AMD Phenom II X4 965 vs Intel Core i3-2100 Sandy Bridge 3.1GHz for new build

[blueyfooey]

Hello,

I'm not sure which is better. The AMD Phenom II X4 965, I've been told, has less gaming capability than the Sandy Bridge, but if it's negligible, I'd rather not spend the extra money on the Sandy Bridge. I have a budget that I'm trying not to pass ($650) and I'd rather have more money to spend on the GPU. Anyone able to give a bit of advice?

Edit: The CPU's looked at are

AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition Deneb 3.4GHz Socket AM3 125W Quad-Core Processor

Intel Core i3-2100 Sandy Bridge 3.1GHz LGA 1155 65W Dual-Core Desktop Processor Intel HD Graphics 2000

 

[nekulturny]

My two cents:

After six weeks of owning an i3-2100, it acts like a quad-core in games, and a fast dual-core in everything else. However that's plenty for my needs - I built strictly to improve my gaming experience.

Yea, the 6870 and i3 are decent pairing, then again, so is the Phenom II, been several people who have used that and a Sapphire 6870 based on my suggestion, all of them have been happy with em. As far as me, I do all kinds of stuff, when I built the system, Runescape was the game I played the most. But I wanted something I knew could multitask on, as a college student. Sure, the i3 would probably do that too, but theres something to be said for 4 real cores vs 2 real ones and 2 HyperThreads. Although I came in as a casual gamer, my demands have changed, I have another use in mind for my 550 TI, to make room for something more aggressive (looking at 7870 GHZ edition), my CPU on the other hand isn't whats holding me back.

No hostility whatsoever on my end. I'm not a troll by any means, and respect your views on this topic.

I know that that socket will be dead in a year, but i think that the whole ivy/sandy platform will last someone longer than the AMD platform is all

Comes down to performance expectations I spose. As it is now, for gaming, most games are limited by your choice in video card, there are some outliers, but this isn't changing that much as time goes by. Its a question of balance, for example, if you want a 2500K and you have to fit it into a budget, and in order to make room for it you get something like a 6850 video card, when on the other hand you could have spent roughly the same amount and gotten a Phenom II with a CPU cooler and gotten a 7850 video card. The Phenom II will embarrass the 2500K in games configured that way. While certainly theres no question about it the 2500K is the superior CPU, its not always that simple.

And actually believe it or not, not all of the Sandy Bridges actually outperformed Phenom IIs. My (btw, I'm single again so I should change my sig) the i5-23xx series, 2300s specifically, actually has slightly worse performance than my overclocked Phenom II. The 2310s and 20s start to get better, but you really have to go i5-2400 before the SB architecture is clocked high enough to really pull away from AMD's older architecture.

I can see why you say Intel probally won't be dropping prices as well. Why would they right? The only way that would happen is if AMD released something that was faster for the same price or cheaper.

Well, we do have an Intel marketing rep on the forum. He said that after a certain point, the stores are the ones setting the prices on older gen chips. So its Newegg whos refusing to sell them for lower. But, that answer he gave me (and I don't have the thread off hand to link to) doesn't really tell the big picture. Intel I think makes exactly (or close to) enough CPUs to meet the demand, no more, no less. Whats left, the merchants are gonna gouge you on, cus they know if you need to replace a bad CPU, you don't have a choice but to either buy a new mobo or pay up. Dunno, thats just a guess on my end. I'm sure I could come up with more conspiracy theories given time.

 

[blazorthon]

No hostility whatsoever on my end. I'm not a troll by any means, and respect your views on this topic.

I know that that socket will be dead in a year, but i think that the whole ivy/sandy platform will last someone longer than the AMD platform is all. It is quite a bit further ahead perfomance wise than the AMD platform. The PHII may do someone for a year or two still, but where the ivy/sandy are so much further ahead performance wise than the AMD option, it should last someone for 3-4 years before needing another upgrade at least IMO. The PHII tech is around 3-4 years old and the sandy/ivy are alot newer, so that just makes sense to me. My brother got by on his e-8500 for a long time before upgrading to the 2500k, and I think the sandy/ivy chips should be still be very capable chips for a few years to come yet. It really takes alot to bottleneck those suckers when they are OC'ed. You won't be doing it with any current single or dual GPU setup. The AMD chips probally won't bottleneck any single card, but multiple is a different story. Quad SLI/Crossfire may bring it out with sandy/ivy, but most higher end 2 card configurations bring out a cpu bottleneck on 4.0ghz PHII/FX. So future generations of GPU's could bottleneck alot faster on an AMD platform. I know the tech industry changes pretty quick, but I don't think you need to upgrade all the time if you pick the right components and leave some room for upgrades if needed.


