INTEL CORE I5 3450 VS AMD FX 4170

[JNB]

I want to build a computer soon as i now know the basics of how to put hardware together. But i don't know what components to choose, i'm currently looking at CPU's and the main use of the computer is going to be gaming with a few programs open in the background (Skype, MSN, iTunes). The budget for the whole build is £700 but i can go up to £1000 if needed, but i'd prefer not to if possible. Which processor is going to give me the best gaming performance with a small amount of programs open in the background, the AMD FX 4170 or the INTEL CORE I5 3450?

-JNB

 

[o1die]

The 3450 is several notches above the fx 4170 in this benchmark: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-4170+Quad-Core; http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-3450+%40+3.10GHz, but it all depends on price. Bang for the buck the amd is close. I've already seen a few used or unopened on my local craigslist, both ivy bridge and bulldozer. Can't compare prices as I live in the usa. The fx4170 had a score of 4479, but has already been removed from the chart.

 

[anxiousinfusion]

If you're not yet in a position to build, it may be worth waiting until AMD's Piledriver CPUs are released and then make a comparison. By then you should also have gained the knowledge required to build your new machine.

 

[JNB]

The FX costs £104 and the i5 costs £145, is the intel worth £41 more?

 

[JNB]

If you're not yet in a position to build, it may be worth waiting until AMD's Piledriver CPUs are released and then make a comparison. By then you should also have gained the knowledge required to build your new machine.

How long until those CPU's are released?

 

[o1die]

That's hard to say. Amd delayed bulldozer a few times; they must have been about a year late.

 

[ohyouknow]

I might be mistaken but I believe the release schedule for AMD is Trinity mobile chips now~summer, Trinity Desktop late summer or fall and Piledriver on the backend of the year maybe Oct.

Of course I may be wrong but this was what I heard from a bird. In any case the 3450 would be worth the extra money spent on it over the 4170. However, if you plan to get FX you should probably pick up the FX4100 and overclock it to 4170 speeds. Good luck.

 

[noob2222]

don't opt for the 4xxx series chips, they are cheap, thats it. if you are strapped for budget, the 6100 overclocked is reasonably better depending on what prices you find it at.

the last rumor is pd will be here by Q3, wich means ~ october most likely.

if your overclocking, don't look at the 4170, you can make the 4100 and 6100 run just as fast, and faster. If your not overclocking don't look at either.

 

[JNB]

I'll wait then and see what the newer stuff will be like, i don't intend on overclocking as i have no clue how to do it. How come i see so much hate towards the FX processors on the internet?

 

[noob2222]

2 reasons:

people love to hate the underdog, no matter what the reason is.

FX cpus are pretty random in their performance (inherent in new architectures) so you can easily write up an article with only the worst of the worst and make it look like dooky.

 

[Raidur]

People hate FX because it was a step back from Phenom II, it's predecessor, in gaming. Our hopes were crushed. 🙁

For gaming on a tight budget, the sandy bridge dual cores are great if you aren't overclocking.

If you can overclock, a cheap OCd Phenom II X4 is an amazing value for gaming.

 

[JNB]

Would a top end i3 beat a low end i5 gaming with a small amount of applications open? Could you tell me which in your opinion is going to be the best to choose, i think AMD is out of the question as i don't intend on overclocking at all as i have no knowledge of it.

 

[noob2222]

running just the game with no apps running, the I5 2400 smokes the I3 by 30%

add in background apps and its even more stress on the I3.

short answer. no.

 

[JNB]

running just the game with no apps running, the I5 2400 smokes the I3 by 30%

http://media.bestofmicro.com/X/F/323907/original/Averages.png

add in background apps and its even more stress on the I3.

short answer. no.

Alright, it's definitely an i5 then. Will i notice an increase in performance when gaming with a few applications open between the low end i5's and the high end i5's? I can afford anything in the i5 range if it is going to benefit me.

 

[Raidur]

Those apps you speak of don't require much of the CPU. The i5 will definitely last you longer than the i3 though. If you have the money, go for it.

 

[JNB]

I'll get the i5 3450 then, thanks a lot for your input.

 

[jaguarskx]

If you're not yet in a position to build, it may be worth waiting until AMD's Piledriver CPUs are released and then make a comparison. By then you should also have gained the knowledge required to build your new machine.

It is unknown when the desktop version of AMD's Piledriver will be release. Rumors suggest maybe in August.

If Piledriver can achieve a 10% performance improvement over Phenom II / FX CPUs then they will perform about equal to the 1st generation of Core i3/i5/i7 CPUs initially released back in late 2008 (Core i7) and 2009 (Core i3 & Core i5).

If Piledriver can achieve a 22% performance increase, then they can perform about equal to Intel's 2nd generation Sandy Bridge Core i3/i5/i7 released early last year. Unlikely...

If Piledriver can achieve a 26% - 28% performance increase, then they can perform about equal to Intel's 3rd generation Ivy Bridge Core i3/i5/i7 released recently. Unlikely...

 

[aganarok]

running just the game with no apps running, the I5 2400 smokes the I3 by 30%

http://media.bestofmicro.com/X/F/323907/original/Averages.png

add in background apps and its even more stress on the I3.

short answer. no.

Half of the games used to generate that chart were compiled on the Intel owned Havock engine, which only scales up to two cores. Kind of tips the scales in Intel's favor, yes?

 

[noob2222]

op already was set on getting Intel, just showing him that the I3 was not worth it.