Originally Posted by TheYonderGod
Ugh why did I have to read this, now I have to decide weather I want to get a used Phenom II x6 or a used 8120 in about a month or so when I have the money, or keep saving for a new 8300 a month or 2 after that. My current CPU is okay
and almost works good enough so I'll probably wait, but I don't know. I guess it depends on how long before I have the rest of the money for the x6/x8 and if any more info comes out by then.
Honestly, you'd be best off holding on to your CPU. The FX 8-cores use too much power for their performance, and the FX quad-core wouldn't be a big improvement, except in the memory department.
With all this talk of framerates and benchmarks and Intel being better: yes, the 2500k keeps up with SLI/CF setups and nVidia 6xx / AMD 78xx/79xx better than Bulldozer. However, even an Athlon x3, paired with my 560ti 448-core, plays BF3 on Ultra, even in Multiplayer, with no lag unless I get ping spikes. It also plays Skyrim and Dirt 3 perfectly fine on highest settings (including about 4GB of texture mods on Skyrim).
The fact is, 85%+ of games are still GPU-limited, and the only time the 2500k shows a big advantage is with very high-end cards.
2500k + 7970 = $690
FX-8120 + 7850 = $420
Is it worth $270 to you, personally? That's the difference. For overall price - performance, maybe Intel has the lead. But to say that a $220 CPU is "entry level" is inaccurate for a lot of people, even those who call themselves enthusiasts. And when you pair either CPU with a $150-250 GPU (which is the real "entry level" for enthusiasts) the performance gap shrinks in a hurry.Edited by pow3rtr1p - 7/23/12 at 6:52am