This months CPU suggestions from Tomshardware kind of failed.

[robcardiv]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-3.html

They are talking about chips under 200$.
And they completely skip the 140-150-160 (150$) section.
they go from 120$ to 190$.

I specifically have 140 to 160 to spend on a chip. I would never bother buying a CPU for 100$. thats such a big waste, you are getting the lowest end of the old and crusty, and it will hardly be any better than what you have now.
And I dont have 200$ to blow.

So not only did they completely look over the 150$ market area (Which is arguably the most interesting section of CPUS atm.

On top of that, how can they justify putting Dual core chips in all but one of the winners positions.

They are talking about Gamer rigs. Try playing a single rockstar game on a dual core. They know dual core is not the way to go atm.

Am I wrong?
I just cant see how advising to stick with dual core chips is anything other than bad advice.
its 2012. Multimedia, multitasking.
the dual core chips here will barely hold on, dont expect to alt tab out.

Ive been watching youtube videos of fraps and all the chips on this list.
Anything under quad core is just bad advice.

Am I incorrect?

Im picking up the 140$ Fx 6100 for 64 player battlefield maps even.
Ive personally reviewed dozens of youtube videos on all the chips listed to see which one handled
heavy multiplayer maps AND fraps.

anything below the 6100 started to show its struggle. with slight stutter while recording full HD.
the 6100 took it without stutters.

If it can run the game AND fraps.

 

[sarinaide]

Another AMD user starting a flame war. Newsflash: Does it even matter what TH suggest? What possible difference does that make in your life. If you are happy with whatever hell FX you have then good for you thats all that matters.

100% of experts in the field will tell you that Intel has the higher quality and performing chips, yet here we are with average joe's telling us otherwise. Get over it.

 

[noob2222]

All of those games are GPU limited. In non-GPU limited games, Intel dominates:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-10.html

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

Sites like Toms need to stop using GPU bottlenecked games to determine relative CPU performance.

actually toms needs to use more havok game engines, screw amd, promote intel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havok_(software)

kinda funny those games that are not "gpu bottlenecked" are on intel's payroll.

can't count metro2033 because the I3 2100 loses

can't use BF 3 MP because if you turn down the graphics the I3 2100 does just fine, even though you have to balance the cpu running 95% to get the gpu to stay at 100%

can't use any games that show close performance becuse thats a gpu bottleneck, including RE 5, Hawx 2, Dirt 3, Stalker, AvP, mafia II, BF3 ...

lets just cater to intel, only games allowed to be tested are any games developed by intel or using intel software.

http://game-on.intel.com/eng/games/default.aspx

thats the list, all other games are fake or don't count. Intel for life, die AMD.

After all, thats what everyone wants right?

Personally tho thats a smart move by Intel, can't pay off hardware vendors anymore so go after the software devs instead. "how much would it cost to sabotoge this game for AMD? (oops sorry I meant optomize it for Intel) 300M. done"

http://software.intel.com/sites/billboard/article/blizzard-entertainment-re-imagines-starcraft-intels-help

 

[Chad Boga]

Personally tho thats a smart move by Intel, can't pay off hardware vendors anymore so go after the software devs instead. "how much would it cost to sabotoge this game for AMD? (oops sorry I meant optomize it for Intel) 300M. done"

Is this any different to Nvidia's TWIMTBP?

 

[robcardiv]

Its not about which companies better.
neither one leads for every, ones 5 percent better for a year, then the others 5 percent better for 6 months.

I understand in general, on most well optimized games, intel has the lead.

Im talking specifically about heavy only multiplayer with
tripple player count running amuk in full combat 64 player maps.

Its not about a rally cry for amd (although its a strong case specifically for..).
Its just different areas of excel.

And im looking for the best chip I can get specifically for online heavy gameplay.

Any of the chips will run any regular games single player mode just fine.

