Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

AMD FX-4170 vs Intel Sandy Bridge i5

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 7, 2012 12:07:13 PM

Hello i was wondering what cpu would be better for gaming the AMD FX-4170 or the Intel Sandy Bridge i5? i noticed that the i5 is more used in gaming rigs but the FX-4170 seems to have better performance then the i5 (4.2 ghz to 3.6 ghz).

Sorry if this is an easy question but i do not know processors as much as i thought.

Thank you, for you time to read this

Steve
a b à CPUs
March 7, 2012 12:31:15 PM

There is not an AMD processor that can compete with the SB i5 2500K.
Score
0
Related resources
a c 203 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
March 7, 2012 12:33:31 PM

Based on price it's 'not terrible'.
Based on performance - it's probably priced 'OK'.

Gaming CPU Hierarchy Chart
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 7, 2012 2:22:32 PM

No brainer: i5 > BD.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 7, 2012 2:44:22 PM

Even at 4.5ghz, the FX41XX gets embarrassed in gaming by a stock dual core 3.1ghz i3-2100. GHZ has nothing to do with performance anymore, it's all about architecture.

If you want to build a budget gaming machine, forget the FX41XX and go with a i3-2120. Mobo's start at just $59 and are upgradable to Ivy Bridge.
Score
0

Best solution

a c 82 à CPUs
March 7, 2012 2:52:00 PM

you can't compare clock speeds to get an answer, read the reviews.
Share
a c 186 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
March 7, 2012 3:13:25 PM

a 5ghz fx-4170 would not be able to outperform the i5-2500k at stock clocks.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 7, 2012 3:17:15 PM

Yea.....Intel Core I5 is better. Infact i was just reading and these Revisions, arent really revisions. Because the performance wasnt really increased and its on the same B2 stepping, not B3
Score
0
March 7, 2012 3:35:01 PM

I have an i5 2500k and I wouldn't trade it for anything. It's hands down the best bang for your buck, maybe even a tad more bang than necessary.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 7, 2012 3:47:56 PM

You get what you pay for, period. Unless you buy a i3, you get a lot more than you pay for.
Score
0
March 8, 2012 10:34:21 AM

rEdsKu11z said:
Hello i was wondering what cpu would be better for gaming the AMD FX-4170 or the Intel Sandy Bridge i5? i noticed that the i5 is more used in gaming rigs but the FX-4170 seems to have better performance then the i5 (4.2 ghz to 3.6 ghz).

Sorry if this is an easy question but i do not know processors as much as i thought.

Thank you, for you time to read this

Steve


buy what your money can and give u more for less money... AMD FX 4170 for sure will be a good CPU, really dont pay attention to the intel market propaganda that its around Tomshardware its a shame, AMD did a revision of FX4170 if u see the hatchery chart is place #1 for just 135dollars at newegg
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Score
0
March 8, 2012 11:42:27 AM

i5 2500k beats every AMD processor out there at the moment.

Don't choose AMD :) 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 8, 2012 11:47:49 AM

If you are looking at a AMD setup, buy the 4100 hold out for PD which will likely see big improvements.
Score
0
a c 79 à CPUs
March 9, 2012 1:13:57 AM

Like I have said in a few other post's my FX runs just fine. I have it a 4.5Ghz nice and cool, I play BF3 on ultra on a 55" lcd while listening to my own music, downloading and uploading multiple files, multiple programs and browser windows open and still everything runs without a hitch. Single program performance goes to the intel, the FX CPU's will embarrasingly out multi task any evenly priced intel offering, thats why i can do all this while the guy with the i5 can only play BF3 on ultra :) 
Score
0
a c 186 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
March 9, 2012 1:17:51 AM

cmi86 said:
Like I have said in a few other post's my FX runs just fine. I have it a 4.5Ghz nice and cool, I play BF3 on ultra on a 55" lcd while listening to my own music, downloading and uploading multiple files, multiple programs and browser windows open and still everything runs without a hitch. Single program performance goes to the intel, the FX CPU's will embarrasingly out multi task any evenly priced intel offering, thats why i can do all this while the guy with the i5 can only play BF3 on ultra :) 

Don't try to start a war here. You can do those tasks on the i5 easily.
Score
0
a c 79 à CPUs
March 9, 2012 1:29:02 AM

