I3 2100 vs 960T vs FX4100

[Lycan_89]

Hy there guys,


I'm going to build myself a new rig so I'll need your help with choosing from these 3 budget CPUs: i3 2100 or 960T or FX4100 😱 . My choice is limited to these 3 CPUs.


The target is a Diablo 3/DoTa 2/Darksiders 2/Warcraft 3 and some other old games mainstream gaming rig/internet browsing PC.

I don't really know how to OC but I will learn quickly if I feel the need to get some more juice out of those AMD CPUs. I know that the i3 CPU will not be able to get OCed.

I want my build to last for at least 5 years. I'm going to play ONLY the games mentioned above about 5-6 hrs a week (not really a gamer)

The display will be a BENQ 22" FullHD LED monitor.




The store is www.emag.ro and my build so far looks like this:

http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/4433/123tov.jpg



PS: now I work and play on an ASUS notebok:

Intel Core i5 2430M 2.40GHz, 4GB DDR3 1333 MHz, WD 750GB SATA2 HDD, nVidia GeForce GT 520MX 1GB

 

[rds1220]

If you don't like it don't post mis-information. If you don't know what you're talking about and post mis-information prepare to be corrected.

 

[Gamer Dude]

If you don't like it don't post mis-information. If you don't know what you're talking about and post mis-information prepare to be corrected.

I understand the facts and they are the 960T OCed is one full performance tier above the i3 2100 which means you are wrong. But yes there are a few games where Intel's architecture does better like StarCraft2 but a few frames is really how do you say it spiting hairs or being fickle.So overall for gaming and production the 960T is the best CPU and yes 4100fx is the last CPU I would pick cause the performance is only on par with i3 2100 but 960T is better than i3 2100 in more ares and applications. PS I remit my previous statement when I say you are moron my apologizes please thank you ;-)

 

[Vettedude]

I understand the facts and they are the 960T OCed is one full performance tier above the i3 2100 which means you are wrong. But yes there are a few games where Intel's architecture does better like StarCraft2 but a few frames is really how do you say it spiting hairs or being fickle.So overall for gaming and production the 960T is the best CPU and yes 4100fx is the last CPU I would pick cause the performance is only on par with i3 2100 but 960T is better than i3 2100 in more ares and applications. PS I remit my previous statement when I say you are moron my apologizes please thank you ;-)

HELLO http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-gaming-cpu-core-i5-2500k-amd-e350,2843-6.html

Dual Core is not being "phased out" The 2100 is higher up than my Core 2 Quad. I'm afraid that the "More core myth" will become like the "megahertz myth" where "more is always better, amiright?" The i3 isn't no Pentium D, its an ultra efficient dual core.

 

[Gamer Dude]

HELLO http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-gaming-cpu-core-i5-2500k-amd-e350,2843-6.html

The chart you posted is 1 year outta date here is the current Jan 2012 most up to date one http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html and the 960T OCed @ between 3.6 to 3.7ghz would put it on par with Phenom II x4 980/975 and just under 8150FX which is one full tier above core i3 2100.

 

[Vettedude]

Damn it I posted the 2011 one lmao. 2012 one tells the same story though. The FX8150 is the same tier. You are looking at the ULP i3. LMAO a quad core needs to be OCed just to meet a ULP i3.

 

[Gamer Dude]

Damn it I posted the 2011 one lmao. 2012 one tells the same story though.

well the 2012 in this context just adds the 8150FX to the mix as the top end AMD part but the 960T when OCed will be right under it.

 

[esrever]

I actually don't care enough about the argument but theres no reason to get an i3 over a pentium g in my opinion and if you want more multithreading performance, the 960t is the obvious choice over the i3.

 

[Gamer Dude]

I actually don't care enough about the argument but theres no reason to get an i3 over a pentium g in my opinion and if you want more multithreading performance, the 960t is the obvious choice over the i3.

It's no argument here just some people not letting the unequivocal cold hard facts settle in to there brains HDD as a true foundation of reality.

 

[con310]

the i3 2100 is much better than a 960T there is just nothing that can be said to change that. for gaming and anything else.

 

[Gamer Dude]

Total # of mindless AMD trolls in this thread now up to 2.

Even if Intel made a half core CPU you would still think it is better than any AMD cpu but in reality AMD make some pretty dam good CPUs.

 

[esrever]

either CPU should be good. Im just saying that based on my experience with D3 and dota 2 beta that they both use 4 cores which generally mean 4 real cores are going to out perform the hyperthreaded ones.

 

[Gamer Dude]

the cold hard fact is; you have been asked to post any benchmark proving your opinion several times. you failed to do so every time and simply post incoherent nonsense like the console topic you posted above that sounded more like the rambling of an idiot then anyone trying to prove a point. you posted your point about the 960T, you have been proved wrong every time with numerous benchmarks. you failed to post any counterpoint benchmarks. end of conversation, your opinion was wrong and proved so with facts.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html I dont know how much more clear it could be OCed 960T is the CPU to get for OPs application.

 

[Gamer Dude]

OK I am dont bickering over a CPU lol Good luck to the OP and any of these three mentioned CPUs will fit the bill just fine.

