AMD for Gaming

[boxcarracer1478]

I pretty much just play WoW, some SC2, Battlefield 3.

I really want a computer that has good FPS for raiding at high-ultra setting but I'd rather not spend a whole lot of money on a solely gaming PC when I use my laptop for work and other things.

Already had a thread that answered general build questions, this is a CPU based thread.

I am building on a budget.

1. I like the look of AMD. I used AMD in high school when I built a computer in high school. I understand they have dropped a little, but for what I want to do, is an intel processor really that necessary. I don't want to play crisis or skyrim on ultra, or at all for that matter. I can always beef up my GPU down the line.
2. I understand WoW is very CPU heavy. Is AMD really that below intel where I won't get 30+ consistent FPS on high-ultra with a GTX 560 1gb, 4gbx2, Asus mobo, and a mOderate overclock?
3. If AMD can achieve what I want, whAt do I go with? Phenom II x4 700 or something in the FX line? I know the FX is newer but everywhere I lOok I seem to find that the phenom is great for gaming and easily overclocks.

 

[nna2]

i play fsx (probaly one of the most cpu intensive programs) beyond maxed out settings, and its playable, the fx line has way too many issues, i'd stick with a phenom, and try to go for somthing in the 9** line, and a black edition or a 6 core (T) model

 

[sosofm]

I recomand you this processor http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103995 is a quad core , if you have luck you can unlock him to six core.

 

[truegenius]

phenom 2 x4 980 is good
no need to have 6 cores(slower), 4 will be more than enough and are cheaper
fx are not good in performance per $, phenom is a better option
ph2 x4 980 is just behind intel 2400

 

[sarinaide]

A 955BE with GTX560Ti will probably run as well as my rig. Normally I would not advocate getting old technology that will sooner be outstripped, but if you are on a tight budget and Zambezi not performing as expected and being overpriced, the PII's make a great cheaper system upgrade, as stated though, it will really only be a shorter term fix.

 

[king smp]

What is your budget?
do you have a specific budget for CPU?

 

[loneninja]

For a cheap gaming build I'd go with an I3 2100, it beats anything AMD has in WoW and SC2, and it's competitive with Phenom II X4 in BF3 too.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-2120-2100_5.html#sect0

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

AMD has really dropped the ball, they have low IPC and a lot of cores, games don't really make use of the extra cores AMD offers for the price range compared to Intel. With Intel you also have a better upgrade path for gaming if you want a new cpu in a year or 2.

 

[noob2222]

For a cheap gaming build I'd go with an I3 2100, it beats anything AMD has in WoW and SC2, and it's competitive with Phenom II X4 in BF3 too.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-2120-2100_5.html#sect0

Lol, 2011 intel cpu compared to AMD's 2009 cpu

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

AMD has really dropped the ball, they have low IPC and a lot of cores, games don't really make use of the extra cores AMD offers for the price range compared to Intel. With Intel you also have a better upgrade path for gaming if you want a new cpu in a year or 2.

I wouldn't try battlefiled 3 online with a dual core cpu, sure single player is fine, but thats not what stresses the cpu in BF3

http://www.techspot.com/review/458-battlefield-3-performance/page7.html

 

[loneninja]

Lol, 2011 intel cpu compared to AMD's 2009 cpu

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

AMD has really dropped the ball, they have low IPC and a lot of cores, games don't really make use of the extra cores AMD offers for the price range compared to Intel. With Intel you also have a better upgrade path for gaming if you want a new cpu in a year or 2.

I wouldn't try battlefiled 3 online with a dual core cpu, sure single player is fine, but thats not what stresses the cpu in BF3

http://www.techspot.com/review/458-battlefield-3-performance/page7.html

Good job linking single player BF3 benchmarks to back up your claim of how it stresses on multiplayer :lol: I know how demanding BF3 is online, I'm one of the few in this forum constantly correcting people who say a Core2 is enough for BF3. I3 2100 may be a dual core, but the hyperthreading makes it competitive with Phenom II X4 in games that utilize 4 threads, and it's superior at gaming when 2 cores are used. Skryim and StarCraft 2 are great examples of this. I3 2100 is enough for smooth game play in BF3 by the way. http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2203170&page=3

It's also not my fault AMD hasn't improved performance since 2009, OP is talking about Phenom II I provided links of Phenom II against I3, they're in the same price range. Or do you think the flop that is FX is better than Phenom II since it came out in 2011?

FX 4100 and FX 6100 are slower than Phenom II X4 at games, Phenom II X4 is slower than I3 2100. So laugh at AMD for being unable to improve performance in the last 3 years. Phenom II is less than a month away from being on market 3 years and is still AMDs best at gaming. :lol:

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150--8120-6100-and-4100-performance-review/10
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1766/1/

Toms even recommends Intel for the Ops apparent price range.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-overclocking,3077-3.html

 

[noob2222]

Good job linking single player BF3 benchmarks to back up your claim of how it stresses on multiplayer :lol: I know how demanding BF3 is online, I'm one of the few in this forum constantly correcting people who say a Core2 is enough for BF3. I3 2100 may be a dual core, but the hyperthreading makes it competitive with Phenom II X4 in games that utilize 4 threads, and it's superior at gaming when 2 cores are used. Skryim and StarCraft 2 are great examples of this. I3 2100 is enough for smooth game play in BF3 by the way. http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2203170&page=3

Thanks for showing the i3 2100 cpu usage. pegged out at 84% vs amd's x4 980 only using 70%

Here is some multiplayer using the i5 2500k and simulated (disabling 2 cores) i3

4 cores 3.4 Ghz.
Frames
34828
Time (ms)
300000
Min
72
Max
174
Avg
116.093

second test i5-2500k with only 2 cores active and cpu 3.4ghz no turbo mode
Frames
19941
Time (ms)
300000
Min
32
Max
115
Avg
66.47

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1654043

~50% performance hit is hardly what I would consider good enough for BF3 multiplayer and more so when looking at the 32 min fps vs 72.

And before you go and claim HT difference.

HT actually slows the game down.

 

[Mousemonkey]

Best answer selected by mousemonkey.

 

[Mousemonkey]

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey