- Status
[citation][nom]williehmmm[/nom]This shows that AMD does compete. Only marginally trailing the i3. And when overclocked, we see it match the i3. The i3 cannot overclock.And AMD does this, whilst being cheaper for the consumer to buy. Meaning you pay less to get the same result.The FX is the best value cpu between these 2. Although the G860 is even better value, but again can't be overclocked.[/citation]
Keep in mind, AMD had to lower the cost of all their chips because Intel's chips were much faster for their cost. The price to price comparisons will always be close because they will price them so that price to price comparisons are close. The remarkable thing about this particular comparison, is the i3 is a dual core chip with hyper-threading and beating a 4 core chip.
Now if you want to see who is doing better, you have to look at the higher end chips and at them moment, Intel's chips are crushing AMD's chips. For AMD to catch up, they need to have a great design, because they are using a larger process, which puts them at an automatic disadvantage. Of course their APU's do look good at least.
Keep in mind, AMD had to lower the cost of all their chips because Intel's chips were much faster for their cost. The price to price comparisons will always be close because they will price them so that price to price comparisons are close. The remarkable thing about this particular comparison, is the i3 is a dual core chip with hyper-threading and beating a 4 core chip.
Now if you want to see who is doing better, you have to look at the higher end chips and at them moment, Intel's chips are crushing AMD's chips. For AMD to catch up, they need to have a great design, because they are using a larger process, which puts them at an automatic disadvantage. Of course their APU's do look good at least.
williehmmm
Distinguished
- Apr 7, 2010
- 33
- 0
- 18,530
[citation][nom]bystander[/nom]Keep in mind, AMD had to lower the cost of all their chips because Intel's chips were much faster for their cost. The price to price comparisons will always be close because they will price them so that price to price comparisons are close. The remarkable thing about this particular comparison, is the i3 is a dual core chip with hyper-threading and beating a 4 core chip.Now if you want to see who is doing better, you have to look at the higher end chips and at them moment, Intel's chips are crushing AMD's chips. For AMD to catch up, they need to have a great design, because they are using a larger process, which puts them at an automatic disadvantage. Of course their APU's do look good at least.[/citation]
In higher end chips, intel crushes AMD. We agree on that.
But for budgest gaming rigs, they are equal, although AMD costs less, so that wins.
In higher end chips, intel crushes AMD. We agree on that.
But for budgest gaming rigs, they are equal, although AMD costs less, so that wins.
Pezcore27
Distinguished
- Feb 8, 2012
- 518
- 0
- 19,060
Glad to see that AMD isn't completely useless anymore 
By $15 at most so yes the AMD chips can be a good budget alternative to Intel's budget chips while not sacraficing performance to a degree that the average budget gamer will notice because they are bottlenecked by other components as well, but take for example, if anyone has a microcenter near them, they are the same price. So if price were equal, the i3 would be the better budget chip.
By $15 at most so yes the AMD chips can be a good budget alternative to Intel's budget chips while not sacraficing performance to a degree that the average budget gamer will notice because they are bottlenecked by other components as well, but take for example, if anyone has a microcenter near them, they are the same price. So if price were equal, the i3 would be the better budget chip.
najirion
Distinguished
- Feb 11, 2012
- 183
- 0
- 18,710
[citation]In higher end chips, intel crushes AMD. We agree on that.But for budgest gaming rigs, they are equal, although AMD costs less, so that wins.[/citation]
I have to disagree with that. To point out the obvious, you need to pay for your power consumption right? i3-2100 is a 65watt processor, FX 4100 is a 95watt processor. i3-2100's idle power consumption is quite impressive in fact (if you read enough articles and benchmark tests results about these processors that is). Same goes when you go up higher. Just search for FX 8150's power consumption charts. You might be astonished to see that it almost matches power consumption of i7-3960x. Do you think that is CHEAPER? in the long-run specifically?
