Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

How much can the i3 3220 handle?

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Gtx
  • Team-Fortress-2
Last response: in CPUs
September 28, 2012 11:59:07 AM

Paired with a gtx 560, can it handle recording most modern mid-somewhat high end games at max settings 1080p?
I have in mind specifically Team Fortress 2, Dota 2, and Skyrim.

More about : 3220 handle

a b à CPUs
September 28, 2012 12:23:19 PM

recording depends on the hard drive speed and storage.
m
0
l
September 28, 2012 12:29:44 PM

unreal9400 said:
recording depends on the hard drive speed and storage.


Oh really? Thanks! That's actually news to me.....But I also know that having more cpu cores will give you better fps when recording. The reason I'm curious about whether the 3220 can do what I need is that it is a dual core and I'm not sure if that's enough to smoothly record.
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 321 à CPUs
September 28, 2012 2:11:22 PM

Recording with something like FRAPs in 1080p while gaming on i3 might be somewhat of a stretch if the game already uses most of the i3.
m
0
l
September 28, 2012 2:18:47 PM

unreal9400 is wrong recording on a i3 will struggle due to it being a dual core. If you want to record with Fraps a i5 or i7 or even a Phenom II x4 or x6 or FX 6100/ FX 8120/50 is recommended.


Edit: when i recoreded with Fraps on my i3-2100 and FX 4100 while playing BF3 64 multiplayer FPS dipped in the 20s and 30s even with my SSD
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 28, 2012 2:20:55 PM

The 560 will struggle at max settings regardless of CPU.
m
0
l
September 28, 2012 2:22:35 PM

Just run games at high.

No need to max out.
m
0
l
a c 321 à CPUs
September 28, 2012 2:43:01 PM

Regor245 said:
Just run games at high.

Turning down eye-candy which is mostly a GPU load is not going to help much with real-time FRAPS encoding which is a CPU-intensive load.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 28, 2012 2:43:18 PM

the 560 is not going to be able to play games at max settings to being with. But the i3 would be able to handle most games with no problem whatsoever.

Recording however is a whole other issue. Video compression is harder on a CPU than most games are, and running a game while doing real time high resolution video compression is quite a task which will require at least a quad core CPU to do it properly. If programs such as fraps started supporting quicksync then it would not be an issue, but as it is now, you really need to look at an i5 minimum.

As also mentioned by someone else, having a good storage subsystem is a must. Most HDDs will be able to handle the raw throughput, but they do not multitask very well, so you want to record to a drive that is not being used for your OS or games. RAID1 or 5 is suggested so that you have some amount of drive failure tolerance in your system, which is important when dealing with video because it is difficult to properly backup large files all the time.
A single large SSD has enough throughput, and low enough seek time to run the OS, game, and recording at the same time, but you will still want a 2nd drive to back up files with.

Lastly (as you seem to be on a budget), keep in mind that you do not 'need' a current system in order to max out games while recording. A slightly older non-K Sandy Bridge i5 with a decent quality H61/67 motherboard can game and record at the same time without issue. But then again, you get what you pay for, and what you want to do is going to demand some fairly powerful equipment.
m
0
l
September 28, 2012 3:01:58 PM

The i3 processor (unless you buy a really crappy older i3) can perform the same or better than any AMD chip. Games do not utilize more than two cores atm. Your limiting factor is going to be the 560. However, my 550 ti pushes Skyrim on ultra settings with no issues, so unless your playing games like BF3 on a crazy big screen you will probably be alright until bethesta comes out with a new game engine.
m
0
l
a c 321 à CPUs
September 28, 2012 3:08:12 PM

DarkOutlaw said:
The i3 processor (unless you buy a really crappy older i3) can perform the same or better than any AMD chip.

While the i3 does an honorable job with gaming when it is not doing anything else particularly CPU-intensive in the background, you have to keep in mind that the OP also wants to RECORD his game using something like FRAPS and FRAPS will likely be as processor-intensive as if not more than the game itself.

