3.1 GHz i5 2400 vs 4.8 GHz FX-4100

[samuelspark]

In less threaded apps, the FX should do better right? A 3.1 GHz i3 performed only a tiny bit better than the stock 4100.

Anyone have results of some benchies that I could compare to the 2400?

 

[amuffin]

The 2400 is a full on quad core, whereas the fx-4100 is 2 bulldozer modules mashed together. A 3.1ghz 2400 should perform better than even the 4.8ghz 4100. The 4.5ghz fx-4100 can't top the 2500k which is clocked 200mhz faster than the 2400.

 

[samuelspark]

I know, but according to http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-4100-core-i3-2100-gaming-benchmark,3136-7.html .

The 3.6 GHz of the FX stands up to the 3.1 GHz of i3. So theoretically, shouldn't the FX beat the 3.1 GHz i5 in dual core threaded games?

 

[amuffin]

Nope, because the 2400 is a quad core. The i3 is a dual core with hyperthreading, and hyperthreading can interferes in games.

 

[samuelspark]

Nope, because the 2400 is a quad core. The i3 is a dual core with hyperthreading, and hyperthreading can interferes in games.

I'm pretty sure HT doesn't DECREASE performance.

 

[amuffin]

IN games it does That's why the 2500k beats the 2600k in gaming, when they are the same except for HT.

 

[Rockdpm]

Yea 2400/2500 is better than 4100. The Bulldoer series is a sort of disappointment except for the 8 cores

 

[sk1939]

IN games it does That's why the 2500k beats the 2600k in gaming, when they are the same except for HT.

Not necessarily, it depends on if the game is threaded or not, among other things.

 

[loneninja]

I know, but according to http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-4100-core-i3-2100-gaming-benchmark,3136-7.html .

The 3.6 GHz of the FX stands up to the 3.1 GHz of i3. So theoretically, shouldn't the FX beat the 3.1 GHz i5 in dual core threaded games?

Those tests are all done with budget video cards which limit the FPS allowing the different CPUs to perform nearly identical, throw in a high end video card and the FX 4100 @ 4.5Ghz is slower than a stock I3 2100 or I5 2400.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-9.html

Really it depends what resolution and video card your going to use, but there is no denying an I5 2400 is better than the FX 4100, and although multiplier locked you can overclocked the I5 2400 by 500mhz or something like that by tweaking the turbo core settings.

 

[iam2thecrowe]

I know, but according to http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-4100-core-i3-2100-gaming-benchmark,3136-7.html .

The 3.6 GHz of the FX stands up to the 3.1 GHz of i3. So theoretically, shouldn't the FX beat the 3.1 GHz i5 in dual core threaded games?

maybe you should read that article again and move down to the one right at the bottom. As soon as you remove the video card bottleneck the i3 takes off with more than a 10fps advantage in many points. Adding an even better video card may yeild even stronger results. I would say you would have to underclock the i3 to 2-2.3ghz to make them on par.

 

[samuelspark]

Yeah. I noticed it. So now I'm really sad to see how AMD's best gaming CPU stacks up..

 

[jaguarskx]

At 4.8GHz the FX-4100 should outperform an i5-2400.

Generally speaking the Phenom II, FX and Core 2 Duo / Quad basically perform similarly at the same clock speed in games and some applications that do not use more than 4 core very well. On average Sandy Bridge CPUs perform around 22% better than those processors.

Therefore, the FX-4100 only need to clocked to about 3.8GHz to have similar performance to an i5-2400. Note, this is general performance specific performance regarding a particular program or game can vary.

 

[aicom]

At 4.8GHz the FX-4100 should outperform an i5-2400.

Generally speaking the Phenom II, FX and Core 2 Duo / Quad basically perform similarly at the same clock speed in games and some applications that do not use more than 4 core very well. On average Sandy Bridge CPUs perform around 22% better than those processors.

Therefore, the FX-4100 only need to clocked to about 3.8GHz to have similar performance to an i5-2400. Note, this is general performance specific performance regarding a particular program or game can vary.

The FX series has a lower IPC than the Phenom II (which was about equal to Conroe's as you said). Your figure is way low if you look at benchmarks. People have tested overclocked FX-4100s that can't stand with the i3-2100 in games (with the same 3.1 GHz clock) and the i3 is a dual core hyperthreaded chip.

 

[samuelspark]

Best answer selected by samuelspark.