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

[blazorthon]

I may be out of date on this, but historically AMD motherboards are always cheaper, especially at budget build level.

I know I probably sound like a fanboy, but I bought an i5 myself. It was obviously a better performer at the price I was willing to pay. If the motherboard is cheaper and saves you money right now at this price point, i dont think most people would have their budget shaken by the 0.63/month extra electricity costs in my example scenario.

Intel has good cheap boards nowadays and has for a while. If you want something with many SATA 6Gb/s ports that is dirt cheap, AMD still wins in that, but otherwise, they're generally neck and neck. Example:

http://us.ncix.com/products/?sku=67762&vpn=970A-G46&manufacture=MSI%2FMicroStar

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130653&nm_mc=AFC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-_-na-_-na-_-na&AID=10446076&PID=3938566&SID=

 

[daglesj]

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Power consumption matters. People simply don't care about it for some odd reason. Maybe they don't realize how expensive it can be just like with loans and such. People often don't realize that they can't afford something or that they'd be struggling to afford something (although that's brought to an extreme that a computer is obviously unlikely to get near) just because it looks cheaper when you give it a monthly price compared to a total cost number.[/citation]

I think in reality you are over stating things. The difference in energy cost for the average user of running a 4170 over a i3 is maybe less than $2 a year if that. Most people don't run their CPUs at 100% so the difference drops further.

Most people don't do folding or intensive gaming etc.

Compare that to the over-sized refrigerator, the V8 car they don't need, the old air-conditioner, the three TVs left on all the while, the never taken down xmas lights, the four DECT phones, lack of energy efficient light bulbs.....that 4170 is small beans.

Got a long way to go till CPU power efficiency even gets vaguely important to the domestic masses.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]daglesj[/nom]I think in reality you are over stating things. The difference in energy cost for the average user of running a 4170 over a i3 is maybe less than $2 a year if that. Most people don't run their CPUs at 100% so the difference drops further.Most people don't do folding or intensive gaming etc. Compare that to the over-sized refrigerator, the V8 car they don't need, the old air-conditioner, the three TVs left on all the while, the never taken down xmas lights, the four DECT phones, lack of energy efficient light bulbs.....that 4170 is small beans.Got a long way to go till CPU power efficiency even gets vaguely important to the domestic masses.[/citation]

It doesn't need to be at load for too much. Even idling, the 4170 sucks more power than the i3s and especially compared to Trinity. Sure, those other machines are far worse, but every little bit can and does count, especially if you group your power consumption by machine type and want to reign in costs.

Furthermore, that most people don't do gaming and such is irrelevant for this conversation because this article and the comments on it are about gaming and other intensive workloads.

Also, I use highly energy efficient LED Christmas lights and I take them down shortly after Christmas and only put them up a few weeks prior (they aren't on 24/7 even when they're up) and I not only use fairly power efficient light bulbs and other machines, but I also strive to only leave them on for as long as is necessary. I care about my costs.

Furthermore, whether or not the CPU power consumption is important is irrelevant. The point is that it's wasted because there are better alternatives that are either similarly priced with similar performance and much lower power consumption or higher up-front prices, but still much lower power consumption and higher performance from both Intel and AMD.

 

[esrever]

[citation][nom]Ramcoza[/nom]In my opinion, if you are on a budget, you will definitely consider the power consumption and power efficiency of your system. That's where i3 will shine as a decent CPU.[/citation]For a person on a budget, paying over a longer period of time is much more preferable than in 1 large payment. Given that at the price of power here and how much difference there is and if you factor in inflation, it would take 3 years of using this computer to make the the $10 difference.
8*365 = 2920
* 0.02 = 58.4 kWh
Price of power here is $0.08 per kWh
= $4.672 per year more than the i3
If you factor in the cost with a MARR(minimal accepted rate of return) of 10% which is what a company would generally use for any new project to ensure they make money
using the i3 for 3 years yields
NPV(net present value)= 4.672/1.1 + 4.672/ 1.1^2 + 4.672/1.1^3
= 3.51+3.86+4.25= 11.62
this would mean you made net profit of at least $1.62 over the course of 3 years investing the $10
If you go with a 2.5% inflation
10*1.024^3 = $10.67/4.67 = 2.3 years to make up the price at market value and not gain anything in the time between, which is really bad in any financial situation.
As more and more years gets compound, the maximum money saved in such a case will grow very slowly. If you use the computer for an infinite number of years, you'd only save only 4.672*(1/0.1) = $46.72.

considering 30% interest compounded monthly for credit card debt, some people really need money now rather than later the cost of that initial investment is much much greater. The less budget you have, the more money now is worth it over money later.

Considering none of this is that useful, the difference isn't significant enough to factor into anything.

 

[designasaurus]

For a person on a budget, what you should be doing is putting off your purchase until such time as you have the cash saved up - NOT buying ahead of time and settling for something with a lower upfront cost, but higher operating expenses. Instant gratification is the enemy of sound long-term planning.

Secondly, to address the comments of those who only run their computer 3 hours a day: Many people leave their computer on 24/7 for torrenting and other downloading. Others leave it on out of convenience or laziness. Then there are folks who just have programs to run all the time (folding at home, large Matlab programs, etc). In my post on page 2 I purposely mentioned the decreased costs for a user who only has their PC on 8 hours a day. It is true that if you don't use your computer, power efficiency has less of an effect. Most people who buy computers tend to use them, though.

My general desire is that people should know there usage scenarios. If your usage scenario is so limited that increased power consumption in the long term still results in overall savings compared to a higher upfront cost, then you've made a good decision buying the cheaper, more power hungry, component. With the current pricing, though, it takes hardly any time for a 24/7 computer to show large cost differences based on power usage.

Finally, I wish I was living someplace with .065 $/kWh power. That would certainly be good for my monthly budget.

 

[torque79]

I don't know if you have delivery charges and other BS that is on our bill, but 0.06 /kWh is the "off-peak" charge which is after 7pm and on weekends, which happens to be when my schedule allows me to use my pc. on-peak is around 0.11, but is only for about 1/3 of the hours of the day and so we avoid laundry, dishwasher, etc until off-peak hours.

If you're leaving your PC on 24/7 for torrenting, either you're using really dead torrents or I guess you're participating in heavy uploading to maintain a good ratio because otherwise why would it take so long to download what you need? Maybe I'm spoiled using usenet now, never have to worry about ratios and uploading and every single download uses all of my speed available so it doesnt take very long. Unless your internet speed is very slow I guess. Just leave it on overnight occasionally when downloading especially large/multiple files.

If someone were really concerned about electricity cost, I don't think they would participate in 24/7 computing like folding at home or ratio maintenance torrenting. I know obviously the cost adds up much more with 24/7 use, but the FAR more obvious method of saving on electricity is NOT to leave something on all the time.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]torque79[/nom]I don't know if you have delivery charges and other BS that is on our bill, but 0.06 /kWh is the "off-peak" charge which is after 7pm and on weekends, which happens to be when my schedule allows me to use my pc. on-peak is around 0.11, but is only for about 1/3 of the hours of the day and so we avoid laundry, dishwasher, etc until off-peak hours.If you're leaving your PC on 24/7 for torrenting, either you're using really dead torrents or I guess you're participating in heavy uploading to maintain a good ratio because otherwise why would it take so long to download what you need? Maybe I'm spoiled using usenet now, never have to worry about ratios and uploading and every single download uses all of my speed available so it doesnt take very long. Unless your internet speed is very slow I guess. Just leave it on overnight occasionally when downloading especially large/multiple files.If someone were really concerned about electricity cost, I don't think they would participate in 24/7 computing like folding at home or ratio maintenance torrenting. I know obviously the cost adds up much more with 24/7 use, but the FAR more obvious method of saving on electricity is NOT to leave something on all the time.[/citation]

Most such people wouldn't let electricity cost hold them back from what they want to do, they'd simply try to use the least amount of power (within reason) that they can while achieving their goals. The FX-4170 does not achieve that at stock and it's not an optimal purchase if you leave it at stock instead of doing a little work on it as I've already said and so have a few others.

 

[MasterMace]

This is a well done article, but it also ignores a key issue that people want to see, and that is the overclock difference. Intel's CPU is locked, AMD's is not. I'd love to see what the benchmarks are under a typical overclock for this CPU.

Yes, I understand each individual processor is different; however, there are plenty of reports on what overclocks are achievable on the CPU, and what are the most common. By including this, we can better gauge how valuable the ability to overclock is.

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]MasterMace[/nom]This is a well done article, but it also ignores a key issue that people want to see, and that is the overclock difference. Intel's CPU is locked, AMD's is not. [/citation]

The FX-4170 isn't technically locked, but at 4.2/4.3 GHz it's got little room to go.

You might get a couple hundred MHz but that's it. There's not a lot of headroom in Zambezi past 4.5 GHz.

 

[jacobdrj]

[citation][nom]cleeve[/nom]Better choices than FX-4170 and i3-3220 based on what metric? Are you arguing that lower performance helps workstation and general purpose builds? I don't buy that. A workstation and general purpose build are better served with a $120 CPU if thats your budget.[/citation]
Performance. Cost.
These chips are not significantly faster in real world everyday workstations than less expensive alternatives. If they are trying to do something more intensive, they would be better served spending the saved money on more RAM, a better SSD, or perhaps going to chips in the $140 range or higher (which on the small scale, is a measly 20 bux).