The i3 can handles games but FRAPS + game would most likely push it over the edge.
m
0
l
September 28, 2012 4:59:42 PM

Thanks for all the great replies guys! this was really helpful. I am kind of disappointed. I'll guess have to stretch my budget by another 50-60 bucks to afford an i5 3470. I was hoping to stay at about 700 dollars, maybe a little less, but oh well : /
AMD is becoming tempting at this point. Not only is a phenom ii x4 965 40 bucks cheaper than a 3220, but its also a quad core and would handle multithreaded tasks like recording games better. What sort of fps drop could I expect in most games with an i5 3470 vs a phenom 965? I realize its difficult to gauge since it varies from game to game, but could someone give me an approximation?
m
0
l
September 28, 2012 5:21:39 PM

1-5 FPS in some and in others no difference
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 28, 2012 5:34:11 PM

As another member stated, there is really no bad and good cpu only bad or good choices depending on your needs and circumstances.
m
0
l
September 28, 2012 5:48:28 PM

sarinaide said:
As another member stated, there is really no bad and good cpu only bad or good choices depending on your needs and circumstances.


True, but there are options that are better than others in general, right? For example the phenom 965 has better architecture and 4 true cores as opposed the fx 4100 that has slower architecture, only 2 true cores and 2 modules which costs 20 dollars more.

What cpu would you say is best for someone who has about 130-140 dollars to spend on a cpu and wants to record games with fraps?
m
0
l
September 28, 2012 6:07:17 PM

CrypticBox said:
True, but there are options that are better than others in general, right? For example the phenom 965 has better architecture and 4 true cores as opposed the fx 4100 that has slower architecture, only 2 true cores and 2 modules which costs 20 dollars more.

What cpu would you say is best for someone who has about 130-140 dollars to spend on a cpu and wants to record games with fraps?

with that budget obviously a AMD FX 8120

FX 8120 $149
http://ncix.com/products/?sku=64405&vpn=FD8120FRGUBOX&m...

or if you live near a microcenter

FX 8120 $139
http://microcenter.com/product/375765/FX_8120_Black_Edi...

Phenom II x6 1045T $89
http://microcenter.com/product/382798/Phenom_II_X6_1045...

i5-3450 $149
http://microcenter.com/product/388579/Core_i5_3450_31GH...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 28, 2012 6:07:24 PM

Well obviously there are better choices, as to FX and Phenom its a bit of a mish mash. Phenom II architecture was as old and refined as time itself, FX represents a new direction. So there are instances where the architecture doesn't work, and others where it does very well and blows away past architectures. As to true quads and what not. I have my AMD liaisons and contacts and AMD have expressly stated that they are for all intents and purposes true cores, there are enough results to show that they can out perform in instances relative intel competitors with better IPC's. So all in all FX remains a bit of a enigma, its not great but not bad often somewhere in between.

If you had a choice of a FX 4170 and PII x4 965, there are enough sources that show the 4170 to be faster, it is certainly more responsive than the old Phenoms with better IMC/NB memory controllers and a newer architecture. Its rather complex.

I say the safe option is Phenom II as it is tried and trusted, but what I say to most wanting to test AMD waters, you won't know until you try, I can say my experiences are so, but different folks may have differing experiences.

While I won't go out and say get a FX, I am not saying either that you shouldn't.

And then there are intel options as well depending on budget, circumstances and direction.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 28, 2012 6:29:17 PM

CrypticBox said:
Oh really? Thanks! That's actually news to me.....But I also know that having more cpu cores will give you better fps when recording. The reason I'm curious about whether the 3220 can do what I need is that it is a dual core and I'm not sure if that's enough to smoothly record.

Yes, you need at least a quad core to record at 1080p and a good graphics card. Hard drive speed is one of them, I forgot to mention it in my previous post.
m
0
l
a c 321 à CPUs
September 28, 2012 10:33:12 PM

CrypticBox said:
True, but there are options that are better than others in general, right? For example the phenom 965 has better architecture and 4 true cores as opposed the fx 4100 that has slower architecture, only 2 true cores and 2 modules which costs 20 dollars more.

Neither of the "cores" in a module are "true" or "fake". Each module has a an instruction cache and decoder shared between two integer units and a shared float unit. You need the whole module to form a functional core.
m
0
l
February 15, 2013 1:28:03 AM

Regor245 said:
Just run games at high.

No need to max out.

HE GETS IT. recently games arent looking as bad as they used to (well i guess they didnt look bad when they came out) games from 2011 and later actually look pretty good on low/med if your res is 1080p
m
0
l