Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

This months CPU suggestions from Tomshardware kind of failed.

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Dual Core
  • Product
Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 16, 2012 1:37:35 AM

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

They are talking about chips under 200$.
And they completely skip the 140-150-160 (150$) section.
they go from 120$ to 190$.

I specifically have 140 to 160 to spend on a chip. I would never bother buying a CPU for 100$. thats such a big waste, you are getting the lowest end of the old and crusty, and it will hardly be any better than what you have now.
And I dont have 200$ to blow.

So not only did they completely look over the 150$ market area (Which is arguably the most interesting section of CPUS atm.

On top of that, how can they justify putting Dual core chips in all but one of the winners positions.

They are talking about Gamer rigs. Try playing a single rockstar game on a dual core. They know dual core is not the way to go atm.

Am I wrong?
I just cant see how advising to stick with dual core chips is anything other than bad advice.
its 2012. Multimedia, multitasking.
the dual core chips here will barely hold on, dont expect to alt tab out.

Ive been watching youtube videos of fraps and all the chips on this list.
Anything under quad core is just bad advice.

Am I incorrect?

Im picking up the 140$ Fx 6100 for 64 player battlefield maps even.
Ive personally reviewed dozens of youtube videos on all the chips listed to see which one handled
heavy multiplayer maps AND fraps.

anything below the 6100 started to show its struggle. with slight stutter while recording full HD.
the 6100 took it without stutters.

If it can run the game AND fraps.

More about : months cpu suggestions tomshardware kind failed

a c 215 à CPUs
February 16, 2012 1:44:45 AM

They skipped that range for a reason, there are no stand out CPUs in that range, if you can't spring for a 2400 then you are better off with a 2120, the next decently priced CPU is the 2300 which is only a bit less than the 2400 normally so it really doesn't earn a recommendation as $5 more gets you the 2400. Honestly, once you are in that price range for a CPU the AMD offerings are lack luster compared to the Sandy Bridge options, at lower prices they make more sense but not much over about 130 for the CPU.

Right now though the 2300 has a $15 off promo code which puts it in the high end of your price range and makes it a decent pick for you.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...


The recommendation lists are not the be all and end all of what CPU you should buy, there is some thinking that needs to go into filling in the gaps and accounting for local and temporary pricing to make it applicable.
Score
0
February 16, 2012 1:58:36 AM

I cant justify suggesting dual core chips.
I wish I could go for the 170$ card.
I only have 150$ on the budget, and thats after tacking an extra 10$ onto nearly every piece, just to get decent low price pieces.
Score
0
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
a c 186 à CPUs
February 16, 2012 2:04:00 AM

i3-2100 is a better cpu than the fx-6100.
Score
0
February 16, 2012 2:53:07 AM

robcardiv said:
I cant justify suggesting dual core chips.
I wish I could go for the 170$ card.
I only have 150$ on the budget, and thats after tacking an extra 10$ onto nearly every piece, just to get decent low price pieces.


Games don't "split" the work between cores. Sure, some might, but the majority of console ports ( MW3 etc. etc.) will only ever use 2 cores, the i3 has a significantly higher IDP than any FX chip, meaning that it's performance in games is significantly better because it's single core performance is much better. Although I would recommend a quad core chip for background programs, if you're gaming the amount of cores matters not as much as a single cores power, which is significantly better in the i3. You will benefit more by buying more RAM and GFX cards with more RAM. Most games will faceplant with an FX due to it's low, low IDP.

IDP>more cores. You dig?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 16, 2012 3:22:24 AM

Quote:
Most games will faceplant with an FX due to it's low, low IDP.


My FX-8120 does very good in every game with no exception. I am able to play all the latest games 1080p on high/ultra with no problems and very good fps. For me it was a matter of money going up to an FX CPU was the only option as i just could not afford to replace my $200 dollar mainboard and a new CPU.

In the end I am very happy with my rig. But I do more than benchmark my system I actually play games encode video watch blu-ray's surf the web and a host of other things. For me real world performance is better than just benchmarking and the FX gives me all the performance I need for a much lower cost than I could get from Intel.
Score
0
February 16, 2012 3:55:00 AM

Yes, AMD have a significantly better price-performance ratio ever, and the FX chips will perform reasonably, in fact they will destroy Intel's chips in encoding video and other highly threaded tasks, but there's a point where an Intel system will race ahead in terms of gaming. I use my rig to game, change video format, edit video and audio and use 3D animation programs, yes it doesn't do the editing as fast as I like, but when gaming I get very high FPS. What I am trying to say is that while AMD motherboards are future proof, the chip isn't. The FX is more of a productivity chip as it is highly dependent on threading, the Intel chips however depend more on an IDP based architecture. Yes, I will say this now, the 1155 i7 chips are useless price-performance wise, as the i5-2500k is the best Intel chip so far. I would say the more different tasks you do, the more you should consider an FX, the more specialized your system is for gaming, the more you should consider Intel. It's all dependent.
Score
0
February 16, 2012 4:03:29 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kd4dvLJQP4

