AMD FX Vs. Intel Core i3: Exploring Game Performance With Cheap GPUs
Table of contents
- 1. FX-4100 And Core i3-2100 Go Head-To-Head
- 2. Test System And Benchmarks
- 3. Benchmark Results: Battlefield 3
- 4. Benchmark Results: DiRT 3
Following our sub-$200 gaming CPU comparison, we put Intel's Core i3-2100 and AMD's FX-4100 under the microscope. This time, we test a number of different graphics cards from AMD to see how GPUs affect perceived processor bottlenecks.
At the end of January, we published our analysis of the sub-$200 gaming processor market called Picking A Sub-$200 Gaming CPU: FX, An APU, Or A Pentium?. We were surprised to find that Intel’s budget-oriented LGA 1155 offerings are surprisingly capable when it comes to handling modern titles. In fact, the $125 Core i3-2100 beat out AMD's entire line-up including top-tier Phenom IIs, Athlon IIs, APUs, and even the new FX models. Although they're easier to overclock, AMD’s best efforts could only achieve parity with the Core i3-2100, and Intel's Core i5 was so far ahead of the sub-$200 pack that it sat in a league of its own.
Now, we used a very high-end Radeon HD 7970 graphics card in that article because we wanted to isolate CPU performance. You can't draw conclusions about a CPU's potential when you're faced with a graphics card bottleneck, after all. But some of our readers rightly pointed out that, when it comes to building an inexpensive machine, our combination is unrealistic. A $110 CPU would never accompany a $550 graphics card. And if we used an entry-level GPU, the resulting bottleneck would have masked the differences between processors to a greater extent. The counter, of course, is that a cheaper graphics card would have also imposed lower resolutions and detail settings, shifting load back in the direction of the CPU.
As you know, though, we put a big emphasis on addressing your feedback, so we went back to the lab to run some follow-up data on two of the most interesting $120 options from our previous story. Intel's Core i3-2100 is the low-cost processor to beat, so we made sure to include it. On the other hand, with AMD's Phenom II and Athlon II lines disappearing from store shelves, the $110 FX-4100 represents that company’s best low-priced option.
Every game's workload is different, but Intel’s i3-2100, on average, achieved 18% higher minimum frame rates and 11% higher average frame rates compared to the FX-4100 in our previous story. As we said, though, that was with a Radeon HD 7970. This time around, we’re using a broader range of graphics cards ranging from the Radeon HD 5570 up to the Radeon HD 6950 to see if the bottleneck situation changes.
| AMD FX-4100 | Intel Core i3-2100 | |
|---|---|---|
| Codename: | Zambezi | Sandy Bridge |
| Process: | 32 nm | 32 nm |
| Cores (Threads): | 4 (4) | 2 (4) |
| Clock Speed (Turbo): | 3.6 (3.8) GHz | 3.1 GHz |
| Interface: | Socket AM3+ | LGA 1155 |
| L3 Cache: | 8 MB | 3 MB |
| Thermal Envelope: | 95 W | 65 W |
| Online Price: | $110 | $125 |
We also received some feedback on our test platform's memory configuration; it was suggested that AMD's FX might perform better complemented by higher memory data rates. So, this time we're using 8 GB (2 x 4 GB) of Corsair Vengeance DDR3-1600 at 8-8-8-24 timings.
Great...AMD is still capable.
Whats with the line graph Don, it's hard to read especially with the choice of color on the lines. Bring back the bar graphs.
I love my i5 2500k and I will never go back to amd
This is a great article, Toms needs more budget rundowns like this and perhaps more games in the test sweet that exploit the cpu difference more...
I think if you're really budget limited, but need to build a system today, buying 1155 makes a little more sense. Get a decent motherboard, then get an 1155 Celeron G530/540 or Pentium. Then save up some money, and upgrade to an Ivy Bridge CPU later. The i3 is great, but the i5s are a much better deal $/performance.
So if you need a new system and can't afford an i5, just buy a cheap 1155 SB as a placeholder until you can [afford an i5]. Like the conclusion states, the upgrade path is there -- I just think that if it's a temporary step, you might as well save $60 to $80 if you're upgrading in the next 4 months anyway. You'd be surprised how fast the SB budget parts are, and they're fast enough to get you through till IB.
would be nice if more benchmarks were done, there are a lot of popular games that would be nice to test like civ 5, l4d2 or similar source game, mw3, SWTOR ect. Even if some of them aren't the most demanding games it would be nice to see them as they would be more relevant than dirt 3 or battlefield 3 single player.
would be nice if more benchmarks were done, there are a lot of popular games that would be nice to test like civ 5, l4d2 or similar source game, mw3, SWTOR ect. Even if some of them aren't the most demanding games it would be nice to see them as they would be more relevant than dirt 3 or battlefield 3 single player.