I have to disagree with that. To point out the obvious, you need to pay for your power consumption right? i3-2100 is a 65watt processor, FX 4100 is a 95watt processor. i3-2100's idle power consumption is quite impressive in fact (if you read enough articles and benchmark tests results about these processors that is). Same goes when you go up higher. Just search for FX 8150's power consumption charts. You might be astonished to see that it almost matches power consumption of i7-3960x. Do you think that is CHEAPER? in the long-run specifically?
[citation][nom]williehmmm[/nom]In higher end chips, intel crushes AMD. We agree on that.But for budgest gaming rigs, they are equal, although AMD costs less, so that wins.[/citation]
You are still missing the point I brought up, which is AMD is falling behind in the technology. They have to resort to discounting to sell their chips, because they don't compete straight up.
You are still missing the point I brought up, which is AMD is falling behind in the technology. They have to resort to discounting to sell their chips, because they don't compete straight up.
DigitalWarlord
Distinguished
- Dec 27, 2011
- 28
- 0
- 18,530
[citation][nom]williehmmm[/nom]I complained and complained on the most recent CPU recommendations list that the FX 4100 should not be 3 tiers lower than the i3 2100.The i3 is the better/faster chip for gaming, but not so much that you should spend a lot upgrading to it from a "somewhat parallel" performing FX 4100. Quote - "I don’t recommend upgrading your CPU unless the potential replacement is at least three tiers higher. Otherwise, the upgrade is somewhat parallel and you may not notice a worthwhile difference in game performance."This article at least shows that their will not be a noticeable difference in game performance. And I would go as fas as to say that once overclocked, there would be no difference whatsoever between the FX and an i3 (which is locked and can't be overclocked).Absolute respect to Toms for taking onboard these points and hopefully rearranging the table for the March CPU hierarchy chart. And it would seem the G860 & i3 should be closer together too.[/citation]
Very well said my friend. This setup shows better in-game performance from the i3 on the charts, but it would be near impossible for anyone to be able to see the difference in the subtle F/S difference. Realistically speaking, how many of us will use a computer strictly for gaming and nothing else? I personally create computer generated imagery on my rig as well, and when it comes to rendering, there's very strong evidence that shows the cheaper AMD CPUs with more physical cores will match or outperform the price equivalent Intel processor counterpart.
Very well said my friend. This setup shows better in-game performance from the i3 on the charts, but it would be near impossible for anyone to be able to see the difference in the subtle F/S difference. Realistically speaking, how many of us will use a computer strictly for gaming and nothing else? I personally create computer generated imagery on my rig as well, and when it comes to rendering, there's very strong evidence that shows the cheaper AMD CPUs with more physical cores will match or outperform the price equivalent Intel processor counterpart.
dark_lord69
Splendid
- Jun 6, 2006
- 3,227
- 8
- 22,015
If I was on the market I'd get a Core i5 or i7...
Not just for gaming but the other abilities of those CPU's is quite impressive.
Converting video is one thing a hate waiting for and the new iCore series is quite good at that.
Not just for gaming but the other abilities of those CPU's is quite impressive.
Converting video is one thing a hate waiting for and the new iCore series is quite good at that.
williehmmm
Distinguished
- Apr 7, 2010
- 33
- 0
- 18,530
[citation][nom]bystander[/nom]You are still missing the point I brought up, which is AMD is falling behind in the technology. They have to resort to discounting to sell their chips, because they don't compete straight up.[/citation]
AMD is behind intel, yes I agree. If money is no object, and you want maximum performance, and most people do, you should definitely buy intel.
If however, you want the best performance, for the least amount you can spend, the FX 4100 wins that. Not by much, but as FX/Bulldozer got absolutley slated on launch, we see the FX compete very well for budget builds.
You say AMD are discounting their chips to be competitive. Market forces dictate what prices CPUs sell for. Intel, have a performance edge, but you have to pay a higher premium to get smaller and smaller return (at least for gaming). AMDs price point reflects its position in the market, and it's priced to compete and does so very well.