Not trying to start a war just speaking the truth. It is a proven fact that mhz for mhz the i line from intel are faster than BD, it is also a PROVEN FACT that BD multi tasks better (evenly priced offerings) due to the way it's cache is layed out. Man you intel guys are like mac fan's, speak a little truth and everyone stats running around screaming like a pissed off toddler.
Score
0
a c 79 à CPUs
March 9, 2012 1:33:50 AM

oh and BTW the i5 2500K is $225 CPU my FX costed me $100. Hmm lets see for $100 from intel i am getting a ....G-850 dual core WHOO HOO !
Score
0
a c 186 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
March 9, 2012 2:00:55 AM

:heink: 
cmi86 said:
oh and BTW the i5 2500K is $225 CPU my FX costed me $100. Hmm lets see for $100 from intel i am getting a ....G-850 dual core WHOO HOO !

g860 apparently beats the fx-8120 in gaming????
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 9, 2012 3:49:24 AM

cmi86 said:
Not trying to start a war just speaking the truth. It is a proven fact that mhz for mhz the i line from intel are faster than BD, it is also a PROVEN FACT that BD multi tasks better (evenly priced offerings) due to the way it's cache is layed out. Man you intel guys are like mac fan's, speak a little truth and everyone stats running around screaming like a pissed off toddler.


i will guarantee that you can not play bf3 on ultra because at the best your sig say you have a 6850 so unless your are playing at 720p or less your are lying.
Score
0
a c 79 à CPUs
March 9, 2012 9:46:25 PM

Yeah maybe the i3 (that costs more) has a small edge in games and only games (at stock clocks). Got news for ya guys there is alot more to the world of computers than just gaming. The FACTS of the matter are the i3 only has 2 cores, no L3 cache and supports a max of 1333 DDR3 ( this applies to the G-860 aswell ) So when it comes down to things like video editing, rendering, audio production, folding and just multitasking in general ANY of the FX line or Phenom (minus some dual core phenoms) line will royally choke slam the i3 or G-860 Due to the fact the have 2 more cores, L3 cache (alot of it) and support memory speeds of 1866Mhz (not OC'd) Oh yeah not to mention my "shitty" FX has yet to have ANY issue playing ANY game that I have thrown at it at more than playable frame rates so *** off with your off intel fanboy bullshit because my FX works just fine ( at everything, not just gaming). In response to cbrunnem my apoligies, I missed adding 2X and I also made a typo they are in fact 6950's that i purchased in a promotional CFX bundle from a local retailer so gigabyte required that both be sent back for RMA process.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 9, 2012 10:41:26 PM

cmi86 said:
Yeah maybe the i3 (that costs more) has a small edge in games and only games (at stock clocks). Got news for ya guys there is alot more to the world of computers than just gaming. The FACTS of the matter are the i3 only has 2 cores, no L3 cache and supports a max of 1333 DDR3 ( this applies to the G-860 aswell ) So when it comes down to things like video editing, rendering, audio production, folding and just multitasking in general ANY of the FX line or Phenom (minus some dual core phenoms) line will royally choke slam the i3 or G-860 Due to the fact the have 2 more cores, L3 cache (alot of it) and support memory speeds of 1866Mhz (not OC'd) Oh yeah not to mention my "shitty" FX has yet to have ANY issue playing ANY game that I have thrown at it at more than playable frame rates so *** off with your off intel fanboy bullshit because my FX works just fine ( at everything, not just gaming). In response to cbrunnem my apoligies, I missed adding 2X and I also made a typo they are in fact 6950's that i purchased in a promotional CFX bundle from a local retailer so gigabyte required that both be sent back for RMA process.


fyi the i3 2100/2120 is a dual core plus hyperthreading which is the same concept as your FX processor. also in no area does your cpu beat the i3 outright. ive seen multiple benchmarks that have them even at best. skyrim will favor the intel as it is much better clock for clock.

your cpu will hold you back IF you have CF 6950s and theres no denying that. if you do then you need to read up
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 10, 2012 3:26:02 AM

If you are set on a Zambezi, then by all means, the performance is not nearly as bad as what is percieved or the impressions created.
Score
0
a c 186 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
March 10, 2012 3:40:33 AM

If an i3-2100 can't bottleneck a 7970, then it shouldn't bottleneck a cf/sli setup. Well unless they are cf 7970 and sli 580's. Anything sli below a 560ti/6950 should be fine.
Score
0
March 10, 2012 6:47:52 PM

Quote:
+1 then the i3 2100 smashes all phenoms aswell as the FX lineup....
125 dollar cpu vs 100 dollar cpu.... make much of a difference now??

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

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

Need i say more....


