Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Which processor will do better in gaming+ any bottlenecks?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 29, 2012 2:58:40 AM

FX 8150, FX 4170, I3 2100. from best to worst, how good is each processor in gaming? i heard that each of the processors had its share of negatives. i heard the i3 is only dual core, which makes it perform bad in battlefield multiplayer and everything. i also heard the FX 8150 is octacore and 4170 is quad, but 4170 has a much higher clock speed, making it better in gaming. im just trying to see how the FX series fits in with all the cpus in terms of gaming.

also, if i paired each of those with an HD 7950 or gtx 680, would any bottleneck occur?

side note. this is purely theoretical, and for future reference. i am not currently planning on building a rig based on the fx series. yes, i take overclocking into consideration. please answer each question completely. please no fanboys.

thank you very much for helping this poor guy out :) 
a c 186 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
May 29, 2012 3:02:44 AM

Have you not considered any of the i5's? They are in the same price range as the 8150.

i3-2100 and FX-8150 will not bottleneck any of those cards, 4170 will.
m
0
l
a c 105 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
May 29, 2012 3:20:37 AM

mahin1islam said:
i heard the i3 is only dual core, which makes it perform bad in battlefield multiplayer and everything.


love that rumor, funny how no benchmark shows the intel i3 gimped compared to an AMD quad other then the "i know a guy who knows a guy who says so" comment

For the most part Battlefield 3 doesn’t appear to be all that CPU demanding, at least this is what we can tell from testing the multiplayer portion that the beta allows us to test. We'll be keen to revisit these results once the full version of the game is released.



let's see what tom's says, i3 and FX-4 show the exact same results
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-4100-core-i3-210...

where the rumor really comes from

We’ve also read about folks complaining about stuttering issues caused by Hyper-Threading; disabling the feature seems to smooth things out for them. At no point did a perceptible stuttering (aside from the jerkiness attributable to a too-slow GPU at a too-high setting) afflict our platform. However, we can confirm that turning off Hyper-Threading on the Core i7-2600K, going from eight logical processors to four physical ones, doesn’t hurt performance in any way, and in fact may slightly increase it. The rest of our tests were run with Hyper-Threading enabled, but feel free to shut it off if it benefits your experience!

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-3-graph...
m
0
l
Related resources
May 29, 2012 3:38:00 AM

All the BF3 benchmarks are single player, and multiplayer is more demanding.
m
0
l
May 29, 2012 4:18:19 AM

amuffin said:
Have you not considered any of the i5's? They are in the same price range as the 8150.

i3-2100 and FX-8150 will not bottleneck any of those cards, 4170 will.

i know that the fx 8150 doest stand a chance against i5. this is purely theoretical, as stated above. im not planning on buying these. im actually trying to see which intel cpu is the equivalent of fx 8150. you mentioned that the 4170 will bottleneck and the 8150 will not. how? 4170 has a higher clock speed and the expense of core count, and i have heard that games dont really need more than 4 cores. wouldnt that make the fx quadcore better than the octacore for gaming? also, which intel cpu would be equal to the fx in terms of gaming?
m
0
l
May 29, 2012 4:20:42 AM

so i am to understand that the quadcore fx is overall the worst in gaming, and the octacore one is the best, with the i3 in the middle?
m
0
l

Best solution

a b à CPUs
May 29, 2012 4:25:55 AM

No, since they share the same architecture most low-thread games will do better on the higher-clocked 4170 according to Tom's chart. But as you know there are many different games. Tom's gives you a nice comparison chart specific for gaming: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...

Edit: And as far as the i3 goes, Tom's favors it above the others at least for now. As more games come out that actually need more cores we'll see dual cores finally laid to rest as far as gaming.
Share
a b à CPUs
May 29, 2012 8:35:30 AM

FX 4170 I would avoid, i3 Why if you have a higher budget? 8150/20 no point get an i5.

@CT1615

Here's the 2nd thread now you will have been shown this link showing BF3 multiplayer does infact utilise multiple cores. Google around theres alot more like this too

http://www.sweclockers.com/artikel/14650-prestandaanaly...
m
0
l
May 29, 2012 8:51:44 AM

mahin1islam said:
so i am to understand that the quadcore fx is overall the worst in gaming, and the octacore one is the best, with the i3 in the middle?


i3 is probably the best, with FX 4170 second, FX8xxx last.

As larkspur pointed out, the FX 4710 is the highest clocked FX chip(4.2ghz), which gives it an advantage in gaming compared to other FX chips.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 29, 2012 10:55:53 AM

Again we are trying to attach a metric to performance, Noob2222 uses a FX 8120 (Graphics card I can't remember) and he is getting extremely high FPS in games like BF3, so ultimately it is down to the end users perception of good enough.

A hard core gamer can practically get away with a FX 8150/20 and Single or Dual GTX680/HD 7970 setups with rather no noticable difference other than in the wallet. If you are a synthetic benchmarker/Overclocker then there is a fundamental difference in going with Intel over AMD.

All in all of the chips listed, the i3 is probably the best gamer or tie with the higher end FX chips, for general usage the FX 8120 at the near $160 mark represents greater value for money where you delve outside of the single thread performance area. Considering the future of computing is not in single threaded app if you are budgeting to last the FX 8XXX will outlast the i3 dual core, in multithreaded performance despite the low IPC a 8150 hangs tough with intels nigh on $400 i7's so again its down to what you need a rig for.

Gaming: i3 over a FX 6100/4170
General: FX 8120 over the more expensive 8150

To split the middle ground the i5 is probably the best option.
m
0
l
a c 105 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
May 29, 2012 11:30:08 AM

GI_JONES said:
All the BF3 benchmarks are single player, and multiplayer is more demanding.


before commenting, try reading the entire thread especially the part where it says testing the multiplayer portion
m
0
l
a c 105 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
May 29, 2012 11:37:10 AM

wr6133 said:


Here's the 2nd thread now you will have been shown this link showing BF3 multiplayer does infact utilise multiple cores. Google around theres alot more like this too

http://www.sweclockers.com/artikel/14650-prestandaanaly...


that's not my statement. i know the phenom II x4 performs better then the phenom II x2. i posted a chart above stating that.
m
0
l
May 30, 2012 12:17:41 AM

okay, so regardless of what the benchies say, the fx 4170 will do better in gaming than the fx 8150 because it has a higher stock peed, and 8 cores arent used in gaming, right? so i shouldnt listen to the benchies? cause about all the benchies show the octacore fx beating both the quad core and the i3 2100.
m
0
l
a c 105 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
May 30, 2012 12:45:23 AM

the i3-2100 is better then the FX4170. it's not fair to compare the FX-8150 to either of the previous two CPUs since it almost costs twice as much. without price, the FX-8150 would be the better gaming CPU of the three. you can mix and match CPUs in the benchmark tool linked below

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/289?vs=434
m
0
l
May 30, 2012 2:07:13 AM

Best answer selected by mahin1islam.
m
0
l
May 30, 2012 3:27:05 AM

mahin1islam said:
so i shouldnt listen to the benchies? cause about all the benchies show the octacore fx beating both the quad core and the i3 2100.


They do? I haven't seen them. Link?

This link shows the i3 beating the FX8150.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/289?vs=434
m
0
l
May 30, 2012 3:33:43 AM

The FX8150 look like is very good
m
0
l
!