You can't claim that it's an artificially low price, unless you know development and production costs, and also know the equivelant information about intel and what markup they make.
I doubt that AMD are selling these chips at a loss. And although the high end CPUs don't compete with intel, and that's a shame for us all as Intel can keep prices 'artificially' high. At the budget end, AMD keeps intel honest, and long may it continue.
AMD is behind intel, yes I agree. If money is no object, and you want maximum performance, and most people do, you should definitely buy intel.
If however, you want the best performance, for the least amount you can spend, the FX 4100 wins that. Not by much, but as FX/Bulldozer got absolutley slated on launch, we see the FX compete very well for budget builds.
You say AMD are discounting their chips to be competitive. Market forces dictate what prices CPUs sell for. Intel, have a performance edge, but you have to pay a higher premium to get smaller and smaller return (at least for gaming). AMDs price point reflects its position in the market, and it's priced to compete and does so very well.
You can't claim that it's an artificially low price, unless you know development and production costs, and also know the equivelant information about intel and what markup they make.
I doubt that AMD are selling these chips at a loss. And although the high end CPUs don't compete with intel, and that's a shame for us all as Intel can keep prices 'artificially' high. At the budget end, AMD keeps intel honest, and long may it continue.
[citation][nom]williehmmm[/nom]AMD is behind intel, yes I agree. If money is no object, and you want maximum performance, and most people do, you should definitely buy intel.If however, you want the best performance, for the least amount you can spend, the FX 4100 wins that. Not by much, but as FX/Bulldozer got absolutley slated on launch, we see the FX compete very well for budget builds.You say AMD are discounting their chips to be competitive. Market forces dictate what prices CPUs sell for. Intel, have a performance edge, but you have to pay a higher premium to get smaller and smaller return (at least for gaming). AMDs price point reflects its position in the market, and it's priced to compete and does so very well.You can't claim that it's an artificially low price, unless you know development and production costs, and also know the equivelant information about intel and what markup they make.I doubt that AMD are selling these chips at a loss. And although the high end CPUs don't compete with intel, and that's a shame for us all as Intel can keep prices 'artificially' high. At the budget end, AMD keeps intel honest, and long may it continue.[/citation]
I never said AMD doesn't compete price for price. Just that in the CPU market, they are falling behind in performance. I was just saying, that for AMD to catch up, they need a superior design as they are also behind in the process size department as well.
I never said AMD doesn't compete price for price. Just that in the CPU market, they are falling behind in performance. I was just saying, that for AMD to catch up, they need a superior design as they are also behind in the process size department as well.
people keep stating that AMD is cheaper/ Intel is more expensive and bla bla..
like najirion said, if u want to compare about pricing.. then u can also compare about electricity bills which in fact will favors Intel. at the moment.. all i can see is, Intel Core i3 2100 can provide better gaming performance from AMD FX 4100 with lower wattage.. coincidentally, i3 is cheaper at my place.
the fact is, both companies work for profits.. at the moment AMD is cheaper but once it gain the CPU throne ( which i doubt it will ), im pretty sure the situation will be reversed.
AMD is good for the competition.. but for the high end CPU we will be stuck with Intel CPU for a long time ( AMD has stated that it will not compete with Intel ).
like najirion said, if u want to compare about pricing.. then u can also compare about electricity bills which in fact will favors Intel. at the moment.. all i can see is, Intel Core i3 2100 can provide better gaming performance from AMD FX 4100 with lower wattage.. coincidentally, i3 is cheaper at my place.
the fact is, both companies work for profits.. at the moment AMD is cheaper but once it gain the CPU throne ( which i doubt it will ), im pretty sure the situation will be reversed.
AMD is good for the competition.. but for the high end CPU we will be stuck with Intel CPU for a long time ( AMD has stated that it will not compete with Intel ).
