AMD FX-4170 Vs. Intel Core i3-3220: Which ~$125 CPU Should You Buy?

[mubin]

Still disappointing, hoping piledriver will do some good.

@ BigMack70, also for Dirt 3, it also need cpu power for multiplayer.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]I dunno Blaze, how many Trinity benches have you seen using an external graphics card for gaming vs. a Core i3?... General improvements yes, but it's a little too early to make a positive call for the future of AM3+ gaming methinks. I'm working on it though.[/citation]

I've only seen two small reviews like that, but they were very consistent with other reviews on Trinity's CPU performance such as those from tom's.

Tom's CPU performance benches showed the A10-5800K winning against Bulldozer FX by around 15% in per MHz performance per module IIRC and they use less power for the CPU cores (unless the GPU somehow managed to be more than half the chip, yet use nearly no power), granted they do lack L3 cache (which is just all the more surprising given the apparent performance advantage, but not surprising in the lower power consumption).

I'd be surprised in Vishera, let alone the future versions, managed to not beat Trinity and similarly surprised in Trinity's advantages somehow only apply outside of gaming because at least from what I've seen, upgrading an architecture usually gives similar performance improvement in gaming compared to its x86 performance per thread improvement when the CPU (adjusted to relative performance gains, especially with very low graphics loads, because the CPU is not an absolute bottle-neck in gaming, but I'm sure that you get the point).

Sure, I see reason in not saying that there will be great improvement with certainty, but the chances of it not happening do seem slim unless AMD somehow goes bankrupt soon and that seems even less likely than AMD not succeeding. If anything, being late seems more likely than failing (especially with how being late seems to get more and more common for almost all major computer technology companies these days).

 

[jaquith]

It makes a heck of a lot of sense when you're benchmarking to look for a bottleneck. It makes a lot of sense when you're looking for the CPUs limitations. Why assume the 7970 is too much for a $120 CPU? A few years ago this was not the case, and anything more than a $150 CPU was a total waste on games.

You answered that question yourself below - see below vvv.

From a real-world perspective, absolutely. I totally agree that benchmarks like this that show us sub-$170 CPUs aren't best suited for high-end graphics.

Listen I really (really) want AMD to stick around, and the thought of Intel or worst a foreign company buying AMD makes me sick to think about.

It used to be i.e. LGA 1156 days that the AMD made perfect sense in the sub-$1000 Gaming Rig market, but today it really doesn't, so if AMD slashes their prices to compete you get a catch-22. Sell more at a loss and weaken your company more, short-term 'buying' but a long-term problem.

The best possible solution is AMD's must be competitive with Intel and the next gen LGA 1150 (Haswell) vs AMD next gen Piledriver, etc offerings -- I'm sadly skeptical but I'm still hoping. FX-8350 Piledriver prelim data. I'll be the first to admit that I really haven't kept up with AMD leaked ES chips, and nothing like IB or Haswell leaked data, so unless you know more than I do Piledriver is what Bulldozer should have been in the first place - on par with i5/i7 Sandy Bridge CPUs but less than Ivy Bridge, or so it seems from the very limited data I've seen so far.

The compounding problem is timing, right now the economy is still globally sluggish for everyone and you've seen the same forecasts as I have seen.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]jaquith[/nom]You answered that question yourself below - see below vvv.Listen I really (really) want AMD to stick around, and the thought of Intel or worst a foreign company buying AMD makes me sick to think about. It used to be i.e. LGA 1156 days that the AMD made perfect sense in the sub-$1000 Gaming Rig market, but today it really doesn't, so if AMD slashes their prices to compete you get a catch-22. Sell more at a loss and weaken your company more, short-term 'buying' but a long-term problem. The best possible solution is AMD's must be competitive with Intel and the next gen LGA 1150 (Haswell) vs AMD next gen Piledriver, etc offerings -- I'm sadly skeptical but I'm still hoping. FX-8350 Piledriver prelim data. I'll be the first to admit that I really haven't kept up with AMD leaked ES chips, and nothing like IB or Haswell leaked data, so unless you know more than I do Piledriver is what Bulldozer should have been in the first place - on par with i5/i7 Sandy Bridge CPUs but less than Ivy Bridge, or so it seems from the very limited data I've seen so far. The compounding problem is timing, right now the economy is still globally sluggish for everyone and you've seen the same forecasts as I have seen.[/citation]

Cleeve said not to assume that the 7970 is too much and then that the benchmarks proved it might be too much. That's not answering Cleeve's question himself, that's saying that you should use conclusive proof such as those benchmarks to make sure rather than just assume anything about it.

