Fx 4170 or i3 2120

[zayzo]

Hello, i am wondering on whether i should gte the fx 4170 or the i3 2120... i plan on mostly gaming and on a 600$ budget and these are about in the same price range.

 

[Smeg45]

I'd take the 4170 over the i3 anyday. Games will come out that are well threaded and will take advantage of Bulldozer and there is little point in getting an i3 then upgrading to an i5.

 

[nekulturny]

Lets be fair though, Dirt 3 shows a min of 51FPS on the FX-4100 and a max of 68. While obviously not as good as the other offerings, it is perfectly sufficient for a stutter free gaming experience. Metro 2033 is a cluster-f... no matter what you play it on, and well, Skyrim. Theres no excuse to make for it, FX gets its butt handed to it. But I consider that Tom's bench useless for Skyrim. If you've actually played the game, its more inconsistent than that, the benches should look more like Metro 2033s, especially if you start plugging in mods.

Yea, I'm bored with this thread, I'm gonna switch up and say something good about Bulldozer. Deal with it. :lol:

 

[nekulturny]

whatever..

It is and you know it.

 

[nekulturny]

Someones getting a bit touchy aren't we?

 

[nekulturny]

I ain't never sent you a PM in my life, but this thread is boring, it needs more fun.

 

[nekulturny]

Don't make me link the Charlie Sheen video again.

 

[Smeg45]

I really couldn't care less about benchmarks. I'd still take Bulldozer over the i3 any day.

 

[nekulturny]

I like how when talking about a gaming build people are using Pov ray to prove their point....

Yea, I know. Especially, because this is what he should have done:

Diablo III, brand new game, completely doesn't care if you're using an FX-4170 or an i7 extreme
http://www.techspot.com/review/532-diablo-3-performance/page5.html

Max Payne 3. Also doesn't care.
http://www.techspot.com/review/537-max-payne-3-performance/page7.html

Mass Effect 3. FX-4170 does just fine here.
http://www.techspot.com/review/507-mass-effect-3-performance-test/page5.html

So if Tom's Hardware in their "Picking a sub 200 gaming CPU" benched 6 games, 5 of which show FX-4xxx being outperformed, 1 shows identical performance across the board. Then it comes to an "average gaming performance", what are the new stats tossing these 3 benches into the mix?

 

[4745454b]

For me its a problem that it fails any games. If they are both $110-$120, and one CPU performs well in all games while another stumbles here and there, why should I save $10 and worry about it performing less occasionally? Better I spend the $10 now and know I'll get the best performance I can get in all games then 90% of them.

 

[nekulturny]

For me its a problem that it fails any games. If they are both $110-$120, and one CPU performs well in all games while another stumbles here and there, why should I save $10 and worry about it performing less occasionally? Better I spend the $10 now and know I'll get the best performance I can get in all games then 90% of them.

Lol, my philosophy hasn't changed, I absolutely agree with you as I did when I came into this thread, I actually posted that just to screw with Mal.

 

[Guest]

Though we said that a million times but i'm gonna say it again. The i3 is only faster in games which don't need more than 2 cores...

wrong.

go back and re-read a few of the posts here.

btw, who is this we you speak of?

 

[Guest]

For me its a problem that it fails any games. If they are both $110-$120, and one CPU performs well in all games while another stumbles here and there, why should I save $10 and worry about it performing less occasionally? Better I spend the $10 now and know I'll get the best performance I can get in all games then 90% of them.

ding ding ding!

even though i believe you are very generous with that 90%. when i pay money that i earned by sweating my phat 455 off working, i do not want to be limited with the performance of what i am paying for. i would rather have reliable consistency than a hope that the performance will be "good enough".

 

[nekulturny]

ding ding ding!

even though i believe you are very generous with that 90%. when i pay money that i earned by sweating my phat 455 off working, i do not want to be limited with the performance of what i am paying for. i would rather have reliable consistency than a hope that the performance will be "good enough".

I understand where you're coming from. I should hope you know me well enough that it should go without saying. And, for the upteenth time, I agree with you both on the FX CPUs.

Although, no I really don't think 90% is generous at all, maybe conservative if those 6 games were the most CPU intensive games Tom's could manage to find for their testing. I was joking with Mal about Dirt 3, but apparently he decided to take issue with it anyway. But I'll go ahead and say it at this point about the Dirt 3 bench, if on a 60hz monitor, you find an 51FPS minimum to be inadequate, you're a moron. Especially when you tout the education and certifications that should qualify one to know better. *gauntlet has been thrown down*

BTW, Civilization V is pretty CPU intensive, FX-4100s get their ass totally kicked in that game, I wonder why Tom's didn't bench that? 😱

 

[4745454b]

For the record I stood up and picked 90% out of my @$$. A game or two maybe, but I'd rather have the assurance that Intel seems to provide.

