should i wait?

P

purple_haze

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
2,124
I am contemplating on going for an i7 or i5 right now. I am currently running an OC'ed e6600 at 3.2ghz with 3 gigs of ram and a 6870. All I really play right now is SC2 and Some FPS. Since i have had this system for almost 4 years with only upgrades in video cards, I kind of want to get a system that is future proof, but i7 has been out for almost 2 years. I'm just wondering if bulldozer is worth the wait or not?
 
Nobody knows for sure. It's probably still another month and a half away from anybody's best guess.

I'd at least wait to see what AMD actually shows of it at the hardocp event happening in a few days. If it's still being held under serious wraps, then I guess it's up to you to decide if you need something new now or not. If your current system still suffices what you want to do well enough, then waiting never hurts (you either get newer tech or lower prices). If your PC just isn't cutting it anymore, then buy something new.
 
The i7 second generation has only been out for 1/2 year but ditto what soulsavior said, if you can wait, end of the year will have the best deals and new hardware so you're looking at more performance for your dollar or a big discount, you've waited this long, 2-3 months won't hurt.

I'm in the same boat you are, sig
 
Well, at least wait till the HOCP event. See what happens. If nothing big comes of it, just go ahead and get the 2500k. It's hard to beat that kind of value. The only reason I'd wait is if you are on a really, really tight budget. You might get a bit more features for the $$$ in an AMD motherboard than on the intel side, and overall I think you'd spend less for a similar platform. However, You'll be waiting till sept. for it.
 
If you're needing something, I'd go ahead and buy Intel. AMD may or may not have Bulldozer out in a couple months and most people aren't entirely confident it'll outperform Sandy Bridge. If your current rig is up to snuff tho, you might as well wait it out.
 
MacLeod said:
If you're needing something, I'd go ahead and buy Intel. AMD may or may not have Bulldozer out in a couple months and most people aren't entirely confident it'll outperform Sandy Bridge. If your current rig is up to snuff tho, you might as well wait it out.
Click to expand...

i think i might just wait it out. I'm just pissed when i see people having blazing fast load speeds in SC2. Is it just the processor or is the SSD or Ram? Its not something i need, but just a want.
 
I would probably wait til after the AMD event to see if any new information gets released. Thats if you can wait.

But you can't go wrong if you buy now and go intel. Even if AMD is faster, I don't think there will be a huge difference in performance.
 
purple_haze said:
i think i might just wait it out. I'm just pissed when i see people having blazing fast load speeds in SC2. Is it just the processor or is the SSD or Ram? Its not something i need, but just a want.
Click to expand...

SC2 is insanely cpu heavy. if you need a cheap upgrade a i3 2100 will still destroy your current cpu.

When i moved from my 3.5ghz hex-core phenom to a 2500k @ 4.5ghz my FPS went from around 72fps to 160fps in SC2 on ultra on my 5870.

It's all in the CPU.
 
go ahead and get the i5 or i7.

amd won't beat intel clock for clock, so they'll price their cpu's according to overall performance.
so that means the $200 bulldozer won't be any better than the $200 2500k.

and nothing is future proof. Your shit will be obsolete in 4 years.
 
No, get an AM3+ mobo with CFX and an affordable Phenom X4. Shoot for 1866 Corsair memory, or faster if you can afford it and know how to OC it up to 2133+ (Crosshair V AM3+ will support 2400mhz DDR3 if you know how to). ;) Because Corsair does tests to ensure 100 percent compatibility with both AMD and Intel boards.

Then use the money you saved to CFX your current AMD/ATI GPU. So you get awesome 60+ minimums, and 200+ highs hopefully on SC2 and your other games you play. ;) Because your a gamer, and an overpriced Quad core CPU with 1 graphics card is not the best option for a person in your shoes.

On second thought, just wait for official BD benchmarks ;)
 
One other point I'd like to add. If you are ever considering a 2560x1600 resolution then CPU's for PC games don't really matter as long as it's a Quad Core. Just look at this Crysis 2 DX11 comparison of Intel 2600k OC'd @ 4.6Ghz VS. stock AMD X4 645 which is 3.2 Ghz, which is basically a 100 dollar or less processor. It Achieves a 1 FPS or less difference from the 2600k @ 4.6Ghz @ 2560x1600.

Now you might be saying to yourself, teletran8 I will not be buying a 30 inch overpriced 2560x1600 display, your barking up the wrong tree. Keep reading though.