Isnt it ironic how all three games you linked are on the Havok physics engine, which only scales with two cores and IS OWNED BY INTEL. Hmmmmmm I wonder why the Intel dual cores are doing well there....
Score
0
March 10, 2012 7:02:29 PM

Quote:
LMAO...... Well why don't you use your brain and find some benchmark where a FX beats them majorly...
Until then i guess you can crawl back into your dump hole for a while.

IDC about intel or AMD but i know the facts.


I'm just saying those benchmarks should be taken with a grain of salt because of those conditions, but apparently your blatant fanboyism prevents you from taking them with a grain of salt. If you look at the other 3 benchmarks in Toms $100-$200 cpu roundup you would see that the gap is considerably less, namely because they are on 3rd party engines that are not designed to vastly favor Intel CPUs over AMD.
Score
0
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 10, 2012 8:19:09 PM

cmi86 said:
Like I have said in a few other post's my FX runs just fine. I have it a 4.5Ghz nice and cool, I play BF3 on ultra on a 55" lcd while listening to my own music, downloading and uploading multiple files, multiple programs and browser windows open and still everything runs without a hitch. Single program performance goes to the intel, the FX CPU's will embarrasingly out multi task any evenly priced intel offering, thats why i can do all this while the guy with the i5 can only play BF3 on ultra :) 


Sorry but I will have to call you on this. AMDs cache is actually slower than Intels cache and as well Intels cache is better since the L3 cache keeps all instructuions stored in it so the CPU wont have to grab it from memory which is much slower than cache.

Second, everything you are listing is easily done, apart from playing BF3 on Ultra, on a Q6600. I used to play TF2, watch a movie on the second screen, have 5-10 tabs open in the browser while playing music as well. Its nothing new. And I was playing on max. On a Q6600, 4GB of RAM and a HD2900Pro 1GB back in 2007.

But here is the kicker to yours, BF3 is EXTREMLEY GPU limited:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-3-graph...

Strange that you are on THGF yet did you not read the reviews on THG? BF3 doesn't care about the CPU so long as you have 2 ore more cores. Intel performs the same with two, three and four cores. AMD performs the same with three abd more cores, a bit slower with 2 cores since, well a module is not 100% of two cores. The only thing BF3 cares about is if you have a high end GPU with lots of VRAM. Thats it.

Thi is almost the same as those who would use the "Phenom feels smoother" line when Phenom I came out and was put to shame by C2Q.

Try this instead. Play BF3 and at the same time run the Intel Burnin Test. Lets see how well your CPU multitasks while its got a program using all of its power. I can tell you your system will come to a screeching halt pretty fast with IBT running. It will probably also run hot as hell.
Score
0
a c 79 à CPUs
March 12, 2012 3:24:30 PM

To those who seem to have this idea that FX series CPU's are half the advertised cores with "hyper threading" are rudely mistaken. Take my FX-4100 for example, this CPU is arranged into 2 modules with 2 PHYSICAL integer processing units per module resulting in 4 PHYSICAL cores. The only difference between the FX line and say a conventional quad core such as a phenom or C2Q is that the FX line uses a common floating point processor per module (so 1 FPU per 2 IPU module) To all you intel fanboys that want to call the FX line "hyperthreaded" go read some info before spouting off your uneducated mouth, or just pull up a die shot and you will clearly see 4 PHYSICAL cores.
Score
0
a c 79 à CPUs
March 12, 2012 4:09:59 PM

recon-uk, you don't seem to be providing any technical information so how about either you find something that proves there are not 4 integer processing unit's on an FX-4100 or just shut your mouth, thanks.
Score
0
a c 79 à CPUs
March 12, 2012 5:18:48 PM

This is a die shot from an FX-4100 CPU, please explain to me where this "hyper-threaded dual core" BS is coming from, thanks.
Score
0
March 12, 2012 6:21:41 PM

cmi86 said:
This is a die shot from an FX-4100 CPU, please explain to me where this "hyper-threaded dual core" BS is coming from, thanks.
http://www.hkepc.com/database/images/2011/07/source/23144027271152230259.jpg



Why does one core look smaller than the other (between the top and bottom, on either side)? Anyway, what you are failing to remember or grasp, is that despite the existence of 4, physical integer cores, they are arranged in such a manner (because of the shared floating point resources and other quirks of this design) that they don't BEHAVE like 4 distinct cores. I am not versed in the ways of processor design and fabrication, but from what I have read, I gather that AMD intended it to operate something like hyperthreading, but better (they hoped). Except they got worse performance than expected, much worse, then, fanboys like yourself set about attributing it all to the hype of the "inability of the OS to take advantage of the BDozer's advanced design". Well, that may be partially true, but so what? That is entirely the fault of AMD for risking so much on a design that they should have known in advance wouldn't be catered to by the OS.