I can see why you say Intel probally won't be dropping prices as well. Why would they right? The only way that would happen is if AMD released something that was faster for the same price or cheaper. 😛

I think either option is a good option for this guy. I just wanted him to see things from different perspectives so he could make an informed decision. I think we definitly showed him both sides of the coin. lol. Now he just needs to decide what option will suit him better, and what he may or may not want to do in the future.

FX 8120. Disable one core per module to eliminate resource sharing, thus making each active core about 20-30% faster per Hz. Overclock (half the cores means a heck of a lot more headroom). Overclock the CPU/NB frequency to improve the L3 cache performance too. It will compete with the highly overclocked i5-2500Ks quite well. Next, we have Piledriver, Steamroller, and possible Steamroller's successors on the same AM3+ socket. AMD's future of AM3+ is far better than that of LGA 1155 because it will continue to improve whereas LGA 1155 will not and is already no better than the current top AM3+ solution for gaming if you know how to use the AM3/AM3+ platform well.

Phenom II is a better starting point than the FX-4100 and i3.

 

[dudewitbow]

FX 8120. Disable one core per module to eliminate resource sharing, thus making each active core about 20-30% faster per Hz. Overclock (half the cores means a heck of a lot more headroom). Overclock the CPU/NB frequency to improve the L3 cache performance too. It will compete with the highly overclocked i5-2500Ks quite well. Next, we have Piledriver, Steamroller, and possible Steamroller's successors on the same AM3+ socket. AMD's future of AM3+ is far better than that of LGA 1155 because it will continue to improve whereas LGA 1155 will not and is already no better than the current top AM3+ solution for gaming if you know how to use the AM3/AM3+ platform well.

Phenom II is a better starting point than the FX-4100.

steam roller is most likely not going to be on AM3+. Piledriver is going to end AM3+, 1155 ended with ivy bridge. both companies are going into next generation mobo next year.

 

[blazorthon]

steam roller is most likely not going to be on AM3+. Piledriver is going to end AM3+, 1155 ended with ivy bridge. both companies are going into next generation mobo next year.

AMD has no reason to make a new socket until DDR4 is out. Steamroller was confirmed to use AM3+. There will be more motherboards and a new bunch of chipsets, but Steamroller should work with BIOS updates anyway just like FX works in older boards with a BIOS update and even AM3 CPUs can work in the older AM2+ socket with a BIOS update to the older boards.

Also, even if Piledriver did end AM3+, it would still be as good as or better than LGA 1155 in the best configuration for both platforms.

 

[DJDeCiBeL]

Also, even if Piledriver did end AM3+, it would still be as good as or better than LGA 1155 in the best configuration for both platforms.

I don't know about all that. Better than Bulldozer, absolutely, but as good as the best that LGA 1155 can do? I HIGHLY doubt that.

 

[nekulturny]

I'm expecting PileDriver 8 cores to be more competitive with Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge i5s in most things. I do expect them to still fall behind them slightly in individual core performance, however, I expect this to be negligible considering very fewer programs are still using a single core, at least ones that really do anything intensive. We still have to wait to see what we're getting. Trinity looks promising however.

 

[DJDeCiBeL]

^ I agree that I expect a more competitive product from Piledriver, but I just don't see any way that it can meet (or exceed) the absolute best that LGA 1155 has to offer, like blazorthon said.

Piledriver will just continue the trend of great multi thread performance and lacking single thread performance.

 

[blazorthon]

You're not thinking about what I said. Simply turning off one core per module gives the remaining core a significant boost in performance per Hz (mistakenly referred to as IPC by some people) and overclocking the CPU/NB frequency to the CPU's frequency to get a full-speed cache like Intel has by default lets overclocking the CPU frequency of the FX-8120 and 8150 make them compete with the i5-2500K and the i5-3570K in performance per thread. Piledriver is a substantial boost over Bulldozer and will continue this. Steamroller is bound to make the win over LGA 1155 significant.

If you consider the default quad-core AMD CPUs, then this is a useless tactic for them because it would reduce them to dual-core CPUs and without it, they can't compete with Intel, but this method lets the default eight core FX CPUs compete with the i5s excellently and lets the six-core FXs soar past the i3s.

 

[DJDeCiBeL]

Ok, so overclocking is the answer then. Got it...

Yes, no doubt when Piledriver is OC'd, they'll be close equivalents to an i5 or i7, but if you OC the i5 or i7 to the same clock, that won't really matter.

And Steamroller may very well equal a LGA 1155 CPU, but a significant win? I don't think so.

 

[nekulturny]

I don't really know how well that works, I think I did see a couple benches where they tried it with an FX-8150, but it wasn't quite good enough to match the i5 2500K. But honestly, if I'm paying for an 8 core CPU, disabling it down to 4 cores wouldn't really be acceptable to me.

 

[blazorthon]

Ok, so overclocking is the answer then. Got it...

Yes, no doubt when Piledriver is OC'd, they'll be close equivalents to an i5 or i7, but if you OC the i5 or i7 to the same clock, that won't really matter.

And Steamroller may very well equal a LGA 1155 CPU, but a significant win? I don't think so.

Again, you're not listening. Even if you overclock the i5 to 4.5GHz, a common overclock, it wouldn't win against a 5GHz FX 8120 or 8150 that is overclocked in this manner. 5GHz is an easy target for moderate overclocking with the 8120 or 8150 when used in this way. They could probably break 5.5GHz (on average) easily.

 

[blazorthon]

I don't really know how well that works, I think I did see a couple benches where they tried it with an FX-8150, but it wasn't quite good enough to match the i5 2500K. But honestly, if I'm paying for an 8 core CPU, disabling it down to 4 cores wouldn't really be acceptable to me.

Disabling two full modules is the wrong way to do it. That's what I see most sites trying rather than disabling one core per module and that's why they tend to not work well. Disabling two full modules makes it basically an FX-4100 with a slightly higher Turbo frequency and better binning rather than having both of those advantages in addition to the significant performance per Hz boost.

Also, your last complaint doesn't make much sense. Many people disable Hyper-Threading on i7s because it isn't beneficial to gaming. Disabling one core per module of an FX CPU is a similar concept, but is more effective.

 

[DJDeCiBeL]

Again, you're not listening. Even if you overclock the i5 to 4.5GHz, it wouldn't win against a 5GHz FX 8120 or 8150 that is overclocked in this manner.

I don't know of any benches to back that up anyway, so I don't know if you're right or not (I tend to think not, until I see proof), but still, my main point is that you shouldn't even NEED to OC a 81xx to 5Ghz (which isn't exactly super easy, as you allude to) to beat a 4.5Ghz i5 (which IS incredibly easy, for a 2500K, anyway).

And disabling cores to reach 5Ghz doesn't count, in my book. You shouldn't need to do that either.

 

[blazorthon]

I don't know of any benches to back that up anyway, so I don't know if you're right or not (I tend to think not, until I see proof), but still, my main point is that you shouldn't even NEED to OC a 81xx to 5Ghz (which isn't exactly super easy, as you allude to) to beat a 4.5Ghz i5 (which IS incredibly easy, for a 2500K, anyway).

And disabling cores to reach 5Ghz doesn't count, in my book. You shouldn't need to do that either.

Sorry, I'll go through my links to get a bench of this phenomenon.

I agree, it shouldn't need to have its cores disabled for this, but I don't see why it shouldn't count. It works and in that sense, I think that it should count. Also, it is easy to break 5GHz with this *mod*. With the FX-8120, it's a 125w TDP CPU. Yes, I know that this isn't true power consumption, but it's a good number to work with. You're disabling half of the cores, generally the most energy sucking parts of a CPU. That's going to lower power consumption by about 30-40%. Hitting 4.5GHz or thereabouts is fairly easy with the 8120 even in its default core configuration. Cutting power consumption like this increases thermal headroom greatly and FX is an architecture that is excellent at hitting huge frequencies. 5GHz shouldn't be a difficult target at all with that in consideration.

 

[blazorthon]

http://techreport.com/articles.x/21865

Remember, this wasn't disabling the cores, simply telling the benchmark program to not use them, so there was still some resource sharing going on with the background tasks using the second cores of each module somewhat. Despite this and the fact that the default core configuration test had a higher frequency, the performance per thread was easily 10-20% higher. Performance per Hz peaked at over 25% better and with the secondary cores disabled rather than ignored by the bench-marking program, it would undoubtedly be a little higher. Disabling the cores would, again, drop power consumption substantially while increasing performance per core significantly. Power efficiency would sky rocket.

