Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

FX 4100 vs Phenom II 965 for gaming?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 9, 2012 8:26:19 PM

I am stuck at this choice, and from what I read everywhere, the Phenom beats the FX at stock, but the FX can Overclock very well. So here I am asking for your help. Along with the CPU I will be buying an Asrock 970 PRO3 AM3+ mobo, and 8GB of DDR3 RAM. I am buying this mainly for gaming and that includes Battlefield 3, MoH Warfighter when it comes out. That sort of stuff. So which is going to perform better? I am not looking to Overclock like crazy or anything, just need a replacement for my Athlon 64 6000+...

More about : 4100 phenom 965 gaming

a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
September 9, 2012 8:30:03 PM

If I were you I would get an i5-2400 instead of either one of them.

If you insist sticking with AMD (I would advise against it) then I would go with the 965 regardless whether you are OCing or not.
a c 78 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
September 9, 2012 10:48:37 PM

Phenom II 965
Related resources
a c 109 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
a b 4 Gaming
September 9, 2012 10:52:04 PM

965 gets my vote, however, if you can save more money, I would vote the i5-3450. They're around $190 (only $90 more than the Phenom II, quite small considering the MASSIVE performance gap) and picking up an ASRock H77M motherboard for around $70.
a c 123 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
a b 4 Gaming
September 9, 2012 11:12:13 PM

Agreed. Of the two, get the 965BE. I think you'd be much happier long term if you go with an Intel build instead.
a c 105 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
a b 4 Gaming
September 9, 2012 11:37:53 PM

are you planning on keeping your 8600GT? if so, you won't see any difference between the two
a c 146 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
a b 4 Gaming
September 9, 2012 11:55:00 PM

Raiddinn said:
If I were you I would get an i5-2400 instead of either one of them.

If you insist sticking with AMD (I would advise against it) then I would go with the 965 regardless whether you are OCing or not.


I agree 100% on all parts. If you really want to stick with AMD get the 965BE. Stock clock for clock it out performs the Bulldozer.
September 10, 2012 12:25:46 PM

ct1615 said:
are you planning on keeping your 8600GT? if so, you won't see any difference between the two


Whoops, I already have bought an HD6750, I have it for almost a year, just forgot to change my specs.

As for the I5 idea, the Phenom II 965 here costs 240 LEVA which is about 125 euros. The cheapest quadcore I5 here is nearing the 400 LEVA mark, which is about 220 euros. That is one MASSIVE price gap which I just CAN'T fill. I'm 16 and this is the first change of CPU on this computer which I have had for almost 4 years now. Everything but the CPU has died at least once on this machine, which is quite strange considering that I blew out one Mobo with a massive OC to 3.9Ghz on this CPU...
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
September 10, 2012 3:07:54 PM

It sounds kinda weird to me that the cheapest i5 you can get is 220 euros. Are there not any online sites you can order from in Bulgaria?

We have price wars over here, so the i5 that I mentioned costs us less than 125 euros in USD equivalent.

How much does an i3-2120 cost?

Anyway, if you just take the 965 your computer will still have a pretty massive step up from the Athlon 6000+.

Also, in a general sense, I would try to aim more for parts you either can't or don't need to OC if you are on a limited budget (like the i3 and i5 mentioned). It is not conductive to overall performance to keep eating into the budget to replace old parts that die.

You may want to seriously consider investing in a good case as well. If everything you have has blown at least once, it sounds to me like your case is probably not a very good one and the benefits of having a good case are huge when it comes to adding onto how long parts stay alive.

a b à CPUs
September 10, 2012 3:14:21 PM

I second the 965.
September 10, 2012 3:44:18 PM

I would suggest you intel anytime.
Intel outperforms AMD very easily.
Go for i5 and H77. It's a great combo. I would suggest you i5 3450. It's performance is massive compared to AMD. Though expensive, it's worth it.
Else if you want to invest less then go for i3 2100.
Go for intel, anytime.
September 10, 2012 4:09:01 PM

965 is better than 4100.. But it's 3 years old already and the 4100 is slower than a 2 year older 965.

Agree with others above, Get an i5 3450 or even a 2400 :) 

IMO, even an OC'ed FX-4100 @ 5Ghz still woudn't beat the i5 2400/3450 in gaming and other stuffs.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
September 10, 2012 4:21:45 PM

Its not really in your opinion that a FX-4100 @ 5.0 GHZ wouldn't beat the i5-2400 in gaming or other stuff, its pretty much a fact.

Just sayin.

Regardless how high the clock rate is raised, you are fighting an uphill battle against IPC. The FX-8150 has to be run up to a very high OC with all 8 cores to be able to even match a stock i5-2400.

If you can't use all 8 cores, there is no comparison.

Games can't use all 8 cores, more like 2, so the IPC is really the only thing that matters and Intel wins in IPC hands down. So much that its not even a contest.

That is why the i3-2120 beats even the FX-8150 in games. The 2120 just plain has a higher IPC.

The only reason to pick an AMD processor for a gamer is if their budget is extremely low (which kinda happens to be the case now).

- Edit - Typo
a b à CPUs
September 10, 2012 4:47:22 PM

If you can spend more, go Intel
If you can't, go Phenom II 965
September 10, 2012 6:10:35 PM

Sigh, There are almost NO sites that deliver here sadly ;(. The I3 2120 costs just a LITTLE bit more, I can buy it easily but I want to upgrade to a HD7850/7870 at the end of the school year (which hasn't even started yet). So will the I3 which is a dual core provide suffecient power to NOT bottleneck that GPU? This is getting to be an interesting selection and if you confirm that the I3 is better for a "long term" build, then I might opt for that. Getting an I5 is still impossible. I want to buy MoH Warfighter and not spend that money on a better CPU...
a c 146 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
a b 4 Gaming
September 10, 2012 8:08:47 PM

Yes the I3 will be fine with those video cards despite it only by a dual core.
September 10, 2012 8:16:53 PM

rds1220 said:
Yes the I3 will be fine with those video cards despite it only by a dual core.


But will it beat the Phenom II 965 if I "eventually" decide to OC it to around 4Ghz? The other thing that caught my eye is that the motherboard I'm getting if I go for the AMD solution is that it has 2 PCI-E slots and I could upgrade to the new Piledriver chips later on. The 1155 socket Motherboards that are within the ASrock's price range are IMO complete crap compared to it, and only one is full ATX size with 4 RAM slots and the only one that looks somewhat decent. :D 
a c 146 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
a b 4 Gaming
September 10, 2012 8:23:51 PM

Unlike the I5 and I7 the I3 can't be overclocked so trying to compare it to an overclocked Phenom II. A stock I3 vs an overclocked Phenom II the Phenom II will be a little faster but in reality you are probably only looking at a few FPS more. AsRock is a fine company I'm pretty sure they are a branch off of Asus. They are "cheaper" in price but still good quality. I have used Asrock in a bunch of builds and haven't really had any problems with the motherboard. What are the exact models you were looking at.
a c 78 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
September 11, 2012 12:46:25 AM

UnlimitedBanana said:
Whoops, I already have bought an HD6750, I have it for almost a year, just forgot to change my specs.


All this Intel vs AMD bickering is completely useless because of this one line... Jesus Christ people, with a video card like this, you could get away with a damn Sandy Bridge Celeron CPU. Now, if you plan to get a better video card, then yes, an i5 might be a good investment, but I wouldn't buy nuffin til you can afford buy it all at once. Stronger CPUs do not make weak video cards magically perform better.
September 11, 2012 12:52:41 AM

You could probably get better processing performance out of a potato or an orange than you will out of a bulldozer CPU.
a c 78 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
September 11, 2012 12:53:54 AM

vickus420 said:
You could probably get better processing performance out of a potato or an orange than you will out of a bulldozer CPU.


That argument has been beat to death. Really. lol.
a c 146 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
a b 4 Gaming
September 11, 2012 1:21:37 AM

vickus420 said:
You could probably get better processing performance out of a potato or an orange than you will out of a bulldozer CPU.


Lol +100 on that.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
September 11, 2012 1:53:52 AM

Nobody mentioned it already so I might as well...

The i3-2120 is a whole lot less power usage for about the same end result as compared to an OCd 965. Something like 100w less on average.

That amounts to a whole lot less PSU strain, a PSU that will survive longer, and a PSU that will not blow up other components longer.

The heat difference inside the case is equally huge. Less wattage pulled = less heat generated.

September 11, 2012 6:25:50 AM

nekulturny said:
All this Intel vs AMD bickering is completely useless because of this one line... Jesus Christ people, with a video card like this, you could get away with a damn Sandy Bridge Celeron CPU. Now, if you plan to get a better video card, then yes, an i5 might be a good investment, but I wouldn't buy nuffin til you can afford buy it all at once. Stronger CPUs do not make weak video cards magically perform better.