 

[cleeve]

Performance. Cost.

Lower performance and lower cost do not automatically equate to better alternatives

These chips are not significantly faster in real world everyday workstations than less expensive alternatives. If they are trying to do something more intensive, they would be better served spending the saved money on more RAM, a better SSD, or perhaps going to chips in the $140 range or higher (which on the small scale, is a measly 20 bux).

Once again, by what metric? You can list some apps where it doesn't make much difference and I can list some where it does.

Regardless, if you have a $120 CPU budget these options are often better than sub-$100 pentiums in meaningful ways. An SSD or Ram upgrade will only affect performance in very specific circumstances, while a faster CPU is a much more consistent when it comes to accelerating apps.

Goona have to disagree with you on this one, Jacob.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]jacobdrj[/nom]Performance. Cost.These chips are not significantly faster in real world everyday workstations than less expensive alternatives. If they are trying to do something more intensive, they would be better served spending the saved money on more RAM, a better SSD, or perhaps going to chips in the $140 range or higher (which on the small scale, is a measly 20 bux).[/citation]

Pentiums most definitely aren't able to compare with the $120-130 CPUs. Competing in FPS is one thing, but competing in effective FPS (what you actually see and thus what matters) is a whole other thing.

 

[m32]

I can't wait for AMD to get power consumption under control.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]m32[/nom]I can't wait for AMD to get power consumption under control.[/citation]

Take a look at Trinity.

 

[mohit9206]

intel pentium with hd7750 vs trinity with hd6670. which is better gaming wise ?

 

[turbolover22]

[citation][nom]esrever[/nom]For a person on a budget, paying over a longer period of time is much more preferable than in 1 large payment. [/citation]


Fixed it for you. That's all you needed to say.

 

[turbolover22]

[citation][nom]cleeve[/nom]Not necessarily. In single/lightly threaded ass the 4170 will be notably faster thanks to a much higher clock. [/citation]

I'm still trying to figure out where to get some lightly threaded ass....

 

[designasaurus]

[citation][nom]turbolover22[/nom]Fixed it for you. That's all you needed to say.[/citation]
Wow, no. But thanks for suggesting that paying more total money overall in order to pay in small chunks, rather than saving until you have cash on hand and paying less overall, is a good idea. Creditors everywhere want to thank you.

 

[pushanthegreat]

So Which TO Buy

 

[kajunchicken]

You guys should do an article where you disable the second core on each bulldozer unit and overclock the processor. Disabling the second core stops cores from sharing resources, therefore theoretically would improve single threaded performance. Disabling some of the cores should also lower heat output which should increase overclocking ability. I've heard you can get around a 20-30% single threaded performance improvement but I haven't seen any benchmarks that confirm or deny this. Piledriver's 15% increase plus this 20-30% increase could actually put the FX processors in competition with i5 processors. Again, I haven't seen any concrete evidence of this which is why Tom's should do it.

 

[masterasia]

Don't know why Tom's needed to do a comparison. AMD will always be 2nd (and they admit to it) since Intel released Core2. I'm really hoping that one day AMD will beat Intel again, but the world is coming to and end in 2 months. I'm afraid we will never see that day.

 

[Achoo22]

[citation][nom]theabsinthehare[/nom]if your display is 60hz, and the game you're playing has vsync, then that small 5 frame difference between the game running at 55 fps and the display's 60hz actually changes to a HUGE frame drop, because the FPS will drop to 30 to stay in sync with the display.[/citation]
This is false.

 

[jessterman21]

This is false.

^THIS is false.

Unless you're talking about Vsync + Triple Buffering.

 

[oxford373]

this article reminded of a question many people asked (before 660ti released) http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/362661-33-480gtx-7850 which one better nvidia gtx 480 or AMD 7850 and the answer was gtx 480 10% faster than 7850 but 7850 is tow times more efficient so choose 7850,and the conclusion of this article is fx4170 10% faster than i3-3220 in multithreaded programs but i3-3220 tow times more efficient so buy core i3-3220.
but AMD Athlon II x4 750k piledriver based for 80$ can easily compete with intel Pentiums and the upcoming fx piledriver can also compete with intel IVB core i3.

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]masterasia[/nom]Don't know why Tom's needed to do a comparison. AMD will always be 2nd (and they admit to it) since Intel released Core2. [/citation]

That's gross over-generalization.

AMD doesn't shoot for top performance, but that doesn't mean they can't achieve a superior price/performance ratio to an Intel product. Trinity shows that, and Vishera (the FX update) has a good chance of running with it from what I've seen.