CPU for PSX2 -i5 2500 (non k) or AMD FX-4100/6100

[Mkilbride]

Yeah, anyone who buys a non K version is stupid 15$ more, maybe, and easily 40% more performance with the click of a button.

[darksmart1]

so in that case,can i get fx4100 since the clock speed is higher and new architecture is there.??

[gamerX1990]

so in that case,can i get fx4100 since the clock speed is higher and new architecture is there.??

Absolutely not, unless you want my laptop in my sig to pull off more performance at below 3GHz, and if want less performance than what Thuban would give you. (sorry I like referring to CPUs alot by codename, Thuban = Phenom II x6).

Bulldozer is almost like the Pentium 4's, high speed with low power (muscle type of power not power consumption). Bulldozer gets bulldozed by most of anything in well.. most of anything..

[naoan]

why are you so sure those fxs are better? have you check any cpu benchmark? or is that based on your gut feeling?

as for clockspeed; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megahertz_myth

[darksmart1]

so how is i5 2500 and radeon 5770+2gb ddr3 ram {from my current rig}

[Rezard]

We have benchmarks that reflect the difference quite well.
I'll include overclocking results.
Please note the relatively huge difference that extremely easy and safe 4.0Ghz overclock gives with the i5-2500K.

81.22 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i5 2500K - 4.0 GHz OC
66.12 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i5 2500K - 3.3 GHz Stock (Turbo Boost off)
56.14 FPS - SLUS 20672 - AMD FX-4100 - 4.4 GHz OC
44.69 FPS - SLUS 20672 - AMD FX-4100 - 3.6 GHz Stock (turbo boost off)

The stock 2500K can be considered like the non-K.
This example shows the i5 with an easy 50% faster result than the FX at stock.
Just make sure you notice the FX is already at a 300Mhz higher stock clockrate,
yet it only has about 2/3 (~66%) the speed of the stock i5-2500.

[gamerX1990]

Is good for maybe even up to 3x native res depending on the game.

Sandy Bridge > Thuban > *an empty space* > Bulldozer

[darksmart1]

why are you so sure those fxs are better? have you check any cpu benchmark? or is that based on your gut feeling?

as for clockspeed; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megahertz_myth

actually my primary objective is to build a psx2 compatible system at a lowest possible price.So i m preferring amd.(also i used to be an amd fanboy for their price by performance ratio,but thats an old thing)

[gamerX1990]

actually my primary objective is to build a psx2 compatible system at a lowest possible price.So i m preferring amd.(also i used to be an amd fanboy for their price by performance ratio,but thats an old thing)

If that is what you insist on, again Thuban is going to be much better than Bulldozer. Thuban and Llano are very similar, Thuban has L3 cache while Llano has small IPC improvement. Look what my A8 gets at just 2.9 GHz vs a Bulldozer at 3.6 GHz, at 3 GHz it's bound to match it.

44.69 FPS - SLUS 20672 - AMD FX-4100 - 3.6 GHz Stock (turbo boost off)
42.16 FPS - SLUS 20672 - AMD A8-3500M - 2.90 GHz OC

Have you considered any lower end i5's at least? Even those will still be better...

[darksmart1]

also i saw this and found the game speeds very good as compared to my thubanx6..http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=fx%204100%20psx2&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CCwQtwIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D6Pg_Wu67ZFQ&ei=V8EdT83TFMbqrQfDmuSWDQ&usg=AFQjCNF9L2CjYISfEyQ2tZ1d7oHj3XrqrQ