Bf3 cpu comparison

[divJ]

which will run the mighty bf3 better ?
1. AMD 2.9 GHz FM1 uPGA A8
3850 Processor
with
Biostar A55ML+
Motherboard
4gb RAM
radeon 6770 1gb
Corsair CMPSU-430CXV2UK 430 Watts PSU


OR

2. Intel 3.1 GHz LGA 1155 Core i3-2100
Processor
Biostar H61MLC Motherboard
4GB RAM
RADEON 6770 1GB
Corsair CMPSU-430CXV2UK 430 Watts
PSU


which one can run bf3 at high ?

 

[jemm]

I think both rigs could run BF3 at medium settings, depending on your monitor resolution.

 

[kelthic]

http://www.techspot.com/review/458-battlefield-3-performance/page7.html the AMD chip did slightly better than an i3 2120 for minimum FPS

 

[welshmousepk]

the intel build is miles ahead.

You still won't get the highest settings, but the A8 apu is a low end htpc oriented chip. Its great, but not for a gaming build.

 

[GI_JONES]

The graphics card will keep them both from being playable at high/ultra settings

 

[loneninja]

6770 isn't going to run high settings unless your at a low resolution.

 

[Raiddinn]

See the link kelthic posted. BF3 is almost only dependent on the video card power to drive FPS.

The i3 + 6770 has only 1x 6770 worth of performance, the A8 + 6770 has ~2x 6770s worth of performance.

Neither setup will come close to maxing out BF3, but the A8 + 6770 should beat the i3 + 6770.

 

[computernewb]

That link shows a 2 FPS difference. You are not going to notice the difference between 62 FPS and 64 FPS. This is more of a reason to get the i3-2100. The i3-2100 outperforms the a8-3850 in almost everything.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/289?vs=399

toms hardware also has the i3-2100 3 tiers higher than the a8-3850 for gaming
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html

1 HD 6770 can run Battlefield 3 on high settings. i have a diamond 6770 at stock speed with a acer 23' monitor
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814103197
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009266

and i play bf3 multiplayer on high settings at 1080p resolution and i average about 30-35 fps. SOMETIMES dips below 30 in intense situations and sometimes hits over 45. (i tested using fraps) this is more than playable unless youre one of those people who cant play anything under 60 fps

People buy APUs if they are on really tight budget and cannot/do not want to buy a discrete graphics card. You have the money to buy an i3-2100 + a decent graphics card. There is no reason to get the APU. Arent you going to be playing other games as well as running other programs on your computer? youre going to buy the A8-3850 to get an unnoticeable increase in FPS in BF3 at the expense of loss in performance everywhere else?

 

[welshmousepk]

See the link kelthic posted. BF3 is almost only dependent on the video card power to drive FPS.

The i3 + 6770 has only 1x 6770 worth of performance, the A8 + 6770 has ~2x 6770s worth of performance.

Neither setup will come close to maxing out BF3, but the A8 + 6770 should beat the i3 + 6770.

this is just wrong. I'm assuming you are referencing the ability to hybrid crossfire the integrated GPU with a dedicated card, but its not possible with a 6770. even when it is, it adds very little performance. Less than you get from simply overclocking the integrated GPU.

Again, I love the a8 APUs. But not in this situation.

 

[palladin9479]

Whatever you do, do not buy an i3 for BF3. You will be greatly disappointed.

What everyone in this thread forgot to think about is that BF3 ~needs~ four cores for multiplayer. On single player campaign setting the game never use's more then two cores and it seems to be GPU limited. On multiplayer maps this changes as the game needs the additional cores.

So unless you intend to ONLY play single player campaign settings, or brag about timed demo benchmarks and never want to play competitive multiplayers, then take the A8 over the i3, or if budget permits get an i5.

 

[Pinhedd]

go with the Intel build, also buy sunglasses

 

[welshmousepk]

Whatever you do, do not buy an i3 for BF3. You will be greatly disappointed.

What everyone in this thread forgot to think about is that BF3 ~needs~ four cores for multiplayer. On single player campaign setting the game never use's more then two cores and it seems to be GPU limited. On multiplayer maps this changes as the game needs the additional cores.

So unless you intend to ONLY play single player campaign settings, or brag about timed demo benchmarks and never want to play competitive multiplayers, then take the A8 over the i3, or if budget permits get an i5.

again, this is not true. BF3 is surprisingly CPU independent. it has been benched to show a more powerful dual core is significantly better than a weaker quad. and an A8 is a VERY weak quad. the i3 2100 outperforms the A8 in virtually every CPU related task. the only time where the A8 is a better buy is in a situation where you have to be using integrated graphics.
with a dedicated gpu, the i3 wins hands down.

