- Status
Jediman_101
Honorable
- Feb 16, 2012
- 6
- 0
- 10,510
I can't help but wonder how a Intel Pentium G620 would do in the sub-$200 cpu comparison. It's very close to the performance of G630 yet it only cost around $50 at my local pc store.
Finally an article to backup my theory. Did just that, got a capable MB, i3 2100 and will get a ATI GPU for ~€100. Later upgrade to IVY with same MB and faster GPU. Or knowing me sell off the whole rig for not so much and get IVY one 
Was thinking of getting AMD APU build but couldn't find a setup where money won't be wasted (Vs i3 rig that is).
Was thinking of getting AMD APU build but couldn't find a setup where money won't be wasted (Vs i3 rig that is).How about doing a benchmark using old hardware, for example I've been trying to understand if my current setup compared to a newer hardware, specifically if my CPU is needs changing or GPU?
I have a e4300@3GHz, 1333FSB with a AMD4870, what I would benefit from changing more ? CPU or GPU.
It is hard finding benchmarks for OC cpus, so best I came close to is my CPU is equivalent to E7500 + ~10 %.
Could you add common overclocked CPUs with clocks to tests ?
I have a e4300@3GHz, 1333FSB with a AMD4870, what I would benefit from changing more ? CPU or GPU.
It is hard finding benchmarks for OC cpus, so best I came close to is my CPU is equivalent to E7500 + ~10 %.
Could you add common overclocked CPUs with clocks to tests ?
[citation][nom]ronen1kr[/nom]How about doing a benchmark using old hardware, for example I've been trying to understand if my current setup compared to a newer hardware, specifically if my CPU is needs changing or GPU?I have a e4300@3GHz, 1333FSB with a AMD4870, what I would benefit from changing more ? CPU or GPU.It is hard finding benchmarks for OC cpus, so best I came close to is my CPU is equivalent to E7500 + ~10 %. Could you add common overclocked CPUs with clocks to tests ?[/citation]
You can research past benchmarks on your own, but I'd say that your equipment is pretty well mated. If you're looking for an upgrade path, get an 1155 board that will be compatible with your existing RAM and video board together with whatever SB/IB chip fits your budget. Now is probably not the right time for you to upgrade your video board, unless you're compelled to jump to the $500 tiers.
You can research past benchmarks on your own, but I'd say that your equipment is pretty well mated. If you're looking for an upgrade path, get an 1155 board that will be compatible with your existing RAM and video board together with whatever SB/IB chip fits your budget. Now is probably not the right time for you to upgrade your video board, unless you're compelled to jump to the $500 tiers.
Article completelz ignores serious price difference between Intel and AMD motherboard (which is two times bigger, than difference between CPU prices) which leads to wrong conclusions.
With AMD you can save 70$ on CPU+Mainboard and invest it in GPU instead.
With AMD you can save 70$ on CPU+Mainboard and invest it in GPU instead.
You forgot that Intel's platforms are usually more expensive than AMDs. E.g. MOBOs based on AMD3+ are cheaper than LGA 1155. With these saved money you can better GPU or (3)6-core AMD.
Why don't you compare 2 (budget oriented) sub 600 - 800 $ platforms, based on AMD and Intell?
Why don't you compare 2 (budget oriented) sub 600 - 800 $ platforms, based on AMD and Intell?
How about testing an A8 against any i3 ,i5 or i7 with integrated graphics?
The AMD integrated graphics card is 3x better than any integrated Intel GPU
Or how about testing an octocore from AMD against an octocore from Intel? 200$ vs 4000$
Most people are completing ignoring that all Sandy Bridge CPUs with the exception of the octocore,sorry hexacore because Intel disables 2 on purpose to prevent them from competing with Xeons...have integrated GPUs
which are all very poor in performance
while AMD dedicated half of their CPU dice to the GPU space which is the equivalent of my 5670 card
The AMD integrated graphics card is 3x better than any integrated Intel GPU
Or how about testing an octocore from AMD against an octocore from Intel? 200$ vs 4000$
Most people are completing ignoring that all Sandy Bridge CPUs with the exception of the octocore,sorry hexacore because Intel disables 2 on purpose to prevent them from competing with Xeons...have integrated GPUs
which are all very poor in performance
while AMD dedicated half of their CPU dice to the GPU space which is the equivalent of my 5670 card
horaciopz
Distinguished
- Nov 22, 2011
- 446
- 0
- 18,960
Great article ! Well just as some of the people say, the cost. AMD Mobos are cheaper and also the FX4100 is $15 cheaper than the I3 for "almost" the same performance... The intel chip is the winner for sure, but hey! with $15 I can jump from a 6770 to a 6850 (if you're lucky but there are those kind of deals everytime).
