Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Fx 4170

Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 19, 2012 2:26:17 PM

how much performance difference between the fx and the i3,will i notice t while gaming?


More about : 4170

a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
August 19, 2012 3:18:32 PM

Some MMO's require a quad core cpu.

However in the other games, a stock i3 sandy bridge will destroy a 4170, while using half the power and creating half the heat.
Score
0
Related resources
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
August 19, 2012 3:31:11 PM

An i3 will not destroy a 4170... The 4170 will beat the i3s in any game that can effectively use three or four threads which is quite common. The FX will be very close when it looses. Either option is good, but the FX-4100 is the exact same chip and binning, so it is better to buy it and overclock it.

The 4170 would use a lot of power and generate a lot of heat, but it would not lose in performance in most games by very much, if at all. Give it another 300MHz and it can meet or beat the i3s in pretty much every game or be right behind them in the older games that would work on it so fast that it doesn't matter if it loses anyway.
Score
0
a c 105 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
August 19, 2012 4:26:12 PM

geekapproved said:
Some MMO's require a quad core cpu.

However in the other games, a stock i3 sandy bridge will destroy a 4170, while using half the power and creating half the heat.


what MMO is not playable with the i3 but is the FX-4170?
Score
0
a c 105 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
August 19, 2012 4:27:06 PM

blazorthon said:
An i3 will not destroy a 4170... The 4170 will beat the i3s in any game that can effectively use three or four threads which is quite common. The FX will be very close when it looses. Either option is good, but the FX-4100 is the exact same chip and binning, so it is better to buy it and overclock it.


what common games show the FX-4170 "beating" the i3?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
August 19, 2012 4:33:12 PM

ct1615 said:
what common games show the FX-4170 "beating" the i3?


As of right now, BF3 MP, Star Craft 2, WoW, and many others. Look at recent benchmarks that show the updates to games to make them more well-threaded. The i3 only has a somewhat advantage in per-core CPU performance and Hyper-Threading can't make up for having half the cores.
Score
0
a c 105 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
August 19, 2012 4:41:39 PM

blazorthon said:
As of right now, BF3 MP, Star Craft 2, WoW, and many others. Look at recent benchmarks that show the updates to games to make them more well-threaded. The i3 only has a somewhat advantage in per-core CPU performance and Hyper-Threading can't make up for having half the cores.


yea... i just showed AMD losing in WoW & SCII so that argument just went out the window
Score
0
a c 105 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
August 19, 2012 4:42:03 PM

tigeryeow said:
how much performance difference between the fx and the i3,will i notice t while gaming?


too many people here are posting without actual proof (other then rolli)
if you look at rolli's hierarchy chart, it really depends on the exact i3 and the exact game. In games that utilize two cores, you see a difference with the i3 pulling away. In games that are mulit core optimized the FX-4170 can close the gap if not take a small lead but the in terms of real world significance, its doubtful you see the difference.

I would place the two CPUs on par with one another as Tom's hierarchy chart has it

World Of Warcraft likes two fast cores and you can see the i3 pulling away from the FX-8
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/62

games like Starcraft II can use more cores and you see the AMD quad cores+ more competitive with intel i3-2100
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/129
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
August 19, 2012 4:44:13 PM

ct1615 said:
yea... i just showed AMD losing in WoW & SCII so that argument just went out the window


Oh really, and how old are the versions of SC2 and WoW being used? Are they the latest versions and what were the parameters of this test?
Score
0

Best solution

a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
August 19, 2012 5:29:07 PM
Share
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
August 19, 2012 5:33:36 PM

If they're old, then they don't have all up to date tests and are completely irrelevant. Also, in those outdated tests, the 4100 at 4.5GHz is clearly indistinguishably close to the i3-2100. I can't tell a fraction of an FPS difference. Can you? I can, however, often tell a several FPS difference such as when the newer patches are used and the FX beats the i3s.
Score
0
August 19, 2012 6:48:16 PM

Best answer selected by tigeryeow.
Score
0
a c 105 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
August 19, 2012 10:59:18 PM

blazorthon said:
Oh really, and how old are the versions of SC2 and WoW being used? Are they the latest versions and what were the parameters of this test?


as with any test, the version would be the latest and greatest at the time of the test OCT-2011, so for WoW it would be with the cataclysm expansion.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
August 19, 2012 11:54:40 PM

That doesn't matter. There are patches very often for WoW and some of them can have some major changes, especially in the client and performance characteristics of it when Blizz decides to improve it. Back in January, WoW wasn't as well-threaded as it is today. Having the Cataclysm expansion pack doesn't mean that there are no major changes until the next expansion pack. My point is that those benchmarks are outdated and to accept them as still relevant for showing how processors perform in the most up to date versions of the otherwise same game by them is foolish, at best.
Score
0
a c 105 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
August 20, 2012 12:08:05 AM

blazorthon said:
That doesn't matter. There are patches very often for WoW and some of them can have some major changes, especially in the client and performance characteristics of it when Blizz decides to improve it. Back in January, WoW wasn't as well-threaded as it is today. Having the Cataclysm expansion pack doesn't mean that there are no major changes until the next expansion pack. My point is that those benchmarks are outdated and to accept them as still relevant for showing how processors perform in the most up to date versions of the otherwise same game by them is foolish, at best.


this topic is over (OP has made his decision) and i have no desire to make it continue. the fact is you have never shown any proof on your theory and refused to believe fact. there was no such patch that improved mulit core performance since i have check WoW patch notes. you simply lied to seem less foolish when proved false by actual facts. this my last post on the subject and to reiterate.

1-you made an incorrect opinion with no basis of proof.
2- i posted a fact with proof.
3 -you then lied to save face. end of discussion, have anice day but toms is no place for liars and i have no desire to have any discussion with one.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
August 20, 2012 12:50:12 AM

ct1615 said:
this topic is over (OP has made his decision) and i have no desire to make it continue. the fact is you have never shown any proof on your theory and refused to believe fact. there was no such patch that improved mulit core performance since i have check WoW patch notes. you simply lied to seem less foolish when proved false by actual facts. this my last post on the subject and to reiterate.

1-you made an incorrect opinion with no basis of proof.
2- i posted a fact with proof.
3 -you then lied to save face. end of discussion, have anice day but toms is no place for liars and i have no desire to have any discussion with one.


The DX11 patch for WoW made it more well-threaded. I've had enough of people who don't know the game telling me what Blizz did and didn't do, so here.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/world-of-warcraft-c...

Clearly shows a large increase in CPU efficiency and Tom's acknowledged this. This test is old too, but the DX11 patch wasn't enabled by default at this time and was not in use during the FX benchmarks anyway. It might not show how much of an improvement is made in the current version of WoW, but it proves that there was improvement. I'm not making up some theory, it is confirmed by Blizzard who has outright said that they've improved WoW and other games over time and by Tom's own tests here. The i3 doesn't have nearly as much room for improvement as the FX, so it simply doesn't improve as much as the FX would. When WoW first came out, it uses one, just one, core efficiently. It was later updated to use two cores more efficiently and then three and four. The updates kept coming. Are you jsut going to ignore this? That's your choice.

Skyrim, as we should all know, also had CPU patching to use more up to date instructions. It became much less CPU-bottle-necked after this. I could find Tom's benchmarks of this too.

Even SC2 has improved, albeit not as sharply. I don't recall benchmarks of this right now, but Blizzard outright stated that it could use many cores (only a few efficiently, but more than two efficiently and several more much less efficiently).

I didn't lie to save face. This is all proven fact that you simply refuse to acknowledge and would rather insult me than accept it.

I haven't been trying to sway OP'd decision since OP made it. OP made a choice as is OP's right. However, I will not just stand idly by while you people make incorrect statements about something be it after a decision has been made on it or not.

Also, these are only the beginning. Other games have been improving in how well-threaded they are and still are. In addition to that, many newer games that come out are more well-threaded than previpous games simply by default.

You can't say how something performs based on outdated benchmarks because they are no longer accurate. This should be common sense, but whatever. I can't say by how much more well-threaded the current version of WoW is compared to the older versions when running DX11, but I can say with certainty that there has been improvement and this is something that an old benchmark can be relevant for showing so long as there hasn't been any backtracking (which there hasn't) since that benchmark was out.
Score
0
a c 105 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
August 20, 2012 1:06:54 AM

1 - you posted opinions,no facts to back up your theory
2 - your DX11 patch is dated December 6, 2010 by Chris Angelini. the anandtech test was done one year later with your patch and the i3-2100 still showed better performance then the FX-8.
3- the catalysis patch above was for DX11
4 - from your own link; once you get to two fast intel cores (like on the i3-2100), there is little improvement


thanks for proving my point, end of discussion. good day and enjoy your fantasy world with whatever you care to believe. i'll take facts from professional reviewers rather then fan boy opinions.

AMD shows some optimization but at best it takes a phenom II x6 to reach the old i3-650 series FPS (a good deal below the i3-2100 on rolli's chart above)


Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
August 20, 2012 1:50:34 AM

This topic has been closed by Nikorr
Score
0
!