- Nov 18, 2008
- 20,307
- 4
- 74,960
[citation][nom]williehmmm[/nom]In higher end chips, intel crushes AMD. We agree on that.But for budgest gaming rigs, they are equal, although AMD costs less, so that wins.[/citation]
Really?
1080p gaming on a 2500k or FX 8150 is so close you wouldn't be able to tell the difference unless you already knew what the hardware was . and in many applications the FX is a faster more powerful cpu . In encoding tasks it is often faster than a 2600k
In a budget rig where you are spending 500 - 550 the FX 4100 is both cheaper and better than an i3 2100 . Sure theyre the same at stock clock speeds , but only the intel is locked . You can increase the performance of the FX 4100 by 30% on the stock cooler .
The big power issue scare the intel fanboys seem to like pointing out ..... replace one light bulb in your house with an energy saving LED bulb and you have more than covered that .
And the suggestion that intels tech is ahead? Who is selling 28 nm processors ? Its not intel . They are at 32 nm and are not going to be at 22 nm for another 7-8 months at the earliest
Really?
1080p gaming on a 2500k or FX 8150 is so close you wouldn't be able to tell the difference unless you already knew what the hardware was . and in many applications the FX is a faster more powerful cpu . In encoding tasks it is often faster than a 2600k
In a budget rig where you are spending 500 - 550 the FX 4100 is both cheaper and better than an i3 2100 . Sure theyre the same at stock clock speeds , but only the intel is locked . You can increase the performance of the FX 4100 by 30% on the stock cooler .
The big power issue scare the intel fanboys seem to like pointing out ..... replace one light bulb in your house with an energy saving LED bulb and you have more than covered that .
And the suggestion that intels tech is ahead? Who is selling 28 nm processors ? Its not intel . They are at 32 nm and are not going to be at 22 nm for another 7-8 months at the earliest
najirion
Distinguished
- Feb 11, 2012
- 183
- 0
- 18,710
uhh... have you read the article "In Pictures: 16 Of The PC Industry's Most Epic Failures"
you can tell that to them and the numerous benchmark tests that supports such conclusion.
you can tell that to them and the numerous benchmark tests that supports such conclusion.
billybobser
Distinguished
- Aug 25, 2011
- 432
- 0
- 18,790
[citation][nom]kalliman[/nom]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?[/citation]
intels would work out chepaer if you factor in upgrade path, with bulldozer needing an upgrade sooner (with no path available) whereas the i3 will outlast it and be able to go to ivybridge later on.
I'd prefer to pay a 25% premium so I don't have to buy two m/b's
intels would work out chepaer if you factor in upgrade path, with bulldozer needing an upgrade sooner (with no path available) whereas the i3 will outlast it and be able to go to ivybridge later on.
I'd prefer to pay a 25% premium so I don't have to buy two m/b's
[citation][nom]Outlander_04[/nom]Really? 1080p gaming on a 2500k or FX 8150 is so close you wouldn't be able to tell the difference unless you already knew what the hardware was . and in many applications the FX is a faster more powerful cpu . In encoding tasks it is often faster than a 2600k In a budget rig where you are spending 500 - 550 the FX 4100 is both cheaper and better than an i3 2100 . Sure theyre the same at stock clock speeds , but only the intel is locked . You can increase the performance of the FX 4100 by 30% on the stock cooler .The big power issue scare the intel fanboys seem to like pointing out ..... replace one light bulb in your house with an energy saving LED bulb and you have more than covered that .And the suggestion that intels tech is ahead? Who is selling 28 nm processors ? Its not intel . They are at 32 nm and are not going to be at 22 nm for another 7-8 months at the earliest[/citation]
It's usually advisable to read the article before posting on it.
It's usually advisable to read the article before posting on it.
