Again, I fail to see the logic behind Oldschool61's posts. What are we talking about here and what is this forum/subforum about?

Hoping to achieve 150 FPS with CoD is pretty optimistic IMO. :)

The point was that if your amd and intel both get a minimum of >60 fps then you wont see any difference

Is err...is that likely to happen?

I just don't want my fps dropping to 10 during an attack on a raid of 100+ Ju88s, that's all I'm sayin

The Sandy Bridge processors are considerably more powerful than current AMD ones. The extra processing power 'headroom' gives a degree of extra future-proofing over the AMD and may result in systems using the intel's being able to handle future demands (in COD and elsewhere) better than the AMD.

For me, the price difference between an AMD and an i5-2500K is not an issue. The intel is well within budget for my upgrade. The extra performance certainly makes the 2500K the current 'sweet spot'

(I got hauled over the coals for using that term 'future-proofing' in a previous post - but it makes sense to build a system that has as much headroom to deal with future needs as you can afford. )

Also Oldschool 61, we can all see that you have an AMD fixation - but the OP did make clear that he wasn't interested. It's a bit disrespectful to keep harping on and on and on.

For myself - I did consider Bulldozer as an option, so I'm not some Intel fanboy, but as I want the new system to play COD - in 2 weeks :) - and Bulldozer won't be out until June...

Additionally, the next gen of Intel processors is supposedly going to use the 1155 socket, which means the 2500K only makes sense

If I was building now,it would be with a sandy 2500k.Seems like a brilliant cpu.
If I was building later in the year and bulldozer was out and outperformed sandybridge,I would use one of them instead.
I don't care who makes the cpu,I care about its performance!

I totally agree with you. I was trying to point out that if a hypothetical system of each cpu manufacturer can render >60 fps worth of game play with 100 JU 88's is you wont see a difference past your monitor refresh rate.

Its like buying a Ferrari over a Prius to drive at 100kph on the highway. Sure the Ferrari has more power and is faster but when your speed is limited to "60hz" they both are equal.

I'm not trying to fight with anyone on here, but once the game comes out, let's have someone make a mission with 200+ planes bombing London with fighters and tons of AAA shooting back. Well have someone with an AMD run the mission and someone with a 2500K run the mission and see who has the best framefrate. Graphics cards and RAM would also have to be similar, but I have no idea what I'm going to get yet. Then the debate will be settled.

From what Luthier as said I doubt any PC would be able to handle that lot.