Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Budget Gaming PC: Intel or AMD

Last response: in Motherboards
Share
February 12, 2012 2:48:01 PM

For my first budget gaming PC, I have two options as I described below.

1. H61M-S2V-B3 + Intel i3-2100

2. GA-M68MT-D3P + AMD AthronIIx3

With AMD CPU, I can save about $60, but I am concerned about if the cheaper price does mean its poor ability.

This is my first time to build a computer, so any advice will be appreciated!!

Thanks in advance!

Tony
February 12, 2012 3:52:29 PM

A quad core is always better for the future gaming than an i3 and being Intel doesn't have a decent quad core for cheap Phenom II 955 or 960 or FX - 4100 is the way to go same price as Intel dual core but with AMD you get a more future PROOF x4 Quad core CPU.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b V Motherboard
February 12, 2012 4:11:00 PM

Gamer Dude said:
A quad core is always better for the future gaming than an i3 and being Intel doesn't have a decent quad core for cheap Phenom II 955 or 960 or FX - 4100 is the way to go same price as Intel dual core but with AMD you get a more future PROOF x4 Quad core CPU.

The i3 does have hyper threading so it has 2 cores/ 4 threads. Don't even think about getting AMD chips anymore, they're out of the CPU market. The i3 beats the quad core Phenoms in almost every way and don't even get me started on the faildozers....
m
0
l
February 12, 2012 4:35:33 PM

e56imfg said:
The i3 does have hyper threading so it has 2 cores/ 4 threads. Don't even think about getting AMD chips anymore, they're out of the CPU market. The i3 beats the quad core Phenoms in almost every way and don't even get me started on the faildozers....

even with Hyper threading which is a joke for gaming in fact slower in some games the i3 2100 can not overclock and in nerewe apps down the road the i3 will max out faster than a Quad core Phenom II x4 Deneb.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
a c 195 V Motherboard
February 12, 2012 4:42:39 PM

Except AMD is phasing out the Phenom II line. So for a budget chip you are stuck with the joke that is an FX 4100. Even overclocked to 4.6Ghz the FX 4100 can not beat a stock i3 2100 in a single benchmark. In fact an i3 2100 is about equal to an FX 6100 at 4.5Ghz and the i3 is even better in some tests.


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-a...


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-a...
m
0
l
February 12, 2012 4:55:55 PM

anort3 said:
Except AMD is phasing out the Phenom II line. So for a budget chip you are stuck with the joke that is an FX 4100. Even overclocked to 4.6Ghz the FX 4100 can not beat a stock i3 2100 in a single benchmark. In fact an i3 2100 is about equal to an FX 6100 at 4.5Ghz and the i3 is even better in some tests.


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-a...


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-a...

Well Phenom II still is around for sale in many stores and they have stock and in two years when OP upgrade again AMD or Intel will be an option but things will change mighty in two years in the PC arena that why nobody judges a build on what hardware is coming out next year platform etc you buy what you can afford and that will perform for what you need today not tomorrow cause PC market is to volatile. PS Phenom II x4 Deneb OCed is on par or a bit faster than i3 2100 and Deneb x4 will still maintain its power farther into the future compared to i3 2100 cause dual core is being phased out and HT is a marketing joke and only as fast as the real cores.
m
0
l
February 12, 2012 5:02:59 PM

If I were you I would pick AMD Phenom II X4 965 or even 960T and try unlocking cores and there you will have some multitasking and overclokeable little mosnter, forget about intel those I3' are just nonoverclokeable slacker cpu's. you get more with a Phenom line and more feature in your motherboard without taking off some lanes as intel boards do to fulfill some features. ;)  Plus AMD is Cheaper
m
0
l
February 12, 2012 6:35:58 PM

_Pez_ said:
If I were you I would pick AMD Phenom II X4 965 or even 960T and try unlocking cores and there you will have some multitasking and overclokeable little mosnter, forget about intel those I3' are just nonoverclokeable slacker cpu's. you get more with a Phenom line and more feature in your motherboard without taking off some lanes as intel boards do to fulfill some features. ;)  Plus AMD is Cheaper


I do agree that AMD are overclockable monster and this i3 isn't.
But this doesn't mean that AMD are faster, even OClocked.

