Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

I3 better than x6 1090t

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 20, 2012 3:35:29 PM

I was looking at the gaming CPU hierarchy chart and it ranks the i3 above all of the AMD chips. How is that possible or isn't that correct? Thanks for whatever you can tell me.

More about : 1090t

a c 283 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
June 20, 2012 3:40:21 PM

Because the i3 2100 performs as well (and better, in most cases) as the 1090T and costs a lot less (IF you can even find a 1090T).

The only times the 1090T beats the i3 is in highly threaded applications (as it should).

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/146?vs=289
Score
0
a b à CPUs
June 20, 2012 3:49:10 PM

I disagree with it as you can OC many of the Phenoms which would close or surpass the gap but it's a moot point anyway as many of them you can't get hold of anymore anyway and the chart would be a total mess if it took OC's in too account.
Score
0
Related resources
a c 866 à CPUs
a c 283 4 Gaming
a c 344 À AMD
June 20, 2012 3:50:42 PM

Yep pretty much it, I3 2100 outperforms 1090T @stock clock speed in gaming. 1090T can be overclocked but not the I3 if people want to take that into consideration.
Score
0
a c 82 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
June 20, 2012 3:53:59 PM

tygasp said:
I was looking at the gaming CPU hierarchy chart and it ranks the i3 above all of the AMD chips. How is that possible or isn't that correct? Thanks for whatever you can tell me.


no, it is correct. gaming cpu hirarchy chart's cpu performances are based on stock performance of cpus.
most games is 2 cores, few use 4 cores. core i3's 2 cores turned out to be as strong if not stronger than overclocked phenom ii x4, x6, fx8xxx series cpus.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-a...
it also uses far less power than amd cpus (both stock and oc'ed).
there have been a few software updates since, skyrim isn't as cpu dependent as before.
if you use an entry level gfx card like radeon hd 6770 or 6850 with a core i3 vs an fx 4100, you won't notice any difference. but if you use a 7850, 7970 or a gtx 680.. the differences will be more apparent.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-4100-core-i3-210...
core i3 can handle higher end cards better than it's amd counterparts and some higher end amd cpus. it can do that while consuming less power.
core i3 however, will get outperformed in multithreaded apps like x264 video conversion, 3d rendering, file zipping/unzipping with 7zip etc by phenom ii x4, fx 6xxx/8xxx cpus. then again, core i3 isn't suitable for 3d rendering anyway. :) 
Score
0
a c 283 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
June 20, 2012 4:11:04 PM

wr6133 said:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-a...

Am I the only one thinks those charts are a real eyeache to read? Does show though in 2 of the 3 benchs the OC'd Phenom @ 4GHz beating the i3 by a narrow margin.


I agree those are a bit of a pain to read, lol, but it does a very good job of showing that you HAVE to OC a Phenom II to narrowly beat the i3 (granted, the difference is small enough at stock speeds that it's not a HUGE disparity, which is why a Phenom II is still a VERY capable gaming CPU).
Score
0
a c 82 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
June 20, 2012 4:24:14 PM

among amd's cpus, phenom ii cpus are still quite capable as gaming cpus. moreover, you get a cpu that's better at multithreaded workloads with thuban cpus (e.g. 1090t) compared to core i3. that is why a lot of amd users keep using phenoms.
core i3 went through update after phenoms came out. first core i3 was from nehalem arch (clarkdale iirc). then it was sandy bridge core i3 which had better cpu performance than previous gen. phenom didn't receive a 32nm die shrink or architectural improvement (llano doesn't count because of igp and no l3 cache).
Score
0
a c 78 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
June 20, 2012 4:40:29 PM

