Benchmark Results: Battlefield 3
Moving onto Battlefield 3, we get a single-player test that puts a much stronger emphasis on graphics performance, though a capable CPU is much more necessary for a smooth multi-player experience.
This benchmark is clearly bottlenecked by our graphics card. As we know from Battlefield 3 Performance: 30+ Graphics Cards, Benchmarked, campaign mode demonstrates this behavior throughout. Once you start jumping into 32- and 64-player maps, the emphasis shifts. Unfortunately, it's incredibly difficult to quantify performance in a consistent way using the game's compelling multi-player component.
Performance is similar across the board, and you can clearly see where the benchmark run becomes more demanding. Given such lush DirectX 11-class visuals that tax modern GPUs, we won't be able to draw any conclusions using Battlefield 3's campaign.
the fx-8120 outperformed by the i3-2100
comptonGiven how well my 2500K (and every other 2500K) overclocks, 4.3 is a good every day top turbo bin for 4 cores, and the performance increase vs. power consumption is fantastic. I don't want to add to the chorus of negativity to Bulldozer, but the Phenom II x6 should be kicked down to 32nm soon -- I just can't really think of any reason that someone should by Bulldozer over Intel or an X6. For those that can make use of it's particular strengths, it's price is certainly reasonable. And there is a lot to like about AMD motherboards too. The Phenom might be venerable, but it's not terrible and it's a lot more honest than Bulldozer.
if i had the money, id go i7, i woundt consider anything lower than that.
if i dont have the money, i would only consider the phenom II x4 or x6 line, as i prefer real cores, and the lowest real 4 core intel is over 200$ and the phenoms are 100-150ish.
granted i would wait for pilerdriver.
The i3-2100 is actually down to $110 on Newegg right now, but at $125 it made the Pentium models an absolute steal. You were paying nearly $40 more for .2 Ghz faster and hyper-threading compared to the G850 between $85-90. A $110 i3-2100 not only addresses this difference much better, but basically kills almost every AMD CPU above that price point, while the Pentium's kill the AMD CPU's below it.
The Phenom 2 x6's (which now appear to be all out of stock) for selective use, and maybe the FX4100 is really all AMD has left that's semi-viable anymore. IT's not looking good for AMD that's for sure. :\
it was great to see ph ii x4 955 outperform fx in gaming. imo it's the best gaming cpu from amd. fx4100's (and the rest of fx) overclocked (under)performance was sad.
but core i3 2100 and sandy bridge pentiums...damn...
i think intel sorta turned around the old 'pentium vs fx' (for gaming) with sandy bridge pentium vs bulldozer fx.
amd must do better with piledriver and trinity. :sweat: need more competition in cpu arena...
There isn't, and won't ever be, a 32nm die shrink to the Phenom IIs.
Bulldozer is IT, and that's all there is to it.
Maybe Piledriver will have some improvements, but they just won't be enough. Even if they could get IPC parity with the old Phenom IIs they still get run over by Pentiums and the i3-2100.
It will be interesting to see how Trinity performs but I'd be surprised if it wasn't just Bulldozer bolted on to a better GPU; IPC improvements might be there but I doubt they'll be as good as the Phenom IIs. The fall FX releases might get them to parity.
I'd like to see what performance the Ivy Bridge i3 will have; or if Intel will (unlikely) release a K-series for it- thus ensuring that sub-200-dollar overclocking is shelved for at least another 2 years if not indefinitely.