Originally Posted by Ironman517
LOL now quit being such a fanboy. xD Intel is terrible with "upgrade paths", because they only have 2 releases per chipset. But people know this going into it. This is why I never recommend planning on upgrading you CPU when going intel. It is a giant waste of money. You either go i3 + H61 OR go 2500K + P67/Z68/Z77.
And this is not a cost for clock build battle, it is a price/performance for "GAMING" xD
The i5 at stock and the 960T overclocked will perform about the same and they will cost relatively the same (If you go H61) as well. But an overclocked i5 is far superior. The Extreme3 Gen3 board is the board to go with.
I didnt say to later upgrade a cpu I said to upgrade a motherboard
and clock for clock translates into real world gaming performance this is why I refuse to pick a amd rig for gameing because their ipc is FAR behind intels
this is the reason bulldozer dozed is yay i have 5000billion cores but the ipc is so low it doesnt matter and the fact that many games dont take advantage of those extra cores hurt it even worse
This is going to be put simply, for the purpose of explanation.
CPU1 vs CPU2
CPU1 has 2 cores
CPU2 has 6 cores
Each core on CPU1 does 15 calculations per cyce, and has a clock speed of 1MHz
Each core on CPU2 does 4 calculations per cycle, and has a clock speed of 1MHz
CPU1 does 30 calculations per cycle (15 x 2cores)
CPU2 does 24 calculations per cycle (4 x 6cores)
CPU1 does 30,000,000 calculations per second (30 x 1,000,000 Cycles per Second) which equates to 30 FPS while Rendering Movie
CPU2 does 24,000,000 calculations per second (24 x 1,000,000 Cycles per second) which equates to 24 FPS while Rendering Movie
As you can see clock speed does not mean everything, neither does the amount of cores.
Even though CPU1 is a dual-core it manages to outperform the 6-core CPU2 due to more IPCs at an equal clock speed.
IPC = Instructions per Cycle, Instructions are what the CPU handles, like calculations in a calculator.
In general AMD and Intel produce CPUs with somewhat equal amount of Cores and Clock Speed, though AMD is going a bit more towards more cores, less IPCs while Intel is producing slightly less cores but increasing the IPCs.
So if AMD produces more cores with less IPCs than Intel, then applications that require raw speed rather than multiple cores will perform worse. A game like Minecraft is a good example. An 8 core CPU is useless with Minecraft, because it isn't coded to use multiple cores. A game that is coded for multiple threads for multicore CPUs will benefit from AMDs use of many cores, but most games these days don't benefit from more than if even 4 - and that is why people say Intel is Faster, because they just are. AMD chips can encode videos pretty good though, because most video encoding programs take full advantage of all available cores.
If you're looking to game don't focus on the number of cores but rather the performance per core.
this is posted in http://www.overclock.net/t/1179499/why-is-intel-faster-then-amd/50_50#post_15867097
and explains this all perfectly
and your correct im a fanboy of performance. not brand