will the AMD Bulldozer 3.1GHZ run better then the 2500k i5 sandy bridge

[Jonny Kyrie]

says it all in the title i wanted to know what would be better my computer will have 6 fans excluding the PSU and i will be liquid cooling it later on into the year

[Peggy Paperdoll]

You're going to get widely varying opinions on what CPU is better.  It all depends on what you are doing with your computer as to whether or not on CPU will be best for you.  But, since you asked this question on an SL forum I'm going to assume you are looking for gaming performance as the primary concern you have for the best CPU.  Games (including SL which is not technically a game) do not put a lot of load on a CPU........it's all about graphics.  SL, being dynamic, does put a little more load on the CPU than a game like, say, WoW.........but not much really.  Any modern CPU with a clock speed of 2 gigahertz or more are more than enough for SL (or any other game).  CPU's will benchmark higher or lower but that's just performance stats that tell how well the CPU will perform under whatever set of circumstances the test is testing.  I seriously doubt anyone can see a difference in performance in SL with an older Core 2 Dual 2.3 ghz CPU over a new i7 3.x ghz CPU.  Sure it's going to be faster but so is a Lamborgini on Santa Monica Blvd at 5:00 pm compared to a Chevy Volt......it just doesn't matter.

Go with what you think you need.  If cost is important, then AMD is probably the way to go.  If you like Intel (as I do) than go with the i5.  Both will perform way better than necessary for SL.

[Jonny Kyrie]

ok thanks i think im going to go with the i5

[leliel Mirihi]

---

Peggy Paperdoll wrote:

Games (including SL which is not technically a game) do not put a lot of load on a CPU........it's all about graphics. 

---

Try running BF3 on an old dual core.

---

Go with what you think you need.  If cost is important, then AMD is probably the way to go.  If you like Intel (as I do) than go with the i5.  Both will perform way better than necessary for SL.

---

The i5 is cheaper and noticeably faster at everything. That's all the OP needed to know.

 

 

[Peggy Paperdoll]

---

Peggy Paperdoll wrote:

Games (including SL which is not technically a game) do not put a lot of load on a CPU........it's all about graphics.

---

Try running BF3 on an old dual core.

We're not talking about BF3 (Battlefield 3?).  Different games have different requirements.  Games are not heavy CPU users.......games are heavy GPU users.  And SL is a heavier user of GPU than most any other game available.  SL will run on a Pentium D.....that is and "old dual core" CPU.  The problem with computers with Pentium D CPU's is that the motherboards tend not to suuport the graphics cards necesary for the newer viewers.  But the CPU sure worked for my the first couple years I was in SL.

---

Go with what you think you need.  If cost is important, then AMD is probably the way to go.  If you like Intel (as I do) than go with the i5.  Both will perform way better than necessary for SL.

---

The i5 is cheaper and noticeably faster at everything. That's all the OP needed to know.

AMD CPU's are generally less expensive than Intel CPU's for comparable chipsets.  If the i5 is cheaper than an equilant AMD CPU and price is a concern, then, by all means, go with the Intel.  I made no recommendation.  I merely said both processors will perform way better than necessary for SL........and I believe the OP alse "needed to know" that.

I know you have much different ideas about what is best for SL.  I believe that someone should get what they can afford and are comfortable with spending to get the best they can get within those limits.  No one needs $3000,00 USD custom build gamer's rig to run SL..........if they want one, then get it.  But it's not necessary at all.  I don't understand why you decided to quote my post and cherry pick the parts you have a different opinion on.  I didn't give any information that is incorrect and needed correction by you.  This forum is for giving help to people who ask.........it's not a forum to tell everyone how much you know about computers.

[leliel Mirihi]

I quoted you post and cherry picked parts of it because the OP was specifically asking about the FX-8120 vs. i5-2500K.

 

[Peggy Paperdoll]

And I said both would work just fine.  I did imply that maybe the AMD would be the way to go if cost was a factor.....since the i5 is cheaper (by your claim, I never looked up the price myself) then my implication is incorrect.  Instead of cherry picking a post where I made an honest mistake (AMD's are, for the most part, always less expensive than Intel for the comparable device......I was not comparing CPU's in performance).  I was merely telling the OP that either processor would do the job very well and to go with whatever he/she wanted.  If the less expensive is the Intel (which I have no reason to dispute) and cost is a factor then, instead of the AMD, go Intel.  If cost was not a factor then whatever the OP decided would not be a mistake.