So is that why I have the almost exact SAME framerate on low and on Ultra in BF3? My friend that has an Athlon II x3 gets about 45FPS on average with medium settings with my card. My CPU is showing it's age and is bottlenecking even this 90 euro card!
September 11, 2012 6:36:56 AM

Raiddinn said:
Nobody mentioned it already so I might as well...

The i3-2120 is a whole lot less power usage for about the same end result as compared to an OCd 965. Something like 100w less on average.

That amounts to a whole lot less PSU strain, a PSU that will survive longer, and a PSU that will not blow up other components longer.

The heat difference inside the case is equally huge. Less wattage pulled = less heat generated.


My case is open because I have an old RAM dimm and it Overheats and crashes my computer otherwise. I also have one intake and one exhaust spot for 140mm fans on the front and back, I will be buying some of those for better cooling as soon as I buy a new CPU and Mobo.
The motherboard I am looking to buy is the Asrock 970 PRO3 AM3+ socket. I am also looking at 2 4GB Kingston 1333Mhz RAM to accompany the new CPU and Mobo. Intel IMO is out of this question now just because I don't want only a dual core, I will also be doing some recording and editing so a quad core is pretty much a must, and since I can't afford an Intel Quad core it's down to AMD for this build. One funny thing though is that the I7 960 here costs just about 40 euros more than an I5 650 which is the CHEAPEST I5 here...
September 11, 2012 1:26:24 PM

I read another forum post and most of the votes went towards the 965 for just a gaming rig. The votes that went for the I3 were mostly due to the fact that it shares a socket with the I5 2500K and presuming that you would upgrade to said chip. I am NOT looking to upgrade for a good 1-2 years when I buy this CPU. So my question is Am I better off with the I3 or 965 in that case since we've knocked the FX4100 out of the question.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
September 11, 2012 1:44:44 PM

The i3 does give you a better upgrade path. There is a whole lot more potential power that can be had from the 1155 socket, much more than the AM3+ socket holds.

Dual vs quad core for audio/video - The performance difference isn't that much for these programs with these processors. We are talking about shaving a couple seconds off per task at the most. You would notice the failure in gameplay a whole lot more than you would notice this.

If it was audio/video = 90% and gaming = 10%, then sure I would say you would have a strong reason to consider switching, but with those numbers flipped you would notice the FPS loss a lot more often than you would notice having to wait a low single digits % longer on audio/video.

Also, its not really applicable to the discussion, but I would stay away from first generation SB chips (anything with 3 numbers instead of 4).

BF3 - Single player uses 2 cores and multiplayer uses 4 cores. You really kinda have to discuss which mode you are talking about when you discuss your performance in BF3, because bottlenecks can be in different places depending on which mode you are talking about.
a c 78 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
September 11, 2012 2:51:21 PM

For the record, I don't subscribe to the "upgrade path" theory on any platform really. Be it AMD or Intel. I've said it once or twice before, but its just plain stupid to buy an i3 now knowing full well you wanted an i5. Save up your money and buy the product you wanted in the first place. Its a complete waste of money and plain bad financial planning to do otherwise.

Do you really want to drop $130 on an i3 only to have it become a paperweight 6 months to a year from now? Also, LGA1155 is end of life mid 2013..

As far as Battlefield 3 multiplayer, it will actually use all 8 cores on an FX-8150 btw.

Regarding the comment about power supplies being worn out somehow from overclocking, I'm not sure I subscribe to that one. A good quality power supply should not have such problems just because of a 100 watt increase in usage. If it does, then its complete trash. Seasonic made Corsair power supplies and many other well made PSUs will happily run heavy overclocks on much more powerful components for years and years without issue.
Quote:


Also, its not really applicable to the discussion, but I would stay away from first generation SB chips (anything with 3 numbers instead of 4).


The ex had an i5-2300, my overclocked Phenom II cinebenches higher than it did. I wouldn't worry too much though, last time I saw an i5-2300 for sale on tigerdirect it was $210!. Forget that lol.


Quote:
ou would notice the failure in gameplay a whole lot more than you would notice this.

