i5 2500k vs phenom x6s

I was wondering which would handle playing some games and streaming/recording those games at the same time better. Considering they are both at about the same price.

here is a solution, wait for the bulldozer platform

the 2500k stomps the x6 in almost every aspect

What Beehoo said.

Skulla: "Wait" is the dumbest thing I ever read when it comes to buying pc parts..

I've read "wait for bulldozer" for over a half year now, it still isn't here. Now that's over a half year worth of quality time infront of a pc someone could have gotten instead of waiting waiting waiting. When Bulldozer comes out, they will shortly after announce how awesome their next gen will be, and people will be saying "wait" again.. tsk tsk


But frankly, I dont think you will notice any difference when recording with like Fraps. Just get a fast harddrive or ssd to write those huge videofiles to.

I know. But at least they took the time to get the bugs worked out

Personal experience here Don't wait for Bulldozer it gets old real fast, especially now that they just got delayed till august. If you wait for one thing you will just wait for the next intel one, it always flip flops.


I decided to just bite the bullet and get the core i5 2500k I could not be any happier, I got it for $170 and I haven't had a chance to overclock it yet since I don't have the money for the cooler as of now. But these things get to 4.5 easy on a good air cooler.


1+ 2500k here.

Definitely the 2500k, better performance while having considerably lower power consumption rates.

that does make since and it is far more power effecient now to wait for my lazy ass school to send me my bill

Ironically, the six core AMD's are the equivalent to my quad core i5-750.

I was wondering simply because of the two extra cores if it might outperform the 2500k in that exact application

Buy the 2500K, I did and dont regret it one bit.


I got fed up of waiting for AMD....

Rabu Rabu said:

Ironically, the six core AMD's are the equivalent to my quad core i5-750.

Funny, though, how much more credit you'll get for having a Phenom II 1090T, even though it performs the same at a whopping 533MHz clockspeed advantage. People are noobs. AMD has only held the "price for performance" crown for about 6 months in total over the past 5 years, because Intel really does perform that much better.

aaronmonto said:

Funny, though, how much more credit you'll get for having a Phenom II 1090T, even though it performs the same at a whopping 533MHz clockspeed advantage. People are noobs. AMD has only held the "price for performance" crown for about 6 months in total over the past 5 years, because Intel really does perform that much better.

Uh...no. Price to performance means that you'll be getting something from AMD that isn't quite up to par with Intel, but it's definitely still nice for the money considering how expensive Intel is. I agree that it probably is worth the extra money for an Intel CPU if you're going to be utilizing the extra processing speed, but if you're just gaming then AMD is a really nice compromise.

I personally think the whole hardware discussion is kind of bullshit anyways. I am still running my phenom II 940 with my hd4870 and I have not yet encountered any games I cannot run on my system. Let's face it; in the past three years, there has not been a single good game(at least to my liking) on the pc-platform that really set new standards in the gaming industry graphics wise. Stick with your current system for another few months, because only when BF3 and Skyrim hit the market you will make good use of a good system.(Although I doubt skyrim will push the boundaries that much as it is a console port). I think it would be your best bet to just wait a few weeks before they release these games. They will proabably have the new bulldozer platform up by then and a new series of graphics cards, not to mention the money you will save.

AMDs suck ATM

the6ftmidget said:

I personally think the whole hardware discussion is kind of bullshit anyways. I am still running my phenom II 940 with my hd4870 and I have not yet encountered any games I cannot run on my system. Let's face it; in the past three years, there has not been a single good game(at least to my liking) on the pc-platform that really set new standards in the gaming industry graphics wise. Stick with your current system for another few months, because only when BF3 and Skyrim hit the market you will make good use of a good system.(Although I doubt skyrim will push the boundaries that much as it is a console port). I think it would be your best bet to just wait a few weeks before they release these games. They will proabably have the new bulldozer platform up by then and a new series of graphics cards, not to mention the money you will save.

One thing you got to realize when making statements like that is some of us like to play our games and max settings. I could still be running my core 2 duo and my 4850 but I want to be able to run all my games even the new ones I buy on 1920 X 1080 and on High. It is why I play PC games, that and the being able to use mouse and keyboard. Also buying new hardware and discussing hardware is both interesting and a hobby for me and others here.


Our computers are like cars to some people, we are constantly tweaking them and buying upgrades.


Lastly again like others say here waiting for hardware is a never ending battle and you just can't do it, because once bulldozer comes out ivy bridge is almost out then when ivy bridge is out AMD is about to release something. Also with all the delays and performance issues AMD has had with bulldozer so far I would be very very cautious.


This is just my opinion on this.

Rabu Rabu said:

Ironically, the six core AMD's are the equivalent to my quad core i5-750.

Ironically enough your i5 still cost way more

the6ftmidget said:

Let's face it; in the past three years, there has not been a single good game(at least to my liking) on the pc-platform that really set new standards in the gaming industry graphics wise. Stick with your current system for another few months, because only when BF3 and Skyrim hit the market you will make good use of a good system.

You've obviously never played STALKER or Metro 2033 on highest settings.

Insanely amazing graphics.

Vortex said:

Uh...no. Price to performance means that you'll be getting something from AMD that isn't quite up to par with Intel, but it's definitely still nice for the money considering how expensive Intel is. I agree that it probably is worth the extra money for an Intel CPU if you're going to be utilizing the extra processing speed, but if you're just gaming then AMD is a really nice compromise.


This only applies to people who have a budget of under $600 or $700 (low-mid-range... although, if you buy a used CPU and motherboard, you could get an i7 system for that much!). If you can spend more than $700 and can shop wisely, there's really no excuse for settling for AMD. I was also mostly speaking in regards to people who think Intel is "super-expensive" and this sort of thing. It's simply not; if you like (CPU) speed, it's worth the money.