This months CPU suggestions from Tomshardware kind of failed.

[robcardiv]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-3.html

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.

 

[hunter315]

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=N82E16819115076


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.

 

[robcardiv]

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.

 

[amuffin]

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

 

[Hazbot]

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?

 

[bryonhowley]

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.

 

[Hazbot]

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.

 

[Boopoo]

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.

 

[Boopoo]

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.

 

[Boopoo]

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

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

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.

 

[noob2222]

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

Just don't try to play bf3 online.

 

[fb39ca4]

If you live near a microcenter, they have the i5 2400 for $150.

 

[thesnappyfingers]

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

 

[sewalk]

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.

 

[Boopoo]

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.

 

[thesnappyfingers]

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.

 

[Boopoo]

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.

 

[de5_Roy]

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.

 

[Boopoo]

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.

 

[intelnvidia]

I can sell you my i7 860 for 150+ shipping

 

[Goldengoose]

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.

 

[deadjon]

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-8120-6100-4100_6.html#sect0 - 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.

 

[gamerk316]

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-apu-benchmark,3120-10.html

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

 

[sewalk]

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.

 

[molo9000]

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-prestandaanalys-battlefield-3/5#pagehead

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)