AMD or Intel processor for a gaming build? $1000 budget

[GhOsT1321]

Hello, a friend has recently asked me to build her a computer. The budget is 1000, and an OS is needed. She already has a monitor, mouse, keyboard, and speakers. She will be using the computer for gaming, photoshop, and running a Minecraft server.

Feel free to suggest a build, however my main question is...Which processor would be better for her, considering that overclocking is not an option?

AMD
Newegg.com - AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition Thuban 3.2GHz 6 x 512KB L2 Cache 6MB L3 Cache Socket AM3 125W Six-Core Desktop Processor HDT90ZFBGRBOX

or

Intel
Newegg.com - Intel Core i5-2500 Sandy Bridge 3.3GHz (3.7GHz Turbo Boost) 4 x 256KB L2 Cache 6MB L3 Cache LGA 1155 95W Quad-Core Desktop Processor BX80623I52500


Without overclocking I doubt that the Intel would be better. I am thinking with overclocking=Intel, without overclocking=AMD. Would that be correct?

 

[Oreo]

To my knowledge, not many applications, especially games, take advantage of 6 core processors. Some games don't even utililise quad cores yet.. for some reason. I have the 2600, and can highly reccomend it for gaming performance.

GTA4 is incredibley CPU intensive, yet it barely gets over 35percent usage and the fps is around 20/25fps more than my old Q9550.

 

[Night Fox]

Agreed. I believe photoshop only uses 2 cores and with some features, only 1. Same with most games.

 

[GhOsT1321]

It seems that the Intel processor would be the clear choice at this point. Can't wait until the motherboards are shipped.

 

[patonb]

However, if shes running a server too, wouldn't the x6 or 2600 be better?

 

[mikesx4911]

I own the AMD cpu you have listed and I LOVE IT. 6 CORE!!!! **** yes lol, I have never OC'd it because its just not needed. But I think this would work best for the server needs gaming wise, games dont normally use more than 2 cores, so a 6 core is just a waste :*( But it is still nice to have, so AMD has my vote

 

[Peter.Cort]

the minecraft server would probably be better on the 2500 to be honest simply because it's faster. it doesn't really matter how many cores are there because it's like any application, if it can't utilize 6 cores then it won't see the speed benefits of 6 cores.

i honestly can't think of any reason why I'd pick the 1090 over the 2500 honestly, especially now that the SB has on-board graphics that you don't have to sacrifice performance of the motherboard to get. Other than that the 2500 is faster, around the same price (200 at microcenter for the 2500k), and motherboards you can get similar quality across the board for similar price, and it oc's much better with the K version.

 

[patonb]

I'm just think of 2 real cores for the server, 2 cores to play and 2 cores for windows.

 

[Peter.Cort]

i believe with multiple cores now unless it's programmed to use multiple cores what will happen is you'll have to set the server to run on 0/1 games on 2/3 and windows on 4/5 every time you log in, otherwise it will automatically stack on core0 and core1 will be used if the process can use multiple cores.

I know that's how it was with AMD's original dual core's, you had to set things specifically to go onto the second core otherwise it would just stack on the first, but i'm not sure if it's still how it's done

 

[patonb]

Yes thats right, i didn't mean 2 specific cores... let windows do the management.