Ragingclue
12-02-2011, 18:38
Well I finally got around to finishing up my build sheet with a 2500K and then along comes the 3930K.
The reason why I am feeling forced to upgrade at this point is that I feel into the "gamers don't and won't need all those extra cores" 3+ years ago when I got my E8400 dual core processor. I held off on the quad core options because the need simply wasn't there for them for what I do (gaming mostly and some coding), so the higher clockability offered by the dual core won me over.
Fast forward to now. BF3 has kinda sucked a bit with the dual core. Even OC'd. I'd like to avoid that situation for a bit longer this time. The 2500K is a quad core Sandy Bridge that can hit 5GHz, but does not offer hyperthreading so it's four cores and that's it. The 3930K is six cores, with hyperthreading, and can still hit 4.8GHz, so it would ensure a much longer time before hitting a wall due to number of core limitations.
The difference right now in price is pretty big (between the mobo and CPU differences, about $400-500). However, I'm still thinking it might be worth it if games keep progressing to use more cores. Four+ is the norm from here on out, so I'm afraid that will be the bare minimum at a point in the future that isn't far enough away.
Also, siderant, WTF is up with Intel changing sockets every few months now? How long was 775 around? Now with the new i* platforms, how many do they have? Fucking assholes, making future upgradeablility even harder.
Any opinions from the other nerds around here?
The reason why I am feeling forced to upgrade at this point is that I feel into the "gamers don't and won't need all those extra cores" 3+ years ago when I got my E8400 dual core processor. I held off on the quad core options because the need simply wasn't there for them for what I do (gaming mostly and some coding), so the higher clockability offered by the dual core won me over.
Fast forward to now. BF3 has kinda sucked a bit with the dual core. Even OC'd. I'd like to avoid that situation for a bit longer this time. The 2500K is a quad core Sandy Bridge that can hit 5GHz, but does not offer hyperthreading so it's four cores and that's it. The 3930K is six cores, with hyperthreading, and can still hit 4.8GHz, so it would ensure a much longer time before hitting a wall due to number of core limitations.
The difference right now in price is pretty big (between the mobo and CPU differences, about $400-500). However, I'm still thinking it might be worth it if games keep progressing to use more cores. Four+ is the norm from here on out, so I'm afraid that will be the bare minimum at a point in the future that isn't far enough away.
Also, siderant, WTF is up with Intel changing sockets every few months now? How long was 775 around? Now with the new i* platforms, how many do they have? Fucking assholes, making future upgradeablility even harder.
Any opinions from the other nerds around here?