AMD FX Vs. Intel Core i3: Exploring Game Performance With Cheap GPUs

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]ivaroeines[/nom]I will still buy AMD, not because they are better or cheaper than Intel i know they arent, but because they are good enough for me and that Intel need to be challenged. To me it seems like "Tom's hardware" is on a crusade to bring down AMD, looking back to the release of the Core i7 cpu's "Tom's Hardware" have used encryption suits in testing cpu performance and made a big point of how excellent Intel cpu's are at encryption, i dont know of anyone besides myself( i use it only for testing ) who use encryption on their computers. I have always felt that the encryption suits "Tom's hardware " employ have been used to show how bad cpu's AMD makes, AMD dont make bad cpu's( to my knowledge that is ), at any given price point up to $800 to $1000 i think most people wouldnt recognize the difference between a AMD and a Intel system in a blind test.The thing that made me raise my eyebrows in regards to "Tom's Hardware" wasnt any cpu test, but the tests of the HD 79** series, in a test where the results showed better results in most benchmark and trashing the competition in 1, the conclusion from "Tom's Hardware" was the this gpu wasnt any good and i almost felt like "Tom's Hardware" was warning me against buying such a card. This may just be the rantings of a AMD fanboy, but i think "Tom's Hardware" need to see if they are as objective as they claim to be.[/citation]
I just couldn't resist:
Is the Radeon HD 7970's $550 asking price too high? AMD now has a less expensive derivative based on the same GCN architecture. At its default clock rates, it's fast enough to outrun Nvidia's GeForce GTX 580 in many benchmarks. And it overclocks like mad.
Click to expand...
 
Just order an i5 2500k from Microcenter.com for $180 and then you have a less than $200 processor that blow EVERYTHING else out of the water.
 
well lets just accept the fact that amd is still capable on playing games, although it ain't so bad if you think about it this way, for now build a nice budget amd build, play games until you can get a nice amount of money for ivy or something then buy ivy, at least once you have ivy you got 2 pc to use, compared to buying an i3 upgrade it slowly then sell the rest for small change, (im not a fan of both, neutral side) and, considering you got a wife or kids, this can help as you can just give away your amd build to your wife or kids, which i did but gave it to my child,
 
[citation][nom]williehmmm[/nom]The FX 8150 seems to be absolutely equal to an i5 2500k at extreme resolutions 2560x1600, ultra detail levels, x8 AA.[/citation]
That was one game, and likely a GPU dependent game considering those graphs. Quit trying to justify your purchase, nobody cares.
 
You mentioned using the faster memory on the AMD system; did you get a chance to put the HD7970 back in and re-run any of the previous sub-$200 CPU article's tests to see if it made any difference at all?
 
[citation][nom]williehmmm[/nom]Also this "Even a $200 FX-8120 won’t solve your problem; our tests show that chip acts just like the FX-4100 in gaming environments."and this -http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 43-18.htmlThe FX 8150 seems to be absolutely equal to an i5 2500k at extreme resolutions 2560x1600, ultra detail levels, x8 AA... ...Would a $110 FX4100 deliver the same FPS as a $230 i5 2500k? The FX 8150 did.[/citation]
That's because at that resolution, the graphics card becomes the bottleneck - not the CPU.
 
Nice review. But again, the review proves that the 1155 platform aren't bottleneked on performance. Each graphics card brings a different performance ratio depending on the game you play. I'd love to see the difference in performace with the new 2012 graphics cards from both AMD and Nvidia using this platform.
 
[citation][nom]amdfangirl[/nom]Sucks that the Core i3 can't be overclocked like the legendary e4xxx series or the e2160 which you could get a 100% OC with. If DC Sandy Bridges could be unlocked, they would be so good for gaming.[/citation]

Well, it isn't THAT cool that the i3 can't be overclocked. But even that DC Sandy-bridge can't be unlocked, they STILL are good for gaming. Just check some of this own benchmark to check that! Some pretty intensive CPU like Starcraft 2 shows the locked not overclocable DC strengh against the FX-4100
 
Still gaming just fine at 1600x1200 with a circa 2009 720BE unlocked quad at 3.5GHz and a 5770.

If folks cant do better with newer gear of the same standard/level then they don't know how to build and configure a decent PC.

It's not so much the hardware but how you put it all together.
 
[citation][nom]TheApocalypse[/nom]However, next time you use a line graph to show results that won't show up in the frame of the graph please change the scaling on your axis so that we will actually be able to see the results. Thanks 🙂[/citation]

Scaling the line graphs over 60 FPS only highlights theoretical differences. We're trying to keep it real and focus on where performance matters, when it gets choppy.
 
[citation][nom]king_maliken[/nom]This is all kinds of wrong... "NEVER" is really idiotic to say in this situation, you don't know, AMD might come out with something that will in the future be the best performer. You son have a lot to learn yet and probably have a lot of living left to do.[/citation]

Thumbs up!
I love the whole "grandpa shaking his cane at those young whipper snappers" imagery I am getting.
 
The one place where multiple core AMDs may have over Sandybridge and Ivybridge CPUs may be in servers, even home servers. I'd be interested in seeing how AMD and Intel compare where the orientation is to provide multiple users with content over a home or small business network.
 