"and this -
http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 43-18.html
The FX 8150 seems to be absolutely equal to an i5 2500k at extreme resolutions 2560x1600, ultra detail levels, x8 AA. Would the FX 4100 deliver the same equal performance at these resolutions?"
lmao yea... and so is the Phenom II X4 and X6. So then whats the point of buying an FX 81xx if, going off those charts, any other CPU is just as good? Ovious non CPU bottleneck...
http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 43-18.html
The FX 8150 seems to be absolutely equal to an i5 2500k at extreme resolutions 2560x1600, ultra detail levels, x8 AA. Would the FX 4100 deliver the same equal performance at these resolutions?"
lmao yea... and so is the Phenom II X4 and X6. So then whats the point of buying an FX 81xx if, going off those charts, any other CPU is just as good? Ovious non CPU bottleneck...
[citation][nom]mad0314[/nom]"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 the FX 4100 deliver the same equal performance at these resolutions?"lmao yea... and so is the Phenom II X4 and X6. So then whats the point of buying an FX 81xx if, going off those charts, any other CPU is just as good? Ovious non CPU bottleneck...[/citation]
The link doesn't work, but when your graphics card(s) are the bottleneck, then the CPU difference disappear.
The link doesn't work, but when your graphics card(s) are the bottleneck, then the CPU difference disappear.
- Nov 18, 2008
- 20,307
- 4
- 74,960
[citation][nom]bystander[/nom]It's usually advisable to read the article before posting on it.[/citation]
Its advisable to learn to draw your own conclusions from the data presented .
These tests in this article show that if you built two computers using these respective processors and a graphics card to the level of a 6950 [ which is not going to be an option in a budget build ] then you wont notice any difference in gaming performance .
But the AMD will be cheaper , will run applications faster , will remain more responsive in general use and can be overclocked to increase performance even further .
While Cleeve has concluded that the intel is the better buy for gaming everything he said about the intel is also true for the AMD . You also get an upgradable platform , and you get a far better set of mb features right now
Its advisable to learn to draw your own conclusions from the data presented .
These tests in this article show that if you built two computers using these respective processors and a graphics card to the level of a 6950 [ which is not going to be an option in a budget build ] then you wont notice any difference in gaming performance .
But the AMD will be cheaper , will run applications faster , will remain more responsive in general use and can be overclocked to increase performance even further .
While Cleeve has concluded that the intel is the better buy for gaming everything he said about the intel is also true for the AMD . You also get an upgradable platform , and you get a far better set of mb features right now
[citation][nom]Outlander_04[/nom]Its advisable to learn to draw your own conclusions from the data presented . These tests in this article show that if you built two computers using these respective processors and a graphics card to the level of a 6950 [ which is not going to be an option in a budget build ] then you wont notice any difference in gaming performance . But the AMD will be cheaper , will run applications faster , will remain more responsive in general use and can be overclocked to increase performance even further .While Cleeve has concluded that the intel is the better buy for gaming everything he said about the intel is also true for the AMD . You also get an upgradable platform , and you get a far better set of mb features right now[/citation]
I guess if you like to game at low FPS, you might like the AMD option. I don't. If I'm going to game at 1080p (and do with a 120hz monitor), I am going to get enough power to get 60+ FPS (otherwise I get motion sickness). Even at lower FPS requirements, the i3 beat it out, and the i3 was not the faster version they would recommend, and the AMD chip they compared it to was 200hz faster than the one with the same price. Even giving the i3 a big disadvantage, the AMD option was slower.
If you wanted to upgrade in the future, you can upgrade to a much faster CPU with the i3 starting point, where as with the AMD platform, you don't have nearly as much upgrade headroom.
And even with the "less features" you keep talking about, features you don't even mention, it still doesn't perform as well. If these features still don't let it compete well, are they really features? Maybe you can let us know what features you are talking about. I can understand if you are talking about better sound chips or something of that nature.
I guess if you like to game at low FPS, you might like the AMD option. I don't. If I'm going to game at 1080p (and do with a 120hz monitor), I am going to get enough power to get 60+ FPS (otherwise I get motion sickness). Even at lower FPS requirements, the i3 beat it out, and the i3 was not the faster version they would recommend, and the AMD chip they compared it to was 200hz faster than the one with the same price. Even giving the i3 a big disadvantage, the AMD option was slower.