8150 @ stock
Metro- min-27 max-60 avg-43
BFBC2- min-45 max-94 avg-65
Crysis2- min-42 max-91 avg-58
Lost Planet2- avg-33
Dirt3- min-75 avg-99
Cinebench- 5.84

i5 2500K @ stock
Metro- min-27 max-59 avg-43
BFBC2- min-44 max-97 avg-65
Crysis2-min-36 max-88 avg-62
LostPlanet2- avg-34
Dirt3- min-79 avg-105
Cinebench- 5.12

Looks like BD fx - 8150 and i5 2500k are pretty similar in terms of gaming performance add in the additional average cost of an Intel platform and slightly higher cost of the 8150 chip and looks like AMD and Intel offer up pretty even results on average as far as gaming as I have outlined and double certified above with link provided.
Score
0
February 16, 2012 4:31:29 AM

BigMack70 said:
This topic kind of failed... Toms' recommendations are right on.

I feel sorry for most people buying Bulldozer chips... they are such poor performers per dollar in any CPU-limited game that it's just sad. Check out their december $1200 system builder marathon build if you want to see that FX-6100 in all its waste-of-money glory.

Black edition phenoms are a better buy / value than any bulldozer. And intel's i3-2100 games better overall than any of them.

# of cores doesn't matter when the architecture is outdated (phenom) or terrible (bulldozer).

Funny cause I haven't seen any problems with 8150 like you have unsubstantiated. So it used to go something like BD 8150 cant play any games like an i5 2500k can but now it can play some games like 2500k but not all give it a rest bro LOL. PS maybe it's not the topic that failed more so you attitude.
Score
0
February 16, 2012 4:51:41 AM

BigMack70 said:
Well, any review of an 8150 will tell you that it doesn't game as well as a 2500k and it costs more, so... :heink: 

Just one example: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=288

Sorry to hear you spent more money to get an inferior gaming processor :pfff:  :pfff: 

Intel i5 2500K platform costs a bit more and 8150 chip costs a bit more but both average out the same cost in the end.PS I own the 8150 and get better performance than anandtec claims maybe they need to be less biased in there benchmarking suite.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 16, 2012 4:56:30 AM

amuffin said:
i3-2100 is a better cpu than the fx-6100.

Just don't try to play bf3 online.
Score
0
February 16, 2012 5:15:22 AM

If you live near a microcenter, they have the i5 2400 for $150.
Score
0
February 16, 2012 5:27:37 AM

Quote:
Intel offer up pretty even results on average as far as gaming as I have outlined and double certified above with link provided.


metro and crysis 2 do not count as they are heavily gpu dependent games Dirt 3 is also quite gpu bound. That one video may double certify your claims to an extent. However, there are countless other benches and reviews (many of which are on tomshardware) which clearly show the poor performance of the fx cpus for gaming.

It is not to suggest that they won't work. Yet a gaming consumer has to question why spend more on a 8150 when you can buy an 2500k. The same logic can be applied for the 6100 vs the 2120 or an older AMD cpu.

I wish Bulldozer comparatively delivered in gaming, unfortunately it doesn't
Score
0
February 16, 2012 5:35:13 AM

The reason that the CPU recommendations start at $100 is not because these processors are great gaming CPUs in their own right (though they aren't shabby at certain titles or if your gaming demands don't revolve around next month's releases) but rather that they will allow you to put something in that shiny new quad-SLI motherboard you just blew most of your upgrade wad on so you can start getting some enjoyment out of it immediately. These CPUs are easily replaced a couple of months later when you can shake loose $300 for a i5-2500K and a cooling solution that allows you to overclock it to your heart's content. In that regard, the Pentium G8xx most certainly fills a need for gamers on a budget who realize that upgrading in stages can be made to pay off in a big way.
Score
0
February 16, 2012 5:36:39 AM

thesnappyfingers said:
Quote:
Intel offer up pretty even results on average as far as gaming as I have outlined and double certified above with link provided.


metro and crysis 2 do not count as they are heavily gpu dependent games Dirt 3 is also quite gpu bound. That one video may double certify your claims to an extent. However, there are countless other benches and reviews (many of which are on tomshardware) which clearly show the poor performance of the fx cpus for gaming.

It is not to suggest that they won't work. Yet a gaming consumer has to question why spend more on a 8150 when you can buy an 2500k. The same logic can be applied for the 6100 vs the 2120 or an older AMD cpu.

