I have 150$ to spend on a CPU.
For a gaming Rig. I want to get the best performance from 30-40-50 Player multiplayer Battlefield 3 (Forget singleplayer)
Ive heard the i3 2120 recommended for highest performance PER Core. But its dual core limited. I would rather go with Quad core. Ive heard Multiplayer large maps can give the i3 2120's trouble. I know gta4 wouldnt run on most dual core.
So Im trying to decide between the
AMD 980 x4
AMD AMD A8-3850 APU
AMD fx 6100
Its looking like the 980 x4 would be the safest bet.
Is there anyone here thats dead sure the i3 2120 can run 40 player Multiplayer Battlefield 3 better than the AMD chips?
Or will you really notice no difference?
I would imagine the AMD 980 x4 would win all around.
for BF3, all three CPUs are equal for single player (ive heard multi-player is more cpu demanding). the phenom II x4 980 is the better of the three you listed. if i was to choose between it and the i3-2100, i would go with the intel. In most multi-core games the i3 and the phenom II x4 are a wash (in most dual core games the intel shows a good advantage) but the clear advantage would be the intel upgrade path with i5-quads that offer not only better prices but better performance then the AMD upgrade path.
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 $190, a stock Core i5-2400 gets you more gaming prowess than any AMD CPU can hope to deliver right now, even overclocked.
what a crock. the guy claims 50-80 fps is b.s. the 6950 can do 40-70 fps regardless of the cpu (as long as its a 2.6 or better quad threaded) as for his gameplay i noticed stutter. yes its minute but its still there... im glad he's happy with his purchase but he could get better for the same money... http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-3-graph... dont just take my word for it.
If you can get some more money and buy a i5-2500k (220$) yes its +70$ over your budget but you will save in the long since the 2500k will probably be able to run games in 1080p at max resolution for years (you'll just have to upgrade your GPU).
If you go with a 150$ CPU you might be ok for 2-3 years you might have to buy another mid range CPU.
All in all go for a quad core since the industrie is going that way. BF3 on a dual core in multiplayer is a no no since its the only game that I know able to run on 6 core somewhat effiently (even if the i5-2500k can cap it).
I really rate the 960T as a budget processor though it seems to rarely make it in to any reviews or comparison tables. Mine OC's nicely and I was lucky enough to have one that unlocks to 6 stable cores (though then doesnt OC as well)