I hope you have enough common sense to not listen to that poster.
Please tell me you do.
More cores DOES NOT mean better.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Opinions are like armpits. Everyone has one and some stink, now if someone says your armpits stink it isn't very polite to go rubbing it in their face, it isn't going to make them say yours doesn't stink it'll just make them dislike you and your armpit even more. Remember keep your armpits and opinions respectful.
I suggest you purchase a intel core i5 3470 quad core. I have one of these and then run all games on ultra with no lag (Of course you have to have a good graphics card to be able to run games ultra with smooth fps) This will last you a while as well. http://www.newegg.co...N82E16819116504
Link for the processor.
I suggest you purchase a intel core i5 3470 quad core. I have one of these and then run all games on ultra with no lag (Of course you have to have a good graphics card to be able to run games ultra with smooth fps) This will last you a while as well. http://www.newegg.co...N82E16819116504
Link for the processor.
I would avoid Ivy Bridge, so any chip with the 3 suffix (i5-3xxx, i3-3xxx etc). They tend to run hotter than the Sandy Bridge chips and aren't as great at overclocking.
I tend to disagree with this statement, though I can see your point. If Ivy Bridge has more power per clock (ex: 4.2Ghz IB = 4.5Ghz Sandy, this may not be exact, but it's just an example) then you could get an Ivy Bridge CPU if you are not overclocking, or not doing a heavy overclock.
Im running on a Intel i5 3470 . Its really good cus its quad core . Go for any INTEL CPU that has quad core . More cores the better :]
JaH aNd MoAr RaMz GiVeS yOuS mOrE sPeEdZ
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Commies count their quarters and the ArtSci wish they could, the Engs have the longest pole and slam it home for good, so big, so hard, so tall, it reaches all the way to heaven, so shut your hole, we climbed the pole, we're sci 1 ing 7!!!
Exactly, more programs at once, not increased performance, in fact, the more programs running, the less performance.
Actually if you had two identical CPU's and one had more cores the one with more cores would always perform better. The problem is that people assume that just because something has more cores that it is better. Similar to the misconception that a higher rated power supply is better when in fact there are many cases a lower rated one will produce more effective power than a higher rated one.
Please tell me you do.
More cores DOES NOT mean better.
This will last you a while as well.
http://www.newegg.co...N82E16819116504
Link for the processor.
Ahem, 6 cores allows more CPU usage allowing to run more programs at once.
Don't know...
Don't post.
i5 (four cores) beats AMD's FX8120 processor easily in nearly all applications (hard core rendering aside). Architecture>cores or clock in determining performance.
http://pcpartpicker.com/user/SteevyT/saved/21PI
I tend to disagree with this statement, though I can see your point. If Ivy Bridge has more power per clock (ex: 4.2Ghz IB = 4.5Ghz Sandy, this may not be exact, but it's just an example) then you could get an Ivy Bridge CPU if you are not overclocking, or not doing a heavy overclock.
JaH aNd MoAr RaMz GiVeS yOuS mOrE sPeEdZ
Actually if you had two identical CPU's and one had more cores the one with more cores would always perform better. The problem is that people assume that just because something has more cores that it is better. Similar to the misconception that a higher rated power supply is better when in fact there are many cases a lower rated one will produce more effective power than a higher rated one.