Originally Posted by KarathKasun Excepting the fact that the FX-8xxx series totally demolishes the i5-2300 In so many tasks its not funny, not to mention with a modest OC is comes close in many games. Or the fact that in things other than games it will be much faster.
Which means that if you want an XBOX replacement, that is non upgradeable... yes i5-2300 isnt bad. If you do other things... It is a horrible choice. Hell, in many things the FX-8150 and FX-8120 totally outpace the i5 2300 for not much more (in the case of the FX-8120). And that is at stock speeds. At 4Ghz it would demolish the i5-2300 making the i5-2300 a poor choice for general computing.
At a similar price, the FX-8120 is miles better than either of them.
At $45 more, the FX-8120 is a better deal. It will run 4Ghz with stock cooling, a far cry from the 3.1Ghz stock speed.
In any application with 4 threads or less (the vast majority of end-user programs) the i5-23xx will be faster than the overclocked FX-81xx, not just gaming.
With the FX-81xx at 4.0 Ghz, the i5 will be faster in most application. The FX-81xx might be faster in some heavily threaded applications at 4.6+ Ghz.
Now you're claiming the FX-81xx is faster than the i5-23xx in general computing when Core2s and Phenom Is are more than sufficient for general computer usage for the end-user.
For $45 more, the i5-2500K is faster than anything from AMD.
Originally Posted by Rookie1337
Two games...sigh. This thread should have ended a long time ago. Seriously Intel guys you need to stop. It's not helping a person if you're telling them they have no choice and they should get "this" and that they're "stupid" if they don't.To everyone saying how bad AMD is...think of it this way...how good do you think you'd be dealing with far less money compared to your competitor, having to use your competitor's instruction set, dealing with their compiler being used a lot (not that I have much sympathy for AMD since their own doesn't do their CPUs favors either last I saw), a consumer base that would tear you apart for not trying out something new, programmers that if they had their way would be leaving us with single threaded 8bit programs, a general consumer base (that is people outside of us) that only knows Intel (marketing comes from the money war chest), years of anti-competitive practices against you, and so on. It's not an excuse but it should help give perspective. The fact AMD even once had an upper hand shocks me. To be honest...if Intel wasn't this "far" ahead it would be rather pathetic of them.
Those two games represent CPU-dependent games; you would see similar results in Skyrim. We're just pointing out the obvious, Intel has better offerings for CPUs in gaming.
I don't really care why AMD is so far behind. I know this:Intel has faster CPUs for the same price.Edited by openureyes - 12/23/11 at 7:00pm