I found a deal at my local microcenter that has both the i7 2700k and fx 8350 (Piledriver) both on sale for 199.99, and was wondering which would be better for a rig that involve much gaming, with some more work related tasks, but bigger emphasis on playing. They also have the i5 3570k on sale for 169.99, and was wondering maybe if i should go with this instead. Thanks!
Buy the 2700k.
That 3570k is a pretty good deal. I would go with that.
i5....
Blargh, for JUST gaming, yeah, go for the i5... but the i7 is only $30 more.... In very few situations will the FX 8350 outperform the 2700k, none of which you listed, plus the 8350 being $199 isn't a particularily good deal, the FX8350 came out at about $200, the i7 is about $325.
If the $30 makes no big difference for you, go with the i7, if it does, go with the i5, either will max out any game you play (depending on your graphics of couse).
Thanks for all the replies, and i will definitley be picking up the i5!
Good choice. The only thing AMD Beats Intel in the high end area is video editing and such.
Someone please show me a single benchmark where any modern CPU makes a difference in gaming. I mean of any significance differnce in FPS. I'm not talking about 2-5 FPS or some B.S. Most games are almost entirely GPU dependent. For the rare set of games that do take advantage of multithreading on the CPU you're probably better off with an AMD processor and you've saved yourself some money while you're at it.
Some times it can be dependant on the game, Battlefield 3 dosn't care much for CPU but ArmA II eats CPU's for breakfast!
The Q6600 is not really a "modern" CPU. While he could have clarified more as to what he meant by modern you should easily be able to figure out what he meant. Modern for CPU's generally means a non-dead socket, LGA775 is dead.
Also Anandtech probably isn't the best place to get benchmarks lol.
Thanks. I like the comparison tool although couldn't find how ther test systems were configured.
It's consistent with other benchmarks I've seen on Tom's and other sites and just reinforces what I already know: in most cases there is little difference in CPU gaming benchmarks between Intel and AMD CPUs. The majority of their benchmarks only show between 5-10 FPS differences favoring the Intel CPUs.
I guess it comes down to whether people think it's worth shelling out the extra cash for 5-10 FPS. Unless you are a professional competitive gamer I don't see the point. Apparently Intel has a done a good job with their marketing efforts to convince the average joe that they need to spend the extra cash for some miniscule FPS advantage and pay a premium for Intel compatiable motherboards. Reminds me of another company good at marketing hype (hint: name starts with A and rymes with Snapple).
I was supposed to link this, but oh well
If you still don't get it, I guess you don't have a sense of humour.
Oh, and Anandtech is pretty consistent if you ask me. Others find that as well.