I wish Bulldozer comparatively delivered in gaming, unfortunately it doesn't

Well it plays games excellently I should know I own an 8150 and 2500K and various Phenom II chips and a C2d and C2Q chips and mostly they all play any games just as well as the GPU that was used.
Score
0
February 16, 2012 5:52:59 AM

good, then for gaming all cpus are roughly the same and all games are mostly gpu bound. So in the end we can all simply game on sandy bridge pentiums so long as we have sli and xfired gpus. :) 
Score
0
February 16, 2012 6:11:46 AM

thesnappyfingers said:
good, then for gaming all cpus are roughly the same and all games are mostly gpu bound. So in the end we can all simply game on sandy bridge pentiums so long as we have sli and xfired gpus. :) 

Well my Phenom II chips perform well in gaming as well but the old AMD Phenom gen 1 chips were atrocious poor performance everywhere hot as hell and it is what Intel fanbouys think of when referring to bad AMD chips and BD but with Phenom 1 is was really true.
Score
0
a c 83 à CPUs
February 16, 2012 6:33:11 AM

guys, you will see more of this kind of people trying to justify their purchases by undermining other people's research and by denying reality.
some things to watch out for:
  • "my system plays games perfectly" (no mention of min. max. avg. fps, no comparison figures.)
  • will argue that any system delivering 30/60 fps (if that's what his/her fx pc delivers) is good enough for gaming and beyond that everything is irrelevant. (60fps offers smooth gaming experience, but a lot of people can notice >60 fps - especially gamers).
  • "fx cpus cost more, but intel motherboards cost higher" (in reality, well featured z68 and 990x and 990fx motherboards cost almost the same. you can get dirt cheap motherboards from both intel and amd chipsets. motherboard cost depends on the companies who build motherboards, not entirely on intel and amd.)
  • "fx cpus are cheaper in the $100-160 range" (then they get outperformed by $80 pentiums and $120 core i3 in games, even after overclock.)
  • "my pc multitasks better." (this is a bit sad because the dual core hyperthreaded core i3 keeps up with a 3-4 module, 6-8 core cpus just fine.)
  • "don't play multiplayer with core i3/i5." (no proof with fps comparison in a replicable/repeatable, consistent multiplayer scenario of any multiplayer game)
  • will throw around rendering benchmarks in discussions/arguments about gaming pc.
  • will never mention detailed pc configuration such as psu, cooling, total cost, ram etc.
  • "windows 8 will improve performance." (overplayed)
  • "pcie 3.0 is overrated." (for now, games haven't shown any improvement. but it shows clear improvement in other areas. and how do you know that games won't use higher pcie bandwidth in the future?)
  • will never, ever mention power consumption, efficiency, heat or noise. will try to undermine importance of power efficiency by saying
    "gamers don't care about power consumption."
    "windows and games favor intel."
    "power costs almost nothing here, that's irrelevant."
  • "fx overclocks better." as it was proved - fx performs badly (compared to locked intel cpus) in games even after overclock. and you gotta add a mid to high end cooler's cost, higher wattage psu's cost. iirc amd recommends liquid cooling systems for fx 8150 overclocking, they even sent amd branded closed loop cooler to reviewers during fx launch.
  • will deny the fact that amd gfx cards run better with intel cpus. will argue that intel and nvidia has some kind of alliance.
  • will deny that the fx cpus are overpriced for their performance and power efficiency.
  • will (almost) always forget to factor in how games are coded. most games barely use 3 cpu cores. if one has a cpu with 2-3 cores with strong single core performance, it'll be fine for gaming.
  • "intel is a criminal company and will never buy from them." (this is a very personal opinion and has nothing to do with their cpu's gaming performance.)
  • "you're being paid by intel. ask them for raise or something." (i know all companies including amd pays people to post in forums. i am not paid by anyone. besides, how do i know you're not being paid by amd to pitch their stuff?)
  • will attack you personally, instead of arguing your idea/statement/facts. (this is a typical fanboy behavior, not restricted to amd fanboys. all fanboys are like this. technically personal attacks are against tomshardware's t.o.c., so be careful.)
  • "toms is biased towards intel and nvidia." (hilarious. take a look at the best gaming gfx card for money articles. also look into the sb-e review articles.)
  • thread will eventually turn into verbal fight-fest, will get shut down and they will open another thread saying almost the same thing.
    when these happen, the best thing to do is to ignore.
    a lot of people bought fx cpu. they took it as kind of a slap in the face when almost everyone (except eteknix who gave fx 8150 a gold award for gaming cpu) says fx is not good for gaming - with proof to back it up. that's the reality. live with it and hope that amd delivers some truly competitive products in the future.
    Score
    0
    February 16, 2012 6:56:13 AM