[citation][nom]jessterman21[/nom]That's because at that resolution, the graphics card becomes the bottleneck - not the CPU.[/citation]

And my point is, if you game with eyfinity or Nvidia surround, then you might as well save yourself $120 and buy an FX 4100, as the result is the same as the hottest gaming chip around, the i5 2500k.

If you game with eyefinity or Nvidia surround, you see a 0% gain with a loss of $120 more of your hard earned cash.

The GPU becomes the bottleneck, and the more expenisve the CPU in that situation, the more money you have wasted.
 
[citation][nom]jahrasta311[/nom]That was one game, and likely a GPU dependent game considering those graphs. Quit trying to justify your purchase, nobody cares.[/citation]

No it wasn't just 1 game. The FX 8150 review showed in every game tested, when maxxed out, the i5 2500k could not deliver any frame rate increase at 2560x1600, ultra details, x8AA.

I imagine this is will be the same situation for eyefinity/Nvidia surround setups, 3, 4 or 5 megapixel screen resolutions. My legitimate question is, would a budget AMD chip deliver the same results. And if you have this chip, you may well be able to go down the eyefinity route and have just as pleasant an experince as i5 owners.

-

I do have an FX 4100, in my 2nd gaming PC, my main PC is intel, i5 750 OC'd, and not quite worth upgrading to the i5 2500k.

But i was expecting a dog of a CPU from the FX. It isn't. It's much faster then the e8500 it replaced, but the hierarchy chart would have you think different.
 
[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]Scaling the line graphs over 60 FPS only highlights theoretical differences. We're trying to keep it real and focus on where performance matters, when it gets choppy.[/citation]

Although interested to see what the actual results were, I'm with you on this. If your monitor is 60Hz, you don't see any frames over 60fps that are rendered. And for most people, knowing which CPU GPU combination is good enough to hit 60 fps is the valuable information.

Full credit to Tom's/Cleeve/Don for this article.
 
Great article for the budget gamers out there!
FX being unlocked gives it a slight edge. Throw AMD a bone and add a small OC to the FX (200-400mhz) and see how much it helps.

Would be nice to see a similar article when Ivy i3 and Trinity come out.

I can see why Intel won't release an unlocked i3. It would eat a lot of i5 sales.
 
[citation][nom]Cazalan[/nom]Great article for the budget gamers out there!FX being unlocked gives it a slight edge. Throw AMD a bone and add a small OC to the FX (200-400mhz) and see how much it helps.
[/citation]

In our previous tests, pushing the FX-4100 to 4.5 GHz didn't give it enough of an edge to best the i3-2100, although it reached practical parity:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-9.html

A good overclock would probably close the majority of the gap in a lot of the tests in this article. If the gaps were bigger we might have overclocked the FX-4100, but we've already shown what it can do overclocked in that previous review so I don't know if it'd have provided us with any new info.
 
No it wasn't just 1 game. The FX 8150 review showed in every game tested, when maxxed out, the i5 2500k could not deliver any frame rate increase at 2560x1600, ultra details, x8AA.
Click to expand...

Again, GPU limited. Even top tier GPU's struggle at that resolution with AA cranked up. As you increase the strain on the GPU, all the CPU's start to clump together, because any CPU above X performance will eventually give the same exact FPS once teh GPU becomes the bottleneck.

Seriously, this is why we still have debates about BD being worth buying, because people take tests like this one to "prove" that BD is as capable as an i3, not realising the test proves NOTHING because of the GPU bottleneck.

No idea what the point of this article is...
 
[citation][nom]gamerk316[/nom]Again, GPU limited. Even top tier GPU's struggle at that resolution with AA cranked up. As you increase the strain on the GPU, all the CPU's start to clump together, because any CPU above X performance will eventually give the same exact FPS once teh GPU becomes the bottleneck.Seriously, this is why we still have debates about BD being worth buying, because people take tests like this one to "prove" that BD is as capable as an i3, not realising the test proves NOTHING because of the GPU bottleneck.No idea what the point of this article is...[/citation]

I can see the point. These 2 CPUs are similar in performance. The i3 edges it, it's a very good chip. The FX 4100 when overclocked catches up. And it's too easy to overclock, you would automatically overclock it.

And paired with these selection GPUs, buyers can see what performance they can expect depending on how much they spend.

And they may be able to afford a more expensive GPU by going for the FX 4100 over the i3. this helps them decide what extra fps they'd get by going that route, if any.

A very worthwhile article for those on a tight budget in the middle of a world recession.

sigh...
 
Great article. If you could you add a multitasking test (i.e. playing a game while doing stuff in the background) in future articles that'll be even better :)
 
[citation][nom]belardo[/nom]Spend $25 more and get the i5-2400 quad core...[/citation]

The current price thing on the CPU recommendation list shows the i3 2120 at $128 and the i5 2400 at $190, so $62 extra. or 42% more, and for that you get 14% extra performance with the i5 2400 over the i3 2100, based on this -

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-10.html

And as the FX 4100, is even cheaper at $110, and can match the i3 2100, why not get that.

Dollar per fps, the i3 & FX are so much better value.

They are not the best chips, but they are the best value, in terms of price to performance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom