wr6133 :
http://www.sweclockers.com/artikel/14650-prestandaanalys-battlefield-3/5
Read that multiplayer doesnt like a quad? Check your facts before you sound stupid
And if you cant keep your Deneb stable at or near 4GHZ your incompetent. If your overvolting it to the point of danger also your incompetent.
At least 1155 offers better gaming upgrade path.
Sure right now it does if he plans to replace the i3 in under 12 months, I doubt he plans to do that not many people buy a CPU for such a short term. After 12 months your going to see haswell and a different socket so this arguement is mute or rather 1155 is a DEAD socket after IB. AM3+ will go to Piledriver and possibly beyond so the socket has a longer life.
The OP asked WHICH CPU is better for gaming.... heck even an Intel Fanbaby (accidentally) linked a set of charts showing of the 2 the Phenom has more potentiol.
I'm a fanboy for showing emperical evidence that Intel is so far ahead that their 3.1Ghz $120 65w dual core chip trades blows with AMD's $120 140w quad after it has been overclocked to 4Ghz ?......Oh yeah don't forget to add at least a $30 Hyper 212+ to that AMD chip making it a $150 investment. Let's not even mention you almost can't even find Phenom IIs anymore. That makes me a fanboy? Or that makes you an idiot? I'm pretty sure it's the latter since when AMD made a superior product ( you might remember 2004-2006 ? ) I had an AMD system.
Did you happen to actually read that article? I doubt it so here are the important parts.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-10.html
" If the above chart presents any surprises, they'd be the dual-core Pentium G630 and G860, which perform incredibly well, matching up to AMD's former Phenom II X4 955 flagship. At $80 and $100 respectively, both Sandy Bridge-based Pentiums boldly snatch the budget gaming CPU recommendation from the Athlon II CPUs we’re used to seeing dominate this segment. Granted, AMD's lowest-priced models are starting to go extinct as the company's APUs gain prominence anyway. "
" With the sub-$100 Pentiums performing so well, Intel's $125 Core i3-2100 easily beats more expensive Phenom II and FX models. And the $190 Core i5-2400 dominates the sub-$200 landscape without challenge, really. As such, we're almost-shockingly left without an AMD CPU to recommend at any price point.
While it’s true that AMD’s multiplier-unlocked models appeal to tweak-happy power users, the company's overclocked game performance manages to either hang close to or fall just behind Intel's stock Core i3-2100. Pumping up voltage, multipliers, and, consequently, power usage seems like a futile exercise just to keep pace with an efficient $125 budget-oriented chip running at its default settings. "
" AMD’s Phenom II X4 955 and FX-4100 could certainly appeal to buyers who insist on the ability to handle four threads at a time. At their $125 and $110 respective price points, however, they’re too close to the Hyper-Threaded Core i3-2100 to earn a distinguished recommendation. In our last sub-$200 gaming CPU round-up, we showed that the Core i3-2100 can match AMD's Phenom II X4 955, even while background tasks run in parallel with a game. So, we couldn't even speculate that Intel's Core-i3 2100 might disappoint in a real-world environment with applications running in the background.
Interestingly, the best gaming value in AMD's FX family is its affordable FX-4100. Neither the FX-6100 nor the FX-8120 offer an advantage over this $110 model. Otherwise, things look bleak for AMD enthusiasts hunting for a new gaming rig. You can make the argument that the frame rates offered by FX and Phenom II processors are sufficient, but that's a tough stand to take in light of the competitive benchmarks. Let's be clear; in GPU-bound games, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. But, to be perfectly frank, Intel's processors are the obvious choice in titles that do demonstrate reliance on host processing power. It simply doesn’t make sense to spend more for less. And, in many games, high-end AMD processors demonstrate a quantifiable performance deficit compared to the Core i3-2100. For $190, a stock Core i5-2400 gets you more gaming prowess than any AMD CPU can hope to deliver right now, even overclocked."
I know I know fanboys everywhere. That article does not show what I wanted to see so it's not true blah blah blah.