    de5_Roy said:
    guys, you will see more of this kind of people trying to justify their purchases by undermining other people's research and by denying reality.
    some things to watch out for:
  • "my system plays games perfectly" (no mention of min. max. avg. fps, no comparison figures.)
  • will argue that any system delivering 30/60 fps (if that's what his/her fx pc delivers) is good enough for gaming and beyond that everything is irrelevant. (60fps offers smooth gaming experience, but a lot of people can notice >60 fps - especially gamers).
  • "fx cpus cost more, but intel motherboards cost higher" (in reality, well festured z68 and 990x and 990fx motherboards cost almost the same. you can get dirt cheap motherboards from both intel and amd chipsets. motherboard cost depends on the companies who build motherboards, not entirely on intel and amd.)
  • "fx cpus are cheaper in the $100-160 range" (then they get outperformed by $80 pentiums and $120 core i3 in games, even after overclock.)
  • "my pc multitasks better" (this is a bit sad because the dual core hyperthreaded core i3 keeps up with a 3-4 module, 6-8 core cpus just fine.)
  • "don't play multiplayer with core i3/i5" (no proof with fps comparison in a replicable/repeatable, consistent multiplayer scenario of any multiplayer game)
  • will throw around rendering benchmarks in discussions/arguments about gaming pc.
  • will never mention detailed pc configuration such as psu, cooling, total cost, ram etc.
  • "windows 8 will improve performance" (overplayed)
  • "pcie 3.0 is overrated" (for now, games haven't shown any improvement. but it shows clear improvement in other areas. and how do you know that games won't use higher pcie bandwidth in the future?)
  • will never, ever mention power consumption, efficiency, heat or noise. will try to undermine power efficiency by saying
    "gamers don't care about power consumption."
    "windows and games favor intel."
    "power costs almost nothing here, that's irrelevant."
  • fx overclocks better. as it was proved - fx performs badly (compared to locked intel cpus) in games even after overclock. and you gotta add a mid to high end cooler's cost, higher wattage psu's cost. iirc amd recommends lcs for fx 8150 overclocking, they even sent amd branded closed loop cooler to reviewers during fx launch.
  • will deny the fact that amd gfx cards run better with intel cpus. will argue that intel and nvidia has some kind of alliance.
  • will deny that the fx cpus are overpriced for their performance and power efficiency.
  • will (almost) always forget to factor in how games are coded. most games barely use 3 cpu cores. if one has a cpu with 2-3 cores with strong single core performance, it'll be fine for gaming.
  • "intel is a criminal company and will never buy from them." (this is a very personal opinion and has nothing to do with their cpu's gaming performance.)
  • "you're being paid by intel. ask them for raise or something." (i know all companies including amd pays people to post in forums. i am not paid by anyone. besides, how do i know you're not being paid by amd to pitch their stuff?)
  • will attack you personally, instead of arguing your idea/statement/facts. (this is a typical fanboy behavior, not restricted to amd fanboys. all fanboys are like this. technically personal attacks are against tomshardware's t.o.s., so be careful.)
  • "toms is biased towards intel and nvidia." (hilarious. take a look at the best gaming gfx card for money articles. also look into the sb-e articles.)
  • thread will turn into verbal fight-fest, will get shut down and they will open another thread saying almost the same thing.
    when these happen, the best thing to do is to ignore.
    a lot of people bought fx cpu. they took it as kind of a slap in the face when almost everyone (except eteknix who gave 8150 a gold award for gaming cpu) says fx is not good for gaming - with proof to back it up. that's the reality. live with it and hope that amd delivers some truly competitive products in the future.


  • Fan Boy Rhetoric -1^



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kd4dvLJQP4

    8150 @ stock
    Metro- min-27 max-60 avg-43
    BFBC2- min-45 max-94 avg-65
    Crysis2- min-42 max-91 avg-58
    Lost Planet2- avg-33
    Dirt3- min-75 avg-99
    Cinebench- 5.84

    i5 2500K @ stock
    Metro- min-27 max-59 avg-43
    BFBC2- min-44 max-97 avg-65
    Crysis2-min-36 max-88 avg-62
    LostPlanet2- avg-34
    Dirt3- min-79 avg-105
    Cinebench- 5.12

    Looks like BD fx - 8150 and i5 2500k are pretty similar in terms of gaming performance add in the additional average cost of an Intel platform and slightly higher cost of the 8150 chip and looks like AMD and Intel offer up pretty even results on average as far as gaming as I have outlined and double certified above with link provided.
    Score
    0
    February 16, 2012 9:32:11 AM

    I can sell you my i7 860 for 150+ shipping
    Score
    0
    February 16, 2012 9:49:59 AM

    intelnvidia said:
    I can sell you my i7 860 for 150+ shipping


    topic solved!