Now, I ask - what if they had just made true 4-core and 8-core processors? Would the power requirements and heat dissipation requirements go through the roof? Maybe, but those aspects already weigh somewhat against the FX chips as they are, along with the sub-par performance, seriously, they get beaten in a lot of tasks and benchmarks by their own 45nm predecessors.
Score
0
a c 79 à CPUs
March 12, 2012 7:05:50 PM

ebalong said:
Why does one core look smaller than the other (between the top and bottom, on either side)? Anyway, what you are failing to remember or grasp, is that despite the existence of 4, physical integer cores, they are arranged in such a manner (because of the shared floating point resources and other quirks of this design) that they don't BEHAVE like 4 distinct cores. I am not versed in the ways of processor design and fabrication, but from what I have read, I gather that AMD intended it to operate something like hyperthreading, but better (they hoped). Except they got worse performance than expected, much worse, then, fanboys like yourself set about attributing it all to the hype of the "inability of the OS to take advantage of the BDozer's advanced design". Well, that may be partially true, but so what? That is entirely the fault of AMD for risking so much on a design that they should have known in advance wouldn't be catered to by the OS.

Now, I ask - what if they had just made true 4-core and 8-core processors? Would the power requirements and heat dissipation requirements go through the roof? Maybe, but those aspects already weigh somewhat against the FX chips as they are, along with the sub-par performance, seriously, they get beaten in a lot of tasks and benchmarks by their own 45nm predecessors.


First off I am not attempting to "fanboy" I don't make any excuses for BD not performing as anticipated (other than just the defense for AMD attemting to pursue an new architecture, not really an excuse). What I am attempting to do is clarify a massive amount of assumptions and misconceptions that seem to be associated with this CPU. It is a cheap quad core (4 ipu's) that holds it's own and even excels in some cases at it's price point. It is somewhat irritating that just because BD is not the god like end all that AMD promised so many people overlook many good points of this CPU and just jump to calling it ***. First off it's cheap as hell, 2nd it overclocks like a beast (then significantly beating most of it's price point competition) it runs on low voltage and produces barely any heat. Plus the AM3+ platform will be ready and compatible with "piledriver" So when it all boils down it's a cheap future-proofed quad core that holds it's own at the price.
Score
0
a c 79 à CPUs
March 12, 2012 7:19:28 PM

Quote:
I am no fanboy TY.
Here is my AMD rig:

AMD PC:
AMD Phenom II B55 4.2ghz 1.475 volts
4GB Geil Black Dragon DDR3 1600mhz
MSI 790FX-GD70
Sapphire radeon 5670 512MB GDDR5 OC
Coolit ECO ALC liquid cooling
1x Samsung Spinpoint F3 1T
Sony DVD/RW Drive
Coolermaster Centurion II chassis
Corsair TX650W PSU.

BTW phenom only supports DDR3 1333mhz.
I want to see you use your cpu for production please and then try and beat my i5 with the same amount of cores...
No one uses a 4 core for proper production... and if they do its a FX 8120-8150 or a 2600k-2700k or x79 platform.
You are bringing up things that make no sense.


Very curious as to why you would detail using DDR3-1600 in your AMD rig to turn around and try to prove me wrong by saying phenom only supports 1333Mhz? You are completely contradicting yourself in the very same post lol.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 12, 2012 7:27:38 PM

Quote:
I have yet to see any intel optimized games....
I am no fanboy either pal.
I own both AMD and Intel rigs and i do compare regularly.
If you had not noticed..... i have the same gpu's in both too.
How retarded is your statement now?

Might check intel's website then.

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

Quote:
I own both AMD and Intel rigs and i do compare regularly.
If you had not noticed..... i have the same gpu's in both too.


ya .. spread some more lies about how AMD bottlenecks a 5670 ... seriously



Apparently AMD bottlenecks video cards downward to where the 5670 scales worse than a 6850.

Quote:
I suggest you keep the "fanboy" slinging down a bit as you are very incorrect.


who is slinging?