"Will the AMD Bulldozer 3.1 GHZ run better than the 2500k i5, sandy bridge"?  Maybe, maybe not........but, for SL the different is insignificant.  The only way one could tell which is "better" is a benchmark test.  No one would be able to see a difference of one over the other while using SL.  Once the processor speed reaches about 2 GHZ (probably even lower than that) SL is simply not going to get any better (neither will most games).  Any CPU must, of course support SSE2........but almost every dual core CPU manufactured after the Pentium 4 supports that (a few doin't, I'm sure).  To say that SL won't work on an old dual core is not correct.........I know it runs on a Pentium D which is an "old dual core" CPU. 

What is better does not necessarily mean what is best on the market,  It most of the time means what is best for a particular need.  The "best" is certainly not necessary for SL.......you don't even need the best GPU to have great performance.  We've had a similar discussion...........your "best of the best" has been noted.  I disagree, as you know.  Let's just let it stay at that.  Okay?

[leliel Mirihi]

---

Peggy Paperdoll wrote:

What is better does not necessarily mean what is best on the market,  It most of the time means what is best for a particular need.  The "best" is certainly not necessary for SL.......you don't even need the best GPU to have great performance.  We've had a similar discussion...........your "best of the best" has been noted.  I disagree, as you know.  Let's just let it stay at that.  Okay?

---

 

I think you've missunderstood me in this and other threads. Nowhere have I ever told people they need to buy high end hardware. I agree with you that SL doesn't need much.

But in this case there is only one right answer. Bulldozer is a bad chip, it runs hot and performs worse than AMD's previous CPU yet cost the same as Intel's CPUs which out perform it by a wide margin. I would not recommend some one by a Bulldozer for any reason what so ever.

[Peggy Paperdoll]

Then didn't you simply say that?  I would have liked to know that myself......even if I'm not a huge fan of AMD.  I didn't misunderstand..........you quoted particular parts of my post to dispute.  That's pretty much what you've done in the past.  Not only to me but others.  It puts people in a position where they might feel compelled to respond to you.

[leliel Mirihi]

How should I respond when I don't agree with part of what you said?

What should I do when I see you telling a guy with a 10 year old computer that wants to run sl on ultra that he should buy some ram and a video card for his old machine when I know full well that those upgrades won't get him anywhere near his goals. That such upgrades would just be a waste of money in my opinion.

[Peggy Paperdoll]

And putting together a custom computer using a $300 motherboard with a $200 CPU along with two $500 video cards is a huge waste of money (and time) for use for almost anything except maybe counting stars in the universe.  A ten year old computer can be upgraded to run SL decently.........in the thread you are referring to I don't think I ever said he/she could run SL at ultra (even I know that's pretty much impossible).

To each their own.

[leliel Mirihi]

In the thread I'm referring to I don't think I ever said they should by 2 $500 video cards either. I've never told people to buy $3000 gaming rigs, I've even tried to discourage people from getting such machines. I don't know where you got this idea from but it wasn't from my posts.

To each their own indeed.

[Voodoo Radek]

I have been using my old AMD 64+ for 8 years now, and i still use it to logging SL with my old Nvidia 6600Gt (latest v3 viewer wont work well though). But times changes, i bought the Bulldozer FX 8-core 8120 3.1/4.0 GHZ  two months ago and i am very happy with it, runs like heaven. I made my decision based in some positives benchmarks agains i5s and in some cases even to some i7s (like this one), and of curse looking at prizes (in Spain):

Bulldozer 8120: 190.50 € (255.498 USD)  http://bit.ly/A4Eym3

i5 2500: 199.90 € (268.105 USD) http://bit.ly/yRFD5L

i7 980X: 877,96 € (1177.51 USD) http://bit.ly/xTJSPN (This model is hard to find)

Is not that i dont like intel, i do. Is just that my experience with AMD have been impeccable, the perfomance is similiar, and the prize is.. well indisputable. But its just my opinion, everyone have their priorities and tastes.

 

Edited to add URLs