    Now can we stop this AMD vs intel business. I know alot of you guys are trying to help however i think this topic has gone as far as it could go.
    Score
    0
    a b à CPUs
    February 16, 2012 10:19:57 AM

    noob2222 said:
    Just don't try to play bf3 online.


    Jesus...

    The i3 2100 can handle 64 player maps FINE.

    In fact, the i3 2100 can handle anything you throw at it fine.

    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-812... - Beats the FX-8150 in everything except for synthetics

    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=289 - Every game beats the 8150 handily except for SCII (Where it is almost on par)

    So if it tops the 8150 where does the 6100 come in?

    Ill let you answer that yourself.


    Score
    0
    a b à CPUs
    February 16, 2012 11:12:27 AM

    Boopoo said:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kd4dvLJQP4

    8150 @ stock
    Metro- min-27 max-60 avg-43
    BFBC2- min-45 max-94 avg-65
    Crysis2- min-42 max-91 avg-58
    Lost Planet2- avg-33
    Dirt3- min-75 avg-99
    Cinebench- 5.84

    i5 2500K @ stock
    Metro- min-27 max-59 avg-43
    BFBC2- min-44 max-97 avg-65
    Crysis2-min-36 max-88 avg-62
    LostPlanet2- avg-34
    Dirt3- min-79 avg-105
    Cinebench- 5.12

    Looks like BD fx - 8150 and i5 2500k are pretty similar in terms of gaming performance add in the additional average cost of an Intel platform and slightly higher cost of the 8150 chip and looks like AMD and Intel offer up pretty even results on average as far as gaming as I have outlined and double certified above with link provided.



    All of those games are GPU limited. In non-GPU limited games, Intel dominates:

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



    Sites like Toms need to stop using GPU bottlenecked games to determine relative CPU performance.
    Score
    0
    February 16, 2012 11:30:49 AM

    Amazing how the lowly little $80 G630 slots in just above all three FX processors.

    Makes me want to cry when I see how far AMD has fallen since the days of the Thunderbird-cored Athlons when they shoved performance metrics down Intel's throat.
    Score
    0
    February 16, 2012 11:50:05 AM

    deadjon said:
    Jesus...

    The i3 2100 can handle 64 player maps FINE.



    I doubt it. BF3 multiplayer is properly multithreaded and needs a lot of CPU power
    http://www.sweclockers.com/artikel/14650-prestandaanaly...

    I'm running a i5-2500k @ 4.3GHz and an overclocked HD 6970 (930MHz GPU, 1400MHz Memory) and the ingame performance graph (render.perfoverlayvisible 1) shows CPU and GPU roughly equal. (~60fps, ultra, 0xAA, 16xAF)
    Score
    0
    a b à CPUs
    February 16, 2012 12:51:46 PM

    Another AMD user starting a flame war. Newsflash: Does it even matter what TH suggest? What possible difference does that make in your life. If you are happy with whatever hell FX you have then good for you thats all that matters.

    100% of experts in the field will tell you that Intel has the higher quality and performing chips, yet here we are with average joe's telling us otherwise. Get over it.
    Score
    0
    a b à CPUs
    February 16, 2012 5:05:27 PM

    gamerk316 said:
    All of those games are GPU limited. In non-GPU limited games, Intel dominates:

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

    http://media.bestofmicro.com/X/F/323907/original/Averages.png

    Sites like Toms need to stop using GPU bottlenecked games to determine relative CPU performance.

    actually toms needs to use more havok game engines, screw amd, promote intel.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havok_(software)

    kinda funny those games that are not "gpu bottlenecked" are on intel's payroll.

    can't count metro2033 because the I3 2100 loses

    can't use BF 3 MP because if you turn down the graphics the I3 2100 does just fine, even though you have to balance the cpu running 95% to get the gpu to stay at 100%

    can't use any games that show close performance becuse thats a gpu bottleneck, including RE 5, Hawx 2, Dirt 3, Stalker, AvP, mafia II, BF3 ...

    lets just cater to intel, only games allowed to be tested are any games developed by intel or using intel software.

    http://game-on.intel.com/eng/games/default.aspx

    thats the list, all other games are fake or don't count. Intel for life, die AMD.

    After all, thats what everyone wants right?

    Personally tho thats a smart move by Intel, can't pay off hardware vendors anymore so go after the software devs instead. "how much would it cost to sabotoge this game for AMD? (oops sorry I meant optomize it for Intel) 300M. done"

    http://software.intel.com/sites/billboard/article/blizz...
    Score
    0
    February 16, 2012 5:26:04 PM

    noob2222 said:

    Personally tho thats a smart move by Intel, can't pay off hardware vendors anymore so go after the software devs instead. "how much would it cost to sabotoge this game for AMD? (oops sorry I meant optomize it for Intel) 300M. done"

    Is this any different to Nvidia's TWIMTBP?
    Score
    0
    February 16, 2012 5:26:57 PM

    Its not about which companies better.
    neither one leads for every, ones 5 percent better for a year, then the others 5 percent better for 6 months.