Quote:
Until then i guess you can crawl back into your dump hole for a while.


having 2 rigs doesn't classify you as a fanboy, acting like a hypocrit does.
Score
0
March 13, 2012 12:58:57 AM

Quad core Sandy-Bridge > Bulldozer.
Now Cut the crap, and move on.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 13, 2012 5:40:27 AM

i dont care how miss informed some might be the fact still remains at any cpu level of intel(pentium,i3,i5,i7) it is still advantageous to get an intel build.

you guys can babble on about were intel fanboys are wrong about something but nothing compares to intel in performance per clock and amd is just going to be further behind come Ivy bridge.

also how does BD chips run so cool when they use soooo much power??? it would seem they would run hotter. can anyone verify that they run cooler then an intel equivalent.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 13, 2012 5:48:26 AM

Why does the issue always have to be, what is better. I am sure we have gone through this a million times, bouncing off the walls and yet the answer is always yes the Intel chips are better, but what is almost always overlooked is the issue of whether the FX is sufficient for an end user, and the answer is also yes, a AMD will give most non enthusiasts or casual gamers healthy performance.
Score
0
a c 79 à CPUs
March 13, 2012 2:59:22 PM

sarinaide said:
Why does the issue always have to be, what is better. I am sure we have gone through this a million times, bouncing off the walls and yet the answer is always yes the Intel chips are better, but what is almost always overlooked is the issue of whether the FX is sufficient for an end user, and the answer is also yes, a AMD will give most non enthusiasts or casual gamers healthy performance.


Exactly! It's not news that the current AMD line up (bulldozer) isn't the end all performance king AMD advertised it to be all these intel guys want to come in and tell anyone considering an FX that it's just the worst piece of garbage ever made and that it will not do what they want it to do because it's not an intel. I'm not fanboying but all I have been trying to say that is I am an enthusiast and avid (not hardcore) gamer and my FX @ 4.5 Ghz has chewed through everything I have thrown at it without issue.
Score
0
March 13, 2012 3:24:26 PM

cmi86 said:
Exactly! It's not news that the current AMD line up (bulldozer) isn't the end all performance king AMD advertised it to be all these intel guys want to come in and tell anyone considering an FX that it's just the worst piece of garbage ever made and that it will not do what they want it to do because it's not an intel. I'm not fanboying but all I have been trying to say that is I am an enthusiast and avid (not hardcore) gamer and my FX @ 4.5 Ghz has chewed through everything I have thrown at it without issue.



Because the OP specifically asked which one is better for gaming. They did not ask "is the FX 4170 good enough for gaming". They wanted to know which one is better between the two, and it is patently true that the i5 is better.
Score
0
March 13, 2012 3:26:48 PM

sarinaide said:
Why does the issue always have to be, what is better. I am sure we have gone through this a million times, bouncing off the walls and yet the answer is always yes the Intel chips are better, but what is almost always overlooked is the issue of whether the FX is sufficient for an end user, and the answer is also yes, a AMD will give most non enthusiasts or casual gamers healthy performance.



Because the OP specifically asked which one is better for gaming. They did not ask "is the FX 4170 good enough for gaming". They wanted to know which one is better between the two, and it is patently true that the i5 is better.
Score
0
a c 79 à CPUs
March 13, 2012 3:33:30 PM

ebalong said:
Because the OP specifically asked which one is better for gaming. They did not ask "is the FX 4170 good enough for gaming". They wanted to know which one is better between the two, and it is patently true that the i5 is better.


Read any review and one will quickly find that the 2500K is a better CPU (also $100 more) My dispute did not come from this as I agree. My dispute came from yet again seeing a bunch of intel guys making it out as the FX is completely worthless at any price point for any purpose, this of course is completely untrue and this was all that I was trying to say. Granted off topic from the OP but to be fair the conversation already was off topic when I joined.
Score
0
March 13, 2012 4:35:07 PM

The OP asked this:
Will 4 core fx-4170 @ 4.2ghz beat 4 core I5 @ 3.6.
The answer is NO. Intel i5 with 4 cores will always be faster than fx-4170, At ANY task.

8 core fx-8150 can in some tasks match or surpass 4 core i5, and in others(read games) fail miserably.
(i use this phrase because it is sometimes slower by its predecesors, something that spells doom and misery in the CPU world)

Its not that its not good enough, no one said that, it is not BETTER. now please stop ranting and lets find a moderator to put this post to the locker.

