Phenom II X6 1045T good buy?

[humbug]

As said, not applicable until Dave's done it, until then they're just made up numbers, they may not be made up for you, but for him they could be due to the factors with the builds.

All your figures do are show your own gain, not the figures of daves gain which you said would be 8%.

I will put them up anyway, Martin. late tonight probably.

 

[arknor]

They use threads.
i3 isn't a quad core but still has 4 threads, not as good as 4 dedicated cores, but it's still 4 threads.

you realise what a thread does right?

its like 1 builder doing two jobs.
the second job is done with any spare time increasing his efficiency.
but hes still limited because its just one builder.

turning off threading and you will see at most a 20-30% drop in benchmarks
2 cores 4 threads is seriously a huge bottlekneck in games that can make use of 3-4 cores which is most modern games

i3 is pretty much a dead cpu that wont last very long before it nees upgrading where as a quadcore cpu still has a bit of headroom

 

[Martini1991]

So, an i3 can never in any situation with a game from 2011 or 2012 outgame any CPU that's a quad core then, is that the case arknor? (From the AMD camp)?
The i3's are budget CPU's, but they're kicking the crap out of AMD's current and latest quad core CPU, they're kicking the crap out of the old Intel mainstream Q6600, they're besting the Phenom II X4 955's at stock.

The theory is on your side, but the practice isn't, more so because of how good Intels IPC is at the moment and games aren't that heavily threaded at all, they may be able to make use of 4 threads, but that doesn't mean they'll heavily utilise the 3rd or 4th.

The i3's are in no way huge bottlenecks in 4 threaded games.

Explain the G630 in a rather recent game Skyrim going up there against the 8 core 3.6GHZ AMD chip (And besting it by a decent percentage) Because games aren't that highly threaded and the IPC is pretty high.

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

In that whole review, I can't see the i3 2100 being a huge bottleneck at all, at least no more so than the quad core CPU's from AMD, or their 6 & 8 core].

The one game that supports you is ; http://media.bestofmicro.com/X/J/323911/original/Metro2033.png

However, we're talking 4 FPS, and it's still above the higher clocked Phenom II X4 955 and above AMD's current FX4.

 

[humbug]

So, an i3 can never in any situation with a game from 2011 or 2012 outgame any CPU that's a quad core then, is that the case arknor? (From the AMD camp)?
The i3's are budget CPU's, but they're kicking the crap out of AMD's current and latest quad core CPU, they're kicking the crap out of the old Intel mainstream Q6600, they're besting the Phenom II X4 955's at stock.

Martin, SB has a ~25% IPC (per core) advantage over Phenom II, the problem is the i3 is A, Locked, that limits it overclocking ability, and B, only has 2 cores vs 4 cores on the Phenom II.

The Phenom II can be overclocked to match the i3 on its stock cooler, the higher clocked x4 980 is a tested to that as it matched it in Skyrim at stock, £20 for a cooler and it beats the i3 convincingly.

In multi threaded games (those using more than 2 threads) the i3 will bottleneck before the x4 at stock, nevermind overclocked.
Just for the i3 to match, not beat the x4 in 2013 you have assume those coming games will all be 1 or 2 threaded, that's very unlikely.

there is no argument for the i3 over the x4 in gaming, and certainly not in day to day use.

 

[Martini1991]

Meh, I can't be fussed anymore.
It's literally not even worth it.
There's reviews and reviews of the i3's kicking botty, I don't need to talk about it, there's reviews of them not bottlenecking before Phenom II X4's and other Quadcores in 3-4 threaded games because it depends how dependant it is one the threads, the 3rd thread could be something a Pentium 4 could do, but on another thread so there's less workload on the 2nd core/thread etc.

In day to day use I don't see any difference from an Athlon X2 5400+ and an i5 2500k, so I'd go with the i3 as I'm not noticing any difference, gaming is in favour of the i3, tons of reviews everywhere show it.

Although, I wouldn't pick any AMD CPU for my own rig, nor would I pick an i3, only choice for me is the 2500k/2600k/2700k/3570k/3770k anything else would be wasted on my rig.

 

[humbug]

Martin. those reviews do not take into account the fact that the AMD's can be overclocked and the i3 can't, if they add that in its an entirely different picture.

Yet on those reviews, Tomshardware, one of the biggest and most trusted one recommend a ~ £100 AMD over the i3 for exactly that reason.

Look, the i3 is better than the x4 in a very narrow situation, IE: only those games using 1 or 2 threads and even then only with a low clocked x4 at stock.

It's those that you just keep jumping up and down on as if they are all that maters, they don't, they mater about 2%.

 

[Martini1991]

When OC'ed I can agree the Phenom II's are better, however the i3 2100 can be had for under 85 quid, the 2120 for 90.

And Tom's didn't recommended the AMD over Intel at all.
Which you failed to answer when I brought it up ;

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,review-32447-3.html

The FX4 got an honourable mentioned, there was no CPU of choice 85 pound, however the i3 2100 can now be had for that, at 90 pound what was the CPU of choice? The i3 2100 which the 2120 can be had at that price now.

 

[DeanV255]

I think its fair to say, either CPU would be good for for a bit of light gaming. The i3's are actually good CPU's. I thought the lack of a 4 cores was going to be a downside but thanks to threading it really makes the i3's a contender in the entry level gaming market.

Personally, i'd go with a x4 CPU but thats just me. I've used a Phenom II x4 and x6 and they were both great. I have never used a i3 as i possibly wouldn't want to touch it due to my needs from a CPU right now, maybe 3 (was a typo) years ago when i got the 965BE but not nowerdays.

Bottom line, either CPU is a great entry level CPU for gaming. Get what your gut says, what you wallet thickness is like and finally if you have a preference in brand it never a bad idea to follow that just so you are as happy as you can be with your choice.

 

[Martini1991]

I wouldn't take any of the CPU's, I'd go second hand for an i5 at 110 if I was budget constrained.

Dean, it's impressive you managed to get a Phenom II 965BE half a decade ago when they launched 3 years ago (August 2009)

 

[humbug]

When OC'ed I can agree the Phenom II's are better, however the i3 2100 can be had for under 85 quid, the 2120 for 90.

And Tom's didn't recommended the AMD over Intel at all.
Which you failed to answer when I brought it up ;

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,review-32447-3.html

The FX4 got an honourable mentioned, there was no CPU of choice 85 pound, however the i3 2100 can now be had for that, at 90 pound what was the CPU of choice? The i3 2100 which the 2120 can be had at that price now.

They put up the FX-4100 because they say the x4 is disappearing, the x4 is the far better choice than the FX-4100.

read what they say.

At its stock clock rate, AMD's FX-4100 isn't a particularly compelling gaming product compared to lower-priced options from Intel. However, enthusiasts are sure to appreciate its unlocked ratio multiplier and plenty of headroom to overclock. When it's pushed, this processor helps enable similar frame rates as some of our favorite Core i3 CPUs, though it uses significantly more power in the process. Nevertheless, with Phenom IIs quickly disappearing from retail, the FX-4100 remains AMD's best value in the gaming CPU space, earning an honourable mention.

The Phenom II is clock for clock 15% better that the FX, and overclockable, and still plenty available.

 

[Martini1991]

That's irrelevant, it's the link you posted stating they chose the AMD over the Intel.
But wait, they didn't?

And you said FX4 (Have I just caught you in a lie?) ;

Tomshardware recommend the FX-4100 over the i3 2120 for the same reason. http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,review-32447-3.html

I already know about how good the Phenom II's are compared to the FX CPU's, because I constantly flipping bleat it.

The only ones that seem readily available are the X4 965's, so there's no super budget X2's that can unlock to X4's (Which were tremendous value for money)

 

[humbug]

That's irrelevant, it's the link you posted stating they chose the AMD over the Intel.
But wait, they didn't?

I already know about how good the Phenom II's are compared to the FX CPU's, because I constantly flipping bleat it.

The only ones that seem readily available are the X4 965's, so there's no super budget X2's that can unlock to X4's (Which were tremendous value for money)

It's not irrelevant, inconvenient to you in your argument, like this whole thread pocking hols in your reasoning. not irrelevant.

This isn't the only shop on the Internet, there are plenty x4's around.

And you said FX4 (Have I just caught you in a lie?) ;

Martin, go back a quote the whole thing in context, not just a part of it to try and show it for something that its not. that's pretty shady.....