The AMD AM3+ mobos are cheaper than Intel's mobos, so with the money that you're saving with mobo+processor you can get other parts, better GPU or something else (maybe a good cooler to increase the OC so high that there will not be performance diferences). Thats the real world, for the real BUDGET gamer... For the same money get more! I will not complain about the SB superiority, but I can say that at this range of price AMD is still competitive if we talk about how much you can spent and what you can get.
The AMD AM3+ mobos are cheaper than Intel's mobos, so with the money that you're saving with mobo+processor you can get other parts, better GPU or something else (maybe a good cooler to increase the OC so high that there will not be performance diferences). Thats the real world, for the real BUDGET gamer... For the same money get more! I will not complain about the SB superiority, but I can say that at this range of price AMD is still competitive if we talk about how much you can spent and what you can get.
vishalaestro
Distinguished
- Jun 29, 2011
- 1,446
- 0
- 19,310
we know that fx 4100 can overclock upto 4ghz with stock cooler which i3 2100 cannot . so why the guys did not try to compare fx 4100 @ 4ghz and a i3 2100 at 3.1ghz..
daglesj
Distinguished
- Jul 14, 2007
- 485
- 21
- 18,785
I have to say I have always steered away from building budget Intel builds due to the budget Intel motherboards being so basic.
A lot of the cheap Intel boards still have serial and parallel ports on them. For the same price I can get a AM3+ m-atx board with HDMI/e-SATA and maybe even at a push USB3. That to me and my customers is far more useful longterm than a higher IPC rating.
A lot of the cheap Intel boards still have serial and parallel ports on them. For the same price I can get a AM3+ m-atx board with HDMI/e-SATA and maybe even at a push USB3. That to me and my customers is far more useful longterm than a higher IPC rating.
Onus
Titan
- Jan 27, 2006
- 37,037
- 12
- 89,965
I thought this was a great article, as it portrayed realistic systems and settings. Benchmarks are nice, but are often difficult to translate to the real world.
For those moaning about mobo differences, there are now H61 boards with USB3.0 and SATA 6Gb/s, so it is no longer true that AMD holds a notable chipset edge. While AMD can still claim a lot more SATA 6Gb/s ports, on which you can run RAID-5, past articles have shown that mobo RAID-5 absolutely sucks. They have more PCIE lanes too, but Crossfire and/or SLI performance on AMD systems has also been shown to seriously lag Intel (although I'd like this explored a little because I'm not sure a weaker CPU alone explains the differences).
One point I take from this is if you're willing to come down from "Ultra" on just a few settings, it doesn't take a $2000, 800W rig to play games at GOOD settings; looks like a single HD6850 is quite sufficient.
For those moaning about mobo differences, there are now H61 boards with USB3.0 and SATA 6Gb/s, so it is no longer true that AMD holds a notable chipset edge. While AMD can still claim a lot more SATA 6Gb/s ports, on which you can run RAID-5, past articles have shown that mobo RAID-5 absolutely sucks. They have more PCIE lanes too, but Crossfire and/or SLI performance on AMD systems has also been shown to seriously lag Intel (although I'd like this explored a little because I'm not sure a weaker CPU alone explains the differences).
One point I take from this is if you're willing to come down from "Ultra" on just a few settings, it doesn't take a $2000, 800W rig to play games at GOOD settings; looks like a single HD6850 is quite sufficient.
[citation][nom]Stardude82[/nom]Totally, I bet you could feed a 6770 just fine with a $50 CPU. No need for these extravagant $120 chips.[/citation]
Exactly. Not sure the point of a CPU test where the bottleneck is clearly the GPU. AMD fanboys are digging deep here.
Clearly the CPU does not matter if you bottleneck the system somewhere else. Why did these fanboys need to see tests to prove this?? Idiots.
Exactly. Not sure the point of a CPU test where the bottleneck is clearly the GPU. AMD fanboys are digging deep here.
