily over AMD for a reason now, they have nothing on intel at this point in the CPU market.

V4LENT1NE

You only want to stop arguing because you are wrong.

[QUOTE="V4LENT1NE"]

I am just posting what I find, I didnt know Far Cry 2 was good with Intel CPUs more so than AMD, anyway I have posted plenty of other benchmarks. But do I even need to post any more? If you pick an AMD chip over Intel for gaming at this point and have no budget then you you are seriously doing something wrong...So how about we end the lame "anything over 1080p and intel is useless lulz!" crap, people are picking intel chips heavily over AMD for a reason now, they have nothing on intel at this point in the CPU market.

NailedGR

You only want to stop arguing because you are wrong.

[QUOTE="NailedGR"]

[QUOTE="V4LENT1NE"]

I am just posting what I find, I didnt know Far Cry 2 was good with Intel CPUs more so than AMD, anyway I have posted plenty of other benchmarks. But do I even need to post any more? If you pick an AMD chip over Intel for gaming at this point and have no budget then you you are seriously doing something wrong...So how about we end the lame "anything over 1080p and intel is useless lulz!" crap, people are picking intel chips heavily over AMD for a reason now, they have nothing on intel at this point in the CPU market.

V4LENT1NE

You only want to stop arguing because you are wrong.

But once you find a common ground to test both with apps and games that are more neutral you will find out that in most gpu prone games at 16**x1*** or higher resolution the difference become small enough that you wont be able to tell. Now if you have the budget for an intel quad core based system then go for it , but if your budget is tight an AMD quad or hexacore with a better gpu is the better option then sacrificing for an intel dual core which fails to beat AMD's quads with multithreaded based apps and games.

[QUOTE="V4LENT1NE"]

[QUOTE="NailedGR"]

You only want to stop arguing because you are wrong.

04dcarraher

But once you find a common ground to test both with apps and games that are more neutral you will find out that in most gpu prone games at 16**x1*** or higher resolution the difference become small enough that you wont be able to tell. Now if you have the budget for an intel quad core based system then go for it , but if your budget is tight an AMD quad or hexacore with a better gpu is the better option then sacrificing for an intel dual core which fails to beat AMD's quads with multithreaded based apps and games.

[QUOTE="V4LENT1NE"]

[QUOTE="NailedGR"]

You only want to stop arguing because you are wrong.

04dcarraher

But once you find a common ground to test both with apps and games that are more neutral you will find out that in most gpu prone games at 16**x1*** or higher resolution the difference become small enough that you wont be able to tell. Now if you have the budget for an intel quad core based system then go for it , but if your budget is tight an AMD quad or hexacore with a better gpu is the better option then sacrificing for an intel dual core which fails to beat AMD's quads with multithreaded based apps and games.

Well, Intel's ARM-to-X86 translator for Android works fine on Intel Atom N450 while it fails on AMD Z-01/C-50 CPU..

AMD Z-01/C-50 CPU supports upto SSSE3 extensions.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="V4LENT1NE"] What am I wrong about? Only thing I have said is that its bull**** to say Intel isnt useful past 1080p, I have shown plenty of games where Intel are much better for gaming right now, anyone who says other wise is just riding the AMD train.

ronvalencia

But once you find a common ground to test both with apps and games that are more neutral you will find out that in most gpu prone games at 16**x1*** or higher resolution the difference become small enough that you wont be able to tell. Now if you have the budget for an intel quad core based system then go for it , but if your budget is tight an AMD quad or hexacore with a better gpu is the better option then sacrificing for an intel dual core which fails to beat AMD's quads with multithreaded based apps and games.

Well, Intel's ARM-to-X86 translator for Android works fine on Intel Atom N450 while it fails on AMD Z-01/C-50 CPU..

AMD Z-01/C-50 CPU supports upto SSSE3 extensions.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] Problem is that there are no absolutes. Farcry 2 is well known to favor intel cpu's(because Intel is a sponsor(ie Intel Bonus missions). Because sandy/ivy is only around 40% faster per clock then AMD, but getting nearly 2x the fps screams "bias" Its not that different from when intel used to(not sure if they do it anymore) gimp the software to work better on their products then AMD's.Same goes with Nvidia and AMD.

But once you find a common ground to test both with apps and games that are more neutral you will find out that in most gpu prone games at 16**x1*** or higher resolution the difference become small enough that you wont be able to tell. Now if you have the budget for an intel quad core based system then go for it , but if your budget is tight an AMD quad or hexacore with a better gpu is the better option then sacrificing for an intel dual core which fails to beat AMD's quads with multithreaded based apps and games.

Marfoo

Well, Intel's ARM-to-X86 translator for Android works fine on Intel Atom N450 while it fails on AMD Z-01/C-50 CPU..

AMD Z-01/C-50 CPU supports upto SSSE3 extensions.

I don't think the internal ISA can be accessed from the outside world i.e. I (and others) can disassemble the siad Intel ARM**-to-X86 translator lib...

My old ASUS EeePC MT101(Intel Atom N450) tablet hybrid works fine/(i.e. smooth) with Android-x86 4.0 RC2*** (with OpenGL ES2.0+Intel ARM-to-X86 translator).

ASUS EeePC MT101 running Android-x86 4.0.4 http://android-x86.sceners.org/en/?p=529http://android-x86.sceners.org/en/?p=734

**ARMv6 not ARMv7

***Android-x86 4.0 RC2 is based on Android 4.0.4.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] Problem is that there are no absolutes. Farcry 2 is well known to favor intel cpu's(because Intel is a sponsor(ie Intel Bonus missions). Because sandy/ivy is only around 40% faster per clock then AMD, but getting nearly 2x the fps screams "bias" Its not that different from when intel used to(not sure if they do it anymore) gimp the software to work better on their products then AMD's.Same goes with Nvidia and AMD.

But once you find a common ground to test both with apps and games that are more neutral you will find out that in most gpu prone games at 16**x1*** or higher resolution the difference become small enough that you wont be able to tell. Now if you have the budget for an intel quad core based system then go for it , but if your budget is tight an AMD quad or hexacore with a better gpu is the better option then sacrificing for an intel dual core which fails to beat AMD's quads with multithreaded based apps and games.

Marfoo

Well, Intel's ARM-to-X86 translator for Android works fine on Intel Atom N450 while it fails on AMD Z-01/C-50 CPU..

AMD Z-01/C-50 CPU supports upto SSSE3 extensions.

lolno

[QUOTE="V4LENT1NE"]

[QUOTE="NailedGR"]

You only want to stop arguing because you are wrong.

04dcarraher

But once you find a common ground to test both with apps and games that are more neutral you will find out that in most gpu prone games at 16**x1*** or higher resolution the difference become small enough that you wont be able to tell. Now if you have the budget for an intel quad core based system then go for it , but if your budget is tight an AMD quad or hexacore with a better gpu is the better option then sacrificing for an intel dual core which fails to beat AMD's quads with multithreaded based apps and games.

[QUOTE="Marfoo"][QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

Well, Intel's ARM-to-X86 translator for Android works fine on Intel Atom N450 while it fails on AMD Z-01/C-50 CPU..

AMD Z-01/C-50 CPU supports upto SSSE3 extensions.

ronvalencia

I don't think the internal ISA be would accessible to the outside world i.e. I (and others) can disassemble the siad Intel ARM**-to-X86 translator lib...

My old ASUS EeePC MT101(Intel Atom N450) tablet hybrid works fine/(i.e. smooth) with Android-x86 4.0 RC2*** (with OpenGL ES2.0+Intel ARM-to-X86 translator).

ASUS EeePC MT101 running Android-x86 4.0.4 http://android-x86.sceners.org/en/?p=529http://android-x86.sceners.org/en/?p=734

**ARMv6 not ARMv7

***Android-x86 4.0 RC2 is based on Android 4.0.4.

I only ever see people who actually bought one of the recent AMD CPUs speaking positive about them.

It's called post-purchase rationalization.

Still doesn't make them any better. AMD has been behind for like what, the last 2 generations?

I only ever see people who actually bought one of the recent AMD CPUs speaking positive about them.

It's called post-purchase rationalization.

Still doesn't make them any better. AMD has been behind for like what, the last 2 generations?

Sturmfuehrer_

I only ever see people who actually bought one of the recent AMD CPUs speaking positive about them.

It's called post-purchase rationalization.

Still doesn't make them any better. AMD has been behind for like what, the last 2 generations?

