...for gamers. That is the assumption. Let's try to see if the facts support this statement. I want to look at the x3 435 as the competing chip in this thread.
The i3 530 currently retails for £90 upwards.
The x3 435 ~£55 upwards.
The i3 motherboard typically starts at £70, am3 starts at £45 or less.
Firstly, using Anand's bench tool, here are some results:
(FPS) Dragon Age:Oirigins: 435=91, i3=94.9
Fallout 3: 435=79, i3=69
FarCry2: 435=40, i3=47
Crysis:Warhead: 435=69, i3=77
Dawn of War 2: 435=42, i3=52
(WoW FRAPS recording: 435=63, i3=75)
Left4Dead: 435=97, i3=108
Clearly, the i3 is the better chip. It uses much less power, gives a handful of extra FPS in games, but is also better in the synthetic tests and non-gaming apps. That isn't being disputed here.
What's interesting is that in all benchmarks above, when either processor managed 60FPS, both did. In FC2 and DAW2, both fell below 60FPS. in 5 of the 7 games shown, both achieved a playable frame rate of at least 60FPS.
I personally think that to be the "clear choice" above the Athlon x3, the i3 must have a much stronger benchmark result. There have to be lots of games where the i3 manages 60FPS and the x3 435 simply can't.
Why? I don't think the difference between 69 and 77 FPS is meaningful, or between 63 and 75, and definately not between 97 and 108. They are all very playable. In fact, we can afford to turn up the visual quality settings, placing more strain on the GPU, and reducing the difference between the CPUs to almost nothing.
So here's the challenge! Let's find benchmarks where the i3 dominates the x3 435 is games, reaching 60FPS at least and leaving the x3 below 50FPS. Even if we compare an overclocked i3 to a stock 435, can we find such a result? And can we consistantly find this result in many games?
(To makes this a meaningful test I'm going to disqualify benchmarks using resolutions lower than 1280x1024. This is not a pure CPU test).
The i3 530 currently retails for £90 upwards.
The x3 435 ~£55 upwards.
The i3 motherboard typically starts at £70, am3 starts at £45 or less.
Firstly, using Anand's bench tool, here are some results:
(FPS) Dragon Age:Oirigins: 435=91, i3=94.9
Fallout 3: 435=79, i3=69
FarCry2: 435=40, i3=47
Crysis:Warhead: 435=69, i3=77
Dawn of War 2: 435=42, i3=52
(WoW FRAPS recording: 435=63, i3=75)
Left4Dead: 435=97, i3=108
Clearly, the i3 is the better chip. It uses much less power, gives a handful of extra FPS in games, but is also better in the synthetic tests and non-gaming apps. That isn't being disputed here.
What's interesting is that in all benchmarks above, when either processor managed 60FPS, both did. In FC2 and DAW2, both fell below 60FPS. in 5 of the 7 games shown, both achieved a playable frame rate of at least 60FPS.
I personally think that to be the "clear choice" above the Athlon x3, the i3 must have a much stronger benchmark result. There have to be lots of games where the i3 manages 60FPS and the x3 435 simply can't.
Why? I don't think the difference between 69 and 77 FPS is meaningful, or between 63 and 75, and definately not between 97 and 108. They are all very playable. In fact, we can afford to turn up the visual quality settings, placing more strain on the GPU, and reducing the difference between the CPUs to almost nothing.
So here's the challenge! Let's find benchmarks where the i3 dominates the x3 435 is games, reaching 60FPS at least and leaving the x3 below 50FPS. Even if we compare an overclocked i3 to a stock 435, can we find such a result? And can we consistantly find this result in many games?
(To makes this a meaningful test I'm going to disqualify benchmarks using resolutions lower than 1280x1024. This is not a pure CPU test).
do people not upgrade for the future, not the here and now, or even in some of the game choices benchmarked, the past??