Joe C
Golden Master
- Messages
- 5,006
- Location
- Great Lakes State
I think the i5 is a better cpu but that's just my opinion. Others may need to post with their views also
first pc
- Thread starter patches
- Start date
- Status
Roark
Lord of Bacon
- Messages
- 1,357
- Location
- North Carolina
i5 is a better CPU, but you may want to go AMD so a copy of Windows 7 will fit in the budget (~$100).
Don't take my word for this, but I do believe (from a few quick google searches) ivy bridge/sandy bridge are far better than AMD in the gaming field. Those AMD FX CPUs are for budget gaming, they aren't the very best but they work great for budget builds. With your $700 budget it's gonna be tough fitting an ivy/sandy bridge in there so I wouldn't bother unless you're going to consider increasing the budget.
PP Mguire
Build Guru
- Messages
- 32,592
- Location
- Fort Worth, Texas
To add another to the list of replies, the only FX CPU worth getting is the 4170. Unless you have a task or tasks that will take absolutely all 8 cores 100% then there is no reason at all to buy an FX CPU unless you simply can meet the budget.
jasonalwaysready
Daemon Poster
- Messages
- 1,021
- Location
- usa
The difference between oem and the retail copy of windows is that the oem copy is good for the lifetime of the motherboard. the retail copy can be installed on as many computers as you want... one at a time.
PP Mguire
Build Guru
- Messages
- 32,592
- Location
- Fort Worth, Texas
The difference between the AMD and Intel setups is actually nothing. The AMD motherboard is 100 bucks more than the Intel board and the Intel CPU is 100 bucks more than the AMD CPU. Might as well get the 2500k setup.
you are right, but I thought that sense it had 4.3ghz that meant it was faster
PP Mguire
Build Guru
- Messages
- 32,592
- Location
- Fort Worth, Texas
No. Ghz speed doesn't always mean something is faster. The 2500k is by far the best budget CPU for gaming and general use.
jasonalwaysready
Daemon Poster
- Messages
- 1,021
- Location
- usa
it can be confusing but there are many factors to how 'fast' a cpu is.
there are the number of cores; consider it the number of arms. a dual core machine has 2 arms, a quad core ... has 2 arms and 2 legs working. some newer chips look a bit like vishnu.
then theres hyper threading, that's like having an opposable thumb on the hands and can sort of get twice as much done as a single arm in some situations.
then there is the architecture. this is the size of the muscles and where a lot of people get confused. older chips are the pipe cleaners. pentium 4's are that tiny guy at the gym with the pipe cleaner arms that is doing hundreds of pushups ... girl pushups. newer architecture makes the core stronger while still having the same number of arms as that little guy. the little guy might do just as many or even twice as many pushups as these big guys, but the big guys are doing more work. they are moving more weight around. the number of pushups in a minute is the Ghz, but the architecture makes the chip look like duke nukem or schwarzenegger before he got fat.
- Status