    I understand in general, on most well optimized games, intel has the lead.

    Im talking specifically about heavy only multiplayer with
    tripple player count running amuk in full combat 64 player maps.

    Its not about a rally cry for amd (although its a strong case specifically for..).
    Its just different areas of excel.

    And im looking for the best chip I can get specifically for online heavy gameplay.

    Any of the chips will run any regular games single player mode just fine.

    Im looking for 64 player map information.

    all the people who say "the i3 2100" will do fine, never quote real numbers or say
    "I actually play 64 player maps with it just fine" they just revert back to "charts and other games solo single player information.
    Score
    0
    February 16, 2012 5:28:04 PM

    Im trying to decide between the upgrade path of the intel chipset
    and the fx 6100 chip which ive personalyl seen fraps hd video of bf3 multiplayer without a single tick of load or delay.
    Score
    0
    a b à CPUs
    February 16, 2012 5:55:48 PM

    BigMack70 said:
    This is because multiplayer is impossible to benchmark reliably so that one run is equal to another.

    All the people saying "FX series chips are so much better on BF3 multiplayer" never post benchmarks either. It's purely anecdotal. I'm not saying people are lying, only that it is extremely difficult to make direct comparisons of multiplayer game performance from one system to another. There are too many variables to control for. In the areas that CAN be controlled and benchmarked, the i3-2100 in general performs noticeably better.

    So basically your supposed to go buy a cpu based on single player testing, take it home, load up a 64 player map and then be happy when your hitting 20-30 FPS when settings are on ultra? After all, the game worked fine on ultra for single player, why would I have to turn it down for MP?

    ya, happy about what, getting screwed over some "controlled" benchmarks under uncontrolled conditions?

    reliable or not, you want to know if its going to work or not. Single player controlled benches don't tell you jack squat about it.
    Score
    0
    February 16, 2012 5:57:34 PM

    noob2222 said:
    Just don't try to play bf3 online.


    the i3 can handle bf3online perfectly.
    Score
    0
    a b à CPUs
    February 16, 2012 6:06:50 PM

    con310 said:
    the i3 can handle bf3online perfectly.

    got any proof without turning all the settings to low?
    Score
    0
    Anonymous
    a b à CPUs
    February 16, 2012 6:09:27 PM

    molo9000 said:
    I doubt it. BF3 multiplayer is properly multithreaded and needs a lot of CPU power
    http://www.sweclockers.com/artikel/14650-prestandaanaly...

    I'm running a i5-2500k @ 4.3GHz and an overclocked HD 6970 (930MHz GPU, 1400MHz Memory) and the ingame performance graph (render.perfoverlayvisible 1) shows CPU and GPU roughly equal. (~60fps, ultra, 0xAA, 16xAF)


    oh grasshopper since BF3 is multithreaded so is the i3 2100 . . .

    and btw, on the link you posted and since my swedish is a little rusty and i didn't actually see a i3 2100 bench marked, would you mind explaining what it means please :) 
    Score
    0
    February 16, 2012 6:11:36 PM

    Hazbot said:
    Games don't "split" the work between cores. Sure, some might, but the majority of console ports ( MW3 etc. etc.) will only ever use 2 cores, the i3 has a significantly higher IDP than any FX chip, meaning that it's performance in games is significantly better because it's single core performance is much better. Although I would recommend a quad core chip for background programs, if you're gaming the amount of cores matters not as much as a single cores power, which is significantly better in the i3. You will benefit more by buying more RAM and GFX cards with more RAM. Most games will faceplant with an FX due to it's low, low IDP.

    IDP>more cores. You dig?


    That's not entirely true, xbox uses three cores so games ported from that can use three Black ops uses three and if you have less then you wont be playing it smoothly. I know from experience, fought with that game so much on my old cpu.

    I would suggest getting a quad core over any dual core.
    Score
    0
    February 16, 2012 6:13:18 PM

    Bottom line, get a phenom II.
    Score
    0
    February 16, 2012 6:21:14 PM

    noob2222 said:
    got any proof without turning all the settings to low?



    well im sure there some benchmarks you could go look up, heres a video on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAI05IH7s7s&feature=rela...

    guy is getting 80-100fps with settings on high so he could easily turn more settings up and still have playable frames.

