So I'm just curious which of these processors gives the best gaming performance for the price. Ordinarily, I would know the 965 is better for the money, but I just saw a 30 dollar price drop on the 6100, from 140 down to 110, which is the same price as the 965. At this price point, which is the better processor? Also, would either one bottleneck, say, a 7950?
I 2nd that although if you get the 6100 to 4.5 ghz or so it would be close. I got my friends 6100 up to 4.7 ghz but my 1090T still got better frames per second overclocked to 3.8 soooo go with the 965 which shout OC to 3.8 to 4.0 ghz and just do anything you could ever need it to. The 965 will be less of a bottle than the 6100 IMO better FPS backs this up.
We already know how PD does, we read the Trinity reviews.
Yea, 4 PileDriver threads perform on par with 2 physical cores + 2 HyperThreads of i3, falls a little shy of single thread performance (which was expected). 10 percent goal as stated by AMD's roadmap was met, and in some cases exceeded as high as 15%. For something more detailed, I'll wait for actual PD benches, but that should remain consistent.
Beyond the impressions I came away with in that story, I can now add that Sandy Bridge-based Core i3s fare about as well as I expected them to. The Core i3-2100 does well in single-threaded x86 metrics, where its efficient architecture simply muscles past AMD’s best effort with the Piledriver design. There aren't many, though, and I imagine they'll only get more rare and less meaningful over time.
A majority of our threaded tests—particularly the ones that emphasize integer-heavy code—go in AMD’s favor. It’ll take more than a dual-core 3.1 GHz chip to get Intel ahead in those benchmarks. Maybe the $125 Core i3-2120 is a better choice, or the $150 Core i3-2130.
I don't know why anybody would buy an i3-2130, at that point, I'd go i5...
Ivy Bridge-based Core i3s will help Intel’s case with regard to x86 performance. However, it’s not yet clear if any of them will include HD Graphics 4000.
They don't. It is now clear since the article's writing.
I'm hoping it looks okay too, and by okay, I mean, at least 10% performance over Phenom IIs. My dear mother has an old Dell XPS 200 with a Pentium D processor that has a date with the trashcan. My Phenom II and 550 TI would make a lovely replacement for it, but I'm not parting with my Phenom II unless I see an 1100T killer out of FX-8350.