Picking A Sub-$200 Gaming CPU: FX, An APU, Or A Pentium?
Here's an article that compares many CPUs in the gaming area, some results includes OC CPUs.

The conclusion is that gaming performance wise, i3-2100 beats many AMD CPU, even when AMD are OC.

Here somes article quote:
i3-2100 is GOOD even with many threads and background programs: "we showed that the Core i3-2100 can match AMD's Phenom II X4 955, even while background tasks run in parallel with a game....we couldn't even speculate that Intel's Core-i3 2100 might disappoint in a real-world environment with applications running in the background. "
"...we're almost-shockingly left without an AMD CPU to recommend at any price point."

And as a plus you get all this awesome performance at 95w TDP.. some AMD cpus at stock are 125w, other 95w (like my favorite AMD cpu, the good 960T), but mind you that to reach i3-2100 gaming performance you need to OC them, which you bring their power consumption much higher than this 125w/95w range.

Well.. saying this we conclude that the i3-2100 it's a non-overclocker CPU that DON'T need to be OCled.
m
0
l
February 12, 2012 7:34:11 PM

vitornob said:
I do agree that AMD are overclockable monster and this i3 isn't.
But this doesn't mean that AMD are faster, even OClocked.

Picking A Sub-$200 Gaming CPU: FX, An APU, Or A Pentium?
Here's an article that compares many CPUs in the gaming area, some results includes OC CPUs.

The conclusion is that gaming performance wise, i3-2100 beats many AMD CPU, even when AMD are OC.

Here somes article quote:
i3-2100 is GOOD even with many threads and background programs: "we showed that the Core i3-2100 can match AMD's Phenom II X4 955, even while background tasks run in parallel with a game....we couldn't even speculate that Intel's Core-i3 2100 might disappoint in a real-world environment with applications running in the background. "
"...we're almost-shockingly left without an AMD CPU to recommend at any price point."

And as a plus you get all this awesome performance at 95w TDP.. some AMD cpus at stock are 125w, other 95w (like my favorite AMD cpu, the good 960T), but mind you that to reach i3-2100 gaming performance you need to OC them, which you bring their power consumption much higher than this 125w/95w range.

Well.. saying this we conclude that the i3-2100 it's a non-overclocker CPU that DON'T need to be OCled.

Phenom II x4 Deneb will maintain it position farther into the future cause Dual Core is being Phased out and HT is a joke like Physx. I forgot that perfectly playable frame rates is attainable on pretty well any decent CPU from somewhat resent years and core i3 2100 is purely mid pack as far as gaming goes and it will not be maintaining that mid pack status for years to come like any decent quad core will as more and more new games embrace the quad core standard.
m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
February 12, 2012 8:44:44 PM

Take your fanboyism somewhere else. If you get an i3 now, you can upgrade to a 3570K or 3770K in the future. With a Phenom, you're stuck with a 1100t which can't even compare to the 2500K.

Even if you can OC the low end Phenoms (960t, 955), the i3 still beats all of them. I know you can still unlock the 960t to 6 cores, but it really doesn't help even when it's at 4.5Ghz on all "6" cores unlocked.

Even though hyper-threading isn't as robust as having real cores, the i3's single core performance is far more efficient than the Phenoms so it still beats them in multi-threaded apps. Just look at the benchies above me.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
a c 195 V Motherboard
February 12, 2012 8:55:15 PM

Gamer Dude said:
Phenom II x4 Deneb will maintain it position farther into the future cause Dual Core is being Phased out and HT is a joke like Physx. I forgot that perfectly playable frame rates is attainable on pretty well any decent CPU from somewhat resent years and core i3 2100 is purely mid pack as far as gaming goes and it will not be maintaining that mid pack status for years to come like any decent quad core will as more and more new games embrace the quad core standard.



If Hyperthreading was a joke the i3 would not be beating all those AMD CPUs overclocked or not in just about every single benchmark now would it?

Learn sentence structure. It's painful trying to read your gibberish.

Do you understand what a self contradictory statement is?

