I3 vs 965

[robobobo717]

Hi, I'm looking to build a new gaming rig soon, and I'm not sure whether the i3 2100 or the AMD 965 would be better, I plan to game heavily (an hour and fourty five minutes a day or so) but also multitask, edit and render photos and videos as well. I am getting a 6850 GPU and I've heard you get more performance out of a ATI GPU when using an AMD CPU. Any help?

 

[cuecuemore]

If you're playing games that are well optimized for quad core processors, the 965 will win my a length or two. If you're playing SC2 or the original Crysis(and I'm sure there are other titles that are essentially single threaded), the i3 is your best bet. This review does a decent job of illustrating the differences:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-review-intel-core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/20

 

[henydiah]

i3 better than 965BE in Game benchmark but for multitask, edit and render photos and videos 965 will be Better , and you have HD6850 very good for 965BE
I would go Phenom II 965BE , and below list comparison overall:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/102?vs=289

 

[iam2thecrowe]

"If you're playing games that are well optimized for quad core processors, the 965 will win my a length or two." thats rubbish, the i3 2100 will beat any amd quad/hex core in all games. read some reviews.

 

[simon12]

The i3 is better in most games but not all. Also you can overclock the 965 (you cannot the i3) and at around 3.7GHz it overtakes the i3.

 

[renz496]

Hi, I'm looking to build a new gaming rig soon, and I'm not sure whether the i3 2100 or the AMD 965 would be better, I plan to game heavily (an hour and fourty five minutes a day or so) but also multitask, edit and render photos and videos as well. I am getting a 6850 GPU and I've heard you get more performance out of a ATI GPU when using an AMD CPU. Any help?

that simply not true. you can use ATI cards with intel or AMD processor. just because ATI was owned by AMD it doesn't mean AMD processor will give you extra advantage when you paired the two compared to ATI + intel combo

 

[AstroTC]

Oh my, here come the fanboys... If ur keeping everthing stock, stick with the i3-2100 if you are going to overclock to get more performance then get the x4

 

[Outlander_04]

the i3 is a fraction better in some games , but loses when you add in real life .

Benchmarks run on sterile machines without anti virus or firewalls dont reflect how a computer gets used . Once those extra services run the i3 will take a much bigger performance hit and the quad will be the winner .

But if you are building with AMD make sure you buy a motherboard that can support AM3+ Bulldozer processors [which are coming soon ] so you have an upgrade path

and dont buy a 965 . Buy a 955 . You can easily OC it on the stock cooler to 965 speeds ... and they are the exact same part with the only difference being clock speed

 

[renz496]

honestly i think people who build on AMD platform should wait for bulldozer and see how it really perform.

 

[soest009]

+1 to AstroTC and a half +1 for Henydiah.
It doesnt make any difference if you use a amd card with either intel or amd processor.
If you use ALOT of multicore programs / games or go mental on overclocking then yes the amd would be the better choice.
Apart from that I3 all the way.

 

[cuecuemore]

"If you're playing games that are well optimized for quad core processors, the 965 will win my a length or two." thats rubbish, the i3 2100 will beat any amd quad/hex core in all games. read some reviews.

Even better, I had already linked one!

 

[iam2thecrowe]

i guess your definition of "a length or two" must be different than mine. the i3 is better overall. I wouldnt go with an amd system until i see some bulldozer benchies. otherwise you may be stuck with a dead end upgrade path, and bulldozer isnt looking promising with all the delays.....

 

[Houndsteeth]

To be honest, you won't be terribly disappointed with either choice as long as you know the caveats to each one. Both have upgrade paths (as long as you spend on the AM3+ for the 965) and both are just about evenly priced. Sure, you can spend a bit more and get an 1100T or 2500K, or you can just wait a while, save your money and go for a dozer here in the next few months (after the benchies come out and all).

As for the delays to Dozer...if you know the track history for both Intel and AMD, then you would also know that delays are a fact of life. If they try and rush the product, you end up with mistakes like the one that happened to Intel with the SB mainboard chipsets.

For my own peace of mind, I would much rather see Dozer come out slightly later than expected, but absolutely pristine in every other regard, rather than something rushed out to market and rife with errata.

I am also hoping that AMD does pull off a performance coup, if for no other reason to show that they are still in the game and to keep Intel humble enough to continue making quality product at reasonable prices rather than sit on their laurels and every few months come out with a 200Mhz bump to the same kit for the same price.

 

[Outlander_04]

i guess your definition of "a length or two" must be different than mine. the i3 is better overall. I wouldnt go with an amd system until i see some bulldozer benchies. otherwise you may be stuck with a dead end upgrade path, and bulldozer isnt looking promising with all the delays.....

actually , no.

Have a look at the Toms system builder Marathon $500 builds last month and back in March . The i3 games a little better than the x4 920 AMD quad , but the AMD quad spanks the i3 pretty much everywhere else .
The extra clock speed and cache of a 965 [ or 955] shifts the results of even gaming in the AMD's favor . Even more so when you consider the AMD can be overclocked and if you are building at that budget the intel mb wont let you OC at all