    Do you have any proof it doesnt?
    Score
    0
    a b à CPUs
    February 16, 2012 6:50:42 PM

    con310 said:
    well im sure there some benchmarks you could go look up, heres a video on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAI05IH7s7s&feature=rela...

    guy is getting 80-100fps with settings on high so he could easily turn more settings up and still have playable frames.

    Do you have any proof it doesnt?

    rofl, at 27 sec" with fraps I run 50 fps even though it sais 30 on screen, without fraps i get 80-100 .... wtf, its that maxed out that fraps drops 30 fps?

    1600 x 900 AA off, AO - ssao, AF 1x. "i turn my settings down so i get better fps"

    looks like good solid proof that you need to lower the graphics.
    Score
    0
    February 16, 2012 6:56:17 PM

    noob2222 said:
    rofl, at 27 sec" with fraps I run 50 fps even though it sais 30 on screen, without fraps i get 80-100 .... wtf, its that maxed out that fraps drops 30 fps?

    1600 x 900 AA off, AO - ssao, AF 1x. "i turn my settings down so i get better fps"

    looks like good solid proof that you need to lower the graphics.



    It doesnt show is fps on screen he must have got confused, the game clearly was running a lot higher then fps 30 so it looks much more like proof he could increase his settings.

    Anyways you just asked for proof of someone running bf3 in settings other then all low, which as you can see, you were wrong.


    edit: also you gonna show me that proof saying i3 2100 cant run bf3?
    Score
    0
    February 16, 2012 7:03:09 PM

    BigMack70 said:
    He's just a mindless fanboy. He's more interested in conspiracy theories than evidence or proof. All his posts in threads like this one are basically the same - he just likes CPUs that come in a green or black box instead of a blue one and doesn't really care how they perform.


    yea its starting to seem that way :ouch: 
    Score
    0
    a b à CPUs
    February 16, 2012 7:09:21 PM

    con310 said:
    It doesnt show is fps on screen he must have got confused, the game clearly was running a lot higher then fps 30 so it looks much more like proof he could increase his settings.

    Anyways you just asked for proof of someone running bf3 in settings other then all low, which as you can see, you were wrong.


    edit: also you gonna show me that proof saying i3 2100 cant run bf3?

    send me an i3 2100 and ill run it on ultra 4xaa 1900x1200 and compare it to my 8120.
    Score
    0
    February 16, 2012 7:15:48 PM

    noob2222 said:
    actually toms needs to use more havok game engines, screw amd, promote intel.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havok_(software)

    kinda funny those games that are not "gpu bottlenecked" are on intel's payroll.

    can't count metro2033 because the I3 2100 loses

    can't use BF 3 MP because if you turn down the graphics the I3 2100 does just fine, even though you have to balance the cpu running 95% to get the gpu to stay at 100%

    can't use any games that show close performance becuse thats a gpu bottleneck, including RE 5, Hawx 2, Dirt 3, Stalker, AvP, mafia II, BF3 ...

    lets just cater to intel, only games allowed to be tested are any games developed by intel or using intel software.

    http://game-on.intel.com/eng/games/default.aspx

    thats the list, all other games are fake or don't count. Intel for life, die AMD.

    After all, thats what everyone wants right?

    Personally tho thats a smart move by Intel, can't pay off hardware vendors anymore so go after the software devs instead. "how much would it cost to sabotoge this game for AMD? (oops sorry I meant optomize it for Intel) 300M. done"

    http://software.intel.com/sites/billboard/article/blizz...

    ^+1 it's really to bad more gamers dont understand like you do about how Corporation and maximizing profit thru propaganda and buying develops off etc works Intel is a perfect corporate model exploitative, manipulative and negligent which is why I go AMD and I could care less about playing Starcraft 2 etc but I buy AMD cause I understand how the system works and if more people did understand they would cut Intel off to but Intel banks on ignorance and profited handsomely cause there are many ignoramus in the world.
    Score
    0
    a c 152 à CPUs
    February 16, 2012 7:34:56 PM

    Well woopy freaking doo for you. We don't care if you buy AMD just because it's AMD. You are the perfect example of fanboyism. Some of us actually care to do research and care about performance not what sticker is in the front of our case advertising what CPU we have.
    Score
    0
    a b à CPUs
    February 16, 2012 7:35:52 PM

    Boopoo said:
    ^+1 it's really to bad more gamers dont understand like you do about how Corporation and maximizing profit thru propaganda and buying develops off etc works Intel is a perfect corporate model exploitative, manipulative and negligent which is why I go AMD and I could care less about playing Starcraft 2 etc but I buy AMD cause I understand how the system works and if more people did understand they would cut Intel off to but Intel banks on ignorance and profited handsomely cause there are many ignoramus in the world.


    This just in! Everytime you buy an Intel chip, Paul Otellini chops a kitten in half.