Quote:
in two years when OP upgrade again AMD or Intel will be an option but things will change mighty in two years in the PC arena that why nobody judges a build on what hardware is coming out next year platform etc you buy what you can afford and that will perform for what you need today not tomorrow cause PC market is to volatile


You buy what you can afford that is fast today and do not build based on tomorrow. Is what that means translated to English.

Quote:
and core i3 2100 is purely mid pack as far as gaming goes and it will not be maintaining that mid pack status for years to come like any decent quad core will as more and more new games embrace the quad core standard.


But the i3 will not be as fast in a few years. Is what that means in English.


See the problem there? You are arguing with yourself.


The whole point of this thread is what is better between an i3 2100 and an Athlon II X3. The i3 is faster. Besides if he was buying to futureproof as you seem to preach then the i5 2500K/2550K are the hands down winners of that argument.
m
0
l
February 12, 2012 9:35:59 PM

anort3 said:
If Hyperthreading was a joke the i3 would not be beating all those AMD CPUs overclocked or not in just about every single benchmark now would it?

Learn sentence structure. It's painful trying to read your gibberish.

Do you understand what a self contradictory statement is?

Quote:
in two years when OP upgrade again AMD or Intel will be an option but things will change mighty in two years in the PC arena that why nobody judges a build on what hardware is coming out next year platform etc you buy what you can afford and that will perform for what you need today not tomorrow cause PC market is to volatile


You buy what you can afford that is fast today and do not build based on tomorrow. Is what that means translated to English.

Quote:
and core i3 2100 is purely mid pack as far as gaming goes and it will not be maintaining that mid pack status for years to come like any decent quad core will as more and more new games embrace the quad core standard.


But the i3 will not be as fast in a few years. Is what that means in English.


See the problem there? You are arguing with yourself.


The whole point of this thread is what is better between an i3 2100 and an Athlon II X3. The i3 is faster. Besides if he was buying to futureproof as you seem to preach then the i5 2500K/2550K are the hands down winners of that argument.

Your wrong and you have to retort to calling people down cause you lack knowledge. PS Quad Core is the way of the future no matter how good a dual core is it will be slower down the road when things become more multi threaded.
m
0
l
February 12, 2012 9:40:18 PM

e56imfg said:
Take your fanboyism somewhere else. If you get an i3 now, you can upgrade to a 3570K or 3770K in the future. With a Phenom, you're stuck with a 1100t which can't even compare to the 2500K.

Even if you can OC the low end Phenoms (960t, 955), the i3 still beats all of them. I know you can still unlock the 960t to 6 cores, but it really doesn't help even when it's at 4.5Ghz on all "6" cores unlocked.

Even though hyper-threading isn't as robust as having real cores, the i3's single core performance is far more efficient than the Phenoms so it still beats them in multi-threaded apps. Just look at the benchies above me.

I am not a fan boy cause Phenom II x4 Deneb is on par with a brand new architecture that should be allot faster than Phenom II but isn't therefore Phenom II x4 is a better value option than Intel on the low end boy am I glade I picked up Phenom II x4 955 for $95 a year ago which is so much value today.
m
0
l
February 12, 2012 9:42:38 PM

3 slow cores vs 2 quick cores.

Even in the future when they can make full use of the 3 slow cores, it will not change the fact they are slow cores.

Stock Jaguar vs Overclocked mini comes to mind.


m
0
l
February 12, 2012 9:47:57 PM

billybobser said:
even if you overclock an AMD, it will still be worse than an i3. So on what logic will the AMD become better and the i3 become worse.

Not to mention that the next generation of intels will be compatible with old mobo's.

I built an AMD rig for someone pre bulldozer, looking back, it was a mistake

It dosent matter in gaming dude I get 60fps min that all I care man you dont get it I paid $95 over a year ago for a Phenom II B55 @ 3.7ghz thats a better deal than i3 that was never around.
m
0
l
February 12, 2012 9:53:06 PM

billybobser said:
even if you overclock an AMD, it will still be worse than an i3. So on what logic will the AMD become better and the i3 become worse.

Not to mention that the next generation of intels will be compatible with old mobo's.

