iMac Pro review
I gather that Sandybridge pretty much destroys anything AMD has to offer at the moment, and that AMD will be releasing Bulldozer in a few months time.
Up until now I was planning on getting a Core i5 2500, with the total system costing around £840. However, in the past I bought a PC with a Core 2 Duo E6600, which was then what the 2500 is now in terms of relative performance. I ended up using almost none of that power. I'm a casual gamer, to be honest this is the first PC I'll be getting which will have dedicated graphics, specifically a HD5570 (!) I'd like to play some relatively recent games (seriously, I own no games made after 2004!). However, since I'm not a hardcore gamer, nor a graphics designer or anything like that, I'm just looking for a computer that will last and offer opportunities to upgrade.
As such, I've been reconsidering going with intel. I'll end up spending money on power that will never be used, at least not in the near future. I'm sure I can play the games I want at reasonable settings with a quad core AMD for instance, even if they are outdated.
The same spec PC, only with an AMD Phenom II X4 965, will cost me £80 less and £95 less if that were a 955 (money for games perhaps?). Is it worth it do you think? Would an i5 2500 just be wasted on someone who's just a an everyday user/casual gamer?
I think I would hang on a bit if you can. I am a Intel user but I want to compare Sandy Bridge with Bulldozer, when they are both available, for my next build. A really good monitor like the Acer GD245HQ with 120Hz capability rather than 60hz will probably make more of a difference to your sort of everyday use than anything else right now if your monitor is getting on a bit
I would suggest that most of us humans are unable to tell the difference between one Nanosecond and another.
If Bragging Rights count for you, then Intel have the High Ground at the present.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.