de5_Roy said:
no, it is correct. gaming cpu hirarchy chart's cpu performances are based on stock performance of cpus.
most games is 2 cores, few use 4 cores. core i3's 2 cores turned out to be as strong if not stronger than overclocked phenom ii x4, x6, fx8xxx series cpus.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-a...
it also uses far less power than amd cpus (both stock and oc'ed).
there have been a few software updates since, skyrim isn't as cpu dependent as before.
if you use an entry level gfx card like radeon hd 6770 or 6850 with a core i3 vs an fx 4100, you won't notice any difference. but if you use a 7850, 7970 or a gtx 680.. the differences will be more apparent.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-4100-core-i3-210...
core i3 can handle higher end cards better than it's amd counterparts and some higher end amd cpus. it can do that while consuming less power.
core i3 however, will get outperformed in multithreaded apps like x264 video conversion, 3d rendering, file zipping/unzipping with 7zip etc by phenom ii x4, fx 6xxx/8xxx cpus. then again, core i3 isn't suitable for 3d rendering anyway. :) 



I don't understand why people keep using that first article you linked to in order to say that i3s are better gamers than Phenom IIs. Really, its nice to look at but its absurd. I understand what Tom's was trying to do by using a 7970 card (at the time it was the most powerful video card on the market) in order to not introduce a bottleneck purely to test the CPUs,. but it really is not a realistic test for a budget-minded consumer.

The only thing a person can infer from that is that the nearly $600 video card is slightly held back by the CPUs. A more realistic test would be to find out what a more reasonably budget minded gamer video card would do. (a 7850 perhaps?) I don't think the difference would be that strong, actually I don't think there would be any difference at all, as the video card would then become the limiting factor, NOT the processor. The 7850 is not on the level of a 7970, nowhere near it, in fact:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/508?vs=549

Anyone whos pairing an i3 with a 7970 really would need a lesson in building a well balanced system IMHO. And as far as the power consumption, in terms of your electric bill, its not substantial enough to be considered a serious concern. Compensate for it by leaving your porch light off.... :whistle: 

As far as the 2nd link, we know FX-4100s kinda suck-ish. I won't go there lol
Score
0
a c 82 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
June 20, 2012 5:10:12 PM

nekulturny said:
I don't understand why people keep using that first article you linked to in order to say that i3s are better gamers than Phenom IIs. Really, its nice to look at but its absurd. I understand what Tom's was trying to do by using a 7970 card (at the time it was the most powerful video card on the market) in order to not introduce a bottleneck purely to test the CPUs,. but it really is not a realistic test for a budget-minded consumer.

The only thing a person can infer from that is that the nearly $600 video card is slightly held back by the CPUs. A more realistic test would be to find out what a more reasonably budget minded gamer video card would do. (a 7850 perhaps?) I don't think the difference would be that strong, the 7850 is not on the level of a 7970, nowhere near it, in fact:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/508?vs=549

Anyone whos pairing an i3 with a 7970 really would need a lesson in building a well balanced system IMHO. And as far as the power consumption, in terms of your electric bill, its not substantial enough to be considered a serious concern. Compensate for it by leaving your porch light off.... :whistle: 

As far as the 2nd link, we know FX-4100s kinda suck-ish. I won't go there lol

you're not the first person to not understand. when that article came out, a lot of feelings were hurt. just read the comments of that article. i've seen many people come up with their own explanations/conslusions to undermine it's findings. nothing new.
i think a core i3 2100 will game better than a phenom with 7850. the phenom will need to be overclocked to 4-4.3 ghz to level or beat it marginally. it's my personal opinion.
a balanced gaming system with core i3 would one with radeon 6870 or 6950. the second link shows i3 performance with a 6950 in which it leads the fx4100. 7850 is 6950's replacement, i think it'd perform same as it did with 6950 if not better (compared to amd cpus).
power consumption - you gave a new one lol. some amd users recently used 'replace a light bulb with an led one'. an old one is 'real gamers dont care about power consumption'. again, nothing new. my concern with power consumption was not only with electric bill, it was mostly with power consumption itself. i personally don't like components that do the same thing while using more power.
the point of my post was to provide info as OP asked. the sub $200 cpu round up seemed the most recent and the most relevant.
Score
0
a c 78 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
June 20, 2012 5:16:05 PM

Quote:
you're not the first person to not understand. when that article came out, a lot of feelings were hurt. just read the comments of that article. i've seen many people come up with their own explanations/conslusions to undermine it's findings. nothing new.


