Benchmark Results: Just Cause 2
Just Cause 2 demonstrated interesting CPU-bound behavior in our last System Builder Marathon series. Thus, we're curious to see how well it reflects the differences between the low-cost processors in our lab.
Once again, our chart is organized based on minimum frame rate to best reflect the experience when each platform is hit hardest. The Core i5 and Core i3 jump to the top. But the good news is that almost all of our tested chips hit at least 30 FPS.
As before, we're splitting these two charts based on pricing.
You can clearly see the two dips where the benchmark's demands really kick in, and that's where AMD's A4-3400 really suffers big dips below the 30 FPS mark. Most of the other processors do fairly well, though the Athlon II X3 and X4s dip a little lower than the other contenders.
The situation is a little more favorable when you spend extra on your CPU, though the FX-series parts and A8-3870K take slightly larger hits than the other chips, most of which manage to stay above 40 FPS.
Intel's Core i5-2400 is hardly visible at all, since it hovers above 60 FPS. The same goes for the Core i5-2500K. Again, we see the $125 Core i3-2100 post a great result, especially considering its price tag and the competition surrounding it.
the fx-8120 outperformed by the i3-2100
comptonGiven how well my 2500K (and every other 2500K) overclocks, 4.3 is a good every day top turbo bin for 4 cores, and the performance increase vs. power consumption is fantastic. I don't want to add to the chorus of negativity to Bulldozer, but the Phenom II x6 should be kicked down to 32nm soon -- I just can't really think of any reason that someone should by Bulldozer over Intel or an X6. For those that can make use of it's particular strengths, it's price is certainly reasonable. And there is a lot to like about AMD motherboards too. The Phenom might be venerable, but it's not terrible and it's a lot more honest than Bulldozer.
if i had the money, id go i7, i woundt consider anything lower than that.
if i dont have the money, i would only consider the phenom II x4 or x6 line, as i prefer real cores, and the lowest real 4 core intel is over 200$ 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.