AMD FX Vs. Intel Core i3: Exploring Game Performance With Cheap GPUs
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.
Benchmark Results: StarCraft II
Performance Target: 30 FPS Minimum
Finally, let’s consider StarCraft II, a real-time strategy game notorious for its processor dependency. We start with the 30 FPS minimum frame rate target.
Our minimum goal of achieving 30 FPS proves irrelevant, as the demanding benchmark we use pushes both of these CPUs to their limits. The Core i3's advantage is clear. There’s no point to running a second set of benchmarks targeting 40 FPS when we can’t keep these platforms over 16 FPS, regardless of settings or resolutions.
To the FX-4100’s credit, this is a very demanding benchmark, and most StarCraft games won't push a machine quite as hard. There are some custom maps that tax processor performance, though, so the benchmark's validity stands. If you're wondering why the frame rate climbs over time, that's because units are destroyed and removed, alleviating the load. Regardless of the caveats, Intel's Core i3-2100 shows itself superior in this title.
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
Current page: Benchmark Results: StarCraft II
Prev Page Benchmark Results: The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim Next Page Your Game And Performance Target Matter MostDon Woligroski was a former senior hardware editor for Tom's Hardware. He has covered a wide range of PC hardware topics, including CPUs, GPUs, system building, and emerging technologies.