It would be nice if they through Civ 5 or MW3 in but at least on the FPS front, I think BF3 has a bigger following on the PC and the same thing goes for Skyrim. Not sure how many people are still playing Just Cause 2 though. In either case, I think this has more to do with being able to compare these results to the results from past benchmarks they've run.
Thanks for appreciating our feedback, thank you very much. Great Article As always.
Whats with the line graph Don, it's hard to read especially with the choice of color on the lines. Bring back the bar graphs.
The line graph is better way to show it's behaviour over a period of time rather than a flat average, which doesn't explain frequent dips or long stretches of smooth gameplay in fps and such.
A very informative and realistic article, nice work Tom's. Lets hope AMD has something with piledriver.
Sucks that the Core i3 can't be overclocked like the legendary e4xxx series or the e2160 which you could get a 100% OC with.
If DC Sandy Bridges could be unlocked, they would be so good for gaming.
Love the FPS graphed over time. Keep using them!
I love my i5 2500k and I will never go back to amd
This is all kinds of wrong... "NEVER" is really idiotic to say in this situation, you don't know, AMD might come out with something that will in the future be the best performer. You son have a lot to learn yet and probably have a lot of living left to do.
Hey Toms, you want good game for testing cpus ? -> GTA IV
This is all kinds of wrong... "NEVER" is really idiotic to say in this situation, you don't know, AMD might come out with something that will in the future be the best performer. You son have a lot to learn yet and probably have a lot of living left to do.
I highly doubt if they will be able to out perform Intel especially any time soon since they publicly stated that they are basically backing out of the desktop CPU war with Intel.
I love my i5 2500k and I will never go back to amd
That is short sighted. I love my Intel build, but in 4-5 years when I upgrade again I will jump all over AMD if they have something good... but it just is not looking good now.
Whats with the line graph Don, it's hard to read especially with the choice of color on the lines. Bring back the bar graphs.
I love the line graphs! They show what we need to know, and more than the overly simplistic min/ave/max.
I complained and complained on the most recent CPU recommendations list that the FX 4100 should not be 3 tiers lower than the i3 2100.
The i3 is the better/faster chip for gaming, but not so much that you should spend a lot upgrading to it from a "somewhat parallel" performing FX 4100.
Quote - "I don’t recommend upgrading your CPU unless the potential replacement is at least three tiers higher. Otherwise, the upgrade is somewhat parallel and you may not notice a worthwhile difference in game performance."
This article at least shows that their will not be a noticeable difference in game performance. And I would go as fas as to say that once overclocked, there would be no difference whatsoever between the FX and an i3 (which is locked and can't be overclocked).
Absolute respect to Toms for taking onboard these points and hopefully rearranging the table for the March CPU hierarchy chart. And it would seem the G860 & i3 should be closer together too.
Also this "Even a $200 FX-8120 won’t solve your problem; our tests show that chip acts just like the FX-4100 in gaming environments."
and this -
http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 43-18.html
The FX 8150 seems to be absolutely equal to an i5 2500k at extreme resolutions 2560x1600, ultra detail levels, x8 AA. Would the FX 4100 deliver the same equal performance at these resolutions?
I've never even seen a monitor that has that kind of resolution. 4 megapixels. However eyefinity and Nvidia surround do. 2.7 megapixels for a 720p 3 screen setup and 5.2 megapixels for a 1680x1050 3 screen setup.
Would a $110 FX4100 deliver the same FPS as a $230 i5 2500k? The FX 8150 did.
Get a decent motherboard, then get an 1155 Celeron G530/540 or Pentium.
Totally, I bet you could feed a 6770 just fine with a $50 CPU. No need for these extravagant $120 chips.
I will still buy AMD, not because they are better or cheaper than Intel i know they arent, but because they are good enough for me and that Intel need to be challenged. To me it seems like "Tom's hardware" is on a crusade to bring down AMD, looking back to the release of the Core i7 cpu's "Tom's Hardware" have used encryption suits in testing cpu performance and made a big point of how excellent Intel cpu's are at encryption, i dont know of anyone besides myself( i use it only for testing ) who use encryption on their computers. I have always felt that the encryption suits "Tom's hardware " employ have been used to show how bad cpu's AMD makes, AMD dont make bad cpu's( to my knowledge that is ), at any given price point up to $800 to $1000 i think most people wouldnt recognize the difference between a AMD and a Intel system in a blind test.
The thing that made me raise my eyebrows in regards to "Tom's Hardware" wasnt any cpu test, but the tests of the HD 79** series, in a test where the results showed better results in most benchmark and trashing the competition in 1, the conclusion from "Tom's Hardware" was the this gpu wasnt any good and i almost felt like "Tom's Hardware" was warning me against buying such a card.
This may just be the rantings of a AMD fanboy, but i think "Tom's Hardware" need to see if they are as objective as they claim to be.