My feelings aren't hurt, nor am I angry, nor am I a fool. I'm telling you based on logic and my (admittedly limited education thus far in the tech field) That article is not a realistic test for a budget minded consumer, for the reasons I mentioned already.

My significant other likes his computer, and I like mine (I have now put both rigs in my sig line just for the sake of argument), one thing we agree on, there is nothing his computer can do that mine cant do just as well, that includes games.


Quote:
i think a core i3 2100 will game better than a phenom with 7850. the phenom will need to be overclocked to 4-4.3 ghz to level or beat it marginally. it's my personal opinion.

Right, its your opinion, ours happen to disagree. Like I said, I do hope you aren't patronizing me, as I myself am "still learning", but I am by no means a noobie.

Quote:
i think it'd perform same as it did with 6950 if not better (compared to amd cpus).

And with the absence of benchmarks thanks to what I view a very unrealistic article, this is purely speculation on both of our ends.

As far as power consumption, meh, not only do "real gamers" not care about power consumption, so do people who have electricity covered in their lease. :lol: 

As far as the price points from that article, they're outdated, as all of the AMD CPUs have been reduced in price across the board since the time it was written.

Addendum:

As far as people "coming up with their own explanations". Whats wrong with that? Don Wolligroski wrote that article, I don't know the man, I'm sure hes educated, but one thing I'm certain of; that just because he says something is true, doesn't make it so or that his methods of testing a scientific theory cannot be flawed. To blindly accept anything he says as completely accurate, could be considered an appeal to authority logical fallacy.
Score
0
a c 188 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
June 20, 2012 5:18:15 PM

For a budget gaming processor the Intel® Core™ i3-2100 or i3-2120 have a lot going for them but really if you are looking to build new gaming system you really should be looking for an Intel Core i5 like the Intel Core i5-2500K and the Intel Core i5-3570K.
Score
0
a c 78 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
June 20, 2012 5:19:43 PM

*wonders what the point of a known Intel employee coming into a thread telling people to buy an Intel product is*

Nobody asked about intel i5s in this thread. lol
Score
0
a c 78 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
June 20, 2012 5:28:21 PM

Fair enough lol. I just kinda see it as silly, of course the Intel employee is going to tell you to buy Intel. A Ford salesmen isn't going to tell you to buy a Chevy is he?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
June 20, 2012 5:47:34 PM

Hi :) 

And then there are 1100T`s...like mine , in all my gaming machines...non overclocked, with a pair of 5 series cards (the rare 5870 2 gb cards)

Anyone who says their i3 has better gaming than mine is living in never never land...

And with 6 true cores mine does a lot of other things a lot better than an i3...

The problem I have with benchmarks are they are not true to real life gaming, they are a moment in time for one testing person, plus their opinion, nothing more...


All the best Brett :) 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
June 20, 2012 5:59:13 PM

Quote:
so I take it that ALL the gaming benchmarks aren't true.... :heink: 
damn we all have been lied too... :/ 



Hi :) 

My point was that IF those testers had tested an 1100T WITH TWIN CARDS like mine then the i3 would NOT be above all Amds...

All the best Brett :) 
Score
0
a c 866 à CPUs
a c 283 4 Gaming
a c 344 À AMD
June 20, 2012 6:02:00 PM

Brett928S2 said:
Hi :) 

My point was that IF those testers had tested an 1100T WITH TWIN CARDS like mine then the i3 would NOT be above all Amds...