    Get over it, all corporations (including AMD) use shifty business/marketting tactics to gain an advantage over their opponents.

    It's your choice if you want to support AMD, and I think it's good that some people do, but don't think you are saving the world one kitten at a time by boycotting Intel products.
    Score
    0
    a c 152 à CPUs
    February 16, 2012 7:42:21 PM

    Blandge said:
    This just in! Everytime you buy an Intel chip, Paul Otellini chops a kitten in half.

    Get over it, all corporations (including AMD) use shifty business/marketting tactics to gain an advantage over their opponents.

    It's your choice if you want to support AMD, and I think it's good that some people do, but don't think you are saving the world one kitten at a time by boycotting Intel products.


    Yes exactly right. That's the way business is today. Talk about shifty marketing you mean like AMD claiming the Bulldozer is the first true 8 core CPU, yea right.
    Score
    0
    February 16, 2012 7:54:56 PM

    rds1220 said:
    Well woopy freaking doo for you. We don't care if you buy AMD just because it's AMD. You are the perfect example of fanboyism. Some of us actually care to do research and care about performance not what sticker is in the front of our case advertising what CPU we have.

    I am Anti Corporation and AMD is the lesser of two Evils right now with playing Corporate antics get some learning done it will help you become more happy and knowledgeable. Ps I have owned Intel CPUs and they worked just fine for what I needed and so does AMD no fan boy here it is just a CPU after all however it goes much deeper than just picking a team Red or Blue cause both teams are winning more so I rather join the team with the coaching style and ethical practices I more agree with on a moral level.
    Score
    0
    a b à CPUs
    February 16, 2012 8:07:23 PM

    Boopoo said:
    I am Anti Corporation and AMD is the lesser of two Evils right now with playing Corporate antics get some learning done it will help you become more happy and knowledgeable. Ps I have owned Intel CPUs and they worked just fine for what I needed and so does AMD no fan boy here it is just a CPU after all however it goes much deeper than just picking a team Red or Blue cause both teams are winning more so I rather join the team with the coaching style and ethical practices I more agree with on a moral level.


    Well I'd rather be optimistic and weigh the good that each company does instead of just the bad. Intel provides ~100k well paid jobs all over the world. Intel encourages its employees to volunteer over 1 million hours per year, of which Intel donates $10 per hour to that charity. Intel also funds education grades K-12 and Universities all over the world (Not just the US). Intel spends billions on renewable/clean energy every year and is a strong proponent of "saving the planet."

    So to all of you that think Intel is so evil for crushing AMD, consider all of the good that they do with the money they earn.
    Score
    0
    a c 152 à CPUs
    February 16, 2012 8:08:27 PM

    Boopoo said:
    I am Anti Corporation and AMD is the lesser of two Evils right now with playing Corporate antics get some learning done it will help you become more happy and knowledgeable. Ps I have owned Intel CPUs and they worked just fine for what I needed and so does AMD no fan boy here it is just a CPU after all however it goes much deeper than just picking a team Red or Blue cause both teams are winning more so I rather join the team with the coaching style and ethical practices I more agree with on a moral level.


    Again that's corporate business today. As blandge said all companies use shifty business and marketing tactics including AMD (them claiming the Bulldozer is the first true 8 core CPU.)
    Score
    0
    February 16, 2012 8:10:46 PM

    Blandge said:
    Well I'd rather be optomistic and weigh the good that each company does instead of just the bad. Intel provides ~100k well payed jobs all over the world. Intel encourages its employees to volunteer over 1 million hours per year, of which intel donates $10 per hour to that charity. Intel also funds education grades K-12 and Universities all over the world (Not just the US). Intel spends billions on renewable/clean energy every year and is a strong proponent of "saving the planet."

    So to all of you that think Intel is so evil for crushing AMD, consider all of the good that they do with the money they earn.

    A wrong is not mitigated by any amount of rights enter why the American Empire failed note pass tense.
    Score
    0
    February 16, 2012 8:17:12 PM

    rds1220 said:
    Again that's corporate business today. As blandge said all companies use shifty business and marketing tactics including AMD (them claiming the Bulldozer is the first true 8 core CPU.)

    Intel is just more of the corporate antics to maximize profit such as paying off develops etc not at all unlike Nvidias TWIMTBP games and AMD does it as well like with Deus EX human Revo but at leased AMD doesn't complete try and crippled the entire market competition like Intel and Nvidia does but enter Batman AC Nvidia played it's self on that one. Corporations have us all so wound up and mind locked that we cant even see pass 2 feet and become to realize that no matter what we play on be it PC, Mac, Intel, AMD, Radeon, Nvidia and even the Consoles etc we are all into the same great hobby.
    Score
    0
        • 1 / 2
        • 2
        • Newest
    !