I also don't demand total perfection. If the CPU can get above 60FPS at my res most of the time then good enough. But again, if $10 more will get me 90FPS instead of 70FPS, then I would think you'd want the "faster" chip. Yes I'll never see those frames, but the faster CPU has a better chance of staying above 60FPS with newer games.

Finally, I also acknowledge that sometimes things can't be helped. If that $10 is somehow going to break the bank then get the best that you can afford. We do have to live within our means. But at the same time don't kid yourself (or con/annoy me) by saying you have a monster rig or yours is better then mine. I had a co worker once to tried telling my his 8600GT was better then my x1800xt because his was made by Nvidia. The Nvidia equivalent was the 7900GT. I got him to admit that after buying his stuff it was all he could afford, but just admit that. Don't be @$$ by trying to claim that you have more then you do.

 

[sarinaide]

It can go back and forth and we can bring up the same old arguements and benches but in the end neither are good serious gaming options;

AMD: The bulldozer chips are nearing eol with Piledriver, the speculated performance improvements do not justify buying a FX-Bulldozer now unless it is a cheap make way until Piledriver. IPC and other kak aside the FX chips do actually game and do other things and bits comfortably.

INTEL: i3 is not a long term solution, with games currently being predominantly ports there is no stress on even weaker systems, but many developers have new game engines coming next year which suggest intensive CPU and GPU work loads, this will null out a dual core when its cores are fully saturated the performance over any quad will diminish when the loads are more intensive, it is fine as a make way but honestly you should be looking at a i5 or i7 now.

 

[nekulturny]

For the record I stood up and picked 90% out of my @$$. A game or two maybe, but I'd rather have the assurance that Intel seems to provide.

I also don't demand total perfection. If the CPU can get above 60FPS at my res most of the time then good enough. But again, if $10 more will get me 90FPS instead of 70FPS, then I would think you'd want the "faster" chip. Yes I'll never see those frames, but the faster CPU has a better chance of staying above 60FPS with newer games.

Finally, I also acknowledge that sometimes things can't be helped. If that $10 is somehow going to break the bank then get the best that you can afford. We do have to live within our means. But at the same time don't kid yourself (or con/annoy me) by saying you have a monster rig or yours is better then mine. I had a co worker once to tried telling my his 8600GT was better then my x1800xt because his was made by Nvidia. The Nvidia equivalent was the 7900GT. I got him to admit that after buying his stuff it was all he could afford, but just admit that. Don't be @$$ by trying to claim that you have more then you do.

I figured you did, but I'd say based on benches I've seen from several tech sites, that its not that far off the mark, as I see it.

I know people get testy at times defending their favorite products, hell, I admit I've done it myself. Makes you wonder why people don't get so defensive of other things we buy? I say Coke>Pepsi all day long. But we never see those kinds of heated arguments flair up lol

I'll say this though about the FX-4100, and all joking aside. Take systems like mine and Loon's we're both running 550 TI video cards, pretty much entry level, they're not bad little video cards, but I wouldn't call them great either (I have plans to do something about that this fall or winter btw).

I can't really back this up with benches, because to my knowledge nobody has ever done it. I'm basing it on my technical knowledge, which I admit as a student is still limited. But my thought is, if one is on a budget, I doubt there is any game (even the CPU intensive games) that you would be able to tell a noticeable difference between any of the CPUs, i3, Phenom II or FX-41xx if you're playing on an entry level card such as a 550 TI, or 7770, something along those lines. Even as weak as the FX-4100s are, entry level gaming cards would most likely be the limiting factor.

Now take the Tom's article for example, they're running a 7970 in the test setup, which makes sense, the idea is to see where the games crumble. But they also have a possibly unintentional side-effect of not "showing the big picture". Since they're running those games at settings and resolution that probably would not be comfortably played with a lower end video card, no matter what CPU you're using. Now, I'd be of the opinion, you'd be a fool to pair even an i3-2120 (as good as it may be at its price point) with a video card like a 7970. It just wouldn't be balanced system. As such with the FX-41xx, if I were considering one (which I'm not), if you're on a tight budget, I really don't see that one would be necessarily shooting themselves in the foot. A low end CPU with a low end video card would work just fine.


Now just because I feel the need (or desire) I'll reiterate here, I personally am at best a casual gamer. I multitask more than anything, or just putz around on the internet. When I do get into gaming, my Phenom II hasn't disappointed me yet. My 550 TI maybe a little bit, but that problem is on the "to-do" list. The i3 is a hell of a chip for a dual core, but the Phenom II despite its slightly weaker cores is still a better multi-threaded chip than the i3. Whether I actually needed or need the power or not, like you, I wanted the assurance that the true 4 cores offers. The game benches, the FPS differences on that side of things, indicate to me that I could put you in front of 2 computers, one with a Phenom II, the other with an i3 both with a higher end video card of the same type, and you'd never honestly be able to tell me which is which. Now an i5 (not the crappy 2300 like I have, that "game" has sorta already been played lol) but a decent i5, yes, certain games the difference might be noticeable.