I3 better than x6 1090t

Status
Not open for further replies.

tygasp

Honorable
Mar 15, 2012
109
0
10,680
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.
 

wr6133

Guest
Feb 10, 2012
2,091
0
19,960
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.
 


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-apu-benchmark,3120.html
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-i3-2100-gaming-benchmark,3136.html
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 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).
 
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).
 



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
 

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.
 
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.


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.

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.
 
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.
 
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 :)
 

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...

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.

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

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.
 
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 :)
 
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 :)
 

namdlo

Honorable
Jun 20, 2012
451
0
10,860
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.