FYI: I myself am an AMD fan.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 13, 2012 4:51:48 PM

cmi86 said:
Exactly! It's not news that the current AMD line up (bulldozer) isn't the end all performance king AMD advertised it to be all these intel guys want to come in and tell anyone considering an FX that it's just the worst piece of garbage ever made and that it will not do what they want it to do because it's not an intel. I'm not fanboying but all I have been trying to say that is I am an enthusiast and avid (not hardcore) gamer and my FX @ 4.5 Ghz has chewed through everything I have thrown at it without issue.


it is the worst cpu at a price point currently in production.... not saying too much but they are,.

cmi86 said:
Read any review and one will quickly find that the 2500K is a better CPU (also $100 more) My dispute did not come from this as I agree. My dispute came from yet again seeing a bunch of intel guys making it out as the FX is completely worthless at any price point for any purpose, this of course is completely untrue and this was all that I was trying to say. Granted off topic from the OP but to be fair the conversation already was off topic when I joined.


at any price point intel has a better cpu. the best FX gets from toms is an honorable mention... which really isnt a recommendation.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 13, 2012 5:55:44 PM

Who buys stuff because a independant site recommends you buy it? there is a massive difference between knowing the path and walking it, sometimes you find that the best isn't what you need. If for the OP's situation a stock 4170 will give him ample and smooth frame rates at $100 less, well then so be it, to be honest he probably won't even notice the difference.

It is a scary world when everyone has intel processors, I for one at times regret it, why because I upgrade regularly and to say that it is almost impossible to sell a SB build is daunting. From years of benchmarking I have learned that no two pieces of hardware are identical nor are similar conditions suitable for all chips, to much voltage here or there may boost your CPU but affect something else, benchmarks vary as much as the sweetspot. I have a 2500K build running with dual 580's and my 8120 with dual 7950's and the BF3, Skyrim and Metro frame rates are almost indeterminable.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 13, 2012 11:28:05 PM

sarinaide said:
Who buys stuff because a independant site recommends you buy it? there is a massive difference between knowing the path and walking it, sometimes you find that the best isn't what you need. If for the OP's situation a stock 4170 will give him ample and smooth frame rates at $100 less, well then so be it, to be honest he probably won't even notice the difference.

It is a scary world when everyone has intel processors, I for one at times regret it, why because I upgrade regularly and to say that it is almost impossible to sell a SB build is daunting. From years of benchmarking I have learned that no two pieces of hardware are identical nor are similar conditions suitable for all chips, to much voltage here or there may boost your CPU but affect something else, benchmarks vary as much as the sweetspot. I have a 2500K build running with dual 580's and my 8120 with dual 7950's and the BF3, Skyrim and Metro frame rates are almost indeterminable.

bf3 and metro are gpu limited and i bet the you get better fps in skyrim with the intel build.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 14, 2012 4:42:01 AM

You do get better FPS at sharper resolutions around 10FPS difference at 1900x1200, that said you get well above smooth FPS with both a Intel and AMD setup.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 14, 2012 5:34:33 AM

sarinaide said:
You do get better FPS at sharper resolutions around 10FPS difference at 1900x1200, that said you get well above smooth FPS with both a Intel and AMD setup.


in 75% of games at 1080p or above
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 14, 2012 8:07:30 AM

cmi86 said:
This is a die shot from an FX-4100 CPU, please explain to me where this "hyper-threaded dual core" BS is coming from, thanks.
http://www.hkepc.com/database/images/2011/07/source/23144027271152230259.jpg


Actually, your seeing 4 modules, not 4 cores.

All FX chips to date all use the same die. The 4100, 4170, and 6100 have modules disabled. They are not native 2 and 3 module designs. Therefore, all FX dies will look exactly the same.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 14, 2012 9:13:55 AM

cbrunnem said:
in 75% of games at 1080p or above


I think we have pretty much covered it, yes Intel is better if we have to have a winner in every CPU discussion, that said not everyone has the same setup or needs, this is where the bulldozer still serves the needs of the average end user copiously.


Score
0
March 14, 2012 2:40:26 PM

sarinaide said:
I think we have pretty much covered it, yes Intel is better if we have to have a winner in every CPU discussion, that said not everyone has the same setup or needs, this is where the bulldozer still serves the needs of the average end user copiously.


well said man... i really hate, when someone opens a thread asking for which AMD CPU to buy and here and there guys suggesting intel rolf...

IN MY LIFE A HAVE REALIZE THAT ITS NOT WHATS GIVE YOU MORE FPS... IMPORTANT THING IS... WHAT GIVE YOU MORE FOR YOU MONEY AMD ALL THE WAY....

with that being said... whats the difference in framerate? 10fps or 15fps? beyond the 60-70fps that doesnt even matter INTEL FANBOYS
Score
0
!