Im looking for 64 player map information.

all the people who say "the i3 2100" will do fine, never quote real numbers or say
"I actually play 64 player maps with it just fine" they just revert back to "charts and other games solo single player information.

 

[robcardiv]

Im trying to decide between the upgrade path of the intel chipset
and the fx 6100 chip which ive personalyl seen fraps hd video of bf3 multiplayer without a single tick of load or delay.

 

[noob2222]

This is because multiplayer is impossible to benchmark reliably so that one run is equal to another.

All the people saying "FX series chips are so much better on BF3 multiplayer" never post benchmarks either. It's purely anecdotal. I'm not saying people are lying, only that it is extremely difficult to make direct comparisons of multiplayer game performance from one system to another. There are too many variables to control for. In the areas that CAN be controlled and benchmarked, the i3-2100 in general performs noticeably better.

So basically your supposed to go buy a cpu based on single player testing, take it home, load up a 64 player map and then be happy when your hitting 20-30 FPS when settings are on ultra? After all, the game worked fine on ultra for single player, why would I have to turn it down for MP?

ya, happy about what, getting screwed over some "controlled" benchmarks under uncontrolled conditions?

reliable or not, you want to know if its going to work or not. Single player controlled benches don't tell you jack squat about it.

 

[con310]

Just don't try to play bf3 online.

the i3 can handle bf3online perfectly.

 

[noob2222]

the i3 can handle bf3online perfectly.

got any proof without turning all the settings to low?

 

[Guest]

I doubt it. BF3 multiplayer is properly multithreaded and needs a lot of CPU power
http://www.sweclockers.com/artikel/14650-prestandaanalys-battlefield-3/5#pagehead

I'm running a i5-2500k @ 4.3GHz and an overclocked HD 6970 (930MHz GPU, 1400MHz Memory) and the ingame performance graph (render.perfoverlayvisible 1) shows CPU and GPU roughly equal. (~60fps, ultra, 0xAA, 16xAF)

oh grasshopper since BF3 is multithreaded so is the i3 2100 . . .

and btw, on the link you posted and since my swedish is a little rusty and i didn't actually see a i3 2100 bench marked, would you mind explaining what it means please

 

[Tab54o]

Games don't "split" the work between cores. Sure, some might, but the majority of console ports ( MW3 etc. etc.) will only ever use 2 cores, the i3 has a significantly higher IDP than any FX chip, meaning that it's performance in games is significantly better because it's single core performance is much better. Although I would recommend a quad core chip for background programs, if you're gaming the amount of cores matters not as much as a single cores power, which is significantly better in the i3. You will benefit more by buying more RAM and GFX cards with more RAM. Most games will faceplant with an FX due to it's low, low IDP.

IDP>more cores. You dig?

That's not entirely true, xbox uses three cores so games ported from that can use three Black ops uses three and if you have less then you wont be playing it smoothly. I know from experience, fought with that game so much on my old cpu.

I would suggest getting a quad core over any dual core.

 

[Tab54o]

Bottom line, get a phenom II.

 

[con310]

got any proof without turning all the settings to low?

well im sure there some benchmarks you could go look up, heres a video on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAI05IH7s7s&feature=related

guy is getting 80-100fps with settings on high so he could easily turn more settings up and still have playable frames.

Do you have any proof it doesnt?

 

[noob2222]

well im sure there some benchmarks you could go look up, heres a video on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAI05IH7s7s&feature=related

guy is getting 80-100fps with settings on high so he could easily turn more settings up and still have playable frames.

Do you have any proof it doesnt?

rofl, at 27 sec" with fraps I run 50 fps even though it sais 30 on screen, without fraps i get 80-100 .... wtf, its that maxed out that fraps drops 30 fps?

1600 x 900 AA off, AO - ssao, AF 1x. "i turn my settings down so i get better fps"

looks like good solid proof that you need to lower the graphics.