All the best Brett :) 

What if they test the I3 with twin cards?
Score
0
a c 82 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
June 20, 2012 6:07:32 PM

nekulturny said:

My feelings aren't hurt, nor am I angry, nor am I a fool. I'm telling you based on logic and my (admittedly limited education thus far in the tech field) That article is not a realistic test for a budget minded consumer, for the reasons I mentioned already.

i posted that link because it seemed the most relevant to OP's question. iirc right after that roundup came out, the gaming cpu hierarchy charts were changed. before that core i3 cpus used to be in lower tier than fx8150 and ph ii x6 1100t.
actually, the article explicitly states that it's about sub $200 gaming cpus i.e. if a part was under $200 and it could be used for gaming then it was tested how strong it was for that task. there was another round up for multi tasking... i think the link to that is in the round up article.
the cpus tested in that article are still under $200 mark as far as i know. if one's budget is under $150 for cpu, take the sub $150 cpus from that article without worrying about gpu bottleneck and compare purely on cpus' gaming strength, i guess...
nekulturny said:
Right, its your opinion, ours happen to disagree. Like I said, I do hope you aren't patronizing me, as I myself am "still learning", but I am by no means a noobie.

please don't mistake my post as condescending (had to google that :( ). i am not patronizing you or anyone else. there are many gaps in my knowledge, in a lot of cases i am total newbie.
nekulturny said:

And with the absence of benchmarks thanks to what I view a very unrealistic article, this is purely speculation on both of our ends.

yeah, i'd like to see the i3/i5 cpus benched with a 7850 and compared to fx.
nekulturny said:

Addendum:
As far as people "coming up with their own explanations". Whats wrong with that? Don Wolligroski wrote that article, I don't know the man, I'm sure hes educated, but one thing I'm certain of; that just because he says something is true, doesn't make it so or that his methods of testing a scientific theory cannot be flawed. To blindly accept anything he says as completely accurate, could be considered an appeal to authority logical fallacy.

nothing wrong with coming up with own explanations.
i dont accept blindly, but that article seemed most appropriate to me. since that had to do with specifically cpus' gaming performance disregarding the gpu and toms gaming cpu hierarchy chart. if others were available and i'd known them, i'd post them. iirc xbit labs do cpu roundup articles and may be ocaholic does too. but i don't check those sites as often as toms' or at. i don't think those sites specifically bench cpus for gaming...i don't know for sure.
edit: just in case, my first post with the sub $200 gaming cpu roundup and the other link wasn't aimed at any specific amd user or amd or phenom ii cpus. i am pretty sure if i hadn't posted it, someone else would have done it.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
June 20, 2012 6:32:38 PM

Quote:
and yours is glittered in gold or liquid nitro cooling running @ 7.0GHz... :sarcastic: 


+1



Hi :) 

I Already posted that mine are NOT overclocked...bog standard 1100Ts...

The difference being my crossfired 5870s which were over £1000 for the pair when I bought them....

And STILL will max out ANY game on Ultra....

So NO an i3 will NOT better my machines , which makes those (altered) benchmarks WRONG....

All the best Brett :) 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
June 20, 2012 6:42:14 PM

Quote:
and we are suppose to take your word over the hundreds of articles and benchmarks.?
are you inviting us all over to your abode for tea and gaming.?
are you posting results here and/or on youtube.?
if so then I can't seem to find them, imagine that... :/ 

so until then I will take the results of ALL the (your so called 'altered' benchmarks) with a little more accreditation
than you going around saying mine is this and mine is that....

:sleep: 



Hi :) 

Calling people liars is not the brightest thing to do.....

I own some computer companies and have been a gamer since you were probably a child...

All the best Brett :) 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
June 20, 2012 6:44:09 PM

Hi :) 

Oh and ask any big time gamer here, like CASUAL ...who is highly respected, precisely how good my cards and cpu are.....you obviously know little about these cards, and will not believe me, so ask him....

All the best Brett :) 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
June 20, 2012 6:44:53 PM

Hi :) 

I am 59...

All the best Brett :) 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
June 20, 2012 6:59:32 PM

Quote:
37 years age
12 years certified tech.

and your GPU's have nothing to do with this.....
nice try though.

all the best. :/ 


Hi :) 

So they run benchmarks without video these days...lol...damn I must be getting old as I have never seen a blind psychic benchmark tester...