If you wanted to upgrade in the future, you can upgrade to a much faster CPU with the i3 starting point, where as with the AMD platform, you don't have nearly as much upgrade headroom.
And even with the "less features" you keep talking about, features you don't even mention, it still doesn't perform as well. If these features still don't let it compete well, are they really features? Maybe you can let us know what features you are talking about. I can understand if you are talking about better sound chips or something of that nature.
- Nov 18, 2008
- 20,307
- 4
- 74,960
Conventional monitors run at 60 Hz . That means they refresh 60 times a second . This , as I'm sure you realize, is the exact same thing as 60 FPS .
If your computer is pumping out 80 fps , or 120 fps , or 200 fps YOU NEVER SEE IT ON YOUR SCREEN. The 60 Hz monitor can NEVER display it .
There is no advantage to building a computer that can produce more than 60 fps on a low resolution monitor . In fact its just a complete waste of money .
And intels "advantage" is smoke and marketing hype with no bearing on user experience .
If your computer is pumping out 80 fps , or 120 fps , or 200 fps YOU NEVER SEE IT ON YOUR SCREEN. The 60 Hz monitor can NEVER display it .
There is no advantage to building a computer that can produce more than 60 fps on a low resolution monitor . In fact its just a complete waste of money .
And intels "advantage" is smoke and marketing hype with no bearing on user experience .
[citation][nom]Outlander_04[/nom]Conventional monitors run at 60 Hz . That means they refresh 60 times a second . This , as I'm sure you realize, is the exact same thing as 60 FPS .If your computer is pumping out 80 fps , or 120 fps , or 200 fps YOU NEVER SEE IT ON YOUR SCREEN. The 60 Hz monitor can NEVER display it .There is no advantage to building a computer that can produce more than 60 fps on a low resolution monitor . In fact its just a complete waste of money . And intels "advantage" is smoke and marketing hype with no bearing on user experience .[/citation]
Building a computer which can maintain 60 FPS requires your average FPS to be a little above as all games have dips. I can personally game at 50+ ok, but if I get dips into the 30's, forget it, I'm going to get sick fast, so we build to have 60 FPS. For myself, I took it a step further and got a 120hz monitor, which I notice big difference in nausea up to 80 FPS.
Building a computer which can maintain 60 FPS requires your average FPS to be a little above as all games have dips. I can personally game at 50+ ok, but if I get dips into the 30's, forget it, I'm going to get sick fast, so we build to have 60 FPS. For myself, I took it a step further and got a 120hz monitor, which I notice big difference in nausea up to 80 FPS.
amd guy101
Distinguished
- Feb 14, 2012
- 18
- 0
- 18,510
Really great article ! I'm gonna go with AMD FX-4100 and pray to god that the Piledrivers preform better this year !
TheinsanegamerN
Distinguished
- Jul 19, 2011
- 363
- 0
- 18,810
Great article. I will point out that battlefield 3 was still being hampered by the GPU. however, this finally settles a bet with my freinds. AMD is still good for gaming for the price. I for one switched from a sandy bridge g850 to a fx-4100 and can already see the difference in games like civ5. speaking of which, could you run those tests in lowest possible graphics settings with a nice card, so we can see what happens when the cpu IS the bottleneck?
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
News Nvidia's GeForce RTX 5070 at $549 — How does it stack up to the previous generation RTX 4070?
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 26
-
News AMD explains the missing RDNA 4 GPUs in its CES 2025 livestream
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 15
-
-
Question New build wont post Gigabyte B650M Gaming Plus wifi , AMD Ryzen 5 7600X CPU, 32GB T-Force RGB DDR5. Need help!
- Started by Notmiserable
- Replies: 27
-
Discussion PSU recommendations and power supply discussion thread - Tom's hardware- Started by Darkbreeze
- Replies: 2K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram