Which processor is the better?

Which is a better processor?

• Let me preface this with the acknowledgement that yes, intel is probably better. But it's twice as expensive, and I'd have to buy a new mobo and probably a bigger case as well, which I don't have the money to do. (in other words, please no preaching about intel and dissing my rig) I have an AMD Athlon II x4 645 processor 3.10 ghz. I love to play high end games, and this processor is a bit laggy (matched with an ASUS 560 ti). So I was looking around and I found two processors that would probably work with my mobo, and give me the results I want, but I don't know which one is better. One is a Bulldozer AMD FX-6100 Zambezi 3.3GHz Socket AM3+ 95W Six-Core Desktop Processor. The other is an AMD Phenom II X4 975 Black Edition Deneb 3.6GHz Socket AM3 125W Quad-Core Desktop Processor. I though "Wow, six core must be way better than four core" but then I looked at the price and the quad is 10 dollars more which left me baffled. I've just recently gotten into computer gaming, so I don't know a whole lot about it. So my question is, which of these two processors is better? Or do you know of an even better processor for gaming that's about the same price? Any advice or help will be much appreciated, thank you!

• Answer:

  The price thing is just one site of many but there is a method and more importantly for you logic to their pricing. http://www.techspot.com/review/452-amd-bulldozer-fx-cpus/page10.html shows the performance of many CPU's. Notice the 980 BE is better than the 8120, 6100 AND the 4170. The BUlldozer line really should have been Bulldozed during R&D due to their laughable efficiency.This however does have its' drawback. They may release other processors that a FX board could easily handle but an AM3+ board with a BIOS revision couldn't handle. By that I mean on one hand you are going to have better performance with the 980 but the upgradability just isn't there. Sorry that I jumped over the 975. Once again the magic number is just $10 more. When an i5 750 from 2009 can best an 8150 from the latter part of 2011 the question WHAT THE <CENSORED> WAS AMD THINKING begs for an answer. I saved for a long time and went for the 2500K. It's my money and I want to game NOW!!!!! does not a happy gamer make. I KNEW the AMD processors would be more ummm cost effective but I also knew that in my case the 2500K would be the highest performing GAMER processor that didn't necessitate a 2nd and 3rd mortgage on the house to afford. With a lot of patience and saving I didn't settle for what I could afford now. I saved up and bought what I wanted. You are already more than half-way there. As a matter of fact if you have a Micro-Center near you you are just about $40 away from an AWESOME processor http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0354589 . But ummm uh the 2500K is so last year. Yes it is and the new Ivy Bridge is the next processor. The Ivy Bridge is also socket 1155 like the 2500K so your board will most likely be compatible with a simple BIOS download and update. Calling the manufacturer to confirm is a good idea. There is not a dead-end scenario like with the 975 or 980. 6 cores is in no way better than 4 in the gaming world. Disclaimer: I am not a Minister by any stretch of the imagination and am only telling you what I did. I did answer your question but also gave another option that makes the 2500K only $30 or $40 more as opposed to twice as expensive. Bigger case? They have socket 1155 micro-atx boards too.