Have you ever thought about running Eyefinity
eyefinity-3.jpg

on affordable 3x 1080p monitors in SC2, or Oblivion/Skyrim or maybe your favorite FPS games to get that much needed peripheral vision? AH HAH! You have! Yes you have you naughty gamer! Let us do some simple pixel math.

2560x1600 = 4,096,000 pixels needing pushed
5760x1080 = 6,220,800 pixels being pushed which is more stressful than 2560x1600p and the difference in CPU's will be ALL that much more unnoticeable, if non-existant. (So the difference at this resolution could be ZERO or just ONE FPS difference!! We have no one doing these benches for us so we have to speculate 1 or 0 lol!) :rolleyes:

Now if these displays will ever be in your future 2+ years, and you don't have an unlimited budget just e-peen bragging rights, save sum cash for the build, and build efficiently. ;) Affordable Quad Core + CFX for higher resolutions where your gaming experience counts purple_haze. That's all this forums needs, more e-peen posters. Nah. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
teletran8 said:
One other point I'd like to add. If you are ever considering a 2560x1600 resolution then CPU's for PC games don't really matter as long as it's a Quad Core. Just look at this Crysis 2 DX11 comparison of Intel 2600k OC'd @ 4.6Ghz VS. stock AMD X4 645 which is 3.2 Ghz, which is basically a 100 dollar or less processor. It Achieves a 1 FPS or less difference from the 2600k @ 4.6Ghz @ 2560x1600.
:
Click to expand...


that's not a very good example. You're basing purchase decisions on one shitty game that is not very cpu dependent.

why compromise?

if you're going to buy that high end ati card anyway, might as well get the 2500k along with it to kill those cpu dependent games, and of course, the crossfire mobo.

and during nongaming time, that cpu can be put to good use doing other shit.

why would you even recommend getting an athlon 645.... it's only a little better than his q6600.
 
teletran8 said:
No, get an AM3+ mobo with CFX and an affordable Phenom X4.
Click to expand...


Wrong! Do like the others said and just wait.


purple_haze said:
I am currently running an OC'ed e6600 at 3.2ghz with 3 gigs of ram and a 6870. All I really play right now is SC2 and Some FPS.
Click to expand...


What matters is if what you have right now sufficient? If it is, wait as long as you can. Only thing to counter that would be if you are less (or not) price sensitive. Then you can just buy whatever you feel comfortable with whenever you want :D
 
I am in the same boat as the OP. I'm waiting. Hell I've waited this many years, another 3 months wont kill me.
 
Yeah, I honestly don't expect them to really show anything useful. Still, the event is so close now that you might as well see what happens.
 
IMO I have been using intel for 6 years now and I feel that AMD is just such a better option in terms of performance and price when it comes to gaming.
 
Swatman1 said:
IMO I have been using intel for 6 years now and I feel that AMD is just such a better option in terms of performance and price when it comes to gaming.
Click to expand...
I think for a gamer who plays SC2 (OP), the benchmark cited earlier speaks for itself.
 
Last edited:
drleospaceman said:
I think for a gamer who plays SC2 (OP), the benchmark cited earlier speaks for itself.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'd have to agree. AMD has certainly, in the past, offered some pretty clear cut price/performance winners, but right now I just don't see it. You can still make a case for the 955BE against the i3 2100, assuming you're into overclocking and have an aftermarket cooler already, although I'd still take the i3 2100 for gaming, especially for Blizzard games. Other than that, it's hard to recommend any AMD processor past that currently.
 
novadaemon said:
SC2 is insanely cpu heavy. if you need a cheap upgrade a i3 2100 will still destroy your current cpu.

When i moved from my 3.5ghz hex-core phenom to a 2500k @ 4.5ghz my FPS went from around 72fps to 160fps in SC2 on ultra on my 5870.

It's all in the CPU.
Click to expand...

He was talking about load speeds, in which I can confirm it's all about SSD. 72fps vs 160fps may or may not be noticeable, but SSD loading the game 4-10 times faster is definitely very noticeable. Moving SC2 to an SSD was the best thing I did. I run a 3.5Ghz Phenom II x 4 and I am generally always the first one to load the game (I play a lot of 4v4s).
 