Tomshardware recommend the FX-4100 over the i3 2120 for the same reason. http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,review-32447-3.html not that i do, x4 980 is the way to go

I said Phenom II, where exactly did you catch me in a lie?

 

[Martini1991]

It's not irrelevant, inconvenient to you in your argument, like this whole thread pocking hols in your reasoning. not irrelevant.

This isn't the only shop on the Internet, there are plenty x4's around.

I know it's not the only shop, I checked a few. I never said there wasn't plenty of Phenom II X4's around, merely that there isn't a massive variety, I only really see the 965, and some 960T's (Which are Thuban not deneb)
And it is irrelevant, you said FX4 being chosen over the i3, it didn't, now you're banging on about the Phenom II X4 (Which I constantly rate the Phenom II stuff over FX stuff at every turn)

EDIT : I quoted what you said, that they recommended the FX4 over the i3, they didn't, so that's a lie, not just showing part of it.

Really, these threads get pointless, I'm bashing my head against the wall, you'll never back down even when you're caught out on stuff you say.

EDIT 2: I'm on about the FX4 thing, they did not recommended it over the i3, that was the lie, not your opinion.

EDIT 3 :

Tomshardware, one of the biggest and most trusted one recommend a ~ £100 AMD over the i3 for exactly that reason.

BUT THEY DON'T.

How are you not getting this.

The lie is the Toms thing, because they didn't.

 

[humbug]

I quoted what you said, that they recommended the FX4 over the i3, they didn't, so that's a lie, not just showing part of it.

It's an honest mistake made, dude..... seriously you just grip onto things to your advantage like a dog with a bone, you make huge issues out of it to the point where you start to look a little demented, what is that? its not a lie, some grand deception.... Relax!

 

[Nuclear Fusion]

Is the onboard GPU being used or are you getting a separate graphics card?

An A8-3870K can run Minecraft quite well it seems:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5771/the-intel-ivy-bridge-core-i7-3770k-review/17

You can get one for around £70 including cashback.

A Trinity A10 would be faster.

He would be using my current graphics card (HD 6850)

 

[Martini1991]

It's an honest mistake made, dude..... seriously you just grip onto things to your advantage like a dog with a bone, you make huge issues out of it to the point where you start to look a little demented, what is that? relax.

Because you were wrong.
And when I said you were, and mentioned it, you ignored it, and then when I mentioned it again you made it sound like I was being shady, when I wasn't, I was quoting your exact statement, and you were wrong.

 

[humbug]

Because you were wrong.
And when I said you were, and mentioned it, you ignored it, and then when I mentioned it again you made it sound like I was being shady, when I wasn't, I was quoting your exact statement, and you were wrong.

Good Grief, Martin. its no big deal... you instantly latched on to it being a lie and lost your rag, pointing out the mistake would have been enough.

If the first thing you do is accuse people of lying they will react, i said i don't agree with them recommending the FX-4, the text in yellow which you did not quote, that right there should have been a cue to anyone that i had misread it, did you not read it before cutting it out of the quote?

Edit, what CAT-THE-FIFTH is saying makes a lot of sense, the A10 seems to be an improvement on Bulldozer and should be a good overclocker, but i'm not sure how it does against the Phenom II x4. that is yet to be established.

But the 4 core A8-3870K @ £70, bargain.... to good to be true.

wouldn't you agree Martin?

 

[Martini1991]

You said it twice that they recommended the FX4 over the i3.
When they didn't.

I quoted what you said which was incorrect, the personal opinion however I agree with, but that's not what you said Toms did as the Phenom II wasn't in any of the price brackets or an honourable mention.

You said ;

its one thing promoting there favorate football team, but when its another's money and hardware.....

Yet you're saying it's no big deal when you're giving information that's wrong.

I fully agree with "It's their money" which is why my initial post was well rounded and full of unbiased information.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Figures that show 8% in the games mentioned?

Anandtech tested it a few years ago:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3877/...investigation-of-thuban-performance-scaling/7

The gains in H.A.W.K and SC2 were decent.

 

[Martini1991]

Anandtech tested it a few years ago:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3877/...investigation-of-thuban-performance-scaling/7

The gains in H.A.W.K and SC2 were decent.

There we go, there's figures with some proof

My old Thuban with a 3.2GHZ CPU NB was absolute nails.