Clearly the CPU does not matter if you bottleneck the system somewhere else. Why did these fanboys need to see tests to prove this?? Idiots.
ohim
Distinguished
- Feb 10, 2009
- 1,195
- 0
- 19,360
Having 4 cores CPU and putting it head to head to a 2 core CPU in a single application benchmark is like having a supercharged V8 car put head to head with a normal 4 cylinder in a 50 mph limit zone . I bet the difference between the I3 and I7 is not that shocking in only 1 game application
[citation][nom]bigmack70[/nom]I have a $110 CPU (960T) @ 4 GHz and a $600 GPU (XFX BE 7970)........ almost no bottlenecking issues on the 7970.It's not that unrealistic a build... you don't need a lot of CPU for most games to max them out at 1080p and get 60fps.[/citation]
Exactly, a gaming rig is that. Which is why I still do NOT understand AMD's APU direction. Anyone who wants more CPU performance is not going to be satisfied with an integrated GPU. If they want to shake things up, add the equivalent of a 6950 to a dual-core CPU and see how things fall. Why does the best GPU option come attached to the best CPU option. All they will do is eat thermals from each other. Use the die space to make one or the other outstanding. Not mediocre at best for both.
Exactly, a gaming rig is that. Which is why I still do NOT understand AMD's APU direction. Anyone who wants more CPU performance is not going to be satisfied with an integrated GPU. If they want to shake things up, add the equivalent of a 6950 to a dual-core CPU and see how things fall. Why does the best GPU option come attached to the best CPU option. All they will do is eat thermals from each other. Use the die space to make one or the other outstanding. Not mediocre at best for both.
this is the article i have been searching for.. thx toms for the great research.. now i wonder if i can get toms to research the maximum GPU for certain CPU.. i mean like.. if using core i3, what GPU is the best before getting any GPU bottleneck.. just want to find the perfect balance for limited budget..
ojas
Distinguished
- Feb 25, 2011
- 2,924
- 0
- 20,810
A nice, interesting read! My thoughts...
1) This article makes most sense from a budget perspective, as noted in many places by many people. People looking to build high end rigs are probably better of with Phenoms and Intel.
2) It's also very specifically a gaming article, if the CPU is intended for any other intensive tasks, those factors must be considered.
3)Line graphs FTW!
4) I know why you limit the graph to 60 fps, makes sense, but still, just for the sake of the complete picture, it would be nice if we could see the whole thing.
5) For those saying that Tom's trashed the Tahiti GPUs, iirc the only negative thing they said that the driver/firmware side imlementation of transcoding was broken.
6) For the dude saying that "OMG TEST INTEGRATED GRAPHICS PERFORMANCE" and "AMD's IGP CAN TOTALLY WALK OVER AN i7 WITH HD 3000 GRAPHICS": what the heck man, this isn't even about the IGP. Everyone, including intel, knows that HD3000 sucks compared to Llano's IGP. Even Tom's said that when llano was released. I mean, as BSMonitor says:
[citation][nom]BSMonitor[/nom]Exactly. Not sure the point of a CPU test where the bottleneck is clearly the GPU[/citation]
Comparing an A4 and an i7 using only the IGP isn't a good way to show the advantages of an i7 in gaming. No one who buys an i7 plays at the settings the A4 is limited to, they'd spend on discrete graphics.
Likewise, no one who cares about gaming within $100-$150 would consider an i7.
For the rest read jtt283's post.
1) This article makes most sense from a budget perspective, as noted in many places by many people. People looking to build high end rigs are probably better of with Phenoms and Intel.
2) It's also very specifically a gaming article, if the CPU is intended for any other intensive tasks, those factors must be considered.
3)Line graphs FTW!
4) I know why you limit the graph to 60 fps, makes sense, but still, just for the sake of the complete picture, it would be nice if we could see the whole thing.
5) For those saying that Tom's trashed the Tahiti GPUs, iirc the only negative thing they said that the driver/firmware side imlementation of transcoding was broken.
6) For the dude saying that "OMG TEST INTEGRATED GRAPHICS PERFORMANCE" and "AMD's IGP CAN TOTALLY WALK OVER AN i7 WITH HD 3000 GRAPHICS": what the heck man, this isn't even about the IGP. Everyone, including intel, knows that HD3000 sucks compared to Llano's IGP. Even Tom's said that when llano was released. I mean, as BSMonitor says:
[citation][nom]BSMonitor[/nom]Exactly. Not sure the point of a CPU test where the bottleneck is clearly the GPU[/citation]
Comparing an A4 and an i7 using only the IGP isn't a good way to show the advantages of an i7 in gaming. No one who buys an i7 plays at the settings the A4 is limited to, they'd spend on discrete graphics.
Likewise, no one who cares about gaming within $100-$150 would consider an i7.
For the rest read jtt283's post.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 3K
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram