I have a 9600 X4, but it has been long overdue for a change. I am going for a low-mid range build. I know I should get a 2500K, but I go against reason, and can't make myself buy a intel cpu. I am an amd person. My question is which amd cpu should I get for under $140. It is somewhat confusing. The reason why I am asking is because on cpubenchmark.net the answer is FX is better, but on the forums the answer is Phenom is better. I plan on buying Diablo 3, I do internet marketing, programming, nothing out of the ordinary.
FX 6100 - $140.00
FX 4100 - $100.00
X6 1045T - $110.00
X4 960T - $90.00
8 GB Memory
G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 8GB
Mid-range Video Card
All of the cpu's would do fine for what you do. I'd lean more towards the FX4100 or 960T, 1045T next but don't consider the 6100. The other 3 give the same performance or better with a cheaper price tag and you are not doing video editing anyways. Use the extra cash to pick up a good cpu cooler like the Coolermaster 212+ or EVO and overclock. Cheers.
For the prices you listed, the 960t. Its an easy to overclock cpu compared to the 1045t.
Passmark is a synthetic test, games for the most don't use more than 4 cores, but there are exceptions. Don't know about d3 yet, I'm sure we will find out soon, but bf3 loves more.
Those are singleplayer benchs. Multiplayer does utilise 6 cores read around before you lay out statements that to use your wording are sh*t
The video clip above demonstrates the short sequence used for benchmarking. It's not the most demanding segment of Battlefield 3 I've seen thus far, nor is it necessarily the most representative of single-player game play (and certainly not multi-player). However, after a couple of hundred runs, I know it's consistent.
That makes this system precise, but not necessarily accurate, so its validity could certainly be called into question. The challenge in a game like this, which doesn't offer the timedemo functionality purportedly made available to IHVs, but not press, is that nailing both precision and accuracy then becomes very difficult due to Fraps-based testing of actual sequences. While not perfect, what we have here is, at the very least, great for relativistic comparisons.
Thats the statement about those benchs if you bothered to read it all
Its a common thing with BF3 as nearly all the bench's are from small single player clips people read those then ask later why their dual core athlon or i3 is choking up on multiplayer (which lets face it is the reason people buy the game).
Yeah the web based start is a pain. Personally I detested single player I thought the AI was awful. Co-op was slightly better in that 2 of you battling the mindless bots is somewhat more fun but they really should have included a chat box in it.
i call bs on this .. battle field 3 dose make use of 6 cores .. i run a 1090T and when ever i run battle field 3 in mulit player it dose use 6 cores .. and that review is out dated .. because of all the updates that have been added sense that review date not to mention video card driver updates.. because in activity monitor .. all six cores are being utilized during gaming around 100 > 80 percent ... also it only utilizes around 2 -3 gbs of ram .. on my system.. i can play on ultra settings with msaa turned off and all other settings maxed and get 40 to 60 fps . with my 6870 crossfire setup ...