I built an AMD rig for someone pre bulldozer, looking back, it was a mistake

Both are good and competitive and any decent CPU can play games great i3 is not an performance anomaly in any way or form and it's value is only now on par with AMD after how long LOL.
m
0
l
February 12, 2012 10:00:01 PM

phenoms looked good as they kept a spot warm for the amazing bulldozers around the corner.

Budget overclockable beasts that could size up to intels runaway architecture and really nail the value crown. Instead you're left with power hungry beasts worse (game wise) than the previous generation, which were not exactly efficient spring chickens.

i3 gives you performance now, and a route in the future for upgrades. Since I imagine a die-shrink of sandybridge will not yield a lol fest that was the FX series.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
a c 195 V Motherboard
February 12, 2012 10:15:04 PM

Gamer Dude said:
Both are good and competitive and any decent CPU can play games great i3 is not an performance anomaly in any way or form and it's value is only now on par with AMD after how long LOL.



What the hell are you even talking about. The i3 is a year old. It's not new. The $79 Pentium G 630 and the $99 Pentium G 860 are the new processors. Try reading the articles. Here, I will quote it so it's easier for you.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-a...

" If the above chart presents any surprises, they'd be the dual-core Pentium G630 and G860, which perform incredibly well, matching up to AMD's former Phenom II X4 955 flagship. At $80 and $100 respectively, both Sandy Bridge-based Pentiums boldly snatch the budget gaming CPU recommendation from the Athlon II CPUs we’re used to seeing dominate this segment. Granted, AMD's lowest-priced models are starting to go extinct as the company's APUs gain prominence anyway. "

" With the sub-$100 Pentiums performing so well, Intel's $125 Core i3-2100 easily beats more expensive Phenom II and FX models. And the $190 Core i5-2400 dominates the sub-$200 landscape without challenge, really. As such, we're almost-shockingly left without an AMD CPU to recommend at any price point. "

" While it’s true that AMD’s multiplier-unlocked models appeal to tweak-happy power users, the company's overclocked game performance manages to either hang close to or fall just behind Intel's stock Core i3-2100. Pumping up voltage, multipliers, and, consequently, power usage seems like a futile exercise just to keep pace with an efficient $125 budget-oriented chip running at its default settings. "

" AMD’s Phenom II X4 955 and FX-4100 could certainly appeal to buyers who insist on the ability to handle four threads at a time. At their $125 and $110 respective price points, however, they’re too close to the Hyper-Threaded Core i3-2100 to earn a distinguished recommendation. In our last sub-$200 gaming CPU round-up, we showed that the Core i3-2100 can match AMD's Phenom II X4 955, even while background tasks run in parallel with a game. So, we couldn't even speculate that Intel's Core-i3 2100 might disappoint in a real-world environment with applications running in the background. "

" Interestingly, the best gaming value in AMD's FX family is its affordable FX-4100. Neither the FX-6100 nor the FX-8120 offer an advantage over this $110 model. Otherwise, things look bleak for AMD enthusiasts hunting for a new gaming rig. You can make the argument that the frame rates offered by FX and Phenom II processors are sufficient, but that's a tough stand to take in light of the competitive benchmarks. Let's be clear; in GPU-bound games, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. But, to be perfectly frank, Intel's processors are the obvious choice in titles that do demonstrate reliance on host processing power. It simply doesn’t make sense to spend more for less. And, in many games, high-end AMD processors demonstrate a quantifiable performance deficit compared to the Core i3-2100. For $190, a stock Core i5-2400 gets you more gaming prowess than any AMD CPU can hope to deliver right now, even overclocked. "
m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
February 12, 2012 10:29:29 PM

So this thread became a flame war of fanboy vs. common sense.

Gamer Dude, just stop. The thread started with "Athlon or i3, which one is a smarter buy?"

The i3 IS way more future proof than the Phenom/Athlon series. The 1155 socket is still going with Ivy Bridge and the AM3+ socket is done. If he gets an i3, he can easily upgrade to Ivy Bridge in the future (3770K). The 3770K will probably rape all the AMD CPUs (if the Ivy Bridge isn't another faildozer, which it most likely won't).
m
0
l
February 12, 2012 10:30:18 PM

billybobser said:
phenoms looked good as they kept a spot warm for the amazing bulldozers around the corner.