 

[jacobdrj]

I am not sure I understand what market segment this article is intended to cater to? HTPC? Low end productivity? Low end gaming?

If it is HTPC, it is between the 3225 and the A8 or A10 because of HD4000 and Trinity.

If it is low end gaming, why not go with a Ivy Bridge Celron/Pentium vs an FX chip?

These 2 chosen chips are not in the same place. One focusing on multitasking and high TDP and the other focusing on single core performance, with on-board low end workstation class graphics and low TDP.

Gamers should get a lesser chip and focus on their video card.

IMHO, thorough, but nonsensical comparison.

 

[tijoloespacial]

I wonder why i did see just one fx4100/fx6100 vs i3 2100 one year ago. I known that efficience isnt the right word for bulldozer chips, but they were a good choice sometimes. Instead, everybody bought i3 2100 and says that is the only option (especially in my country's tech sites).

 

[ohim]

Why do you try to compare the FX - 4170 with a Quad core Intel ? if the FX has 4 threads it means it has 2 real cores that can take 2 threads each (the bulldozer cluster or w/e is called) .... I thought by now that people would understand that the bulldozer CPUs are actually quad cores each having a 2 threads ... so technically you`re comparing a 2 core AMD Cpu with a quad core Intel (the i5 i mean).

 

[jessterman21]

^^^Because it's much more cost-effective to purchase a video card at $200 and the cheapest CPU that will keep up with current games (i.e. 4 threads). You can play at 1080 on high or at a lower res on ultra. I just built my rig in July and I've had nothing but good solid gaming experiences. My framerate never drops below 25 in any games, and I average 45fps and up in all my games. That's all I need.

 

[wavetrex]

No-one caught the Yoda talk at the end ?

"Efficient, this CPU is not."

I find this really funny, and shows the author is a real geek Hats off !

 

[Iastfan112]

I'd argue the timing of this article is poor. Its not as if the 4170 is all that new, it released this spring. Comparing it to a i3 2120 in the spring or summer time frame would've made sense. Now that we've made it to the middle of October and weeks away from the release of AMD's new lineup why not just wait?

 

[dscudella]

Leaked image from X-Bit labs. It's a rumor, so don't put too much trust in it. The leaked release date is Oct 23.

It doesn't show if it's 32nm or 22nm, that's what I was most interested in. It does look like we're getting 5 new Piledriver CPU's.

FX 4300 3.8ghz 4 Core
FX 4320 4.0ghz 4 core
FX 6300 3.5ghz 6 core
FX 8320 3.5ghz 8 core
FX 8350 4.0ghz 8 core

Again, this is rumored

 

[cleeve]

You answered that question yourself below.

You missed the point of the question. The context is, why assume it's useless unless we keep testing them? I'm not for sticking to previously formed notions without challening them regularly. That's how assumptions evolve. If we just assume everything we know will never change, we'd never have found out that new CPUs *can* make a difference in games, because they didn't make a difference a few years ago... so we'd never have tested them again.

Also, as I mentioned, the data is quite useful info for folks who are planning an upgrade path. Nice to see what a Core i5 can get you from a Core i3.

Listen I really (really) want AMD to stick around, and the thought of Intel or worst a foreign company buying AMD makes me sick to think about.

For me the fear is a monopoly. Years ago, when Intel had no competition, CPU prices were ludicrous. Low-end processors were $300.

I'm not that concerned with AMD's high end stuff being able to run against Intel's high end stuff. I don't even think that's a serious hope at this point, Intel's lead is just too far.

If AMD can bring power usage down though, and can make a good price/performance budget alternative under $200, that's fantastic in my books. I think that's a reasonable hope.

But if they get smothered out completely... don't want to think about the consequences. healthy competition is important in any market.

 

[cleeve]

Why do you try to compare the FX - 4170 with a Quad core Intel ?

I didn't.
The article compares the FX-4170 with the i3-3220.

The quad-core Intel data is there to show what more money can get you. Without that data, how would we know if more expensive processors have any advantage at all?

 

[cleeve]

I am not sure I understand what market segment this article is intended to cater to? HTPC? Low end productivity? Low end gaming?

That's easy. The article caters to any build where the user has $120 to spend on a CPU.

You're missing more options, too: general purpose desktop, workstation, etc. There are more PC applications than just HTPCs and gaming machines.