 

[wr6133]

For the money for that APU and Mobo you could get a Phenom II and Am3/am3+ board, which will perform better than the Llano

 

[palladin9479]

again, this is not true. BF3 is surprisingly CPU independent. it has been benched to show a more powerful dual core is significantly better than a weaker quad. and an A8 is a VERY weak quad. the i3 2100 outperforms the A8 in virtually every CPU related task. the only time where the A8 is a better buy is in a situation where you have to be using integrated graphics.
with a dedicated gpu, the i3 wins hands down.

Nope, already been done.

In a timed loop demo the i3 beats the A8. In multiplayer the i3 will start to become skippy after 16 players and be unplayable at 40+. BF3 maps can get as much as 64 players and their working on 128 player maps eventually.

BF3 is rather unique in that it's single and multiplayer performance characteristics differ greatly. I can't stress this enough, you need four cores to play BF3 in big multiplayer maps. The entire point of that game is to participate in large scale team on team combat, vehicles, destructible environment and many independent players running around puts an extreme burden the CPU to track it all and it needs to run in parallel. The better idea would be an i5.

I'll say it again, under no circumstance should you attempt BF3 with a dual core CPU. You'll be disappointed and pissed off from getting killed during multiplayer play in a game that is focused on multiplayer.

 

[computernewb]

isnt the i3-2100 a pseudo quad core with 2 phsyical + 2 logical cores?

this guy claims that his i3-2100 + 6850 get an average of 47 fps on high settings playing at 1680x1050 with 64 players. he shows that his CPU is at 65-75% usage while his gpu is at 100%
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2203170&page=2

also this guy seems to play bf3 multiplayer well with his i3-2100 granted he is using a 560ti
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fx7Wnm81BRY

 

[palladin9479]

Direct comparison between these two CPUs here

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/A8-3850-vs-Core-i3-2100-CPU-Review/1325/19

A8-3850 is better for gaming (most of the time) then the i3-2100, even when adding a dGPU. And since BF3 is extremely sensitive to multiple cores the difference will be even more noticeable.

 

[palladin9479]

isnt the i3-2100 a pseudo quad core with 2 phsyical + 2 logical cores?

this guy claims that his i3-2100 + 6850 get an average of 47 fps on high settings playing at 1680x1050 with 64 players. he shows that his CPU is at 65-75% usage while his gpu is at 100%
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2203170&page=2

also this guy seems to play bf3 multiplayer well with his i3-2100 granted he is using a 560ti
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fx7Wnm81BRY

Anandtech post was a single player looped benchmark, aka what most websites use. I've seen the i3-2100 on multiplayer, it chokes once the player count starts to rise. Which is the point I've been trying to make, BF3 is incredibly sensitive to multiple cores during online play. HT won't cut it. Get a four core CPU, nothing else.

Personally I don't really recommend the A8 if your getting a good dGPU. I really wish Intel had a low end four core CPU, it would be the perfect choice for this. Otherwise possible go with a Phenom II X4 965? (budget build).

If I was making the choice I'd find a way to use an i5, would be much better then all the previous choices.

 

[kitsunestarwind]

If you intend on playing BF3 in large multiplayer maps, you want a Quad core at a min, this is one of the few games that will happily use a 6core cpu for 64player maps

Take a note too BF3 will not use Hyper-threading at all, so HT is useless for BF3

 

[Stupido]

I fully agree with palladin9479!

Before multiplayer action, I finished BF3 single player and I noticed that my CPU (my specs are in the sig) was never above 60-70%...
But as soon as I got my self on multiplayer, my CPU went 95-100% constantly!

 

[divJ]

i dont care about the 1000rs

forget bf3... i will also play other games like shogun 2 fifa 12 mw3 gta4 the upcoming resident evil nfs the run la noire and many more..

 

[divJ]

and i may not play multiplayer bf3 cuz my internet speed is slow...

 

[wr6133]

I still say a quad or hex core phenom II is a better answer to the Llano APU or the i3

and would cost less than the top end Llano shown + mobo

 

[divJ]

and guys u all are intelligent people.. so y r ur opinions different ? u all know computers and its not like they manufacture different a8s and i3s.. they all r the same so y different opinions ?
DONT TALK ABOUT UR PERSONAL PREFERENCES
GET DOWN TO FACTS
SIMPLE !

 

[wr6133]

OK FACTS ARE

Llano is not meant for gaming and the socket is soon replaced so BAD CHOICE

i3 will suffer in BF3 as mutiplayer really does rag all available cores

Phenom II 960T or 965BE will cost LESS than the Llano and PERFORM ALOT BETTER in games.

 

[divJ]

what is Llano ?