Budget overclockable beasts that could size up to intels runaway architecture and really nail the value crown. Instead you're left with power hungry beasts worse (game wise) than the previous generation, which were not exactly efficient spring chickens.

i3 gives you performance now, and a route in the future for upgrades. Since I imagine a die-shrink of sandybridge will not yield a lol fest that was the FX series.

It's only the people that don't understand that are the ones that called down Bull Dozer then all everyone listens to are the people that went off of the others that based there lack of correct information off of biased fan boy rhetoric instead of real time real world computing. The intrinsic value of an i3 is that you can have Phenom II x4 Deneb performance at the same value/price which is something Intel has never really had but at the same time AMD has had i3 level value and performance for well over 2 years already so this is why I have trouble supporting the i3 100% but it is a good little CPU I never said it sucked and never will but it does not deserve to be hailed as the best when it is a bit to little to late to the game. i3 makes a great gaming rig Budget CPU and Phenom II x4 Deneb offers the same value for a gaming rig while supply's last but what I dont like is the mind set and lack of foresight and correct information that the Fan Boys are spreading cause there is allot more to it than just Sandy bridge is better.
m
0
l
February 12, 2012 10:33:34 PM

2062119,20,394191 said:
What the hell are you even talking about. The i3 is a year old. It's not new. The $79 Pentium G 630 and the $99 Pentium G 860 are the new processors. Try reading the articles. Here, I will quote it so it's easier for you.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-a...

" If the above chart presents any surprises, they'd be the dual-core Pentium G630 and G860, which perform incredibly well, matching up to AMD's former Phenom II X4 955 flagship. At $80 and $100 respectively, both Sandy Bridge-based Pentiums boldly snatch the budget gaming CPU recommendation from the Athlon II CPUs we’re used to seeing dominate this segment. Granted, AMD's lowest-priced models are starting to go extinct as the company's APUs gain prominence anyway. "


Yup Fan Boy Propaganda ^
m
0
l
February 12, 2012 10:34:12 PM

e56imfg said:
So this thread became a flame war of fanboy vs. common sense.

Gamer Dude, just stop. The thread started with "Athlon or i3, which one is a smarter buy?"

The i3 IS way more future proof than the Phenom/Athlon series. The 1155 socket is still going with Ivy Bridge and the AM3+ socket is done. If he gets an i3, he can easily upgrade to Ivy Bridge in the future (3770K). The 3770K will probably rape all the AMD CPUs (if the Ivy Bridge isn't another faildozer, which it most likely won't).


Yup even more Fan Boy Propaganda ^
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
a c 195 V Motherboard
February 12, 2012 10:37:10 PM

Gamer Dude said:
Yup even more Fan Boy Propaganda ^



That's right. The testers here at Tom's hardware are very much AMD fanboys. They even admit it. But you can still be a fanboy and admit hard facts are correct. Only fools argue with empirical evidence.
m
0
l
February 12, 2012 10:43:59 PM

anort3 said:
That's right. The testers here at Tom's hardware are very much AMD fanboys. They even admit it. But you can still be a fanboy and admit hard facts are correct. Only fools argue with empirical evidence.

I am not arguing I am just stating that an i3 is not better than a Phenom II x4 OCed. If the value of an i3 2100 would have been thru the roof I then would been all over i3 saying it is all great like you guys if it were for but one MAJOR drawback of the i3 2100 it cannot be Overclocked and that is a big mar against it and the only reason why it cannot surpass a Phenom II x4 Deneb by a big and tangible margin.
m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
February 12, 2012 10:57:29 PM

Are you kidding me? The benchies and links all said that even an OCed Phenom 955/960t at 4.5Ghz couldn't beat the i3.

Stop arguing and calling everyone a fanboy. We're just stating the facts. If you go look at the recommended CPUs for any month, the i3 is always the winner and the 955 is always the "honorable mention". You can't argue with facts.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...