 

[silverblue]

The following should make for very good comparisons:

8320 vs. 8150
6300 vs. 6100
4320 vs. 4170

Rather that than overclock and risk a slightly murky power consumption picture, though admittedly, emphasis on the "slight". Undervolting would be nice too - we've seen what it can do with Trinity.

 

[Guest]

Same basic price, mixed performance, but 125W TDP. It's just not worth it, especially when I can get a core-i5, or i7 for just a little bit more.

How about throwing some Core2 Duo and Quad's into these benchmarks for comparison? Cause I am still using a core2 Duo at 3Ghz and I don't know anyone else that uses core-i series yet except in their laptops.

 

[g-unit1111]

Personally I'd go for the A10-5800K - it looks to be a very promising CPU that can have mad overclocking potential and has onboard 7660 video - not too shabby.

 

[twelve25]

Power Consumption looks awful until you realize that an extra 60w of power for a few hours a day works out to be a $1.50 a month at worst.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]ohim[/nom]Why do you try to compare the FX - 4170 with a Quad core Intel ? if the FX has 4 threads it means it has 2 real cores that can take 2 threads each (the bulldozer cluster or w/e is called) .... I thought by now that people would understand that the bulldozer CPUs are actually quad cores each having a 2 threads ... so technically you`re comparing a 2 core AMD Cpu with a quad core Intel (the i5 i mean).[/citation]

The FX-4170 is a quad core CPU. There are four integer processing cores and that's a fact. Furthermore, like Cleeve said, the i5 data was necessary in order to show what more money being spent can get you and also to compare a higher end CPU to the lower end models. It provides several points of context and comparison that can be very helpful.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]Twelve25[/nom]Power Consumption looks awful until you realize that an extra 60w of power for a few hours a day works out to be a $1.50 a month at worst.[/citation]

It can be worse than that and regardless, about $1.5 a month is about $50-60 over a three year period in which case you might as well have gotten the i5. Undervolting could also be considered and would probably lessen the power consumption loss that AMD had (although probably not nearly as much as core configuration ad/or thread affinity modification, especially altogether) as well as other factors, so its hardly a total comparison for enthusiasts anyway.

 

[gondor]

[citation][nom]nforce4max[/nom]AMD needs to switch its cpu lineup to TSMC for production and dump GF. It is the manufacturing process that is keeping these cpus hotter than hell. SOI just sucks and there is a reason why Intel never adopted it.[/citation]

LOL. It is SOI that is keeping the power consumption down (or allows for better performance at same power consumption) compared to bulk process.

Please do educate yourself on the subject before posting more nonsense.

 

[mikenygmail]

[citation][nom]g-unit1111[/nom]Personally I'd go for the A10-5800K - it looks to be a very promising CPU that can have mad overclocking potential and has onboard 7660 video - not too shabby.[/citation]
Exactly, and some APU's can crossfire with cheap but capable graphics cards, such as the AMD Radeon 6670 that is on sale at microcenter for $36 after $20 rebate.

This is something Intel cannot do:
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/46157-amd-a10-5800k-dual-graphics-evaluation/

 

[mikenygmail]

Even ONE of these GPU's blows away Intel's best offering... but you get TWO of these GPU's crossfired for much less than the price of an Intel setup, so the choice is clear - go with AMD.

 

[falchard]

I think in this price segment, you would be looking at a Trinity APU over either of these. Chances are you are not going to pair either of these CPU with a 990FX board, or P67 board; and an HD7970. The 4100FX being more similar to a dual core then a quad core, I would say it would be comparable to an A6-5xxx if you were looking at APUs. In the price range it would be an A10-5800K.

It is nice to see how the bulldozer drivers and support has progressed since their initial introduction. They are still plagued with support problems as how they calculate stuff is a bit different then norm. This is especially problematic in games like Guild Wars 2. If you remember when they were introduced, they did not even compete with an i3. Now they trade blows in the lowest price bracket.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]mikenygmail[/nom]Exactly, and some APU's can crossfire with cheap but capable graphics cards, such as the AMD Radeon 6670 that is on sale at microcenter for $36 after $20 rebate.This is something Intel cannot do:http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/ [...] valuation/[/citation]

[citation][nom]mikenygmail[/nom]Even ONE of these GPU's blows away Intel's best offering... but you get TWO of these GPU's crossfired for much less than the price of an Intel setup, so the choice is clear - go with AMD.[/citation]

Integrated graphics isn't exceptionally relevant here except for Lucid stuff. g-unit1111 was probably referring to how the A10-5800K, even as a CPU, is better for overclocking than the FX-4170 while using less power.