 

[DJDeCiBeL]

I agree, it shouldn't need to have its cores disabled for this, but I don't see why it shouldn't count.

Because it defeats the purpose of having an "8 core" CPU in the first place...

Does it work, as you say? Sure, but you're neutering a chip that shouldn't have to be neutered.

 

[blazorthon]

Because it defeats the purpose of having an "8 core" CPU in the first place...

Does it work, as you say? Sure, but you're neutering a chip that shouldn't have to be neutered.

I don't consider it neutering the CPU as much as reorganizing its threading target from highly threaded to lightly threaded performance.

 

[blazorthon]

Yes, better thread scheduling... Nothing ground breaking there. Also, nothing that really matters all THAT much. Just a band-aid on a bad situation.

Hence my argument in disabling one core per module rather than relying on better thread-scheduling that is more like a band-aid rather than a cure.

 

[DJDeCiBeL]

http://techreport.com/articles.x/21865

Remember, this wasn't disabling the cores, simply telling the benchmark program to not use them, so there was still some resource sharing going on with the background tasks using the second cores of each module somewhat. Despite this and the fact that the default core configuration test had a higher frequency, the performance per thread was easily 10-20% higher. Performance per Hz peaked at over 25% better and with the secondary cores disabled rather than ignored by the bench-marking program, it would undoubtedly be a little higher. Disabling the cores would, again, drop power consumption substantially while increasing performance per core significantly. Power efficiency would sky rocket.

Yes, better thread scheduling... Nothing ground breaking there. Also, nothing that really matters all THAT much. Just a band-aid on a bad situation.

 

[DJDeCiBeL]

Hence my argument in disabling one core per module rather than relying on better thread-scheduling that is more like a band-aid rather than a cure.

I get it, I just don't necessarily like the idea of it.

 

[Smeg45]

It should be added that a 965 now will last at the very minimum for another year. In another year Haswell will be out for Intel (and yes, a new mobo and chipset will be required) and Piledriver's successor will probably also be out. I've had my 965 for 3yrs, now going on 4. I've virtually upgraded everything except the CPU, mobo (still 790GX) and RAM. Its getting old yes, but it does the job very well and has four full fat cores.

 

[blazorthon]

It should be added that a 965 now will last at the very minimum for another year. In another year Haswell will be out for Intel (and yes, a new mobo and chipset will be required) and Piledriver's successor will probably also be out. I've had my 965 for 3yrs, now going on 4. I've virtually upgraded everything except the CPU, mobo (still 790GX) and RAM. Its getting old yes, but it does the job very well and has four full fat cores.

Piledrivers successor, IE Steamroller? Let's not get hasty here, we don't even have desktop Piledriver CPUs yet. Steamroller might be out in late 2013, but it might not hit the market until early 2014 instead.

 

[blueyfooey]

I am so confused, haha. So many questions are running through my mind, such as what Piledriver, Steamroller, and Bulldozer are, and how would they affect me. If I'm getting a GTX 480 along with overclocking the 965, what sort of PSU should I get? Sorry, this might be wandering a little off-topic.

 

[nekulturny]

lol, they won't really affect you at all. Bulldozer is AMD's newer generation processor, those would be like the FX-4100/6100/8120/8150 etc. Even though they're newer than Phenom IIs, in some things they actually perform worse than Phenom IIs. The Bulldozers use a different design than the Phenom IIs which are based on the" K10 design.

PileDriver is a new and improved Bulldozer (its the next generation) set to release in a few months, SteamRoller is scheduled to be an even further improvement but thats not slated til late 2013. Thats really too far off in the future to worry about. A year is like an eternity for computers.

For a GTX 480, I would get a good 600 watt PSU like the Corsair CX600v2.
$41.99 with mail in rebate
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139028&Tpk=cx600v2

May I ask why a GTX 480, and how much you're paying for it? You might consider a 7870GHZ edition. Its performance should match the GTX 480 fairly well, and use a ton less power and not cost a great deal more.

 

[nekulturny]

Sapphire 7870 GHZ edition. I'm looking at one of these babies for myself here soon
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102983
$244 with mail in rebate. Practically a steal, AMD lowered the price on it because Nvidia released the GTX 660 TI.