The difference between an i3 and a Phenom II are so insignificant in the most CPU intensive games (which most are not in the first place), that I doubt anyone could tell the difference. Yes if you toss a higher end i5 into the mix, you might be talking a noticeable difference, but not the 1-2FPS that got benched with the i3 vs P II.
a c 78 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
September 11, 2012 3:35:01 PM

UnlimitedBanana said:
I read another forum post and most of the votes went towards the 965 for just a gaming rig. The votes that went for the I3 were mostly due to the fact that it shares a socket with the I5 2500K and presuming that you would upgrade to said chip. I am NOT looking to upgrade for a good 1-2 years when I buy this CPU. So my question is Am I better off with the I3 or 965 in that case since we've knocked the FX4100 out of the question.

My opinion for what its worth is still going to fall in favor of the 965 if you overclock.

In 2 years from today, your best "upgrade" for an Intel CPU is going to include a new motherboard anyway. Intel CPUs do not drop in price despite being older generation, so if you're thinking you can snatch up a 2500K in 2 years for $120, its not going to happen. This can easily be confirmed by checking out some of the merchants that still have 1st gen Core CPUs in stock (LGA1156), the very few they have left, are just as expensive as they were when they were new.

As far as gaming, both CPUs will keep up with your current video card (6750) with zero performance difference. Now, should you move up to a 7850, 7870 video card level. Again, both CPUs will perform the same more or less within a very small margin of variance. If you can get a Phenom II with a decent cooler and motherboard for less than you can an i3, then do so. If you can find an i3+mobo combo cheaper, then go for that one. Theres no wrong answer between the two.
September 11, 2012 3:57:06 PM

nekulturny said:
My opinion for what its worth is still going to fall in favor of the 965 if you overclock.

In 2 years from today, your best "upgrade" for an Intel CPU is going to include a new motherboard anyway. Intel CPUs do not drop in price despite being older generation, so if you're thinking you can snatch up a 2500K in 2 years for $120, its not going to happen. This can easily be confirmed by checking out some of the merchants that still have 1st gen Core CPUs in stock (LGA1156), the very few they have left, are just as expensive as they were when they were new.

As far as gaming, both CPUs will keep up with your current video card (6750) with zero performance difference. Now, should you move up to a 7850, 7870 video card level. Again, both CPUs will perform the same more or less within a very small margin of variance. If you can get a Phenom II with a decent cooler and motherboard for less than you can an i3, then do so. If you can find an i3+mobo combo cheaper, then go for that one. Theres no wrong answer between the two.


That is exactly what I mean, If I go upgrading in two years I HIGHLY doubt that I would even consider using the same motherboard. As far as which is cheaper, the I3 and the most decent mobo that I see in the shop near me, are almost the exact same price as the Phenom II and Asrock 970 PRO3, and really since I'm aiming for an "AMD themed" build guess I'll go for the Phenom II combo. Thanks a lot for your opinions guys, sure as hell looks like it saved me some problems with the FX4100 :) 
September 11, 2012 3:58:09 PM

PS: I was talking about the Multiplayer of BF3. My CPU does pretty well in singleplayer actually :) 
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
September 11, 2012 5:44:31 PM

The price for old parts remains high because of supply and demand. People still need them because they want to continue to use old hardware and the supply has dwindled nearly to zero.

In any event, just get the 965 so we can be done with this argument. Money is tight and that is usually when AMD steps in, especially if Intel parts are for whatever reason much more expensive than usual in your country.

Nekulturny - An extra 100w is not a negiligible amount to add during any time that the computer gets used. There are powerful-ish video cards out there that come in at about 100w (7770?). Adding a second one of those to a system isn't essentially free from the POV of most PSUs.

I have a 650w and that's about 18% of my stated wattage. The OP probably has one effectively even less than that. For a regular light gamer oriented PSU like the Corsair CX 430 that is more like 24% of stated wattage.

Such increased strain will and does lead to reduced PSU life expectancy, even in bottom mount PSU cases. Much moreso in top mount PSU cases like I am guessing the OP probably has.
September 11, 2012 8:04:23 PM

Raiddinn said:
The price for old parts remains high because of supply and demand. People still need them because they want to continue to use old hardware and the supply has dwindled nearly to zero.

In any event, just get the 965 so we can be done with this argument. Money is tight and that is usually when AMD steps in, especially if Intel parts are for whatever reason much more expensive than usual in your country.

Nekulturny - An extra 100w is not a negiligible amount to add during any time that the computer gets used. There are powerful-ish video cards out there that come in at about 100w (7770?). Adding a second one of those to a system isn't essentially free from the POV of most PSUs.

I have a 650w and that's about 18% of my stated wattage. The OP probably has one effectively even less than that. For a regular light gamer oriented PSU like the Corsair CX 430 that is more like 24% of stated wattage.

Such increased strain will and does lead to reduced PSU life expectancy, even in bottom mount PSU cases. Much moreso in top mount PSU cases like I am guessing the OP probably has.


I have a CoolerMaster Elite RS-460-PSAP-J3 which claims to be 460W though I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be able to pump that much out.
a c 78 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
September 11, 2012 10:54:06 PM

Quote:
Nekulturny - An extra 100w is not a negiligible amount to add during any time that the computer gets used. There are powerful-ish video cards out there that come in at about 100w (7770?). Adding a second one of those to a system isn't essentially free from the POV of most PSUs.


I understand that lol, but my point is that.. Well, take a 1st gen Core i7-950, they use more power than Phenom IIs do. Yes, they're also older circa 2008. Back then would you say power supply design was better, worse or the same? Well, depending on brand and model I suppose, but when you're talking a quality PSU selected appropriately to match the components, I do not see a substantial life shortage of the PSU.

I'm not sure I'd consider the 7770 to be "powerful", I guess we have different definitions. I'd consider it a hell of an entry level gaming card, better than my 550 TI, for sure, which likewise by my working definition would be an entry level card. When you're talking GTX 7870+ or GTX 570+ then I'd say that would be in the high end.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/07/13/amd-ph...
Even with this data here, they used a 5870 graphics card, and overclocked a Phenom II 980 to 4.3GHZ (which is further than I'd probably be willing to push mine for a daily OC.) I say if someone makes it to 4.0GHZ, stop there and leave it be. The total system draws 331 watts from the wall under load, so even with a good entry level power supply like the Corsair CX430v2, you do have close enough to the recommended +30% wattage than actually needed. 5870s are more power hungry than similarly upper end graphics cards are today. 7870 if I have my ATI model numbers right would be 2 generations ahead of the 5870.

As far as the "argument", honestly I'm pretty burned out on the whole AMD v Intel thing myself. I merely continue a dialogue with you because you're someone I respect on these forums.

UnlimitedBanana said:
I have a CoolerMaster Elite RS-460-PSAP-J3 which claims to be 460W though I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be able to pump that much out.


CoolerMaster and quality are not two words that go together when you're talking power supplies. I would consider including that in your list of parts to be replaced. Wattage is only one factor of many in selecting a good power supply. And your implied suspicion is warranted, CM has been known to flat out lie about the wattage capabilities of their PSUs.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
September 12, 2012 12:16:02 AM

CM 460 - My point exactly. Cooler Master isn't known to make good PSUs, in fact exactly the opposite. Having a wattage level 100w higher matters a lot when you are talking about PSUs like these.

Such is part of the benefits of going with the i3-2120. I wouldn't suggest sucking more than about half of what that CM 460 can draw on average so he would be looking at 230w at the most. That could be hard to pull off when the 965 OCd is sucking down some number that is probably north of 150.

His CM 460 isn't anywhere near your Corsair TX 750, so the extra draw is kinda a big deal.

Still, I am going to support just going with the 965 just because its the cheapest solution in the short term and price is the biggest factor.
a c 78 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
September 12, 2012 1:11:09 AM

lol, well I dunno about you, but I support the idea of getting rid of that CM power supply regardless of he goes with an Intel or AMD system... The problem with lousy power supplies, is not only do they not put out as much power as they say they do, and that when they die they're more likely to take out your mobo and CPU with it, but also, they can kill components slowly over time with their poor voltage regulation. Poor voltage regulation is another trademark of CM power supplies.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
September 12, 2012 1:41:21 AM

His money is capped right now regardless. If I am right in my understanding of his position he isn't going to change his PSU right now regardless of what processor he chooses.

I can't really condone using such PSUs either, but there isn't much choice for the OP in the short term.

Part of why I would go with the i3 is because its less likely to push the CM460 into bad voltage regulation territory in the short term, however long it takes for him to get something else. NFI how long that will be.

It sounds like more powerful video cards are on the horizon as well, maybe even before a new PSU hits, which is why I again have to second my own idea of getting the i3-2120. If a newer more powerful video card is OTW before a new PSU then he will need all the breathing room he can get. OCing a 125w base PSU is not something that adds breathing room.

The voltage regulation gets worse the higher the % of the PSU used, so every .1 higher OC is going to damage his parts that much more both long and short term.

Anyway, if I3-2120 + h61 was in the budget I would wholeheartedly support getting that, but I just don't think it is. Therefore I must just choose a reasonable AMD quad having little other choice and the 965 is the best option on the table.

OP - Sorry if you are a female, replace "him" with "her" above if so. Also, I wouldn't OC the 965 if I were you. Just stick with the stock clocks and the performance you get from that. Direct whatever you save from not having to buy a Hyper 212 towards getting a better PSU when you save up the rest of the money necessary, IMHO.

It would probably be a good idea to invest in a quality 600 - 650w PSU before you get the newer video card, especially if you want to start OCing the processor and maybe the video card too when you get it.

If you don't know what counts as a quality PSU, you can ask us later after you get the money saved. Good quality PSUs in the U.S. cost about $1 per 10w, so its probably going to be at least whatever $60 translates into in LEVA.
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
September 12, 2012 1:53:34 AM

UnlimitedBanana said:
PS: I was talking about the Multiplayer of BF3. My CPU does pretty well in singleplayer actually :) 

Anyone that has played bf3 should know this since the single player campaign can be completed in ~ 3 hrs. Only purpose is to acquaint you with the controls, that's it.

Also the reason reviews only looking at single player fps is stupid. PII 965 is your best option and will more than handle a 2nd 6750
a c 78 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
September 12, 2012 1:55:38 AM

^ Yea... BF3 single player is a terrible game, very piss-poor COD knockoff with uninteresting characters and non-existent plot. I got annoyed with it not too far into it. No reason to buy it except for multiplayer in my opinion. But thats really beside the point.
September 12, 2012 6:42:08 AM

Raiddinn, I'm a man xD
I wasn't even planning to use this PSU with a more powerful card, let alone in Crossfire, This PSU was bought to replace an old """""400W""""" So I could run this HD6750, though 2 of my friends have it and they don't complain, it's not great - far from it but it does the job with this config. As far as Overclocking goes, I won't do that on this PSU either since I'm pretty sure I will be running the stock cooler as well :) 
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
September 12, 2012 7:01:37 AM

I3 has a better upgrade path??? it is already on 1155 which for all intents and purposes is now a dead socket with Haswell confirmed for 1150, so effectively there is not upgrade path, seeing how Sandybridge and +60 chipsets are being phased out to minimum stock that leaves very little expansion. If a person buys a cheaper part it is 90% of the time unlikely that they will in the short term upgrade, by the time the OP considers a upgrade to say a i5/i7 the SB and IB will be EOL so this future proof nonsense fails.

Of the two the 965/955 is the safer bet but results show the 4170 is capable of matching the 980 in gaming performance so it may be a consideration. Or alternatively yes you can do the Intel route and like 99% of Tomshardware will love you.

a c 78 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
September 12, 2012 7:15:02 AM

^ I swear to god if someone starts linking that tired ass old Tom's Hardware article showing those ridiculous benchmarks for the millionth time on the forums, I'm loading my Kimber Custom II with hollow point. :lol: 
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
September 12, 2012 7:15:39 AM

The 3770k will still be pretty badass if bought in 2015 and would easily be able to tide people over till 2018.

Mark your calendars, that's my prediction.

In 2018 its probably going to closely resemble what the OPs current Athlon x1 is like now, but I imagine it will be quite OK as an upgrade path. Much better than what AM3+ will be like in 2018.
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
September 12, 2012 7:18:38 AM

I am rocking a "pathetic" 1100T, the performance is so bad I get close to 60FPS with 8XMSAA and AF, lots of pretties, but yeah you really need a Intel to game high end.
a c 78 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
September 12, 2012 7:22:11 AM

Raiddinn said:
The 3770k will still be pretty badass if bought in 2015 and would easily be able to tide people over till 2018.

Mark your calendars, that's my prediction.

In 2018 its probably going to closely resemble what the OPs current Athlon x1 is like now, but I imagine it will be quite OK as an upgrade path. Much better than what AM3+ will be like in 2018.


Yea, but the point is.. would you seriously buy a (by that time) 2 or 3 generations old CPU when its still the same price as equivilent models of the current generation? In the words of Judge Judy, "Outrageous". :hello: 
September 12, 2012 12:39:17 PM

I have an Athlon x2 64 6000+, not an x1 Raiddinn. I was JUST over at a friend, he wanted to test his CPU (Athlon x3 @ 3.2Ghz, don't know exact model) with my Graphics card. I get about 25-30 FPS in BF3 on low, with his CPU he got a steady 45FPS on HIGH ... This makes me sad since I won't have the money until the end of september to buy a new CPU xD
!