Sturmfuehrer_

Nah bruh. Some of us would rather have a good enough CPU and spend the rest on a great GPU and then have some extra cash for some 15 year old scotch.

[QUOTE="Sturmfuehrer_"]

I only ever see people who actually bought one of the recent AMD CPUs speaking positive about them.

It's called post-purchase rationalization.

Still doesn't make them any better. AMD has been behind for like what, the last 2 generations?

robertoenrique

[QUOTE="Sturmfuehrer_"]

I only ever see people who actually bought one of the recent AMD CPUs speaking positive about them.

It's called post-purchase rationalization.

Still doesn't make them any better. AMD has been behind for like what, the last 2 generations?

GummiRaccoon

Nah bruh. Some of us would rather have a good enough CPU and spend the rest on a great GPU and then have some extra cash for some 15 year old scotch.

[QUOTE="robertoenrique"][QUOTE="Sturmfuehrer_"]

I only ever see people who actually bought one of the recent AMD CPUs speaking positive about them.

It's called post-purchase rationalization.

Still doesn't make them any better. AMD has been behind for like what, the last 2 generations?

mitu123

haters gonna hate. AMD x2 in the house.

[QUOTE="ionusX"]

what resolution u playing at? (yes this has a difference) if your gaming in SD or 720p there jsut isnt. if your palying @ 1080p, 1600p, or doing multi-screen gaming anything amd is basically even. 7970 + phenom II x4 or phenom fx cpu = hd 7970 /w 3930x/2500k/2600k @ 4.2ghz. the above being said amd cpu's are more than capable of playing todays games @ 60fps or better @ 720p so the arguement for the 2500k is always poor unless your doing something professional. (omitting heavy VM work)

V4LENT1NE

Thats funny because someone on overclock.net did some benchmarks of the i5 2500k vs the 8120 and the 8120 got beat in pretty much every real world gaming benchmark at 1080p.

I have an AMD CPU myself and its been a great CPU, but stop saying AMD are equal to Intel for gaming, they just arent, its only you on this forum that says that from what I can tell. I know your going to pull some benchmarks from the net showing games that barely show CPU changes but I have shown ones that do, so there is a difference.

i did a build about a month ago and was in your position but went with the 2500k anyways. why? because even though amd cpu's were/are much cheaper, the motherboard cost evened it out. to get a mobo with the features i wanted, it was much cheaper to go intel, and in the end my build cost only 20 dollars more to get a i5 vs a phenom ii.paullywog

You are a liar.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="Sturmfuehrer_"]

I only ever see people who actually bought one of the recent AMD CPUs speaking positive about them.

It's called post-purchase rationalization.

Still doesn't make them any better. AMD has been behind for like what, the last 2 generations?

godzillavskong

Nah bruh. Some of us would rather have a good enough CPU and spend the rest on a great GPU and then have some extra cash for some 15 year old scotch.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="Sturmfuehrer_"]

I only ever see people who actually bought one of the recent AMD CPUs speaking positive about them.

It's called post-purchase rationalization.

Still doesn't make them any better. AMD has been behind for like what, the last 2 generations?

godzillavskong

Nah bruh. Some of us would rather have a good enough CPU and spend the rest on a great GPU and then have some extra cash for some 15 year old scotch.

If you buy AMD for the sake of supporting them then fair game. My last builds were all AMD.I just couldn't justify it this time.

So I ordered the Bugatti, still got a great GPU, and am sipping Bourbon after work.

[QUOTE="godzillavskong"][QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

Nah bruh. Some of us would rather have a good enough CPU and spend the rest on a great GPU and then have some extra cash for some 15 year old scotch.

Sturmfuehrer_

If you buy AMD for the sake of supporting them then fair game. My last builds were all AMD.I just couldn't justify it this time.

So I ordered the Bugatti, still got a great GPU, and am sipping Bourbon after work.

bourbon -_-

[QUOTE="godzillavskong"][QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="Sturmfuehrer_"]

I only ever see people who actually bought one of the recent AMD CPUs speaking positive about them.

It's called post-purchase rationalization.

Still doesn't make them any better. AMD has been behind for like what, the last 2 generations?

Elann2008

Nah bruh. Some of us would rather have a good enough CPU and spend the rest on a great GPU and then have some extra cash for some 15 year old scotch.