Look at this CPU hierarchy chart. It clearly shows that the i3 is one tier above the low end Phenoms

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...
m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
February 12, 2012 11:07:41 PM

the I family in intel totally killed the AMD and rendered it useless and thats a known fact no matter which one you like so id go with the I3 , AMD had the upper hand when intel relied on the north bridge and when the Is were released they did a better job than the AMD so you realy cant argue AMD can suck a big one now in the cpu department
m
0
l
February 12, 2012 11:22:28 PM

...bottom line
intel is better ( always )
amd cheaper ( also always)
your call! ;) 
m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
February 12, 2012 11:24:45 PM

yup i agree with gabxan lol
m
0
l
February 12, 2012 11:24:46 PM

e56imfg said:
Are you kidding me? The benchies and links all said that even an OCed Phenom 955/960t at 4.5Ghz couldn't beat the i3.

Stop arguing and calling everyone a fanboy. We're just stating the facts. If you go look at the recommended CPUs for any month, the i3 is always the winner and the 955 is always the "honorable mention". You can't argue with facts.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...

Look at this CPU hierarchy chart. It clearly shows that the i3 is one tier above the low end Phenoms

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...

Well if you are stating the facts as you say and not exalting biased fan boy rhetoric then you would have known that Denbes cant OC to 4ghz stable most of the time 3.6 to 3.8ghz is the golden point before diminishing returns of performance and massive increases in volts and heat and 4.5ghz is astronomically out of the question even on liqiud and in theory. PS your gaming CPU hierarchy cart clearly shows the core i3 2100 1 tier below the performance of a Deneb Phenom II x4 @ 3.7ghz thanx for clearing that up in dignified.
m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
February 13, 2012 12:14:05 AM

https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0Atid2icGx257dG...

https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0Atid2icGx257dF...

Said it couldn't be done.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/311378-28-2100-phenom

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/289?vs=362

i3 beats the 980 in half of the tests for half the price even when the Phenoms are OCed.
Here are some more benchies / reviews if you're still not convinced.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-a...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...

The chart I linked before was only the gaming performance. Even then the benchies I linked say that the i3 can still beat or match the 980. The i3 only needs 65w while the Phenoms need 125w or 95w.
m
0
l
February 13, 2012 12:28:18 AM

"The chart I linked before was only the gaming performance. Even then the benchies I linked say that the i3 can still beat or match the 980. The i3 only needs 65w while the Phenoms need 125w or 95w.[/quotemsg]"

Phenom II x4 Deneb @ 3.6ghz and above is clearly faster in more games, apps and situations than an i3 2100 which is why Tom's Hardware correctly classed the Phenom II x4 Deneb 975/980 a whole and clear tier above the i3 2100 in there gaming cart. PS faster CPUs need more power so it makes since that a slower in gaming Core i3 2100 would need less juice (65w) vs a faster CPU for gaming Phenom II x4 Deneb which need (125watts) LOL.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
a c 195 V Motherboard
February 13, 2012 2:51:34 AM

Gamer Dude said:
"The chart I linked before was only the gaming performance. Even then the benchies I linked say that the i3 can still beat or match the 980. The i3 only needs 65w while the Phenoms need 125w or 95w.
"

Phenom II x4 Deneb @ 3.6ghz and above is clearly faster in more games, apps and situations than an i3 2100 which is why Tom's Hardware correctly classed the Phenom II x4 Deneb 975/980 a whole and clear tier above the i3 2100 in there gaming cart. PS faster CPUs need more power so it makes since that a slower in gaming Core i3 2100 would need less juice (65w) vs a faster CPU for gaming Phenom II x4 Deneb which need (125watts) LOL.[/quotemsg]


Faster CPUs need more juice? By that brilliant logic my 2600K must pull 500 watts. Oh wait........or not. Sandy Bridge is 32nm Deneb is 45nm.
m
0
l
February 13, 2012 3:08:25 AM

anort3 said:
"

Phenom II x4 Deneb @ 3.6ghz and above is clearly faster in more games, apps and situations than an i3 2100 which is why Tom's Hardware correctly classed the Phenom II x4 Deneb 975/980 a whole and clear tier above the i3 2100 in there gaming cart. PS faster CPUs need more power so it makes since that a slower in gaming Core i3 2100 would need less juice (65w) vs a faster CPU for gaming Phenom II x4 Deneb which need (125watts) LOL.




Phenom II pulls more juice than Athlon II and i5 pulls more juice than i3 does that sound about right to you.
m
0
l
!