 

[con310]

rofl, at 27 sec" with fraps I run 50 fps even though it sais 30 on screen, without fraps i get 80-100 .... wtf, its that maxed out that fraps drops 30 fps?

1600 x 900 AA off, AO - ssao, AF 1x. "i turn my settings down so i get better fps"

looks like good solid proof that you need to lower the graphics.

It doesnt show is fps on screen he must have got confused, the game clearly was running a lot higher then fps 30 so it looks much more like proof he could increase his settings.

Anyways you just asked for proof of someone running bf3 in settings other then all low, which as you can see, you were wrong.


edit: also you gonna show me that proof saying i3 2100 cant run bf3?

 

[con310]

He's just a mindless fanboy. He's more interested in conspiracy theories than evidence or proof. All his posts in threads like this one are basically the same - he just likes CPUs that come in a green or black box instead of a blue one and doesn't really care how they perform.

yea its starting to seem that way

 

[noob2222]

It doesnt show is fps on screen he must have got confused, the game clearly was running a lot higher then fps 30 so it looks much more like proof he could increase his settings.

Anyways you just asked for proof of someone running bf3 in settings other then all low, which as you can see, you were wrong.


edit: also you gonna show me that proof saying i3 2100 cant run bf3?

send me an i3 2100 and ill run it on ultra 4xaa 1900x1200 and compare it to my 8120.

 

[Boopoo]

actually toms needs to use more havok game engines, screw amd, promote intel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havok_(software)

kinda funny those games that are not "gpu bottlenecked" are on intel's payroll.

can't count metro2033 because the I3 2100 loses

can't use BF 3 MP because if you turn down the graphics the I3 2100 does just fine, even though you have to balance the cpu running 95% to get the gpu to stay at 100%

can't use any games that show close performance becuse thats a gpu bottleneck, including RE 5, Hawx 2, Dirt 3, Stalker, AvP, mafia II, BF3 ...

lets just cater to intel, only games allowed to be tested are any games developed by intel or using intel software.

http://game-on.intel.com/eng/games/default.aspx

thats the list, all other games are fake or don't count. Intel for life, die AMD.

After all, thats what everyone wants right?

Personally tho thats a smart move by Intel, can't pay off hardware vendors anymore so go after the software devs instead. "how much would it cost to sabotoge this game for AMD? (oops sorry I meant optomize it for Intel) 300M. done"

http://software.intel.com/sites/billboard/article/blizzard-entertainment-re-imagines-starcraft-intels-help

^+1 it's really to bad more gamers dont understand like you do about how Corporation and maximizing profit thru propaganda and buying develops off etc works Intel is a perfect corporate model exploitative, manipulative and negligent which is why I go AMD and I could care less about playing Starcraft 2 etc but I buy AMD cause I understand how the system works and if more people did understand they would cut Intel off to but Intel banks on ignorance and profited handsomely cause there are many ignoramus in the world.

 

[rds1220]

Well woopy freaking doo for you. We don't care if you buy AMD just because it's AMD. You are the perfect example of fanboyism. Some of us actually care to do research and care about performance not what sticker is in the front of our case advertising what CPU we have.

 

[Blandge]

^+1 it's really to bad more gamers dont understand like you do about how Corporation and maximizing profit thru propaganda and buying develops off etc works Intel is a perfect corporate model exploitative, manipulative and negligent which is why I go AMD and I could care less about playing Starcraft 2 etc but I buy AMD cause I understand how the system works and if more people did understand they would cut Intel off to but Intel banks on ignorance and profited handsomely cause there are many ignoramus in the world.

This just in! Everytime you buy an Intel chip, Paul Otellini chops a kitten in half.

Get over it, all corporations (including AMD) use shifty business/marketting tactics to gain an advantage over their opponents.

It's your choice if you want to support AMD, and I think it's good that some people do, but don't think you are saving the world one kitten at a time by boycotting Intel products.

 

[rds1220]

This just in! Everytime you buy an Intel chip, Paul Otellini chops a kitten in half.

Get over it, all corporations (including AMD) use shifty business/marketting tactics to gain an advantage over their opponents.

It's your choice if you want to support AMD, and I think it's good that some people do, but don't think you are saving the world one kitten at a time by boycotting Intel products.

Yes exactly right. That's the way business is today. Talk about shifty marketing you mean like AMD claiming the Bulldozer is the first true 8 core CPU, yea right.

 

[Boopoo]

Well woopy freaking doo for you. We don't care if you buy AMD just because it's AMD. You are the perfect example of fanboyism. Some of us actually care to do research and care about performance not what sticker is in the front of our case advertising what CPU we have.

I am Anti Corporation and AMD is the lesser of two Evils right now with playing Corporate antics get some learning done it will help you become more happy and knowledgeable. Ps I have owned Intel CPUs and they worked just fine for what I needed and so does AMD no fan boy here it is just a CPU after all however it goes much deeper than just picking a team Red or Blue cause both teams are winning more so I rather join the team with the coaching style and ethical practices I more agree with on a moral level.

 

[Blandge]

I am Anti Corporation and AMD is the lesser of two Evils right now with playing Corporate antics get some learning done it will help you become more happy and knowledgeable. Ps I have owned Intel CPUs and they worked just fine for what I needed and so does AMD no fan boy here it is just a CPU after all however it goes much deeper than just picking a team Red or Blue cause both teams are winning more so I rather join the team with the coaching style and ethical practices I more agree with on a moral level.

Well I'd rather be optimistic and weigh the good that each company does instead of just the bad. Intel provides ~100k well paid jobs all over the world. Intel encourages its employees to volunteer over 1 million hours per year, of which Intel donates $10 per hour to that charity. Intel also funds education grades K-12 and Universities all over the world (Not just the US). Intel spends billions on renewable/clean energy every year and is a strong proponent of "saving the planet."

So to all of you that think Intel is so evil for crushing AMD, consider all of the good that they do with the money they earn.

 

[rds1220]

I am Anti Corporation and AMD is the lesser of two Evils right now with playing Corporate antics get some learning done it will help you become more happy and knowledgeable. Ps I have owned Intel CPUs and they worked just fine for what I needed and so does AMD no fan boy here it is just a CPU after all however it goes much deeper than just picking a team Red or Blue cause both teams are winning more so I rather join the team with the coaching style and ethical practices I more agree with on a moral level.

Again that's corporate business today. As blandge said all companies use shifty business and marketing tactics including AMD (them claiming the Bulldozer is the first true 8 core CPU.)

 

[Boopoo]

Well I'd rather be optomistic and weigh the good that each company does instead of just the bad. Intel provides ~100k well payed jobs all over the world. Intel encourages its employees to volunteer over 1 million hours per year, of which intel donates $10 per hour to that charity. Intel also funds education grades K-12 and Universities all over the world (Not just the US). Intel spends billions on renewable/clean energy every year and is a strong proponent of "saving the planet."

So to all of you that think Intel is so evil for crushing AMD, consider all of the good that they do with the money they earn.

A wrong is not mitigated by any amount of rights enter why the American Empire failed note pass tense.

 

[Boopoo]

Again that's corporate business today. As blandge said all companies use shifty business and marketing tactics including AMD (them claiming the Bulldozer is the first true 8 core CPU.)

Intel is just more of the corporate antics to maximize profit such as paying off develops etc not at all unlike Nvidias TWIMTBP games and AMD does it as well like with Deus EX human Revo but at leased AMD doesn't complete try and crippled the entire market competition like Intel and Nvidia does but enter Batman AC Nvidia played it's self on that one. Corporations have us all so wound up and mind locked that we cant even see pass 2 feet and become to realize that no matter what we play on be it PC, Mac, Intel, AMD, Radeon, Nvidia and even the Consoles etc we are all into the same great hobby.