Amount of RAM also determines load speeds.
 
xIronCrossx said:
Amount of RAM also determines load speeds.
Click to expand...

ya im thinking that too. I talked to a few of my friends and none of them put it in their ssd and only their secondary drive 1tb black or 640 gb black. Installing it on my velociraptor, i assumed i would have an advantage on them but they still load out faster. Now that you mention that they both have 8gb and 16gb of ram compared to measely 3 gb. With everything on ultra on my 6870 the game is running around at 55-60 frames and dropping down to 25ish during intense 4x4 action.

I think i might hold out and hopefully, they might have some crazy black friday special for pc bundles.
 
teletran8 said:
One other point I'd like to add. If you are ever considering a 2560x1600 resolution then CPU's for PC games don't really matter as long as it's a Quad Core. Just look at this Crysis 2 DX11 comparison of Intel 2600k OC'd @ 4.6Ghz VS. stock AMD X4 645 which is 3.2 Ghz, which is basically a 100 dollar or less processor. It Achieves a 1 FPS or less difference from the 2600k @ 4.6Ghz @ 2560x1600.

Now you might be saying to yourself, teletran8 I will not be buying a 30 inch overpriced 2560x1600 display, your barking up the wrong tree. Keep reading though.

Have you ever thought about running Eyefinity on affordable 3x 1080p monitors in SC2, or Oblivion/Skyrim or maybe your favorite FPS games to get that much needed peripheral vision? AH HAH! You have! Yes you have you naughty gamer! Let us do some simple pixel math.

2560x1600 = 4,096,000 pixels needing pushed
5760x1080 = 6,220,800 pixels being pushed which is more stressful than 2560x1600p and the difference in CPU's will be ALL that much more unnoticeable, if non-existant. (So the difference at this resolution could be ZERO or just ONE FPS difference!! We have no one doing these benches for us so we have to speculate 1 or 0 lol!) :rolleyes:

Now if these displays will ever be in your future 2+ years, and you don't have an unlimited budget just e-peen bragging rights, save sum cash for the build, and build efficiently. ;) Affordable Quad Core + CFX for higher resolutions where your gaming experience counts purple_haze. That's all this forums needs, more e-peen posters. Nah. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Sorry, but this is flat out wrong. If this were the case then this wouldn't have happened. At 2560x1600, it doesn't matter much. But with ultra-high end GPUs on multiple high resolution monitors, CPU speed does indeed matter. That being said, I'd still advise waiting for Zambezi at this point. While I doubt it will beat the current generation Core i7 processors in gaming performance, it may (and most likely will be) good enough to force Intel to at least adjust their pricing structure slightly.
 
Last edited:
purple_haze said:
ya im thinking that too. I talked to a few of my friends and none of them put it in their ssd and only their secondary drive 1tb black or 640 gb black. Installing it on my velociraptor, i assumed i would have an advantage on them but they still load out faster. Now that you mention that they both have 8gb and 16gb of ram compared to measely 3 gb. With everything on ultra on my 6870 the game is running around at 55-60 frames and dropping down to 25ish during intense 4x4 action.

I think i might hold out and hopefully, they might have some crazy black friday special for pc bundles.
Click to expand...

You should def. wait it out. SC2 load times should not really be a big factor for cpu upgrade atleast imo because you are still going to have to wait for other slow people. In the end a few extra seconds of load time will not hurt.
 
Don't wait. Too many unknowns (aka disappointment risks) with the AMD. I used to be a AMD fan but only until recently I was "enlightened"...
 
Swatman1 said:
IMO I have been using intel for 6 years now and I feel that AMD is just such a better option in terms of performance and price when it comes to gaming.
Click to expand...

It's the case recently but not for the last 6 years. At its release i7 was performing good, but expensive motherboards shifted the price/performance in AMDs favor. You could get a much cheaper motherboard with more feature which definitely shifted the advantage to AMDs favor.

With the cheap 1155 motherboards Sandy Bridge CPUs like the 2500k i5 do seem like a sweet spot. But that's only been the case for less than a year now.

Like 2 1/2 years ago I got a 720BE. $120 for the CPU, $79 for the motherboard. Unlocked 4th core and OCed to 3.5Ghz, it still provides decent performance by today's standard two and a half years later. An i7 920 at the time would have cost twice as much. For the same budget I was able to invest into a beefier video card than what I would have been able to do with an i7. A 5870 again another great purchase from AMD, which should do really nicely once BD comes out.

So really price performance has always been on the AMD side except for the most recent 2500k from Intel.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top