 

[computernewb]

Just a thought: I know the fx series gets poor benchmark scores, but if you see the reviews of people who actually bought the cpus, it gets pretty good feedback. Look at the reviews on newegg, youtube, and other forums of people who actually bought the bulldozer and are playing games. Most of them are happy and have positive reviews (from what ive seen). I dont think most people can detect a 5 FPS or so drop off with their naked eye. 😀

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

Just a thought: I know the fx series gets poor benchmark scores, but if you see the reviews of people who actually bought the cpus, it gets pretty good feedback. Look at the reviews on newegg, youtube, and other forums of people who actually bought the bulldozer and are playing games. Most of them are happy and have positive reviews (from what ive seen). I dont think most people can detect a 5 FPS or so drop off with their naked eye. 😀

"Most people" are stupid. Not only Bulldozer loses to Sandy Bridge in gaming, but it also costs more and takes way more power.

 

[truegenius]

stock 960t is around 940/945, you can easily overclock it to 970/980 (even with stock cooler), 980 is equal to i5-23xx in multithreading.
And thus 960t is simply better than i3 in multithreading

unlocked 960t will equal to 1075t and is equals to upto i5-24xx in multithreading.

Also good overclocking boards for amd are cheaper than that of intel (like p67/z68)

if you want performance in every tasks and mainly in multithreaded then 960t is the way to go , if you want performance in (mainly) lightly threaded tasks then i3 or even a pentium g860 is a good choice.

You can use anandtech bench to compare their multithreaded performance

 

[sarinaide]

The chart you posted is 1 year outta date here is the current Jan 2012 most up to date one http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html and the 960T OCed @ between 3.6 to 3.7ghz would put it on par with Phenom II x4 980/975 and just under 8150FX which is one full tier above core i3 2100.

[/img]

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,review-32368.html

That article shows emphatically enough that Intels low end can game better or on a par with AMDs best.

 

[jessterman21]

Intel's low-end can game on a par with AMD's best.

Truth.

And again, it really makes no sense to go with AM3+, unless you like upgrading your motherboard every 2 years... Get LGA 1155 and give yourself plenty of drop-in upgrade options. Seriously, up to an Ivy Bridge i7 if you want.

A Pentium G850 is best bang for your buck right now. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116397

 

[Lycan_89]

Damn!

This really is a hard choice I see.

First of all thanks to all of you for the replys.

I guess the i3 2100 will suffice for now ( http://www.emag.ro/procesoare/procesor-intel-174-coretm-i3-2100-310ghz-socket-1155-box--pINBX80623I32100 )

But how about a mobo for it ? That will be good for OC in the future...

In 2-3 years I'll be getting a 2500K or 2600k.

Can you pick one from these:

http://www.emag.ro/placi_baza/stoc/filter/cpu-socket-v130,1155-i279/pret,intre-300-si-450/sort-priceasc/last/f2

Now i3 2100...but in 2-3 years a good old 2500k or 2600k maybe

Thanks again guys!



Is this one good ? http://www.emag.ro/placi_baza/placa-de-baza-gigabyte-z68p-ds3-socket-1155--pZ68P-DS3

It features a Z68 chipset but has no cooling on the VRMs.

 

[jessterman21]

Is this one good ? http://www.emag.ro/placi_baza/placa-de-baza-gigabyte-z68p-ds3-socket-1155--pZ68P-DS3

It features a Z68 chipset but has no cooling on the VRMs.

Looks good - to overclock, you'll need a P67 or Z68 motherboard.

 

[Lycan_89]

BigMack70 that ASROCK looks very good but in my country it's about 181 $. I might consider it.

 

[sarinaide]

I would look at the MSI Z68A GD65 (G3), not only because I am a MSI fan and I have the board it is also a pretty handy board with PCI-express 3.0 support along with all the bells and whistles of a Z68 chipset.

 

[Gamer Dude]

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,review-32368.html

That article shows emphatically enough that Intels low end can game better or on a par with AMDs best.

;-)

 

[Gamer Dude]

have fun while being banned AMD fan boy. while being banned, try to ponder the fact that this has little to do with AMD/Intel but rather upgrade paths and performance for your dollar. every post as proven the i3 is better then the phenom II x4 in gaming, even your hierarchy chart proved you wrong.

Just cause nobody here has the gumption to stand up outta the crowed and speak the truth. That's all I have herd when it was proven that sometimes AMD is a better choice then Intel a fanboy always counters well AMD has no upgrade path well nether does Intel if you get an i7 2600k so if you get what you need today there is no point in pondering about what and how to upgrade tomorrow you cross that bridge when it comes.

 

[sarinaide]

I never knew OC'ing makes a chip better than another but lets just think about this, stock the FX 4100 and i3 2100 are similar architectures, 2cores/4threads at stock the i3 2100 pretty much runs away with 90+% of the benchmarks. It is upgradable to any Sandybridge and to be ivy bridge processors which are significant upgrades. Sure the FX 4100 has a upgrade path to Piledriver but that is putting a lot of faith into AMD delivering a top chip which in itself is a gamble.


Simple fact here value for money the i3 is far better. As for the question of overclocking, that doesn't make your chip better than it actually is, in fact the only thing OC'ing does is voids manufacturer warranties on certain components. Give me a stock chip that performs like a beast for its purpose, ie: gaming machine, I will take the 2100 or 2300/2400 over any FX, or Phenom II(bar maybe the 1100T).