All the best Brett :) 
Score
0
a c 866 à CPUs
a c 283 4 Gaming
a c 344 À AMD
June 20, 2012 7:01:57 PM

1100T is a good CPU nobody is arguing that! Somebody is arguing that nothing better exist!!!
Score
0
a b à CPUs
June 20, 2012 7:10:45 PM

But he paid "over £1000 for the pair " and his friend says his machine is "special".

What more proof do you guys need?

Now my old 386SX which was about $3000 will easily out perform his machine... it has to because it was more expensive and my mommy says I'm special.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
June 20, 2012 7:25:36 PM

namdlo said:
But he paid "over £1000 for the pair " and his friend says his machine is "special".

What more proof do you guys need?

Now my old 386SX which was about $3000 will easily out perform his machine... it has to because it was more expensive and my mommy says I'm special.



Hi :) 

CASUAL is a gamer here and I dont even know him , but hes acknowledged as an expert on BF3 and other games...

And I will listen to your opinion when YOU have gamed for 30 years and YOU own a couple of Computer companies.... or even put in a little time and effort here....like some posts... MORE THAN 1 POST would be nice :) 

All the best Brett :) 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
June 20, 2012 7:27:39 PM

Quote:
If you wish to challenge someone, do it with proof, not just mouth.

Age has nothing on some one's ability to out do another person of double their age.

Brett, get your 1100T out and bench the i3 in games, this will solve everything.

Make sure to use the same GPU's.

Until then, just shut up.



Hi :) 

So polite....telling your elders and betters to "shut up".....

Ah well perhaps I was as childish at 21....

All the best Brett :) 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
June 20, 2012 7:39:44 PM

Brett928S2 said:
Hi :) 

CASUAL is a gamer here and I dont even know him , but hes acknowledged as an expert on BF3 and other games...

And I will listen to your opinion when YOU have gamed for 30 years and YOU own a couple of Computer companies.... or even put in a little time and effort here....like some posts... MORE THAN 1 POST would be nice :) 

All the best Brett :) 


You're absolutely right... my single post makes me completely unknowledgeable.

My 20+ years as a developer (Sr. Software Engineer) working at a Fortune 100 company must also mean that I'm nothing compared to your owning a couple of computer companies.

You're trying to compare apples and oranges. You're saying that your 1100T is faster than an i3 for gaming because you have "better" video cards. Then you're trying to justify it by saying CASUAL says you have a good machine. No one is questioning if you have a decent machine, they're stating the fact that an i3 is faster in "most" situations for gaming than the AMD counterpart.

Get it through your head - no one cares who you are, what you've done in your life or how much you've paid for you machine the facts are the facts.

An i3 with X video card is in most cases better for gaming than an 1100T with X video card.




Score
0
a b à CPUs
June 20, 2012 7:40:21 PM

I think but maybe am wrong brett means his CPU can handle a beefier GPU combo therefore is better than the i3... don't know if thats the case but I would take his X6 over an i3 but granted I would OC the living heck outta it.

@recon

offtopic but how are you a para regiment vet aged 21?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
June 20, 2012 7:49:07 PM

wr6133 said:
I think but maybe am wrong brett means his CPU can handle a beefier GPU combo therefore is better than the i3... don't know if thats the case but I would take his X6 over an i3 but granted I would OC the living heck outta it.


In the earlier posts it was acknowledged that the AMD processor caused a larger bottleneck on high end video cards that the i3.

As far as overclocking, most end-users won't overclock their machines and it takes a significant overclock for the AMD to pass the i3.

If you have a process that uses more than 2 cores then the AMD will absolutely outshine the i3. However most games written today are limited to 2 cores and usually aren't cpu limited, they're gpu limited.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
June 20, 2012 8:27:20 PM

Another vs thread. These need to be closed when found... it's just the usual combative crew that populates them
Score
0
!